The article cites @stake researcher working with Apple, who says that Apple told him they are not going to release updates for older OS X. Is it then ignorant speculation to say that there will be no updates for older OS X?
No matter what I do, I should never be able to get the US to launch a nuclear strike.
Yes, because US does not trust you to launch a nuclear strike. The hardware in your computer does trust OS to correctly configure its IRQs, marster/slave option, change performance settings, update its firmware, etc. Otherwise, you would not be able to configure your computer, update drive's firmware, etc.
That is stupidiest BS I've seen. OS can e.g. override firmware of the disk drive. If it writes bogus firmware, the disk will be permanently damaged. Just like OS can screw your BIOS and computer would not boot anymore. Current hardware is highly configurable by software, and if software damages hardware, it's software fault.
I think that LG should be getting busy soon with making sure this doesn't happen in the future.
OK this.NET remoting doesn't use XML but what does it use?
I believe it does use XML/SOAP as one of the options.
It also has an option to use binary protocol for efficiency if XML is too slow for you. Not sure whether it is secret or not, but this one is proprietary.
Yes, if one mixes error-prone code with military grade encription, he does not understand real security threats of modern software. I don't care whether he works on free or proprietary software - I'm inclined to discount his opinions on this ground.
Yep, I modified a little these steps (the first paragraph is usually useless):
Read the second paragraph (after the introduction if there is one)
So I got:
... I spent the better part of three years developing Speak Freely... a free (public domain) Internet telephone with military-grade encryption
if it means giving control over what processes run on my computer to someone else
It does not. It means being able to provewhat processes run on your computer to someone else, if you want this - if you need some services from that someone one. If you can't, that someone else simply would not deal with you, but it would not be able to control what is run on your machine.
EFF proposal is stupidiest I've ever saw (from CNET):
The EFF proposes amending the trusted computing initiative to include a feature called "owner override," which would allow computer owners, whether individuals or companies, to essentially lie to an organization that attempts to ascertain the integrity of their content.
This ability to lie breaks the whole idea - if somebody else does not trust you, he will not deal with you - no EFF will ever force him to.
Are you sure HP is on the other side? It looks like Sun and HP who indemnify their customers are the only winners in the whole situation - like good cop and bad cop, SCO threatens linux users, while HP (and Sun) play the good cop and offer indemnification, which actually costs more (you need to subscribe to HP support services and use HP hardware) than what SCO wants ($600).
It was not you - it is the original article: "Sun's $80 office suite is more than a match for the upcoming ultra-expensive Microsoft Office System 2003."
Yeah, then why compare price of whole solution (Office System) with price of solution that has only subset of functionality (Star Office), if owner of the second would have to pay for other parts as well?
The question is whether postfix is any better, or simply nobody looked at it yet?
Maybe the reason MS and sendmail products are so often compromized is that they are both very popular and thus are a good target for security companies? You would not get a big fame (did I say money?) for finding bugs in some obscure product. However finding bug in any Microsoft product or sendmail will bring you to headlines immediately.
What is the "system" described in the article? If I bought it, and found its performance is not enought, do I have to buy another one at the same $100 per employee? Now it looks more like any arbitrary number times $100 per employee pricing.
99.9% of the customers don't attempt to run Linux, would not notice any change and would not consider this a problem even if they knew it. And that 0.1% who would like to run Linux... are they really customers?
U.S. and Europe use different octane numbers. Since they use different formula, the numbers are not directly translatable, but U.S. 87 roughly corresponds to European 92, and US 92 is closer to European 98.
Also, BMW and Porche have 15k miles oil change period even when sold in U.S.
Do the math: let's say you drive 12k miles a year, this is 285 gallons of gas. So you pay around $500 a year for gas. A regular sedan owner with 21 mpg would pay twice as much, ie $500 a year more. In 10 years he will pay $5k more. Person who bought hybrid already paid ~$4k more when he bought the car, and will pay at least ~$1k more for more expensive service.
So from the point of view of money, hybrids do not worth it - and would be considerably worse if automakers were not forced to sell them (some percentage of total cars sold should be hybrid or electric in U.S.).
I think hybrids are great for environment and a cool techno gadget, but hopes of saving on gas - forget about it. Not in the U.S. where gas is still very cheap (compare with Europe).
That remind me of an old joke when Oracle guys made lots of presentation about their future products but did not have any good current software (not that it changed much):
Q: what is the best hardware to run Oracle
A: overhead projector
VAX got clustering in VAX V4 (Sep 1984), this is 19 years ago. And it become OpenVMS in Nov 1992 - 11 years ago. See http://www.decus.de:8080/www/common/vms/qaa/vmsboo k.pdf
So yes, Windows is not anywhere near OpenVMS clusters 20 year ago - unlike them, Windows does exists!
You don't understand what TPC council does. They don't run tests. They verify and publish results supplied by vendors. Postgres or MySQL is not there simply because neither ever submitted any configuration capable of running TPC benchmark to TPC council.
Now about the real reasons why you would not see Postgres/MySQL results any time soon there:
The most obvious one is that running TPC is costly. If you look at top solutions prices, it is around $5-10M, about half of which is hardware. I doubt Postgres or MySQL have money to run these tests.
But it is also obvious that this is only part of the answer - if you look at who submits results, usually it is not DB vendor, usually it is hardware vendor. So if HP or IBM (top hardware vendors) believed they could get reasonable results with Postgres or MySQL, they would definetely do this (especially because they could save on software part of total solution price). The fact that they don't do this proves neither of these databases is ready for complex databases and huge TCP loads.
Slashdot Mirror
The article cites @stake researcher working with Apple, who says that Apple told him they are not going to release updates for older OS X. Is it then ignorant speculation to say that there will be no updates for older OS X?
They should combine lots of vouchers to consider it.
Read this blog.
Why one needs MS-Blaster that screws up hardware, if there is Mandrake?
Yes, because US does not trust you to launch a nuclear strike. The hardware in your computer does trust OS to correctly configure its IRQs, marster/slave option, change performance settings, update its firmware, etc. Otherwise, you would not be able to configure your computer, update drive's firmware, etc.
So if OS damages hardware, it is OS's fault.
That is stupidiest BS I've seen. OS can e.g. override firmware of the disk drive. If it writes bogus firmware, the disk will be permanently damaged. Just like OS can screw your BIOS and computer would not boot anymore. Current hardware is highly configurable by software, and if software damages hardware, it's software fault.
I think that LG should be getting busy soon with making sure this doesn't happen in the future.
I think Mandrake should be busy about it.
Why did not you download free Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer?
It is free as in beer, and displays PowerPoint presentations the same way real PowerPoint does.
I believe it does use XML/SOAP as one of the options.
It also has an option to use binary protocol for efficiency if XML is too slow for you. Not sure whether it is secret or not, but this one is proprietary.
Yes, if one mixes error-prone code with military grade encription, he does not understand real security threats of modern software. I don't care whether he works on free or proprietary software - I'm inclined to discount his opinions on this ground.
Read the second paragraph (after the introduction if there is one)
So I got:
Then I searched Speak Freely on the Google, and found lots of "military-grade" remote and local vulnerabilities
After this I stopped reading the article.
It does not. It means being able to prove what processes run on your computer to someone else, if you want this - if you need some services from that someone one. If you can't, that someone else simply would not deal with you, but it would not be able to control what is run on your machine.
EFF proposal is stupidiest I've ever saw (from CNET):
This ability to lie breaks the whole idea - if somebody else does not trust you, he will not deal with you - no EFF will ever force him to.So does this mean Linux/Unix is going to beat Windows in the championship for most viruses available for the platform?
Are you sure HP is on the other side? It looks like Sun and HP who indemnify their customers are the only winners in the whole situation - like good cop and bad cop, SCO threatens linux users, while HP (and Sun) play the good cop and offer indemnification, which actually costs more (you need to subscribe to HP support services and use HP hardware) than what SCO wants ($600).
Windows users who don't read /. never ever heard about Mr. Stallman at all, or RMS acronym.
It was not you - it is the original article: "Sun's $80 office suite is more than a match for the upcoming ultra-expensive Microsoft Office System 2003."
Yeah, then why compare price of whole solution (Office System) with price of solution that has only subset of functionality (Star Office), if owner of the second would have to pay for other parts as well?
Maybe the reason MS and sendmail products are so often compromized is that they are both very popular and thus are a good target for security companies? You would not get a big fame (did I say money?) for finding bugs in some obscure product. However finding bug in any Microsoft product or sendmail will bring you to headlines immediately.
Or do Sun believe they scale infinitely?
99.9% of the customers don't attempt to run Linux, would not notice any change and would not consider this a problem even if they knew it. And that 0.1% who would like to run Linux ... are they really customers?
Yeah, the hardware is his. He can do whatever he want with fans, box or cables - I hope this update does no damage to these?
Also, BMW and Porche have 15k miles oil change period even when sold in U.S.
Do the math: let's say you drive 12k miles a year, this is 285 gallons of gas. So you pay around $500 a year for gas. A regular sedan owner with 21 mpg would pay twice as much, ie $500 a year more. In 10 years he will pay $5k more. Person who bought hybrid already paid ~$4k more when he bought the car, and will pay at least ~$1k more for more expensive service.
So from the point of view of money, hybrids do not worth it - and would be considerably worse if automakers were not forced to sell them (some percentage of total cars sold should be hybrid or electric in U.S.).
I think hybrids are great for environment and a cool techno gadget, but hopes of saving on gas - forget about it. Not in the U.S. where gas is still very cheap (compare with Europe).
Q: what is the best hardware to run Oracle
A: overhead projector
So yes, Windows is not anywhere near OpenVMS clusters 20 year ago - unlike them, Windows does exists!
Now about the real reasons why you would not see Postgres/MySQL results any time soon there:
The most obvious one is that running TPC is costly. If you look at top solutions prices, it is around $5-10M, about half of which is hardware. I doubt Postgres or MySQL have money to run these tests.
But it is also obvious that this is only part of the answer - if you look at who submits results, usually it is not DB vendor, usually it is hardware vendor. So if HP or IBM (top hardware vendors) believed they could get reasonable results with Postgres or MySQL, they would definetely do this (especially because they could save on software part of total solution price). The fact that they don't do this proves neither of these databases is ready for complex databases and huge TCP loads.