The problem is that the idea of using the same attack vector twice is somewhat silly and that there are no easy answers even if it wasn't. So, what does the US government do (and DHS/TSA)? They do the same thing the American people always let them get away with (because we derive our reality from TV and Hollywood) - they put in feel-good , highly visible measures regardless of whether or not theyre effective.
Every day, about 3000 people die on the roads somewhere in the world. A September 11 every day. And yet, life goes on.
The amount of money and resources devoted to "terrorism" is way out of proportion to the things we really should be afraid of - global warming, peak oil, motor vehicle injuries, and even non-terrorist gun related crime. I suspect that even meteor strikes would be as big a risk as terrorism.
Worse still, the responses to these things are far more damaging than the original problem. The cost to society from the responses are worse than the problem. We now have locked up hundreds of people for years in places like Guantanamo Bay, without charges. (*Note, I'm not saying that these people should not face justice, where applicable - just that they were not getting any there*). Many other countries have followed suit. In Australia, the population has finally seen the power of the legisation passed, with a doctor being locked up without charges for weeks, before all charges dropped (*Again, not commenting on whether or not he may be a terrorist*). These laws have been passed by democratic first world governments everywhere, and nobody really understands just how powerful they are.
Or look at Iraq & Afganistan. More soldiers have died in those wars than were killed by the atrocity that prompted it. In the USA some people are now talking about the need to have conscription to keep up the servicemen numbers to maintain the troops.
So there you have it:
a) Terrorism is still a small fry cause of human death and suffering.
b) The response to the terrorism often produces more damage than the act itself.
We should concentrate on the really important stuff - global warming, peak oil, cars and so on. If you want to find the criminal masterminds that plan out terrorism, the army is not the right instrument to do this, even though it feels good to strike back. And changing the way we live to being a culture of fear with removal of all our rights is a far bigger victory for the terrorists than a one off killing of the same number of people that die every day on the roads.
Exactly. It's a total scam, especially since they STILL aren't screening cargo that often goes on the VERY SAME FLIGHTS.
Also, with the ridiculous passenger screening... taking shoes off, limiting liquids because of some bullshit half-imagined liquid bomb plot. Its all to scare the passengers, or perhaps to make them FEEL like someone is doing something.
My own personal example - I fly to the US maybe once a year at the moment. I've been flagged variably, but not consistently.
One year I get the "SSSS" on the boarding passes for every flight, then they disappear the next.
Most interesting, was this year - I flew a New York -> Miami -> Los Angeles.
At Miami, my boarding passes were reprinted by America Airlines, having been issued by a code share carrier.
On the reprint the rest of the trip comes up as "SSSS". So presumably I had already been flagged by the software this trip, but because the non-USA code share carriers aren't tied into the database, I've already been flying for a while without the security checks.
Even more funny - the boarding passes were re-issued airside, so I was already on the good side of security, free from any further checks.
On the plus side, four days later I fly out, and the "SSSS" printout on the bottom right corner of the boarding pass is gone..
It makes no sense to me what they are doing. Readers can, however, remain reassured that I have no plans to see any plane that I am in get blown up or fly in to any buildings....
Tell me, how exactly does one abuse an observation?
Same way you abuse anything else - quantum physics (nuclear power or bombs), chemistry (medicines or nerve gas), arable land (corn for tortillas or petrol additive).
The abuse that I see here is that we should be smart enough to not abuse our knowledge and resources for short term gains at a long term cost.
What we do with the evolution in technology is our choice, certainly.
It was not so long ago that people used to laugh at why you would need a 200W power supply for a computer. Now it seems that 500 watts are common enough, and some are going significantly higher than this.
There is no law of physics that demanded this increase in power consumption. It was a choice by manufacturers and consumers.
There are certainly some times when it makes sense to throw the power at the circuitry, but for the most part its just wasted time. To my mind the ideal computer would run at close to 100% CPU utilisation all the time, but the whole system would reduce its power and speed to match the load requirements. Likewise, standby power should be very close to zero - we do this for laptops so much better than for many desktops.
I guess its my personal ethos showing here. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway, I hope that explains my position on why I think its an abuse. Energy is cheap, but it may not be for too much longer.
The world really doesn't need a hard drive that sucks more power quietly, at least not for most computers.
Hopefully in a few short years flash drives will overtake hard drives and everyone wins.
While quiet is good for the consumer sector in general do people really find HDD noise annoying enough at 7.5K rotational speeds to justify the extra cost and complexity?
Acutally, yes, I do.
Its more than noise, however. We don't need a more efficient cooling system, we need a hard drive that uses less power and generates less heat.
The whole path that desktops are going down (except for the occasional exception such as a mac mini) is one of more power, more heat, more fans, more noise.
This is, to my mind, the grossest abuse of Moore's law that can be had. Instead, we should be building smaller and lower powered devices. Perhaps it simply reflects how cheap energy is that we choose to build computers this way.
So now we can build a whole class of hard drives that suck more power from the wall, confident that they won't make as much noise?
oes anyone know of a good replacement for KisMAC. In my opinion it was the best one out there and now that the project is being discontinued I will have to live with the crapshoot that was the passive Atheros drivers.
Can anyone recommend a replacement?
Wait for the "fork". The code will be moved to another site, and I suspect that development will continue on.
Brings to mind the riots in Sydney about a year ago. A sporting goods shop almost sold out of baseball bats in a couple of hours. The manager called the police to ask for a suggested course of action. The cops suggested the store stop selling baseball bats for the time being.
That is a difficult one. Whilst I think that the problem there is the person, not the bat, sometimes it is worth restricting some actions. I think that even the most pro gun supporter would say there is a limit on selling weapons. Its just where you want to draw the line. Baseball bats, knives, guns, semi-automatics, hand grenades, small tactical nukes? Somewhere along the line most people will agree its not a good idea to have these things for sale in the sports section of k-mart, irrespective of the individual's personal freedom. Most peoples rights to freedom should stop somewhere short of their right to kill them selves with a 10 megaton nuke in a densely populated city.
Now this is a little different from what KisMAC is about, however. Kismac is fairly useless if you have a good password and a network secured by a proper protocol. On networks that aren't properly secured, it can open them up with various amounts of grunt work, ranging from minutes to days.
Mostly, KisMAC helps secure the network by letting you attack your own network. It has very little to do with most current criminal activity online.
Criminalising this tool will not make people much safer, if at all. Arguably it makes things more secure - I've persuaded a number of people to change their encryption to WPA by demonstrating how quickly their base stations can be compromised.
Much better I do it than someone else.
I think the German authorities would be much better working on philshing attacks, scam emails, and so on.
Of course, that would require some real work, not like this...
To take an extreme position, I do not believe it would be a good idea for the wireless network configuration dialog in gnome to have a text field for the key and right beside it, a button to use network traffic to obtain the key.
Of course not. Done properly, it would automatically fill the key in for you.:)
Also, nice sig. Isn't that a Schneier quote? I could've sworn I've seen it before... and it's been a while since I read Applied Crytography.
I rather liked it:)
I'm not sure where it comes from - I don't think its a Schneier quote and I've had a quick search on google & wikiquote to try and find the reference - I can't.
Someone posted this on/. and it met the essential criteria - I liked it more than my previous.sig - It describes the futility of DRM better than anything else I could say...
FYI: KisMAC doesn't work in passive mode in the latest ibooks with Atheros AR5008 chipset.
I presume you meant macbooks here - it works fine in passive mode with the ibooks, they don't have that chipset. It does work fine with a USB prism chipset 802.11b/g key if you have a macbook.
Thanks Michael for your support of free speech. I'm really pleased to hear you think it's "fine".
As there are two Michael's posting here, I'm just guessing you aren't referring to me...
Why don't people seem to get that making these programs obscure does not make you safer? I for one want to monitor my wireless network to see if they are vulnerable to such "cracking" (goddammit, "cracking" is removing copy protection and has been for two decades!!) tools.
They tried to shut down nmap in the same way (it first appeared in Phrack, btw), but I think most people will agree it's an absolutely essential tool for securing your network and checking for open ports, etc.
Making these types of programs illegal (it's this just a macafied kismet?) is absolutely crazy and will result in more, not fewer security breaches.
Its based on kismet. It has the usual aqua gui-ness about it, but remains a pretty powerful tool. One of the most impressive finds on a mac, and part of why I was so impressed when I switched to apple. *nix power combined with a user interface that was just too easy.
And I think that every thing that this german law does for KisMAC, must surely apply to kismet also...
... Kismac doesn't break into Apples, it lets Apples passively monitor networks and has some basic attack functionality integrated. Your post might be [vaguely] on topic if this was a discussion about an Apple firewall, but for a passive wireless network stumbler? I don't think so...
Agreed.
In fact, the airport base stations seem to be quite secure from simple attacks.
What KisMAC demonstrates, more than any thing else, is that if you are using WEP for security, you are usually deluding yourself. A decent percentage of WEP base stations will surrender their passcode within 5-10 minutes, even if nobody is on their network.
Free speech is fine but I don't agree with having this tool available to non-professionals in a nice easily installed package.
Well, I have used it a bit, and I'm no professional. But having shown people how quickly their encryption fails is a good thing.
At the end of the day, your comment is one of security through obscurity.
Kismac doesn't hack the unhackable, it can however open up access points that are much less secure than their owners think, mostly due to failures by the vendors to use proper algorithms. Why this should bother you is unclear to me.
At the end of the day, the vendors are more likely to change their hardware if this sort of tool is widely available. If it was kept obscure, most hardware vendors would never patch their access points.
I've used it alot, but never actually hacked into anyone's computer by using it.
Its likely to be forked anyway and exist on in another country...
A proper backup requires media that is removed from the site, or at least removed from the machine. With the OS X "backup" scheme, if your machine gets pwned or fried by a surge from a nearby lightning strike, or your house floods or burns down, you've still lost everything.
With no disrespect, if you are saying this then I'd be surprised if you have actually used Time Machine.
You can use Time Machine to back up on your own system, but to do that requires you to make a partition available for this.
The most likely way that Time Machine will be used, in its default mode, is when a USB or Firewire drive is attached directly, or when a volume is mounted remotely that is suitable for backups.
Backing up is then a two step process:
Step One - A window pops up asking you if you want to use this drive for backup - click on yes. Step Two - There is no step two. Its already happening.
Ok, lots of people will just use an in house, cheap USB drive, and this isn't really remote backup. Its still a lot better than no backup at all.
It will certainly do remote/network backup, and plugging a USB drive into your airport would be another common way to do this.
Alter Relationship on 15/07/07 12:13 (#19864429) Okay, so you back up your PST, do the upgrade, Outlook converts the PST and then you download more mail into the PST. What good did that backup do you again?
Actually, this is not a helpful comment. Yes, all users should backup. That is a bit like saying that everyone should stop smoking, drink driving or visiting prostitutes. That doesn't mean that this will actually happen.
Indeed, the biggest killer feature of OS X 10.5 (Leopard) is automated backups for the real world. I cannot see a significant number of home users backing up regularly before this, on any operating system. (Of course, I'm expecting this to be available in a Linux distro at some time around then too). I'm sure there will be a few thousand people on/. who do backup, but remember you aren't like the real world.
I think that this is a legitimate gripe. Data loss is an enormous issue, and the world has only just started to collect their music online and keep their photos digitally. Never to mind keeping their emails.
Type in =SIN(30 degrees) if you want degrees. I'm sorry, Excel doesn't pander to high school students. In the real world, when the sine of an angle is mentioned, it is SUPPOSED to be radians. Every programming language I know accepts arguments for trig functions as radians.
But the difference with the microsoft OOXML is that the units are sensed automagically as part of the result computations. The use of radians rather than degrees is specified by a combination of having administrator privileges, the instillation of visual studio, and a low user id on slashdot. In the absence of these features, the units are assumed to be specified in degrees.
Although I'm sure there are places where 132 columns are great (using ncurses-based displays that are smart enough to respond to your terminal size, for instance), I really wouldn't want a text editor that's much wider than 80 columns for normal use, lest it encourage people to create really, REALLY long lines of code or text.
Despite the arbitrariness of "80 characters," , it does seem to be about the maximum width that's comfortable to read in one go. (Take an un-hardwrapped text file and open it in a very wide editor and try to read it; it's a PITA compared to reading a narrow column.)
No, 80 is not arbitrary. 64 or 128 would have been arbitrary.
I don't know the history, but 80 was a deliberate design choice that goes against the electronics in at least one obvious way.
They do exactly one of two things: if they have 8-9 items, they open up in that stupid fan shape. More than that, you get a dopey grid. (No text, nothing but icons. Yeah, *that's* useful.)
Actually, someone (not me!) has posted this stuff online:
ullshit. In grid mode, the icons display with file names, and a right-click gets a menu, and one of the items is to open the folder in the Finder. Yeah, there are some rough spots that need fixing up, but because of the NDA I won't go into that. But I figured I'd stretch the NDA a little when I saw blatant misinformation about dock behavior, from someone whom I'm guessing doesn't actually have the beta but is just passing on misunderstood info.
I'm torn between (a) breaking my NDA, (b) refusing to post anonymously and (c) watching someone who has very little exposure to Leopard make comments.
I guess I'll stick with keeping my mouth shut:)
For those who block all AC comments, I've repeated the quoted here. Make of it what you will.
A coworker came back from WWDC with his copy. Unless I'm mistaken, stacks are HORRIBLE!!!
You are mistaken.
I think that there is enough from the keynote alone to demonstrate that it doesn't operate entirely as you have stated. Beyond that I can't say (NDA). And, in any case, this is still in beta, so don't get tied down on minor points.
As TFA states, there are several releases planned - and I think that whilst I don't know the timescale for the releases any more than you, I'd be stunned if the Developer preview ships unchanged. That is a major point of a beta preview, right? Partly to update your software, but partly to field test the whole shebang on a group of people who aren't going to cry the house down if not every feature is perfect or stable.
It is a preview, for developers. It will undoubtedly change.
But seeing that those who know, like myself, have a NDA on the matter, I can't really comment too much.
I don't think that too many developers will be disappointed with these *nix level packages in Lepoard, but then again, alot of developers already know the answer to this question. I can say that apple puts a lot of effort into keeping its developers happy.
One thing I'm sure of - if the package you want isn't the most up to date, Apple won't stop you installing it. They never have in the past, and I doubt that they will any time soon with these sorts of packages.
Additionally, I think people are getting crazy reactionary, assuming that the gaffe by SUN was responsible for ZFS not making Leopard.
There's no way to know if it was even in there before anyway.
Actually I don't think that Steve Jobs would have had time to remove it - after all they did have 5000 developer copies of Lepoard and Lepoard Server ready to pick up the moment the keynote finished.
It would have taken a bit of time to redo all of those, and the sun announcement was close to the meeting.
Having said that, I wouldn't be totally shocked if there were 10 000 DVD's in a dumpster in Cupertino right now. Steve is kind of known for being like that, if you get him seriously annoyed.
I was a Blakes fan when the show ran in Belgium, 20 years ago or something close to it. I remember the ending scene. Most of the 7 shot down, and what's-his-name being completely surrounded, standing ready with his gun in his hand.... The end...
Ok, it seems hard to put spoilers in for a show as old as Blakes7, but..
Spoiler Warning There was an official sequel to Blakes7, called AfterLife. It never made it to film form, to my knowledge.
However, it revealed that two of the Blakes7 cast members survived - Avon and Villa.
Villa survived because he dropped to the ground as soon as he heard shooting - a fairly creditable thing for him to do.
The final shooting after the fade to black wasn't Avon getting shot, either - rather more it was bad news for the federation troops.
The only problem with the book, was that by the time you go to the end, the future was so bleak, and so Blakes7 like, that you just wished that Avon and Villa had died and it all ended there...
Slashdot Mirror
Every day, about 3000 people die on the roads somewhere in the world. A September 11 every day. And yet, life goes on.
The amount of money and resources devoted to "terrorism" is way out of proportion to the things we really should be afraid of - global warming, peak oil, motor vehicle injuries, and even non-terrorist gun related crime. I suspect that even meteor strikes would be as big a risk as terrorism.
Worse still, the responses to these things are far more damaging than the original problem. The cost to society from the responses are worse than the problem. We now have locked up hundreds of people for years in places like Guantanamo Bay, without charges. (*Note, I'm not saying that these people should not face justice, where applicable - just that they were not getting any there*). Many other countries have followed suit. In Australia, the population has finally seen the power of the legisation passed, with a doctor being locked up without charges for weeks, before all charges dropped (*Again, not commenting on whether or not he may be a terrorist*). These laws have been passed by democratic first world governments everywhere, and nobody really understands just how powerful they are.
Or look at Iraq & Afganistan. More soldiers have died in those wars than were killed by the atrocity that prompted it. In the USA some people are now talking about the need to have conscription to keep up the servicemen numbers to maintain the troops.
So there you have it:
a) Terrorism is still a small fry cause of human death and suffering.
b) The response to the terrorism often produces more damage than the act itself.
We should concentrate on the really important stuff - global warming, peak oil, cars and so on. If you want to find the criminal masterminds that plan out terrorism, the army is not the right instrument to do this, even though it feels good to strike back. And changing the way we live to being a culture of fear with removal of all our rights is a far bigger victory for the terrorists than a one off killing of the same number of people that die every day on the roads.
Michael
My own personal example - I fly to the US maybe once a year at the moment. I've been flagged variably, but not consistently.
One year I get the "SSSS" on the boarding passes for every flight, then they disappear the next.
Most interesting, was this year - I flew a New York -> Miami -> Los Angeles.
At Miami, my boarding passes were reprinted by America Airlines, having been issued by a code share carrier.
On the reprint the rest of the trip comes up as "SSSS". So presumably I had already been flagged by the software this trip, but because the non-USA code share carriers aren't tied into the database, I've already been flying for a while without the security checks.
Even more funny - the boarding passes were re-issued airside, so I was already on the good side of security, free from any further checks.
On the plus side, four days later I fly out, and the "SSSS" printout on the bottom right corner of the boarding pass is gone..
It makes no sense to me what they are doing. Readers can, however, remain reassured that I have no plans to see any plane that I am in get blown up or fly in to any buildings....
Michael
Same way you abuse anything else - quantum physics (nuclear power or bombs), chemistry (medicines or nerve gas), arable land (corn for tortillas or petrol additive).
The abuse that I see here is that we should be smart enough to not abuse our knowledge and resources for short term gains at a long term cost.
What we do with the evolution in technology is our choice, certainly.
It was not so long ago that people used to laugh at why you would need a 200W power supply for a computer. Now it seems that 500 watts are common enough, and some are going significantly higher than this.
There is no law of physics that demanded this increase in power consumption. It was a choice by manufacturers and consumers.
There are certainly some times when it makes sense to throw the power at the circuitry, but for the most part its just wasted time. To my mind the ideal computer would run at close to 100% CPU utilisation all the time, but the whole system would reduce its power and speed to match the load requirements. Likewise, standby power should be very close to zero - we do this for laptops so much better than for many desktops.
I guess its my personal ethos showing here. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway, I hope that explains my position on why I think its an abuse. Energy is cheap, but it may not be for too much longer.
The world really doesn't need a hard drive that sucks more power quietly, at least not for most computers.
Hopefully in a few short years flash drives will overtake hard drives and everyone wins.
Michael
Acutally, yes, I do.
Its more than noise, however. We don't need a more efficient cooling system, we need a hard drive that uses less power and generates less heat.
The whole path that desktops are going down (except for the occasional exception such as a mac mini) is one of more power, more heat, more fans, more noise.
This is, to my mind, the grossest abuse of Moore's law that can be had. Instead, we should be building smaller and lower powered devices. Perhaps it simply reflects how cheap energy is that we choose to build computers this way.
So now we can build a whole class of hard drives that suck more power from the wall, confident that they won't make as much noise?
Am I the only one who sees the folly of this?
Michael
Wait for the "fork". The code will be moved to another site, and I suspect that development will continue on.
No need to reinvent the wheel...
Michael
That is a difficult one. Whilst I think that the problem there is the person, not the bat, sometimes it is worth restricting some actions. I think that even the most pro gun supporter would say there is a limit on selling weapons. Its just where you want to draw the line. Baseball bats, knives, guns, semi-automatics, hand grenades, small tactical nukes? Somewhere along the line most people will agree its not a good idea to have these things for sale in the sports section of k-mart, irrespective of the individual's personal freedom. Most peoples rights to freedom should stop somewhere short of their right to kill them selves with a 10 megaton nuke in a densely populated city.
Now this is a little different from what KisMAC is about, however. Kismac is fairly useless if you have a good password and a network secured by a proper protocol. On networks that aren't properly secured, it can open them up with various amounts of grunt work, ranging from minutes to days.
Mostly, KisMAC helps secure the network by letting you attack your own network. It has very little to do with most current criminal activity online.
Criminalising this tool will not make people much safer, if at all. Arguably it makes things more secure - I've persuaded a number of people to change their encryption to WPA by demonstrating how quickly their base stations can be compromised.
Much better I do it than someone else.
I think the German authorities would be much better working on philshing attacks, scam emails, and so on.
Of course, that would require some real work, not like this...
Michael
Of course not. Done properly, it would automatically fill the key in for you.
Michael
I rather liked it
I'm not sure where it comes from - I don't think its a Schneier quote and I've had a quick search on google & wikiquote to try and find the reference - I can't.
Someone posted this on
Michael
I presume you meant macbooks here - it works fine in passive mode with the ibooks, they don't have that chipset. It does work fine with a USB prism chipset 802.11b/g key if you have a macbook.
Michael
As there are two Michael's posting here, I'm just guessing you aren't referring to me...
Its based on kismet. It has the usual aqua gui-ness about it, but remains a pretty powerful tool. One of the most impressive finds on a mac, and part of why I was so impressed when I switched to apple. *nix power combined with a user interface that was just too easy.
And I think that every thing that this german law does for KisMAC, must surely apply to kismet also...
Michael
Agreed.
In fact, the airport base stations seem to be quite secure from simple attacks.
What KisMAC demonstrates, more than any thing else, is that if you are using WEP for security, you are usually deluding yourself. A decent percentage of WEP base stations will surrender their passcode within 5-10 minutes, even if nobody is on their network.
Its that scary..
Michael
Well, I have used it a bit, and I'm no professional. But having shown people how quickly their encryption fails is a good thing.
At the end of the day, your comment is one of security through obscurity.
Kismac doesn't hack the unhackable, it can however open up access points that are much less secure than their owners think, mostly due to failures by the vendors to use proper algorithms. Why this should bother you is unclear to me.
At the end of the day, the vendors are more likely to change their hardware if this sort of tool is widely available. If it was kept obscure, most hardware vendors would never patch their access points.
I've used it alot, but never actually hacked into anyone's computer by using it.
Its likely to be forked anyway and exist on in another country...
Michael (as the original poster of the article).
With no disrespect, if you are saying this then I'd be surprised if you have actually used Time Machine.
You can use Time Machine to back up on your own system, but to do that requires you to make a partition available for this.
The most likely way that Time Machine will be used, in its default mode, is when a USB or Firewire drive is attached directly, or when a volume is mounted remotely that is suitable for backups.
Backing up is then a two step process:
Step One - A window pops up asking you if you want to use this drive for backup - click on yes.
Step Two - There is no step two. Its already happening.
Ok, lots of people will just use an in house, cheap USB drive, and this isn't really remote backup. Its still a lot better than no backup at all.
It will certainly do remote/network backup, and plugging a USB drive into your airport would be another common way to do this.
Michael
I think they already have
Michael
If there is a worm in there, its an old apple:
The current version of OS X (10.4.10) and the server version of 10.4.10 are NOT listed as vulnerable.
Not saying that apple computers are invulnerable, just that this already appears to be patched
Michael
Actually, this is not a helpful comment. Yes, all users should backup. That is a bit like saying that everyone should stop smoking, drink driving or visiting prostitutes. That doesn't mean that this will actually happen.
Indeed, the biggest killer feature of OS X 10.5 (Leopard) is automated backups for the real world. I cannot see a significant number of home users backing up regularly before this, on any operating system. (Of course, I'm expecting this to be available in a Linux distro at some time around then too). I'm sure there will be a few thousand people on
I think that this is a legitimate gripe. Data loss is an enormous issue, and the world has only just started to collect their music online and keep their photos digitally. Never to mind keeping their emails.
Just my 2c worth.
Michael
But the difference with the microsoft OOXML is that the units are sensed automagically as part of the result computations. The use of radians rather than degrees is specified by a combination of having administrator privileges, the instillation of visual studio, and a low user id on slashdot. In the absence of these features, the units are assumed to be specified in degrees.
Michael
No, 80 is not arbitrary. 64 or 128 would have been arbitrary.
I don't know the history, but 80 was a deliberate design choice that goes against the electronics in at least one obvious way.
Michael
Actually, someone (not me!) has posted this stuff online:
Example of Stacks (Needs Flash, so it won't work on an iPhone!)
I think this shows enough to contradict what you have said.
Check this out before apple no doubt removes it and sets the lawyers on the website.
Michael
Think happy developers.
Michael
I'm torn between (a) breaking my NDA, (b) refusing to post anonymously and (c) watching someone who has very little exposure to Leopard make comments.
I guess I'll stick with keeping my mouth shut
For those who block all AC comments, I've repeated the quoted here. Make of it what you will.
Michael
You are mistaken.
I think that there is enough from the keynote alone to demonstrate that it doesn't operate entirely as you have stated. Beyond that I can't say (NDA). And, in any case, this is still in beta, so don't get tied down on minor points.
As TFA states, there are several releases planned - and I think that whilst I don't know the timescale for the releases any more than you, I'd be stunned if the Developer preview ships unchanged. That is a major point of a beta preview, right? Partly to update your software, but partly to field test the whole shebang on a group of people who aren't going to cry the house down if not every feature is perfect or stable.
It is a preview, for developers. It will undoubtedly change.
Michael
Michael
For some of them, yes.
But seeing that those who know, like myself, have a NDA on the matter, I can't really comment too much.
I don't think that too many developers will be disappointed with these *nix level packages in Lepoard, but then again, alot of developers already know the answer to this question. I can say that apple puts a lot of effort into keeping its developers happy.
One thing I'm sure of - if the package you want isn't the most up to date, Apple won't stop you installing it. They never have in the past, and I doubt that they will any time soon with these sorts of packages.
Michael
Actually I don't think that Steve Jobs would have had time to remove it - after all they did have 5000 developer copies of Lepoard and Lepoard Server ready to pick up the moment the keynote finished.
It would have taken a bit of time to redo all of those, and the sun announcement was close to the meeting.
Having said that, I wouldn't be totally shocked if there were 10 000 DVD's in a dumpster in Cupertino right now. Steve is kind of known for being like that, if you get him seriously annoyed.
Michael
Ok, it seems hard to put spoilers in for a show as old as Blakes7, but..
Spoiler Warning
There was an official sequel to Blakes7, called AfterLife. It never made it to film form, to my knowledge.
However, it revealed that two of the Blakes7 cast members survived - Avon and Villa.
Villa survived because he dropped to the ground as soon as he heard shooting - a fairly creditable thing for him to do.
The final shooting after the fade to black wasn't Avon getting shot, either - rather more it was bad news for the federation troops.
The only problem with the book, was that by the time you go to the end, the future was so bleak, and so Blakes7 like, that you just wished that Avon and Villa had died and it all ended there...
Michael