Re:Might be worth waiting; where to look
on
Cocoa in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That's probably a good indication that a new edition is on its way. Like most other frameworks, Cocoa is constantly growing. Apple recently added the controller layer and key value binding to support it. These things are important, but they aren't mentioned in the Nutshell book right now. $16 isn't a bad deal for a slightly out of date edition, IMO, but if you want a complete reference, wait a month or two. WWDC is coming up, and I would be surprised if O'Reilly didn't update this volume then.
Well, there is no new edition of Cocoa in a Nutshell listed on the O'Reilly New and Upcoming Titles Page. Then again, the upcoming titles list only goes through June. Perhaps we can expect the new edition in July.;) If you are interested in the book, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on this page.
Yeah, minor issue though - SourceForge is owned by VA Software (LNUX on Nasdaq) who has reaped millions from their IPO. Sourceforge is no more open source than www.microsoft.com is.
VA Software may be a for profit company, but SourceForge still "provid[es] free hosting to tens of thousands of projects." If that isn't sufficient to create a free rider problem and a bandwidth tragedy of the commons, nothing would.
And while VA Software may have "reaped millions from their IPO," one may wonder where all of that money is now.
Most distributions and many applications have FAQs,forums,mailing lists,irc channels, etc. which can be a lot of help.
Doesn't this prove the point of the grand-parent post? If when the Linux aficionado ("LA") tells the Linux newbie to RTFM the LA is in fact telling the newbie to search and read all of the relevant FAQs, forums, mailing lists, irc channels, etc., won't the reponse of most newbies be, "Thanks, but I'll go back to Windows?"
Well, why dont you invest lots of money like SourceForge into servers and making it as good as it can be, I mean being over-loaded with people such as you who then complain that its starting to suck, well ofcourse it is and if its a problem you should help those good people out and donate resources to them.
I understand your point. I too don't like it when somebody complains about a good or service that is provided free or at below cost.
Let's face it, Open Source projects are classically Marxist -- i.e., To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. I'm not saying that to red-bait. On the contrary, I think it is kind of nice.:) However, it does require certain assumptions regarding human nature -- e.g., that people will act from good will, not be "lazy" (or place a different value on leisure), not freeload, etc.
Which I guess is my way of saying that, given these problems, I'm always surprised when people are surprised when an Open Source or Free Software project is over-burdenend and/or under-supported.
After the stunning victory in round 1, we just need to make sure our parliamentarians stand firm. I am sure they will not appreciate this attempt to trample over their amendments. Time to get writing again...
There is an imporant lesson here. That lesson is that these issues are never finally resolved. Just because objectionable legislation has been defeated once does not mean that it will not be re-introduced. The membership of legislative bodies changes over time. Lobybing continues. Contributions are made. If the financial incentive is great enough, business will never give up.
Eternal vigilance is required. Perhaps the time you are most vulnerable is when you think you have *finally* won.
Why do people think that the command line is *not* "user friendly"?
Perhaps because it lost in the marketplace?
Perhaps because there is not a great market for CLI only computers? Even if they were sold at a discount?
Perhaps because the overwhelming majority of people who own computers that are both CLI and GUI capable choose to use the GUI to operate them?
More seriously, the question probably should be "user friendly for whom?" For you and perhaps many Slashdoters, the CLI is more user friendly -- at least for certain tasks. But the market indicates that for most people that is not the case.
GUIs let you explore until you find what you want by pointing and clicking on things. With command lines, you need to know the commands, and the options, before starting.
Very good point. I remember when I first used a Macintosh twenty-something years ago, I did just that. Without opening a manual, I clicked on things and typed until I completed my first computer generated resume. It turned out rather nice... even if it listed a number of fast food jobs.:) If Macs weren't so expensive, and I wasn't so poor, I doubt that I ever would have moved to the DOS world.
Yes, Script Kiddies can now possibly attack a system in a manner which they would not have been able previously, but sysadmins can also do the same, and then secure whatever holes appear as a result, meaning that not only can the script kiddie not get in, but a Black-hat can't use that avenue either.
I suspect the concerns (which I personally don't agree with) are that: (a) for every sysadmin who is trying to protect "his" system (while performing other tasks) there are numerous script kiddies who are trying to break into his system; and (b) particularly given the economy, and shrinking corporate IT budgets, the script kiddies have far more time on their hands. The question one might ask is, Who does the no-cost and low-barrier dissemination of the tool most empower?
The alternatives are not necessarily limited to no dissemination. Some might argue for taking steps to try to limit dissemination of the tools to the "good guys" -- even is such steps would be imperfect.
Further, if we are concerned about the externalities caused by 24/7 connected broad band home users who are unknowingly spewing spam, well, 24/7, we might have to recognize that few if any of them will ever use such tools to protect their systems, while the script kiddies will surely use such tools to hack them.
Of course, the counter-argument re: home users is that "surely" somebody (Microsoft????) will use the tool to test the underlying software... and "surely" the home users will download the resulting patch.:)
I've always thought the comparison of security tools to invasion tools like the idea of security through obscurity.
Simply because there's not an automated tool which allows you to properly determine the security of your own systems, doesn't mean somebody else couldn't do it manually, or create their own tools.
I think the concern may be that the widespread, no-cost dissemination of tools like this decrease the costs and barriers to entry to malicious hacking. Many (if not most) of the script kiddies who may wind up using this and similar tools couldn't possibly "create their own." Simlarly, many (if not most) would not purchase, or even be pirate, commercial tools.
Your analogy of software security to (presumably) physical world "invasion" tools (e.g., lock picks, etc.) causes me to make a prediction. The prediction is that, like lock picks, the use and possession of software security tools may in the future be licensed and regulated. Just as the unlicensed possession and use of "burlar tools" is in some jurisdictions criminal, we may get to the point that the unlicensed use or possession of "software entry" tools is regulated and licensed.
Please don't misunderstand; I am not suggesting that this ought to occur, or that I want it to occur. I am simply suggesting that as a pure matter of fact it may occur.
Wasn't this the purpose of anonymous remailers?
on
P2P News Syndication?
·
· Score: 0
Then again, will the use of P2P to disseminate uncensored news be subject to the same vulnerabilities as the above -- e.g., spam, legal (and possible physical) attacks on "servers," etc.?
Or does the more highly distributed nature of P2P effectively immunize it from at least the legal attacks (while perhaps more effectively empowering spam...)? Or will it just serve to get more people harrassed, arrested and in some places, shot?
I can hear the software vendors right now. "Oh, sure, I'm going to label my software as 'pop-up', that'll bring in the customers, oh, yeah!" More likely, they'll fight it on the grounds of anyone who ever made or makes use of the Yes/No dialog box -- "That's a pop-up, too, make them label their software." Totally meaningless.
Oh, I don't know. You could have said the same thing about food labels, but the fact is a lot of the food industry actually wanted them.
I doubt that they initially wanted them, but the truth is that the mandated warnings on cigarette packages proved very beneficial to the cigarette companies when they were originally sued for causing cancer, etc. One of their best initial defenses was, "What do you mean you didn't know that cigarettes can cause cancer (heart desease, etc.)? There is a bold face warning on each and very package!"
The same thing could prove true for manufacturers of alleged malware. How can you complain if instead of the existence of the program being disclosed in the fine print of an EULA, its existence is disclosed on the outside of the box by a nice, large, colorful icon? "What do you mean you didn't know what you were getting? Its disclosed on the outside of the box!" "What, you want to interfere with the right of people to freely and consensually contract when both sides have been fully informed about what each of them is getting?"
Microsoft already allows schools to "re-install" Win 98 and 2000 (sp3) on donated, older computers in the US. One registers, gets install media from Microsoft, tracks use, etc.
Q How does MAR compare to the Fresh Start for Donated Computers programme?
A The Fresh Start for Donated Computers programme is part of the Microsoft Partners In Learning initiative. The programme is designed to remove the licensing barriers that prevent primary and secondary schools using donated computers. The programme covers Pentium II (or equivalent) and older computers.
Primary and secondary schools have a choice about how they ensure donated PCs are legally licensed. If they wish to obtain media and carry out their own installation of Windows, they can use the Fresh Start for Donated Computers programme, which is free of charge. Alternatively, if they wish to work with a third party who can help with installation and testing of operating systems for donated PCs, they can work with a MAR who will not only refurbish donated PCs, but also install operating system software if required.
Members of the MAR programme pay for participation in the scheme and some charge for the services they provide. However, this is still an extremely cost-effective way to obtain Windows licences for refurbished computers.
Q Why is a programme required? Why can't the original owner donate the licence?
A Typically, the original owner of a computer no longer has the original media and documentation when donating a computer some years after its original purchase. In accordance with Microsoft licensing rules, this original media and documentation would be required for the licence to be donated.
A No charge is made to join the programme but an administrative fee is charged to cover the management and supply of materials for the programme for each computer MARs wish to refurbish and reinstall a licence on. The fee is US$5.00 per computer.
Q Are there any other charges to participate in the programme?
A No - the only charge is the administrative fee of US$5.00 per licence.
To answer other questions, people may want to check out:
Apparently only those wealthy enough can afford to be saved while the rest of the 1500 people a year that croak because of drowsy driving have to suffer.
Your complaint appears to be a subset of a larger complaint, and of a larger debate. "Safe for wealthy drivers." Why should somebody (and his family) be safer on the road than you just because he can afford a Volvo, Saab, etc. while all you can afford is a used Ford Pinto?
Then again, why should somebody who makes more money be afforded superior health care just because he can afford to pay more for it?
Are you suggesting that if someone places less value on short term leisure and recreational activities, invests more in his education, works harder and longer, and as a result earns more money, that he (and his family) should be relegated to the same relatively unsafe car (and relatively unsafe medical care) as the person who invested and worked less?
I am sick of all these "attitudes like this " posts..
Let's face it , most proprietory products that you speak of are none easier to use than linux products.
It may or may not be true that "most proprietory products... are none easier to use than linux products." But that wasn't my point. (Btw, precisely which "proprietary products" did my prior post refer to?)
The point of the my prior post is that the advocates and proponents of non-OSS software do not, as a rule, refer to their customers in public forums as "a mass of ignorant idiots who apparently exist to make problems and keep help lines busy." Calling your cumstomers names is not good public relations. Adopting the irrebutable assumption that any difficulty your customers have in using your product is solely due to the fact that they are "ignorant idiots" does lead to a culture supporting product improvement or increasing market share.
There are those who try to learn what their customers want, and deliver it.
Then there are those who try to tell their customers what they should want, what they ought to do, and call their customers names.
I want more people to use OSS software. Thus, I'm sick of "consumers are a mass of ignorant idiot posts" which serve no purpose other than to insult consumers and excuse inferior design.
Maybe if consumers would read the instructions they wouldn't be (on the whole) a mass of ignorant idiots who apparently exist to make problems and keep help lines busy.
Attitudes like this are another reason why Open Source consumer software and the Linux desktop are so successful.
Don't give consumers what they want. Instead, call them "ignorant idiots" and tell them what to do.
Let's see, I can chose 1.7, or 1.4... or should I choose the stable branch? Or the trunk? (May one assume the trunk is stable?) But then there is Firefox 1.0, but that is just a version of Thunderbird(?). But of course that (which?) is just a Camino release, so everything is ok....
But what about the unstable branch? The unstable branch of what?
Could it be made any more confusing? No wait, don't take that as a challenge!:)
Dunno what Jobs' private attitude toward DRM is, but in the 70's he and Woz did some phone phreaking [woz.org]. This was dubbed "theft of service" by Ma Bell and "cool" by the techies of the day. Ma Bell (the monopoly phone company at the time) was the techie anti-Christ of its day, just as the RIAA is today.
It would certainly be consistent of him to be totally cynical about "playing nicely" with the RIAA.
I think the amount of people here in/. who support copyright infringement is very low. Most would argue to their death about Fair Use before supporting copyright infringement of any kind. You just don't see posts proclaiming "I don't support copyright infringement!" because there isn't really a need to until posts like yours show up.
I believe the amount of people here in/. who would admit they support copyright infringement is very low.
Hell, it may even be the case that the amount of people here in/. who believe they support copyright infringement is very low.
But my memory and perception of past/. discussions re: music downloading is that the majority of/.ers have adopted a theory of "fair use" -- i.e., including the "right" to "share" a song over the net with a complete stranger who didn't pay for the music and who is located 6000 miles away -- that would effectively eviscerate copyright. That is, of course, because the artists themselves don't receive the compensation anyway, music companies are evil, and all of the music they produce sucks (which is why we are entitled to it for free, though it doesn't explain why we would want it). After all, "sharing" is good.
Both contain their own code, but when Edit is run, it will also access code from ROX-Lib.
If Edit is the only "ROX" app one has ever installed, then weren't the files in the "Rox-Lib2" directory also files the installation of the Edit "program ADDED?" If so, then won't the deletion of the "Edit" directory not delete all of the files "ADDED" by the installation of the Edit program?
Or is it just a matter of the order in which things are installed? ROX is necessarily first installed, adding the files in the ROX directory. Then ROX is used to install Edit... adding files ONLY to the Edit directory???? So that we can say that by deleting the Edit directory we have deleted all of the files "ADDED" by the installation of Edit? Even though we installed ROX in order to install Edit?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is no new edition of Cocoa in a Nutshell listed on the O'Reilly New and Upcoming Titles Page. Then again, the upcoming titles list only goes through June. Perhaps we can expect the new edition in July.
VA Software may be a for profit company, but SourceForge still "provid[es] free hosting to tens of thousands of projects." If that isn't sufficient to create a free rider problem and a bandwidth tragedy of the commons, nothing would.
And while VA Software may have "reaped millions from their IPO," one may wonder where all of that money is now.
Doesn't this prove the point of the grand-parent post? If when the Linux aficionado ("LA") tells the Linux newbie to RTFM the LA is in fact telling the newbie to search and read all of the relevant FAQs, forums, mailing lists, irc channels, etc., won't the reponse of most newbies be, "Thanks, but I'll go back to Windows?"
I understand your point. I too don't like it when somebody complains about a good or service that is provided free or at below cost.
However, the post to which you are responding may also have a point. The free rider problem and the tragedy of the commons (or, perhaps more precisely, tragedy of the net-commons) are inherent and endemic problems with Open Source software and projects.
Let's face it, Open Source projects are classically Marxist -- i.e., To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. I'm not saying that to red-bait. On the contrary, I think it is kind of nice.
Which I guess is my way of saying that, given these problems, I'm always surprised when people are surprised when an Open Source or Free Software project is over-burdenend and/or under-supported.
There is an imporant lesson here. That lesson is that these issues are never finally resolved. Just because objectionable legislation has been defeated once does not mean that it will not be re-introduced. The membership of legislative bodies changes over time. Lobybing continues. Contributions are made. If the financial incentive is great enough, business will never give up.
Eternal vigilance is required. Perhaps the time you are most vulnerable is when you think you have *finally* won.
Perhaps because it lost in the marketplace?
Perhaps because there is not a great market for CLI only computers? Even if they were sold at a discount?
Perhaps because the overwhelming majority of people who own computers that are both CLI and GUI capable choose to use the GUI to operate them?
More seriously, the question probably should be "user friendly for whom?" For you and perhaps many Slashdoters, the CLI is more user friendly -- at least for certain tasks. But the market indicates that for most people that is not the case.
Very good point. I remember when I first used a Macintosh twenty-something years ago, I did just that. Without opening a manual, I clicked on things and typed until I completed my first computer generated resume. It turned out rather nice... even if it listed a number of fast food jobs.
I suspect the concerns (which I personally don't agree with) are that: (a) for every sysadmin who is trying to protect "his" system (while performing other tasks) there are numerous script kiddies who are trying to break into his system; and (b) particularly given the economy, and shrinking corporate IT budgets, the script kiddies have far more time on their hands. The question one might ask is, Who does the no-cost and low-barrier dissemination of the tool most empower?
The alternatives are not necessarily limited to no dissemination. Some might argue for taking steps to try to limit dissemination of the tools to the "good guys" -- even is such steps would be imperfect.
Further, if we are concerned about the externalities caused by 24/7 connected broad band home users who are unknowingly spewing spam, well, 24/7, we might have to recognize that few if any of them will ever use such tools to protect their systems, while the script kiddies will surely use such tools to hack them.
Of course, the counter-argument re: home users is that "surely" somebody (Microsoft????) will use the tool to test the underlying software... and "surely" the home users will download the resulting patch.
I think the concern may be that the widespread, no-cost dissemination of tools like this decrease the costs and barriers to entry to malicious hacking. Many (if not most) of the script kiddies who may wind up using this and similar tools couldn't possibly "create their own." Simlarly, many (if not most) would not purchase, or even be pirate, commercial tools.
Your analogy of software security to (presumably) physical world "invasion" tools (e.g., lock picks, etc.) causes me to make a prediction. The prediction is that, like lock picks, the use and possession of software security tools may in the future be licensed and regulated. Just as the unlicensed possession and use of "burlar tools" is in some jurisdictions criminal, we may get to the point that the unlicensed use or possession of "software entry" tools is regulated and licensed.
Please don't misunderstand; I am not suggesting that this ought to occur, or that I want it to occur. I am simply suggesting that as a pure matter of fact it may occur.
Wasn't this the purpose of Anonymous Remailers, Mail to News Gateways, and Usenet?
Then again, will the use of P2P to disseminate uncensored news be subject to the same vulnerabilities as the above -- e.g., spam, legal (and possible physical) attacks on "servers," etc.?
Or does the more highly distributed nature of P2P effectively immunize it from at least the legal attacks (while perhaps more effectively empowering spam...)? Or will it just serve to get more people harrassed, arrested and in some places, shot?
I doubt that they initially wanted them, but the truth is that the mandated warnings on cigarette packages proved very beneficial to the cigarette companies when they were originally sued for causing cancer, etc. One of their best initial defenses was, "What do you mean you didn't know that cigarettes can cause cancer (heart desease, etc.)? There is a bold face warning on each and very package!"
The same thing could prove true for manufacturers of alleged malware. How can you complain if instead of the existence of the program being disclosed in the fine print of an EULA, its existence is disclosed on the outside of the box by a nice, large, colorful icon? "What do you mean you didn't know what you were getting? Its disclosed on the outside of the box!" "What, you want to interfere with the right of people to freely and consensually contract when both sides have been fully informed about what each of them is getting?"
The Microsoft Authorised Refurbishers (MAR) Programme FAQ addresses the distinction between the two programs:
The Microsoft Authorised Refurbishers (MAR) Programme FAQ addresses this issue:
As for the "adminstrative fee," the FAQ explains:
To answer other questions, people may want to check out:
Microsoft Authorised Refurbishers Programme.
True, the plaintiff would have a duty to mitigate its damages.
But what if somebody has already exploited the vulnerability?
What if the patch breaks something?
Now that the vulnerability has been announced, what if somebody exploits it before a customer hears about it or applies the patch?
Good question. Perhaps a better question might be, what are the people who purchased these going to do to CISCO?
Perhaps a legal action? Breach of contract anyone? Promissory fraud? Negligent representation?
Your complaint appears to be a subset of a larger complaint, and of a larger debate. "Safe for wealthy drivers." Why should somebody (and his family) be safer on the road than you just because he can afford a Volvo, Saab, etc. while all you can afford is a used Ford Pinto?
Then again, why should somebody who makes more money be afforded superior health care just because he can afford to pay more for it?
Are you suggesting that if someone places less value on short term leisure and recreational activities, invests more in his education, works harder and longer, and as a result earns more money, that he (and his family) should be relegated to the same relatively unsafe car (and relatively unsafe medical care) as the person who invested and worked less?
Does anyone work for an IBM call center in the U.S.? If so, what kind of severance package are you expecting?
Don't be so sure eliminating the "W" will solve the problem. In order to avoid trademark law problems, people who are selecting a name for a business, product or service are advised to search for and avoid names that "are phonetically similar (spelled differently but pronounced the same or similar; homonyms)." [See also "Synonyms or homonyms."]
It may or may not be true that "most proprietory products... are none easier to use than linux products." But that wasn't my point. (Btw, precisely which "proprietary products" did my prior post refer to?)
The point of the my prior post is that the advocates and proponents of non-OSS software do not, as a rule, refer to their customers in public forums as "a mass of ignorant idiots who apparently exist to make problems and keep help lines busy." Calling your cumstomers names is not good public relations. Adopting the irrebutable assumption that any difficulty your customers have in using your product is solely due to the fact that they are "ignorant idiots" does lead to a culture supporting product improvement or increasing market share.
There are those who try to learn what their customers want, and deliver it.
Then there are those who try to tell their customers what they should want, what they ought to do, and call their customers names.
I want more people to use OSS software. Thus, I'm sick of "consumers are a mass of ignorant idiot posts" which serve no purpose other than to insult consumers and excuse inferior design.
Attitudes like this are another reason why Open Source consumer software and the Linux desktop are so successful.
Don't give consumers what they want. Instead, call them "ignorant idiots" and tell them what to do.
Why should I have to read the instructions?
Seriously, who writes consumer software these days based on the assumption that the consumer is going to read the instructions?
Let's see, I can chose 1.7, or 1.4... or should I choose the stable branch? Or the trunk? (May one assume the trunk is stable?) But then there is Firefox 1.0, but that is just a version of Thunderbird(?). But of course that (which?) is just a Camino release, so everything is ok....
But what about the unstable branch? The unstable branch of what?
Could it be made any more confusing? No wait, don't take that as a challenge!
But of course more choices are always a good thing, right?
Or he may have grown up.
I believe the amount of people here in
Hell, it may even be the case that the amount of people here in
But my memory and perception of past
Of course, I could be mistaken.
OK, I think I'm finally getting it. One more question. You earlier stated:
If Edit is the only "ROX" app one has ever installed, then weren't the files in the "Rox-Lib2" directory also files the installation of the Edit "program ADDED?" If so, then won't the deletion of the "Edit" directory not delete all of the files "ADDED" by the installation of the Edit program?
Or is it just a matter of the order in which things are installed? ROX is necessarily first installed, adding the files in the ROX directory. Then ROX is used to install Edit... adding files ONLY to the Edit directory???? So that we can say that by deleting the Edit directory we have deleted all of the files "ADDED" by the installation of Edit? Even though we installed ROX in order to install Edit?