1) Why would a TiVo need to run on OS X? 2) Why would it be difficult to port the actual PVR software to OS X? 3) Why would it cost you $699? 4) Why would it be in blue plastic?
I suspect it would cost $499 and come in a Mac mini shaped box as additional software, and it would integrate with some kind of media software, like iTunes, and use Rendezvous to stream it across the network to all your Macs/PCs, and it would be compressed in H.264
AppleCare has come to my rescue a number of times on my PowerBook; the default is a year, and I purchased an additional two years on top of that. My PowerBook (400MHz!) is now four years old and going strong... too bad too, there's no excuse to buy a newer one!
Well, my optical drive stopped working this year, and I don't want to go to the effort of replacing it when I really want a newer system.
So did you willfully ignore the parent poster's point? It's not the product, but the service, he's paying for. Archos has no appreciable customer service, and at least to him and from my own experiences (iPod + PowerBook), Apple does.
I've always wanted to talk to someone with a competing mp3 player.
So how do you create playlists? I'm curious. For me I create a playlist with the filters: "Playcount less than 15" "Rating greater than 3" "Not played in the last week" "Genre not country" "Album does not contain 'Phantom'"
That way I get a playlist of songs I haven't heard in over a week, of songs I've played less than 15 times, that I've rated greater than 3, that isn't country, and isn't Phantom of the Opera.
I always wondered how iRiver or Creative mp3 players did things like that, when you had collections of thousands of mp3s.
So the exploit has to first cause the rootkit to be downloaded without alerting the user, then it has to escalate to root privileges, then it has to install itself, right?
Please excuse my ignorance, but how does a remote kernel exploit work?
But physical access I concede, you can always be hacked if you have physical access to a machine.
And yes, I also concede trojans; you can't underestimate human stupidity here.
But you mention browser/email exploits, word processor viruses, etc. How does a browser exploit in OS X escalate into a rootkit? User visits a site, a properly crafted webpage causes the browser to download a rootkit... and then what? How does the rootkit get installed and set up?
This assumes the CD, iPod, or PowerBook are clean systems. If the PowerBook or iPod are dirty, then boot from CD.
Install a clean OS, but keep the contents of the/Users directory.
If the iPod or PowerBook are clean systems, then boot from CD, then copy the contents of the/Users directory from my iPod or my PowerBook onto my PowerMac.
It's not yet been determined to be possible on Mac OS X because the desktop edition ships with no ports open, no daemons running, no services available.
How does a rootkit get installed on such a system? The hacker has to instruct the user to download and install the rootkit, if I'm not mistaken, and that's an act of social engineering, not of system vulnerability.
Macs have no services, daemons, or ports open by default.
So how does a Mac with no services, daemons, or ports open get rooted in the first place?
1) The user turns on a service, starts a daemon, or opens a port.
2) The hacker socially engineers the Mac and gets the user to install the rootkit.
So until one of those two things happen, a Mac does save you from rootkits that intercepts kernel calls by preventing those rootkits from infesting in the first place.
And according to your quote, how does the First Amendment apply? Has Apple gone to Congress to legislate away blogs, fansites, rumor sites, or private websites?
What Apple has done is the opposite actually, using legislation (subpoenas) to force these people to TALK. A subpoena is, "A command to a witness to appear and give testimony."
So what is the First Amendment right we're losing? The right to remain silent? No speech has been abridged, no press has been silenced.
I'm not disagreeing with anything except your initial assumption, which I ask you to explain.
How is Apple using Congress/the states to legislate the press? They aren't moving to silence anyone (except through bankruptcy if they hold that Nick somehow pay them damages for harm).
This very article we're talking about? It's about Apple subpoenas, which by definition is, "A command to a witness to appear and give testimony. "
How is that SILENCING? Apple's actions aren't to silence these folk, but to force them to talk. So if anything, Apple is violating their 4th Amendment Rights, because Apple tried to circumnavigate them by appealing to their ISPs to get their private emails!
But why do you think trade secret doesn't apply here?
If TS had published info and specs about the iPod mini four months in advance and Creative, Sony, and Dell all released similar products two weeks in advance, why don't you think that would qualify as a 'trade secret'?
It's a secret of the craft, the art of product design and manufacturing, because until it has been released, no one has done it before.
The same with the first iPod; no one had released something as small, as fast, or as usable, so it literally was unique.
Why, if Pepsi got Coke's secret formula and could manufacture Coke, and Creative obtained Apple's "secret formula" and could manufacture iPod minis, doesn't the similarities suggest that product information qualifies for trade secret status?
Of course it helps Apple that it's competition are all lame; years after the release of the iPod and mini, no competitor has yet figured out how to duplicate the "secret sauce" even though it's open and available to the public!
(Hint: Freely available Jukebox that doesn't suck. Simpler designs, less is more. Connect the two)
Creative has almost got the design right: Their new Zen Micros have a supremely clean design, but there's no software to download; I can't play with their music manager before I can buy a Zen, so I can't evaluate how the music organization works. Even worse, I know there exists software call NotMad to replace Creative's own software. That's how much they suck.
The same with the Archos Jukebox, in which someone has implemented their own firmware, called RockBox, to fix the deficiencies in the product!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say anything that applies here? Has Apple moved Congress to pass laws that make it illegal to publish rumors online? To make it illegal for fansites to exist?
Better yet, have you heard of the UTSA, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which I believe applies here?
Where the existence of Apple's products being announced too early harms it in two ways:
Stalls sales of existing products as people await new products Gives competing companies an unnecessary advantage in the market
All we have to do is imagine this: ThinkSecret publishes that Apple, in May, will make all iPods with color screens and photo capabilities, drop the price by $100, and increase storage one step.
If this is believed widely, then why would people, with a choice, buy an iPod until May, when they could save $100, get extra storage, get color, and free photo abilities?
Then imagine this: ThinkSecret publishes the existence of a new product, called the iPod mini, which is half the size of the iPod and uses a 1" hard drive, four months before it's announced by Apple, and someone at Creative and someone at Sony read this and think, "Hey, we can do this!" and releases their product two weeks before Apple announces.
So tell me, why does the First Amendment apply, and why doesn't the UTSA apply in a situation like this?
Imagine if someone had leaked the iPod, iPod mini, iTunes Music Store, or iPod Shuffle N months ahead, enough time for a competitor like Sony, Creative, Dell, etc, to release something to deflate their announcement.
Why, then, does the existence of such a product or development not rank as highly as Coke's formula?
If Pepsi could make Coke, that would shatter Coke's hold on the market.
If Creative made iPods, wouldn't that similarly destroy Apple's position in music players?
What fundamental right is it that Apple is trampling? The right to disseminate private information?
Like if I got your credit card number, and published it on my website?
Whether we value it or not, these details are the heart of Apple; Apple's products are their monetary core, their creative core, their everything.
If a competitor gains an advantage through these publications and rumors, then it is Apple that gets hurt; not the rumor sites (though maybe indirectly), not the readers (again, maybe indirectly), but Apple.
So I ask again: Apple is trampling our fundamental right to share sensitive and private data, and you think it's okay that they've backed off? Wait until someone gets insider info from a credit card warehousing company and publishes it online.
What does the First Amendment have to do with this case? I quote: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There's actually several good reasons for a phone to have music support:
Ringtones and hold music.
You call your buddy with an iTunes phone and are put on hold. What do you hear? How about something from Schubert? Someone calls you, and what do you hear? Why not Snoop Dog?
Yes, some people will think it's stupid and some people will think it's annoying.
Good for you. Open source is functionality for you; but that wasn't indicated by the original poster; they chose open source over what seems to be functionality...
And it seems Unix is as broad as anything out there, what with BSD, Solaris, OS X, Irix, AIX, etc.
Just because OS X isn't Linux or Solaris doesn't mean it isn't a Unix system... it just isn't a licensed Unix system.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Why would a TiVo need to run on OS X?
2) Why would it be difficult to port the actual PVR software to OS X?
3) Why would it cost you $699?
4) Why would it be in blue plastic?
I suspect it would cost $499 and come in a Mac mini shaped box as additional software, and it would integrate with some kind of media software, like iTunes, and use Rendezvous to stream it across the network to all your Macs/PCs, and it would be compressed in H.264
Really?
AppleCare has come to my rescue a number of times on my PowerBook; the default is a year, and I purchased an additional two years on top of that. My PowerBook (400MHz!) is now four years old and going strong... too bad too, there's no excuse to buy a newer one!
Well, my optical drive stopped working this year, and I don't want to go to the effort of replacing it when I really want a newer system.
So did you willfully ignore the parent poster's point? It's not the product, but the service, he's paying for. Archos has no appreciable customer service, and at least to him and from my own experiences (iPod + PowerBook), Apple does.
I've always wanted to talk to someone with a competing mp3 player.
So how do you create playlists? I'm curious. For me I create a playlist with the filters:
"Playcount less than 15"
"Rating greater than 3"
"Not played in the last week"
"Genre not country"
"Album does not contain 'Phantom'"
That way I get a playlist of songs I haven't heard in over a week, of songs I've played less than 15 times, that I've rated greater than 3, that isn't country, and isn't Phantom of the Opera.
I always wondered how iRiver or Creative mp3 players did things like that, when you had collections of thousands of mp3s.
So the exploit has to first cause the rootkit to be downloaded without alerting the user, then it has to escalate to root privileges, then it has to install itself, right?
Please excuse my ignorance, but how does a remote kernel exploit work?
But physical access I concede, you can always be hacked if you have physical access to a machine.
And yes, I also concede trojans; you can't underestimate human stupidity here.
But you mention browser/email exploits, word processor viruses, etc. How does a browser exploit in OS X escalate into a rootkit? User visits a site, a properly crafted webpage causes the browser to download a rootkit... and then what? How does the rootkit get installed and set up?
Well, I have three options:
/Users directory.
/Users directory from my iPod or my PowerBook onto my PowerMac.
Boot from CD
Boot from iPod
Boot from PowerBook
This assumes the CD, iPod, or PowerBook are clean systems. If the PowerBook or iPod are dirty, then boot from CD.
Install a clean OS, but keep the contents of the
If the iPod or PowerBook are clean systems, then boot from CD, then copy the contents of the
It's not yet been determined to be possible on Mac OS X because the desktop edition ships with no ports open, no daemons running, no services available.
How does a rootkit get installed on such a system? The hacker has to instruct the user to download and install the rootkit, if I'm not mistaken, and that's an act of social engineering, not of system vulnerability.
Macs have no services, daemons, or ports open by default.
So how does a Mac with no services, daemons, or ports open get rooted in the first place?
1) The user turns on a service, starts a daemon, or opens a port.
2) The hacker socially engineers the Mac and gets the user to install the rootkit.
So until one of those two things happen, a Mac does save you from rootkits that intercepts kernel calls by preventing those rootkits from infesting in the first place.
And according to your quote, how does the First Amendment apply? Has Apple gone to Congress to legislate away blogs, fansites, rumor sites, or private websites?
What Apple has done is the opposite actually, using legislation (subpoenas) to force these people to TALK. A subpoena is, "A command to a witness to appear and give testimony."
So what is the First Amendment right we're losing? The right to remain silent? No speech has been abridged, no press has been silenced.
I'm not disagreeing with anything except your initial assumption, which I ask you to explain.
How is Apple using Congress/the states to legislate the press? They aren't moving to silence anyone (except through bankruptcy if they hold that Nick somehow pay them damages for harm).
This very article we're talking about? It's about Apple subpoenas, which by definition is, "A command to a witness to appear and give testimony. "
How is that SILENCING? Apple's actions aren't to silence these folk, but to force them to talk. So if anything, Apple is violating their 4th Amendment Rights, because Apple tried to circumnavigate them by appealing to their ISPs to get their private emails!
But why do you think trade secret doesn't apply here?
If TS had published info and specs about the iPod mini four months in advance and Creative, Sony, and Dell all released similar products two weeks in advance, why don't you think that would qualify as a 'trade secret'?
It's a secret of the craft, the art of product design and manufacturing, because until it has been released, no one has done it before.
The same with the first iPod; no one had released something as small, as fast, or as usable, so it literally was unique.
Why, if Pepsi got Coke's secret formula and could manufacture Coke, and Creative obtained Apple's "secret formula" and could manufacture iPod minis, doesn't the similarities suggest that product information qualifies for trade secret status?
Of course it helps Apple that it's competition are all lame; years after the release of the iPod and mini, no competitor has yet figured out how to duplicate the "secret sauce" even though it's open and available to the public!
(Hint: Freely available Jukebox that doesn't suck. Simpler designs, less is more. Connect the two)
Creative has almost got the design right: Their new Zen Micros have a supremely clean design, but there's no software to download; I can't play with their music manager before I can buy a Zen, so I can't evaluate how the music organization works. Even worse, I know there exists software call NotMad to replace Creative's own software. That's how much they suck.
The same with the Archos Jukebox, in which someone has implemented their own firmware, called RockBox, to fix the deficiencies in the product!
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say anything that applies here? Has Apple moved Congress to pass laws that make it illegal to publish rumors online? To make it illegal for fansites to exist?
Better yet, have you heard of the UTSA, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which I believe applies here?
Where the existence of Apple's products being announced too early harms it in two ways:
Stalls sales of existing products as people await new products
Gives competing companies an unnecessary advantage in the market
All we have to do is imagine this: ThinkSecret publishes that Apple, in May, will make all iPods with color screens and photo capabilities, drop the price by $100, and increase storage one step.
If this is believed widely, then why would people, with a choice, buy an iPod until May, when they could save $100, get extra storage, get color, and free photo abilities?
Then imagine this: ThinkSecret publishes the existence of a new product, called the iPod mini, which is half the size of the iPod and uses a 1" hard drive, four months before it's announced by Apple, and someone at Creative and someone at Sony read this and think, "Hey, we can do this!" and releases their product two weeks before Apple announces.
So tell me, why does the First Amendment apply, and why doesn't the UTSA apply in a situation like this?
Imagine if someone had leaked the iPod, iPod mini, iTunes Music Store, or iPod Shuffle N months ahead, enough time for a competitor like Sony, Creative, Dell, etc, to release something to deflate their announcement.
Why, then, does the existence of such a product or development not rank as highly as Coke's formula?
If Pepsi could make Coke, that would shatter Coke's hold on the market.
If Creative made iPods, wouldn't that similarly destroy Apple's position in music players?
What fundamental right is it that Apple is trampling? The right to disseminate private information?
Like if I got your credit card number, and published it on my website?
Whether we value it or not, these details are the heart of Apple; Apple's products are their monetary core, their creative core, their everything.
If a competitor gains an advantage through these publications and rumors, then it is Apple that gets hurt; not the rumor sites (though maybe indirectly), not the readers (again, maybe indirectly), but Apple.
So I ask again: Apple is trampling our fundamental right to share sensitive and private data, and you think it's okay that they've backed off? Wait until someone gets insider info from a credit card warehousing company and publishes it online.
What does the First Amendment have to do with this case? I quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
How does this apply here?
Have you taken a look at the Mac mini, for your needs then?
They use a CPU that scores in the 1.3V range, and I wouldn't be surprised if that meant it only drew 15-20W for a 1.25GHz CPU.
That, and it's only 6.5x6.5x2 in dimensions
What do you think Apple puts into their Mac mini?
They use a 1.3V CPU laptop style CPU in a desktop unit.
They've been using these for years; see the iMacs, for example.
Why doe the Constitution apply here?
I think you haven't properly read and understood your Bill of Rights.
And on a slightly trollish note, where will Apple be when Linux starts implementing coreimage/corevideo?
Will they be announcing 'directcorticalfeedback' or 'neuraltapinterface'?
So do you agree that users will purchase this phone just for that functionality?
:)
I think they will
Especially if it's music they can grab from their own CD collections!
There's actually several good reasons for a phone to have music support:
Ringtones and hold music.
You call your buddy with an iTunes phone and are put on hold. What do you hear? How about something from Schubert? Someone calls you, and what do you hear? Why not Snoop Dog?
Yes, some people will think it's stupid and some people will think it's annoying.
LGPL is mentioned in the .h files.
Is anyone going to comment on the Apple business model?
Open source core for OS X (aka Darwin) but closed GUI and secret sauce?
Or open source for their Darwin Streaming Server?
Open source for ZeroConf/Rendezvous?
Open source usage of CUPS? Of X11?
Using the open source KHTML rendering library with a closed source browser, Safari?
I'm sure there is more.
If anyone wants to 'discuss' any examples, please provide linkage proof of violations or usage. Here is a link to Apple's open source projects pages.
Which is why I run Debian on x86 or OS X on PPC.
What does the government have to do with anything I've said, anything I've done, or anything you've read?
The government was enforcing the law. Someone complained, 'That was pointless," and I wrote, "No, there is a point,"
What is your point? Maybe you're too smart, so you'll have to use more words to explain your idea to us.
Good for you. Open source is functionality for you; but that wasn't indicated by the original poster; they chose open source over what seems to be functionality...
And it seems Unix is as broad as anything out there, what with BSD, Solaris, OS X, Irix, AIX, etc.
Just because OS X isn't Linux or Solaris doesn't mean it isn't a Unix system... it just isn't a licensed Unix system.
Then again, neither is Linux.