Try to add a static network mount. Just drop it in fstab, and it'll all be there, right? . Sorry yet?.
You create static network mounts by editing the fstab? Er...
BTW, mac os x can be configured to use the same files as any other unix, by default it's just set up to check netinfo first. You can modify the lookupd configuration to change this. Yeah, apple does things differently. But hey, different unix systems do to. I mean, I'm used to editing my/etc/sysconfig/network, doesn't work on slackware though...
Now look at the syntax in `ld' for linking "framework" libraries, and hell, the fact that "framework" libraries exist. If you haven't worked on build systems, you won't understand the horror of that one.
This is a product of apple's development environment. They provide and promote their own dev environment that is not unix based. Well, sort of but not really unix based. Frameworks to me are a better solution than libraries, because they are far more flexible. Your framework can include multiple libraries for different platforms (say, um, x86 and PPC), it can include translations for multiple languages, it can include graphics and help files, etc all in one neat little package. How do you do this with unix systems? You end up with files spread all over the place, requiring installers and multiple archives for different platforms. I can easily delete everything associated with a framework. Deleting everything installed by a library is not so simple.
And of course mac os x supports plain old shared libraries as well.
If you haven't given up yet, try starting a GUI app from the console. Tip: You have to use the special "open" command, just executing it isn't enough.
Not true, you can start an app from the console just like you would on a unix system. Hint: the actual binary is not the yourapp.app folder, it resides inside there.
It goes on, and on. None of these things are all that bad (well, except for the retard who chose to ignore all compatibility and use "-framework name" instead of "-framework,name" in the linker options) but they're all very frustrating for someone developing for UNIX.
They're much less frustrating than getting your unix app running on windows:) And I can assure you from experience, getting your unix app to run on other varients of unix is not usually a piece of cake either.
They're also good reasons to inform any Mac user who claims that "Mac OS X is just UNIX on the inside" just how wrong they are... with a spiked hammer.
Depends on what you consider unix... I mean, os x is unix on the inside. However, like many unix vendors and linux distros, they have their own way of doing certain things. At the core though, you have a unix kernel. That doesn't mean that your linux app will just compile and work (although many do just fine if you have the right libraries installed and use X11 for display). Now if you want your unix app to use apple's GUI components and other tools, well then, you're going to have to do more work, as you're leaving the compliant unix layer and using apple's own additions.
All these sorts of issues make it crucial to test on Mac OS X... but yet, Mac OS X is one of the harder common platforms to test on due to the need for special hardware and the lack of developer / "lite" OS versions.
I'd agree with that, but really it shouldn't be that hard to test. A mac mini costs less than $500. There are also a large number of mac os x hosting companies, not sure but I would think that someone out there probably offers some sort of full account where you could do VNC or something. Maybe... It'd be a good idea at least:)
I think that a lite version of OSX would not be worth apple's time though, I mean the resources to maintain a sepearate crippled release probably wouldn't benefit apple any. And if they just offered a developer version that is fully featured but runs on cheap x86 boxes, well, I think that would be abused pretty quickly.
Starbuck's is ok, but I always got the impression that they are the big name because of marketing and locations rather than having a really great product. Why are they always the benchmark that everyone tries to meet or beat? Their coffee is ok, but nothing special. If you can find a local coffee shop that roasts beans on site and grinds them fresh for your cup, you'll get a much better cup of coffee, potentially cheaper than starbucks.
As for this coffee in a can... Well, I can't imagine how good it would really be. It will probably be ok, given that it's going for a lattle, most likely flavored and sweetened. I don't think this could work for a plain old cup of coffee, but for a coffee drink with milk and flavoring it will probably mask enough of the stale coffee flavor to be drinkable.
Pebble bed reactors are cool, no doubt. They are more efficient than standard reactors and by design safer. However, they aren't perfect.
They can, and in fact have, melted down. The first problem is that they heavily utilize graphite both in the core and in the fuel pebbles. Graphite is quite flammable and should it catch fire, you would have a meltdown. The fuel pebbles would have to be manufactured nearly 100% perfect to prevent this.
Second, a pebble bed reactor has in fact had an accident that released radiation to the environment. In 1986, a research reactor in Germany radiated a 2 Km square area when a pebble became stuck in the feeder tube and ruptured after attempts to remove it. Granted this is a small scale accident, but it shows that the design is not flawless.
Another problem is that these reactors are designed to be modular, so that you buy them and chain them together as needed. By virtue of this design, you cannot have a containment vessel. This means that any radiation released will be free to go out into the environment.
So, these reactors are an improvement, but they are definitely not the solution to the problem.
Monopolies are defined by an artificially created barrier of entry to a market. In other words, apple can use whatever technology that interacts or doesn't with other types of music or hardware, that's fine. If, on the other hand, apple were to sell their iPod for $5 and make it so that after your computer is set up for the iPod no other music player would work, then that would be getting into monopoly territory. The iPod is by no means a monopoly, you have a choice. If you don't like the fact that it means you have to use the iTunes music store (which of course you don't, it's just the easiest way) then you can buy another player, of which there are plenty on the market.
Wow, what's the point of this? OpenOffice has already made strong headway in the linux market, and from what I remember Corel wasn't that great the last time they put it out for linux. Given their dismal market share I doubt there is going to be much of a market on linux...
Re:PC Magazine reports non-PC product will die
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 1
You missed his biggest (and IMHO most valid) point. Why would anyone pay $300 + $12 a month for a tivo when for $6 a month you can do it with your cable company? Yes, tivo may be technically superior and easier to use than the cable offerings, but for $6 a month vos $11 a month + $300 up front, I know which I would choose.
Secondly, a PC vs a tivo is not quite so simple. Currently tivo had an edge in being easier to setup and use, however the PC software to do the same thing is getting better. If someone could build a cheap enough PC with an interface as good as tivo, it would give tivo a run for the money. The PC has advantages as well, like being able to be the central storage for various media types (store all your mp3's on it and stream to computers, store your images on it for photo slideshow presentations, etc).
WebObjects was a similar type deal, only it had a graphical GUI builder. Programming web apps with WebObjects was pretty much identical to desktop apps, with the addition of some new objects for web based functionality. Objective-C is also quite similar to smalltalk. It was a really cool dev environment, unfortunately apple price it was out of reach for too long and never got around to actually trying to market it...
It sounds like they basically have added all the syntax and OO features of Java. I'm not sure whether that's cool or what...
It is kind of handy, but I'm finding it hard to shifting my thinking to using php for full OO applications like one would do with servlets/JSP. PHP is certainly easier to code in than JSP, so I guess this is good.
OSX pretty much uses that paradigm, only with Objective-C (which was based in part on smalltalk) as the language. I can vouch for the fact that it makes a nice development model.
Re:The famous Linus - Tanenbaum debate
on
Linus on Linux in 1994
·
· Score: 3, Informative
None of those are really Microkernel's in the true sense though, they're pretty close to linux. The difference is that linux has a big kernel that has a lot of stuff built in and can dynamically load drivers, whereas OSX/XP have big kernels with a lot of stuff build in and can dynamically load drivers.
Wait, that's the same thing...
OSX specifically was based on mach, but it's really a mach microkernel with a bunch of stuff rolled into kernel space to make it faster, thus not a true mach microkernel.
No, it's not entirely the point, but uh, he comes out and in a nice manner bashes the cups project and it's developers for bad UI design when the UI he is referring to is created by fedora and the cups people have nothing to do with it.
Yes, his point is still valid, but you should at least take the time to assign the blame to the right people. This would be like saying the mozilla developers on windows have done a bad job because the widgets and window decorations on XP look bad...
Seeing as Pepsi is going to be giving away 100 million free iTunes Music Store codes (1 in 3 winners on pepsi products) in feb/april of next year, it shouldn't be too hard to hit their goal of 100 million downloads:)
If I ran a business that relied on cold-calls to generate sales, and I had a DB of millions of phone numbers I would cheerfully pay eight grand for a list of hundreds of thousands of people who are never going to buy from me so I could scrub them from my DB.
And that is why you don't run such a business, because you'd be broke. Anyone who actually does run such a business as this knows that just because a person says they won't buy anything and don't want calls, this does not mean they won't buy anything.
A lot of people will sign up on this list and anyone with half a brain knows that all of these people are not people who would *never* have bought anything. There will be lost sales, because any successfull salesman knows that initial reluctance and lack of interest does not mean a sale is impossible.
Granted, i don't really care, just stop the calls. But saying the telemarketers should be grateful because they'll now only get people who are interested, well, that's not how the world works.
I haven't been able to find anything yet. I'd like to be able to see who is running kazaa/gnutella/etc on our local network so we can contact them before a higher up does. Is there any software that can do this easily?
It's unrestricted if you have the $7200 per year required to download it.
It is *not* a free download, something that has gotten little publicity. It's only free to charities and pollsters and the like. Companies are required to purchase it, at a cost of $25 per area code, up to a maximum of around $7300.
While I'm a fan of the idea, I was surprised to learn about the costs involved. I love the idea of a do not call list, but using it as a way to tax telemarking calls just seems a bit shady.
The vast majority of control of a nuclear plant is done via knobs, switches, lights, dials, etc. It's all analog. Computer systems are used to monitor the plant, not to control it. And there are backup analog monitors as well.
As most US nuclear plants are right now, it'd be nearly impossible for a computer virus to seriously threaten a plant.
Most universities have couses on power systems. As a mechanical engineering student, I took several courses on nuclear power plant design and operation. These classes included several tours to working power plants and training sites. This information is not really hard to get.
I can't speak on power plants in general, but I can comment a bit on nuclear plants. Most plants running in the US are quite old, thanks to public perception preventing any new plants from being built. So, most of them run pretty old systems. Most I've seen run on unix variants, mostly HP-UX and AIX. The software used is really just a backup, the plants can operate pretty much without the computer systems. The hardware is pretty much big old mainframes and mini-mainframe type stuff. IBM, Sun, HP, etc.
The primary function of the computer systems it to simplify some operations and to more easily report on conditions. For example you can view the power output of both reactors on one screen at the control center rather than having to walk over to the analog dials to check it out. They also monitor safety systems and can report on the state of different valves and things in the plant, rather than requiring you to go look at all the lights for individual valves.
Most plants are starting to modernize and new software is being developed to allow complete control of the plant. Currently most of the software used is for monitoring only, but it's starting to be deployed for control as well. So, rather than having to walk over and switch a lever to close a vavle, or turn a dial to up reactor power, you can just click. But this isn't really widespread yet.
There is some windows software out there for this stuff, but it's not widely used, at least in the US. Some of the newer advanced control systems are focusing on windows, so it looks like in the future there might be more windows in the plants.
Eh, there are plenty of artists out there who are talented. Just because you don't hear them on the radio or MTV doesn't mean they don't exist. Do you need to be spoonfed music? Search a little, it's out there. When I started looking for things, talking to true music lovers, following similar artist links on allmusic.com, reading cringe.com, I suddenly found myself unable to buy all the cd's I wanted due to lack of time and money. There is a lot out there.
Re:PhatAudio is on Ogg's dick
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Tubes and transistors are different though. With Ogg vs whatever, it may be more subjective, who knows. But at least with tubes there is a known difference between how they amplify and how transistors amplify. Tubes produce more even order distortion, which to our ears sounds warm and pleasing. Transistors produce more odd order distortion, which tends to sound harsh and stressing.
I mean, I somehow doubt a bunch of people saying 'prior art here!' on slashdot is going to invalidate the patent. What is the proper thing to do?
I've got a website still sitting around which used static links in a frame to link to dynamic content (news pages and forum), and I've got timestamps on the files that show it was before the patent date.
The question is, what is the proper thing to do with this information?
Slashdot Mirror
Try to add a static network mount. Just drop it in fstab, and it'll all be there, right? . Sorry yet?.
/etc/sysconfig/network, doesn't work on slackware though...
:) And I can assure you from experience, getting your unix app to run on other varients of unix is not usually a piece of cake either.
... with a spiked hammer.
... but yet, Mac OS X is one of the harder common platforms to test on due to the need for special hardware and the lack of developer / "lite" OS versions.
:)
You create static network mounts by editing the fstab? Er...
BTW, mac os x can be configured to use the same files as any other unix, by default it's just set up to check netinfo first. You can modify the lookupd configuration to change this. Yeah, apple does things differently. But hey, different unix systems do to. I mean, I'm used to editing my
Now look at the syntax in `ld' for linking "framework" libraries, and hell, the fact that "framework" libraries exist. If you haven't worked on build systems, you won't understand the horror of that one.
This is a product of apple's development environment. They provide and promote their own dev environment that is not unix based. Well, sort of but not really unix based. Frameworks to me are a better solution than libraries, because they are far more flexible. Your framework can include multiple libraries for different platforms (say, um, x86 and PPC), it can include translations for multiple languages, it can include graphics and help files, etc all in one neat little package. How do you do this with unix systems? You end up with files spread all over the place, requiring installers and multiple archives for different platforms. I can easily delete everything associated with a framework. Deleting everything installed by a library is not so simple.
And of course mac os x supports plain old shared libraries as well.
If you haven't given up yet, try starting a GUI app from the console. Tip: You have to use the special "open" command, just executing it isn't enough.
Not true, you can start an app from the console just like you would on a unix system. Hint: the actual binary is not the yourapp.app folder, it resides inside there.
It goes on, and on. None of these things are all that bad (well, except for the retard who chose to ignore all compatibility and use "-framework name" instead of "-framework,name" in the linker options) but they're all very frustrating for someone developing for UNIX.
They're much less frustrating than getting your unix app running on windows
They're also good reasons to inform any Mac user who claims that "Mac OS X is just UNIX on the inside" just how wrong they are
Depends on what you consider unix... I mean, os x is unix on the inside. However, like many unix vendors and linux distros, they have their own way of doing certain things. At the core though, you have a unix kernel. That doesn't mean that your linux app will just compile and work (although many do just fine if you have the right libraries installed and use X11 for display). Now if you want your unix app to use apple's GUI components and other tools, well then, you're going to have to do more work, as you're leaving the compliant unix layer and using apple's own additions.
All these sorts of issues make it crucial to test on Mac OS X
I'd agree with that, but really it shouldn't be that hard to test. A mac mini costs less than $500. There are also a large number of mac os x hosting companies, not sure but I would think that someone out there probably offers some sort of full account where you could do VNC or something. Maybe... It'd be a good idea at least
I think that a lite version of OSX would not be worth apple's time though, I mean the resources to maintain a sepearate crippled release probably wouldn't benefit apple any. And if they just offered a developer version that is fully featured but runs on cheap x86 boxes, well, I think that would be abused pretty quickly.
Starbuck's is ok, but I always got the impression that they are the big name because of marketing and locations rather than having a really great product. Why are they always the benchmark that everyone tries to meet or beat? Their coffee is ok, but nothing special. If you can find a local coffee shop that roasts beans on site and grinds them fresh for your cup, you'll get a much better cup of coffee, potentially cheaper than starbucks.
As for this coffee in a can... Well, I can't imagine how good it would really be. It will probably be ok, given that it's going for a lattle, most likely flavored and sweetened. I don't think this could work for a plain old cup of coffee, but for a coffee drink with milk and flavoring it will probably mask enough of the stale coffee flavor to be drinkable.
Pebble bed reactors are cool, no doubt. They are more efficient than standard reactors and by design safer. However, they aren't perfect.
They can, and in fact have, melted down. The first problem is that they heavily utilize graphite both in the core and in the fuel pebbles. Graphite is quite flammable and should it catch fire, you would have a meltdown. The fuel pebbles would have to be manufactured nearly 100% perfect to prevent this.
Second, a pebble bed reactor has in fact had an accident that released radiation to the environment. In 1986, a research reactor in Germany radiated a 2 Km square area when a pebble became stuck in the feeder tube and ruptured after attempts to remove it. Granted this is a small scale accident, but it shows that the design is not flawless.
Another problem is that these reactors are designed to be modular, so that you buy them and chain them together as needed. By virtue of this design, you cannot have a containment vessel. This means that any radiation released will be free to go out into the environment.
So, these reactors are an improvement, but they are definitely not the solution to the problem.
Monopolies are defined by an artificially created barrier of entry to a market. In other words, apple can use whatever technology that interacts or doesn't with other types of music or hardware, that's fine. If, on the other hand, apple were to sell their iPod for $5 and make it so that after your computer is set up for the iPod no other music player would work, then that would be getting into monopoly territory. The iPod is by no means a monopoly, you have a choice. If you don't like the fact that it means you have to use the iTunes music store (which of course you don't, it's just the easiest way) then you can buy another player, of which there are plenty on the market.
Actually, local dealers have been advertising a brand new kia rio for $6495...
What can you actually do with it on OS X? I'm assuming since GTK2 isn't available for OSX, then gui applications are out of the question?
Wow, what's the point of this? OpenOffice has already made strong headway in the linux market, and from what I remember Corel wasn't that great the last time they put it out for linux. Given their dismal market share I doubt there is going to be much of a market on linux...
You missed his biggest (and IMHO most valid) point. Why would anyone pay $300 + $12 a month for a tivo when for $6 a month you can do it with your cable company? Yes, tivo may be technically superior and easier to use than the cable offerings, but for $6 a month vos $11 a month + $300 up front, I know which I would choose.
Secondly, a PC vs a tivo is not quite so simple. Currently tivo had an edge in being easier to setup and use, however the PC software to do the same thing is getting better. If someone could build a cheap enough PC with an interface as good as tivo, it would give tivo a run for the money. The PC has advantages as well, like being able to be the central storage for various media types (store all your mp3's on it and stream to computers, store your images on it for photo slideshow presentations, etc).
WebObjects was a similar type deal, only it had a graphical GUI builder. Programming web apps with WebObjects was pretty much identical to desktop apps, with the addition of some new objects for web based functionality. Objective-C is also quite similar to smalltalk. It was a really cool dev environment, unfortunately apple price it was out of reach for too long and never got around to actually trying to market it...
It sounds like they basically have added all the syntax and OO features of Java. I'm not sure whether that's cool or what...
It is kind of handy, but I'm finding it hard to shifting my thinking to using php for full OO applications like one would do with servlets/JSP. PHP is certainly easier to code in than JSP, so I guess this is good.
OSX pretty much uses that paradigm, only with Objective-C (which was based in part on smalltalk) as the language. I can vouch for the fact that it makes a nice development model.
None of those are really Microkernel's in the true sense though, they're pretty close to linux. The difference is that linux has a big kernel that has a lot of stuff built in and can dynamically load drivers, whereas OSX/XP have big kernels with a lot of stuff build in and can dynamically load drivers.
Wait, that's the same thing...
OSX specifically was based on mach, but it's really a mach microkernel with a bunch of stuff rolled into kernel space to make it faster, thus not a true mach microkernel.
No, it's not entirely the point, but uh, he comes out and in a nice manner bashes the cups project and it's developers for bad UI design when the UI he is referring to is created by fedora and the cups people have nothing to do with it.
Yes, his point is still valid, but you should at least take the time to assign the blame to the right people. This would be like saying the mozilla developers on windows have done a bad job because the widgets and window decorations on XP look bad...
Now Bill Gates really will give me $100 for forwarding the email!
That's the microsoft installer exe.
You can get it at http://tinyurl.com/3ha9, but that doesn't seem to help a whole lot...
Seeing as Pepsi is going to be giving away 100 million free iTunes Music Store codes (1 in 3 winners on pepsi products) in feb/april of next year, it shouldn't be too hard to hit their goal of 100 million downloads
And that is why you don't run such a business, because you'd be broke. Anyone who actually does run such a business as this knows that just because a person says they won't buy anything and don't want calls, this does not mean they won't buy anything.
A lot of people will sign up on this list and anyone with half a brain knows that all of these people are not people who would *never* have bought anything. There will be lost sales, because any successfull salesman knows that initial reluctance and lack of interest does not mean a sale is impossible.
Granted, i don't really care, just stop the calls. But saying the telemarketers should be grateful because they'll now only get people who are interested, well, that's not how the world works.
I haven't been able to find anything yet. I'd like to be able to see who is running kazaa/gnutella/etc on our local network so we can contact them before a higher up does. Is there any software that can do this easily?
It's unrestricted if you have the $7200 per year required to download it.
It is *not* a free download, something that has gotten little publicity. It's only free to charities and pollsters and the like. Companies are required to purchase it, at a cost of $25 per area code, up to a maximum of around $7300.
While I'm a fan of the idea, I was surprised to learn about the costs involved. I love the idea of a do not call list, but using it as a way to tax telemarking calls just seems a bit shady.
They don't have windows controlling the plant.
The vast majority of control of a nuclear plant is done via knobs, switches, lights, dials, etc. It's all analog. Computer systems are used to monitor the plant, not to control it. And there are backup analog monitors as well.
As most US nuclear plants are right now, it'd be nearly impossible for a computer virus to seriously threaten a plant.
Most universities have couses on power systems. As a mechanical engineering student, I took several courses on nuclear power plant design and operation. These classes included several tours to working power plants and training sites. This information is not really hard to get.
I can't speak on power plants in general, but I can comment a bit on nuclear plants. Most plants running in the US are quite old, thanks to public perception preventing any new plants from being built. So, most of them run pretty old systems. Most I've seen run on unix variants, mostly HP-UX and AIX. The software used is really just a backup, the plants can operate pretty much without the computer systems. The hardware is pretty much big old mainframes and mini-mainframe type stuff. IBM, Sun, HP, etc.
The primary function of the computer systems it to simplify some operations and to more easily report on conditions. For example you can view the power output of both reactors on one screen at the control center rather than having to walk over to the analog dials to check it out. They also monitor safety systems and can report on the state of different valves and things in the plant, rather than requiring you to go look at all the lights for individual valves.
Most plants are starting to modernize and new software is being developed to allow complete control of the plant. Currently most of the software used is for monitoring only, but it's starting to be deployed for control as well. So, rather than having to walk over and switch a lever to close a vavle, or turn a dial to up reactor power, you can just click. But this isn't really widespread yet.
There is some windows software out there for this stuff, but it's not widely used, at least in the US. Some of the newer advanced control systems are focusing on windows, so it looks like in the future there might be more windows in the plants.
Eh, there are plenty of artists out there who are talented. Just because you don't hear them on the radio or MTV doesn't mean they don't exist. Do you need to be spoonfed music? Search a little, it's out there. When I started looking for things, talking to true music lovers, following similar artist links on allmusic.com, reading cringe.com, I suddenly found myself unable to buy all the cd's I wanted due to lack of time and money. There is a lot out there.
Tubes and transistors are different though. With Ogg vs whatever, it may be more subjective, who knows. But at least with tubes there is a known difference between how they amplify and how transistors amplify. Tubes produce more even order distortion, which to our ears sounds warm and pleasing. Transistors produce more odd order distortion, which tends to sound harsh and stressing.
Subtle difference? Perhaps, but it's there.
I like that he assumes 5 administrators/support staff at a university will make $75k each. That could happen...
I mean, I somehow doubt a bunch of people saying 'prior art here!' on slashdot is going to invalidate the patent. What is the proper thing to do?
I've got a website still sitting around which used static links in a frame to link to dynamic content (news pages and forum), and I've got timestamps on the files that show it was before the patent date.
The question is, what is the proper thing to do with this information?