Where did this come from? I read all the links and saw nothing about this being due to Sendo being unable to get the source... From their homepage, it sounds like they just decided Symbian was a better way to go...
I can't speak for LiveJournal, but the main reason everythign2.com is slow is due to the fact that MySQL 3.x doesn't do row level locking, the whole table must be locked. If you install ecore with MySQL 4 and use InnoDB tables, your performance will be *much* better than e2. Also don't forget that e2 is a pretty large community, so there are a lot of other things going on (messages to users and groups, randomized greetings, people uploading homenode pictures, etc) that might not be used as much on a custom ecore site.
Here's my take... LDAP in my opinion is not ready for prime time. It's going to be a great solution, but right now different implementations don't always play nice. For example, solaris includes LDAPv3 but not ssl support (which, ssl is part of the v3 spec...). Who knows how nice these things play with NT/2000 as well.
Kerberos is great, however it's also somewhat complex and has the added problem of needing users to switch to kerberized versions of applications (or setting up some tricks to use normal access methods but having the servers authenticate against kerberos). It's worth investigating, but it's non trivial in my opinion.
NIS, well, let's not go there.
So what we do is use cfengine (http://www.gnu.org/software/cfengine), which is basically a client/daemon system to sync configurations across different machines on a network. We keep our real password file seperate, and then use cfengine to copy it around to all clients when it changes. Of course the real benefit to cfengine is that it allows you to do much much more (for example, we keep all modified config files and programs in a cfengine tree and when we install a new machine, just run cfengine and it's customized automatically).
For the windows machines, you can throw a samba server out there to act as a PDC/authentication machine.
I remember the session on cryptography blunders at LISA last year. Two of the major blunders they listed were calling something unbreakable, and using a one time pad more than once. In addition to the problem you point out, from the description it sounds like they are using the pad more than once. If they client generates a key, uses it to encrypt data, sends it to the server, then the server uses it to encrypt data and send it back, it's not a one time pad. It's being used at least twice to encrypt and send data, which makes this much less secure.
Plus the fact that they are claiming it is unbreakable immediately puts it off my list:)
I have seen manos several times, I even own a copy. It is by far the worst movie ever made. If you get the MST3k version, it is at least somewhat watchable. Without their commentary, however, kiss your sanity goodbye. Why is it so bad?
We start out with 20 minutes of footage of corn fields being shot from a moving car. Most of these shots are the same, reused again and again. Little dialogue, nothing happens. Then we get to the cottage, where the family's car breaks down. Since it's dark, they obviously cannot drive home so they have to ask to stay. We meet Torgo, who is a centaur, with cloven hooves and all. The man who played Torgo killed himself a few weeks after the movie was made.
Torgo develops a crush on the mother. Wierd things happen. The master has a harem he dances with. There are some strange things involving dogs. The rest is too odd to describe. Worse still? They only had a camera with a 30 second film capacity, there is no scene longer than 30 seconds. They had no audio equipment, all vocies were dubbed later on. Poorly. In short, it's bad. Real bad.
This movie makes battlefield earth look like an oscar caliber movie. It makes you appreciate the plot of Plan 8 From Outer Space and even Glen or Glenda. It makes Nigh of the Lepus and The Stuff seem like well done movies. In short, the only movie I could think of that might possibly be worse is this, and I doubt it's even a real movie.
Most Sun machines (except the current lowend Ultra 5/10).
Like? Ultra 4/5 required two screws, SunBlade 100 requires two screws, older sparcs required...2 screws. Maybe enterprise hardware does without screws... Apple's cases have been screw free and have had easy access for 3 years now, come on.
SunBlade 1000
Is that available in a $1200 laptop form or a $800 all in one form? Was that available 2 years ago when apple started shipping firewire?
Sun was doing optical mice back in the 80's.
Could you use it on your jeans when you're in the server room without a mouse pad?
As for CRT's, well, I agree there. But I think apple made the right move anyway, we never bought apple monitors because other CRT's were cheaper. I'm betting apple wasn't selling a whole lot of them anyway, why deal with the overhead when you can let the third party market pick up the slack? I do think it's a mistake not to have other brand CRT's available from the apple store though.
It's not in the least "self-contradictory". The GPL protects the freedom of the software, not the freedom of the author or users. It exists to ensure that no matter what, the software will always retain the same freedom that the license gives it, and no one can take that away.
osx isn't really just another unix... It's just another OS which has a unix base which is mostly optional and other than that is completely different from most other unixes... The qt port for OSX may be slightly easier than an OS9 port, but not any worth worrying about. My guess is that they did this because they see OSX as giving a boost the desire for cross platform apps on the mac and decided it made sense. Seeing as OSX uses a completely different window system and libraries than any unix or windows, it's not like this was a trivial port, so they must have decided there is some money to be made with OSX that wasn't there for OS9...
wxWindows is lagged behind on MacOS releases and it's rather confusing, there are like 3 versions available for the mac and who knows which you have to use. Plus, there's not a convienient binary download for the library which means you need a moderately recent CodeWarrier to actually build it (I have an older CodeWarrier and don't feel like updating it because it works for what I need, and OSX comes with adequate developer tools).
Finally, wxWindows doesn't support OSX. Now I wish I had the skill to take on the project, but I don't. So until someone comes along that is willing to port and maintain wxWindows on OSX, it's not a great option for true cross platform compatability. It's a great toolkit, so I really hope this happens...
Re:Qt the de facto standard for cross platform ?
on
Qt for Mac
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely. All I have to do when I want to convince someone what a pile of crap swing is is to lend them my Java Swing book and let them read the 600+ pages on the Swing document model. To date, no one has yet commited suicide after reading this, but none of them had any clue how it worked either...
OSX is pre-installed, the default is still OS 9.1.
And oddly enough, there's a Mitsubishi DP 73 for sale in the education store, but not in the general public store... Odd. We never bought apple monitors anyway, seeing as they are quite large and more expensive than other brands. Maybe they didn't sell enough to justify it...
I've actually seen 1/4 mile times faster than this with a stock sport bike. The Yamaha ZX-12R will do mid 9 second runs with a good driver. Sure, it may sound impressive compared to cars, but why would anyone pay $150k for a bike that has about the same performance as a $10k street bike? Other than the novelty of having a turbine powered bike, I don't see the point...
GNUstep is a GNU project to create an open source set of frameworks that conform to the OpenStep (now Cocoa) API. Core foundation is 99% complete currently, and very usable. AppKit has a way to go yet. Basically, at best GNUstep will one day give you source compatability (meaning don't hold your breath for those proprietary closed source mac apps). Currently, it's not there yet for several reasons.
First, AppKit has some work to do on the more advanced controls (like the text model). Second, the GNUstep folks are trying to catch up to a moving target (Cocoa). Third, there's an amazing lack of interest in the GNUstep project so it is not moving all that fast. Finally, Cocoa apps used a completely different makefile format and also store interfaces in nib files which are in a semi-proprietary format. This means to build OSX apps, you'd have to rewrite the makefiles (pretty simple), and either convert the nib's to something your app can use (conversion is very rough, doesn't work well) or rewrite your interface by hand.
So one day I hope things will look better, but right now anything with a complex interface would be a pain to port to GNUstep.
and that's about it. you can run x-windows on it (which isn't all that easy to do on OS X), or whatever you want
Actually, it's just as easy on OSX, just head over to xfree86.org and download the 4.0.3 binaries and install them just like you would on any other unix system. Then you can go get Xaqua to run X apps in tandem with the OSX window system.
The PPC port of gcc still has a ways to go in terms of optimizing for the platform. It's not bad, but not quite there yet. As for darwin, who knows... The darwin compiler is still the old next port of gcc. It's fairly well optimized, but it's a bit outdated. There are a few folks at apple working on bringing it up to date with current gcc, but that may be a while yet.
When apple releases CoreFoundation and AppKit for LinuxPPC... So to answer your question, never... Unless you are talking about command line OSX apps, which I don't expect many of. Even though they run on the same processor and both are unix based OS's, the library compatability is going to be a problem. GNUstep might be an option, except that it has a completely different structure. It could be made to work, but I don't see anyone volunteering to do it in the near future (near future being from now to, say infinity).
This whole "bsd based" thing has gotten way out of proportion. The fact is, it has little in common with bsd other than the fact that there is a bsd interface to the mach kernel that is there for the sole purpose of allowing it to run unix programs such as apache, sendmail, etc. Most people seem to think that it started out as BSD and apple built their own window system on top, which is far from the truth. The BSD stuff is a convenient way for apple to use existing software, nothing more.
GNUstep is not a window manager! It is a development environment and gui toolkit designed to be compatible with the OpenStep spec. If you actually read the article before approving it, you would realize this. Once again, confusing WindowMaker (which btw isn't even written using GNUstep) with GNUstep. It would have taken 45 seconds to read the article and figure this out...
It's not incorperated, it's an add on dynamically loaded module. Geez, it's a simple concept really... And even if the php folks rolled it into the dev tree, as long as you don't compile with --enable-gtk, who the hell cares if it's there or not? It won't affect your server, you can just pretend it doesn't exist.
Go to your php source directory. Do ls ext/. Look at all of it and think, "Gee, look at all these extensions which I can choose to compile into my php binary, leave out alltogether, or build as shared modules."
PHP will never be any more bloated than you want it to be because almost everything outside of the core language and server interfaces are modules.
Windows Media Player runs pretty well under Wine, oddly enough...
Re:It might be interesting-
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
The beauty of openstep:) Most people have never played with it and just don't know what a graceful cross platform environment it is. I never understood the purpose of Java using a VM to "write once, run anywhere" when long before NeXT was doing it better without the VM and performance hit. Sun really should have ripped NeXTStep off a little more when they did java...
Re:Reminds me of...A BIG mistake by Apple
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 2
People who buy an iMac don't want to upgrade it, they just want it to work. Geeks can't seem to grasp this concept, some people just want a tool that will get the job done. Even if we ignore the fact that you can upgrade things in an iMac (memory, processor, HD), it's irrelevant. I don't bitch about how I can't upgrade my VCR because it's an appliance that does the job. The iMac is the same thing. If upgrading is your concern, the iMac is not for you...
Slashdot Mirror
Where did this come from? I read all the links and saw nothing about this being due to Sendo being unable to get the source... From their homepage, it sounds like they just decided Symbian was a better way to go...
I can't speak for LiveJournal, but the main reason everythign2.com is slow is due to the fact that MySQL 3.x doesn't do row level locking, the whole table must be locked. If you install ecore with MySQL 4 and use InnoDB tables, your performance will be *much* better than e2. Also don't forget that e2 is a pretty large community, so there are a lot of other things going on (messages to users and groups, randomized greetings, people uploading homenode pictures, etc) that might not be used as much on a custom ecore site.
I think the question you need to ask here would be, do you really want to start out your marriage with a lie?
Here's my take... LDAP in my opinion is not ready for prime time. It's going to be a great solution, but right now different implementations don't always play nice. For example, solaris includes LDAPv3 but not ssl support (which, ssl is part of the v3 spec...). Who knows how nice these things play with NT/2000 as well.
Kerberos is great, however it's also somewhat complex and has the added problem of needing users to switch to kerberized versions of applications (or setting up some tricks to use normal access methods but having the servers authenticate against kerberos). It's worth investigating, but it's non trivial in my opinion.
NIS, well, let's not go there.
So what we do is use cfengine (http://www.gnu.org/software/cfengine), which is basically a client/daemon system to sync configurations across different machines on a network. We keep our real password file seperate, and then use cfengine to copy it around to all clients when it changes. Of course the real benefit to cfengine is that it allows you to do much much more (for example, we keep all modified config files and programs in a cfengine tree and when we install a new machine, just run cfengine and it's customized automatically).
For the windows machines, you can throw a samba server out there to act as a PDC/authentication machine.
I remember the session on cryptography blunders at LISA last year. Two of the major blunders they listed were calling something unbreakable, and using a one time pad more than once. In addition to the problem you point out, from the description it sounds like they are using the pad more than once. If they client generates a key, uses it to encrypt data, sends it to the server, then the server uses it to encrypt data and send it back, it's not a one time pad. It's being used at least twice to encrypt and send data, which makes this much less secure.
Plus the fact that they are claiming it is unbreakable immediately puts it off my list
I have seen manos several times, I even own a copy. It is by far the worst movie ever made. If you get the MST3k version, it is at least somewhat watchable. Without their commentary, however, kiss your sanity goodbye. Why is it so bad?
We start out with 20 minutes of footage of corn fields being shot from a moving car. Most of these shots are the same, reused again and again. Little dialogue, nothing happens. Then we get to the cottage, where the family's car breaks down. Since it's dark, they obviously cannot drive home so they have to ask to stay. We meet Torgo, who is a centaur, with cloven hooves and all. The man who played Torgo killed himself a few weeks after the movie was made.
Torgo develops a crush on the mother. Wierd things happen. The master has a harem he dances with. There are some strange things involving dogs. The rest is too odd to describe. Worse still? They only had a camera with a 30 second film capacity, there is no scene longer than 30 seconds. They had no audio equipment, all vocies were dubbed later on. Poorly. In short, it's bad. Real bad.
This movie makes battlefield earth look like an oscar caliber movie. It makes you appreciate the plot of Plan 8 From Outer Space and even Glen or Glenda. It makes Nigh of the Lepus and The Stuff seem like well done movies. In short, the only movie I could think of that might possibly be worse is this, and I doubt it's even a real movie.
Like? Ultra 4/5 required two screws, SunBlade 100 requires two screws, older sparcs required...2 screws. Maybe enterprise hardware does without screws... Apple's cases have been screw free and have had easy access for 3 years now, come on.
SunBlade 1000
Is that available in a $1200 laptop form or a $800 all in one form? Was that available 2 years ago when apple started shipping firewire?
Sun was doing optical mice back in the 80's.
Could you use it on your jeans when you're in the server room without a mouse pad?
As for CRT's, well, I agree there. But I think apple made the right move anyway, we never bought apple monitors because other CRT's were cheaper. I'm betting apple wasn't selling a whole lot of them anyway, why deal with the overhead when you can let the third party market pick up the slack? I do think it's a mistake not to have other brand CRT's available from the apple store though.
It's not in the least "self-contradictory". The GPL protects the freedom of the software, not the freedom of the author or users. It exists to ensure that no matter what, the software will always retain the same freedom that the license gives it, and no one can take that away.
osx isn't really just another unix... It's just another OS which has a unix base which is mostly optional and other than that is completely different from most other unixes... The qt port for OSX may be slightly easier than an OS9 port, but not any worth worrying about. My guess is that they did this because they see OSX as giving a boost the desire for cross platform apps on the mac and decided it made sense. Seeing as OSX uses a completely different window system and libraries than any unix or windows, it's not like this was a trivial port, so they must have decided there is some money to be made with OSX that wasn't there for OS9...
wxWindows is lagged behind on MacOS releases and it's rather confusing, there are like 3 versions available for the mac and who knows which you have to use. Plus, there's not a convienient binary download for the library which means you need a moderately recent CodeWarrier to actually build it (I have an older CodeWarrier and don't feel like updating it because it works for what I need, and OSX comes with adequate developer tools).
Finally, wxWindows doesn't support OSX. Now I wish I had the skill to take on the project, but I don't. So until someone comes along that is willing to port and maintain wxWindows on OSX, it's not a great option for true cross platform compatability. It's a great toolkit, so I really hope this happens...
Absolutely. All I have to do when I want to convince someone what a pile of crap swing is is to lend them my Java Swing book and let them read the 600+ pages on the Swing document model. To date, no one has yet commited suicide after reading this, but none of them had any clue how it worked either...
OSX is pre-installed, the default is still OS 9.1.
And oddly enough, there's a Mitsubishi DP 73 for sale in the education store, but not in the general public store... Odd. We never bought apple monitors anyway, seeing as they are quite large and more expensive than other brands. Maybe they didn't sell enough to justify it...
I've actually seen 1/4 mile times faster than this with a stock sport bike. The Yamaha ZX-12R will do mid 9 second runs with a good driver. Sure, it may sound impressive compared to cars, but why would anyone pay $150k for a bike that has about the same performance as a $10k street bike? Other than the novelty of having a turbine powered bike, I don't see the point...
GNUstep is a GNU project to create an open source set of frameworks that conform to the OpenStep (now Cocoa) API. Core foundation is 99% complete currently, and very usable. AppKit has a way to go yet. Basically, at best GNUstep will one day give you source compatability (meaning don't hold your breath for those proprietary closed source mac apps). Currently, it's not there yet for several reasons.
First, AppKit has some work to do on the more advanced controls (like the text model). Second, the GNUstep folks are trying to catch up to a moving target (Cocoa). Third, there's an amazing lack of interest in the GNUstep project so it is not moving all that fast. Finally, Cocoa apps used a completely different makefile format and also store interfaces in nib files which are in a semi-proprietary format. This means to build OSX apps, you'd have to rewrite the makefiles (pretty simple), and either convert the nib's to something your app can use (conversion is very rough, doesn't work well) or rewrite your interface by hand.
So one day I hope things will look better, but right now anything with a complex interface would be a pain to port to GNUstep.
Speaking of genius, Darwin is an OS, not a kernel.
Actually, it's just as easy on OSX, just head over to xfree86.org and download the 4.0.3 binaries and install them just like you would on any other unix system. Then you can go get Xaqua to run X apps in tandem with the OSX window system.
The PPC port of gcc still has a ways to go in terms of optimizing for the platform. It's not bad, but not quite there yet. As for darwin, who knows... The darwin compiler is still the old next port of gcc. It's fairly well optimized, but it's a bit outdated. There are a few folks at apple working on bringing it up to date with current gcc, but that may be a while yet.
When apple releases CoreFoundation and AppKit for LinuxPPC... So to answer your question, never... Unless you are talking about command line OSX apps, which I don't expect many of. Even though they run on the same processor and both are unix based OS's, the library compatability is going to be a problem. GNUstep might be an option, except that it has a completely different structure. It could be made to work, but I don't see anyone volunteering to do it in the near future (near future being from now to, say infinity).
This whole "bsd based" thing has gotten way out of proportion. The fact is, it has little in common with bsd other than the fact that there is a bsd interface to the mach kernel that is there for the sole purpose of allowing it to run unix programs such as apache, sendmail, etc. Most people seem to think that it started out as BSD and apple built their own window system on top, which is far from the truth. The BSD stuff is a convenient way for apple to use existing software, nothing more.
GNUstep is not a window manager! It is a development environment and gui toolkit designed to be compatible with the OpenStep spec. If you actually read the article before approving it, you would realize this. Once again, confusing WindowMaker (which btw isn't even written using GNUstep) with GNUstep. It would have taken 45 seconds to read the article and figure this out...
It's not incorperated, it's an add on dynamically loaded module. Geez, it's a simple concept really... And even if the php folks rolled it into the dev tree, as long as you don't compile with --enable-gtk, who the hell cares if it's there or not? It won't affect your server, you can just pretend it doesn't exist.
Go to your php source directory. Do ls ext/. Look at all of it and think, "Gee, look at all these extensions which I can choose to compile into my php binary, leave out alltogether, or build as shared modules." PHP will never be any more bloated than you want it to be because almost everything outside of the core language and server interfaces are modules.
Windows Media Player runs pretty well under Wine, oddly enough...
The beauty of openstep
People who buy an iMac don't want to upgrade it, they just want it to work. Geeks can't seem to grasp this concept, some people just want a tool that will get the job done. Even if we ignore the fact that you can upgrade things in an iMac (memory, processor, HD), it's irrelevant. I don't bitch about how I can't upgrade my VCR because it's an appliance that does the job. The iMac is the same thing. If upgrading is your concern, the iMac is not for you...