Well, they're probably watching all of your emails at work, too. Ever heard of "industrial espionage"? It happens here in the good 'ole states, too, sometimes with govt. support.
Microsoft had no binding contractual relationship with the dealer in question.
What's to prevent a user from making fair use copies, then? Just make a copy of the CD and install it on two different computers that you own (which is prohibited in the contract). Because you hadn't agreed to the license agreement, does that just fall under fair use of copyrighted material? Can anyone then make unlimited personal use copies of software they "purchased"?
Part of Open Source development is poking around other people's Open Source projects and seeing what they've done. It's also about using their Open Source software to work on yours. Until recently, the Macintosh was deficient in its ability to provide either of those.
There's something strange about writing Open Source software on a platform when the development tools are Closed Source. It's kind of hard to write Open Source in Microsoft Visual C++, and it's also kind of hard to do it in Metrowerks Codewarrior. Why? You obviously paid for those tools - and so you don't necessarily want to give it away for free. With MacOSX, the development tools are now free, both as in beer an in speech. It makes it much easier to develop Open source applications.
Secondly, there just wasn't enough Open Source software to leverage on the MacOS environment. Most free software on Linux is built around free libraries, and couldn't exist without them. On MacOS (pre-X), there weren't enough free software libraries available. On MacOSX, the BSD subsystem garuntees easy ports of libraries like guile and glib, upon which many applications depends.
It's quite probable that when MacOS X arrives, there'll be an outpouring of Open Source software just for those reasons. Once some of the GNU libraries are ported, people will start to use them - and Open Source what they create.
I know, and that's exactly how I learned too. Of course the music publishers hate them, but the musicians love them. And I'd willingly donate anything I wrote to one of those. And I do (try) to grok jazz.
I don't know why so many people believe that Music should be restricted for redistrobution. Quite a few professional musicians (Jazz, mostly) believe that it's okay to copy music and share it. Copy-protected music is actually a fairly recent (and ugly, IMHO) development.
In Jazz music, there's a tradition similar to the Open Source movement - musicians will take one song and start to modify it to their own whims. Charlie Parker used to take other songs and make riffs on them. (He also had to often had to modify a section, usually the bridge, to avoid paying fees!)
It's sad that modern music has gotten so commercial, but unfortunately, modern music lacks the same spirit that music once used to have. But we can remember that music once used to be different, and that an artist can survive on concerts alone. They used to do it, and if we turn the spirit of music back into sharing, they still can.
"It's a goal we have," says Muniz. "Someday I'd like to get the system to the point where we don't set off anybody's alarms."
Funny, I get a warning on my logs whenever my router gets a packet that's not a reply to a packet that came from inside the network. How are they going to do this without setting off any alarms?
Secondly, there are 2^8*2^8*2^8*2*8=2^32 possible IP addresses - how are they going to hit them all in any possible sort of time? Even if only half those are taken up, that's still 2^31 IP addresses! If it takes a half-a-second to verify that an IP address is valid and traceroute it (very low, considering the time of a traceroute), that's 2^30 seconds==34 years of scanning!
Several times in the article it mentions that they're leaning towards doing things the NT way. Is that because of NT's POSIX capabilities and cleaner design, or just because it seems to be better documented?
Related: Are there any status updates on MainWin for Linux? It'd be nice to see that as an easy and well-proven method for porters.
However, note that the Classic environment is *not* an emulator. So the machine code for an application runs directly on the hardware.
Neither is WINE, however, WINE's performance can at times be abysmally slow.
Secondly, the application environments have some fairly nifty infrastructure to carry around the meta-data that sits in the resource fork around on filesystems that do not support forks, and translate back and forth. It's actually quite neat.
Actually, it looked like an ugly hack using dotfiles, to me. What happens if the dotfile gets replaced/deleted/etc.? Doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.
My question is why does the FBI have an unlimited say in what deals go through? Can they deny a deal for any reason, or are there strict rules about what's allowed for them to request?
Nobody runs GNOME. You just run bits and pieces of applications that use GNOME. GNOME itself is a set of libraries, and also includes some programs (such as gmc, the panel, sawfish, and the terminal).
The Classic environment in Mac OS X creates a virtual machine inside of Mac OS X which boots a largely unmodified version of Mac OS 9. Applications which are built for Mac OS 9 and have not been "Carbonized" run in this environment. The Classic environment replaces the hardware abstraction layer in Mac OS 9 with a series of shims that pass requests to parts of Mac OS X. For example, a memory request in Mac OS 9 gets fulfilled by a memory request in the Darwin kernel. Mac OS 9 can thereby use resources managed by Mac OS X.
What's the speed of running an app in the Classic environment? Does the environment work roughly the same way that the Blue Box did in Rhapsody?
It's interesting that Apple chose to keep the historical UFS instead of basing it on a newer FS or advancing their HFS. While HFS+ was designed to bridge between HFS and UFS, it still doesn't make sense to use a pure-unix filesystem when you don't have a pure-unix OS. Instead, IMHO, they should have used something like the BeOS filesystem, so they could keep resource forks, etc.
I'm trying to get to their contact page - do you think that they would be interested in having a BeOS port so manufacturers of BeIA devices can include Fitaly text input? Just a thought.
It seems to me that this type of keyboarding creates gestures - you soon learn what order to press the keys in properly to create the most common words, and soon enough you're back to graffiti, except instead of one letter per gesture, it's one word per gesture.
Has anybody played with the demo? I'm not near a Windows box and can't get it on my palm right now.
If you're using OpenBSD, you can just unplug the hard drive, and plug it back in when you're done. I've done it (though not for that reason). Of course, if you were using OpenBSD, you wouldn't have a script kiddie on your system, now would you?
Looks to me like they got that from somewhere else. They don't actually have those fields memorized, and probly couldn't tell you a damn thing about what those funny greater than signs are doing in that text.
Ever sat down at a box somebody's given you an account on and just poked around to see how it's organized? That's part of the script kiddie feeling - it's partly about exploring the system, seeing what you can do.
But there's something more behind that - it's a feeling of inconsequenciality (sp?!?) - that those boxen they're poking with are inconsequential to them and immaterial - they don't actually exist in their mind!
That's the problem that faces the sysadmin - the kiddies feel that you do not exist, and therefore it's okay to go off and exploit these systems! To counter that, if you ever catch a kiddie on your system (logged in), don't just boot him off. 'talk' him. Make sure he knows that there are people behind these machines, and that they're not just machines to be played with.
Anybody heard of a 2.88 MB Floppy? Few people even have any anymore - but gosh, they were going to be the saivior of PC removable stoarge, just before the Zip drive came in and tore up the market.
The problem here is that Sony is about 6 months later than they wanted to be on this product, and DVD-Ram has in that time taken a market hold because it's bundled with media creation tools like the new Mac G4's and advertized heavily. If they were 6 months earlier, they might have had a chance, but in that time the market penetration of DVD-Ram has doubled.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they're probably watching all of your emails at work, too. Ever heard of "industrial espionage"? It happens here in the good 'ole states, too, sometimes with govt. support.
What's to prevent a user from making fair use copies, then? Just make a copy of the CD and install it on two different computers that you own (which is prohibited in the contract). Because you hadn't agreed to the license agreement, does that just fall under fair use of copyrighted material? Can anyone then make unlimited personal use copies of software they "purchased"?
There's something strange about writing Open Source software on a platform when the development tools are Closed Source. It's kind of hard to write Open Source in Microsoft Visual C++, and it's also kind of hard to do it in Metrowerks Codewarrior. Why? You obviously paid for those tools - and so you don't necessarily want to give it away for free. With MacOSX, the development tools are now free, both as in beer an in speech. It makes it much easier to develop Open source applications.
Secondly, there just wasn't enough Open Source software to leverage on the MacOS environment. Most free software on Linux is built around free libraries, and couldn't exist without them. On MacOS (pre-X), there weren't enough free software libraries available. On MacOSX, the BSD subsystem garuntees easy ports of libraries like guile and glib, upon which many applications depends.
It's quite probable that when MacOS X arrives, there'll be an outpouring of Open Source software just for those reasons. Once some of the GNU libraries are ported, people will start to use them - and Open Source what they create.
I know, and that's exactly how I learned too. Of course the music publishers hate them, but the musicians love them. And I'd willingly donate anything I wrote to one of those. And I do (try) to grok jazz.
What guilty conciense? Music should be free, and should have the lyrics and the sheet music published on the band's website.
In Jazz music, there's a tradition similar to the Open Source movement - musicians will take one song and start to modify it to their own whims. Charlie Parker used to take other songs and make riffs on them. (He also had to often had to modify a section, usually the bridge, to avoid paying fees!)
It's sad that modern music has gotten so commercial, but unfortunately, modern music lacks the same spirit that music once used to have. But we can remember that music once used to be different, and that an artist can survive on concerts alone. They used to do it, and if we turn the spirit of music back into sharing, they still can.
Maybe they're doing an nmap -O on everybody, too. How else do they get the demographic information?
Funny, I get a warning on my logs whenever my router gets a packet that's not a reply to a packet that came from inside the network. How are they going to do this without setting off any alarms?
Secondly, there are 2^8*2^8*2^8*2*8=2^32 possible IP addresses - how are they going to hit them all in any possible sort of time? Even if only half those are taken up, that's still 2^31 IP addresses! If it takes a half-a-second to verify that an IP address is valid and traceroute it (very low, considering the time of a traceroute), that's 2^30 seconds==34 years of scanning!
Nah, needed a new sig.
Related: Are there any status updates on MainWin for Linux? It'd be nice to see that as an easy and well-proven method for porters.
Works in good old 6.x, too. In fact, it's been there forever. Has this top-level guy ever used a Mac?
Neither is WINE, however, WINE's performance can at times be abysmally slow.
Secondly, the application environments have some fairly nifty infrastructure to carry around the meta-data that sits in the resource fork around on filesystems that do not support forks, and translate back and forth. It's actually quite neat.
Actually, it looked like an ugly hack using dotfiles, to me. What happens if the dotfile gets replaced/deleted/etc.? Doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.
My question is why does the FBI have an unlimited say in what deals go through? Can they deny a deal for any reason, or are there strict rules about what's allowed for them to request?
Nobody runs GNOME. You just run bits and pieces of applications that use GNOME. GNOME itself is a set of libraries, and also includes some programs (such as gmc, the panel, sawfish, and the terminal).
The Classic environment in Mac OS X creates a virtual machine inside of Mac OS X which boots a largely unmodified version of Mac OS 9. Applications which are built for Mac OS 9 and have not been "Carbonized" run in this environment. The Classic environment replaces the hardware abstraction layer in Mac OS 9 with a series of shims that pass requests to parts of Mac OS X. For example, a memory request in Mac OS 9 gets fulfilled by a memory request in the Darwin kernel. Mac OS 9 can thereby use resources managed by Mac OS X.
What's the speed of running an app in the Classic environment? Does the environment work roughly the same way that the Blue Box did in Rhapsody?
It's interesting that Apple chose to keep the historical UFS instead of basing it on a newer FS or advancing their HFS. While HFS+ was designed to bridge between HFS and UFS, it still doesn't make sense to use a pure-unix filesystem when you don't have a pure-unix OS. Instead, IMHO, they should have used something like the BeOS filesystem, so they could keep resource forks, etc.
Are you stalking him or something? It's fairly obvious that it's not you. Do you need something to do with you time?
I'm trying to get to their contact page - do you think that they would be interested in having a BeOS port so manufacturers of BeIA devices can include Fitaly text input? Just a thought.
Has anybody played with the demo? I'm not near a Windows box and can't get it on my palm right now.
If you're using OpenBSD, you can just unplug the hard drive, and plug it back in when you're done. I've done it (though not for that reason). Of course, if you were using OpenBSD, you wouldn't have a script kiddie on your system, now would you?
That's a horribly bad spoof. Nice try, though.
The proper way to run that is ls -la, not ls -al.
Looks to me like they got that from somewhere else. They don't actually have those fields memorized, and probly couldn't tell you a damn thing about what those funny greater than signs are doing in that text.
Seriously, these kids will spend almost all the time they're not exploiting playing starcraft.
Ever sat down at a box somebody's given you an account on and just poked around to see how it's organized? That's part of the script kiddie feeling - it's partly about exploring the system, seeing what you can do.
But there's something more behind that - it's a feeling of inconsequenciality (sp?!?) - that those boxen they're poking with are inconsequential to them and immaterial - they don't actually exist in their mind!
That's the problem that faces the sysadmin - the kiddies feel that you do not exist, and therefore it's okay to go off and exploit these systems! To counter that, if you ever catch a kiddie on your system (logged in), don't just boot him off. 'talk' him. Make sure he knows that there are people behind these machines, and that they're not just machines to be played with.
The problem here is that Sony is about 6 months later than they wanted to be on this product, and DVD-Ram has in that time taken a market hold because it's bundled with media creation tools like the new Mac G4's and advertized heavily. If they were 6 months earlier, they might have had a chance, but in that time the market penetration of DVD-Ram has doubled.