Most of the complexity of setting up a beowulf cluster is working around the security. Is it assumed that apple seeds will not be connected to the internet in any way, nor have any wireless access point attached to them? That isn't a reasonable expectation these days
Securing it is actually very simple. Let the beowolf work as one computer (that's the point right?) and put that computer behind a firewall. You can argue that you shouldn't rely on a firewall as your protection, so assume the firewall is part of the cluster but specifically assigned to interfacing with the world. Now you have a perfectly normal computer which can be secured the same way as always.
I would be surprised if there was no way to set a password or some kind of permissions in pooch however I wouldn't know as I simply don't have a need to investigate that - my beowolf isn't connected to the internet directly (and security isn't a huge issue anyway). There are a wide range of situations where security isn't a concern - particularly in school labs or such where they're behind about 10 different firewalls anyway (at least that's the way it works here in Australia).
Ohhhhhh, I was wondering why they were called X10 ads... I never actually looked at what the ad was for.
(And it's *so* worth being modded as off-topic for the chance to show how useless those ads are.)
Re:Something tells me this guy has never set one u
on
Macintosh Clustering
·
· Score: 2
I can see where the author might make a point to say that the Mac is nice to use for a cluster because Mac hardware doesn't really change much from box to box, but the same could be said for a group of equal-built PCs.
Ah but see, the Mac's don't need to be the same and it's still just as easy. You should be comparing setting up a bunch of random Mac's and a bunch of random PCs. Even if you have identical PC's that's not the only advantage. The big advantage is that you don't have to go off and configure a whole heap of stuff, you just drag and drop the program you want, select the nodes to run it on and click start.
Perhaps you should try actually setting up a Mac beowolf cluster before claiming it isn't easier...
Re:Manual length and Macs vs. PC
on
Macintosh Clustering
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Short documentation doesn't necessarily mean a simpler product
Agreed, however if you'd ever actually tried to use the product you'd realise that this is not the case. Let me show you through exactly how simple it is in just 10 simple steps:
Grab a bunch of Macs, a switch and a monitor.
Plug Macs into the power.
Plug a keyboard and the monitor into the first mac and turn it on.
Configure the network through the easy to use Networking Control panel. Or alternatively don't configure it and throw a DHCP server into the mix somewhere.
Install and run pooch (drag and drop from the disk image it comes on then double click).
Repeat for each Mac.
On the last Mac, pick an application you want to run on the cluster, drag and drop it into pooch.
Select which Mac's you'd like to help out with running this program.
Click start.
There is no step 10.....
Voila! The best bit about this is that I've never even read the pooch manual, yet I've still managed to set up my own Mac Beowolf cluster. I've looked into Linux beowolf clustering a number of times and gotten hopelessly lost and confused despite having respectable Linux knowledge.
If you've ever set up a Mac beowolf cluster you'll very quickly realise that there is no comparison in ease of use and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly uninformed.
It is as long as you understand the concepts of code modularity. One application does not have to be made up of one monolithic hunk of code. Component based design allows you to easily write each component in the language that is most suitable for it, rather than having to decide on the basis of the whole application.
Not only that, but it increases the ability to reuse code as it doesn't matter if the code is in a different language it can still be plugged into the current project as another component.
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-Labeled computer at a time.
So *that's* why they include a couple of Apple stickers with every new computer..... Stick them on the side of your clone and you can run OS X all you like...
Disclaimer: Yes, this is a joke... but an interesting concept none-the-less.
Market share is redundant (the moderators were right), the Mac is used to create tools to aid the development of the game. The target platform may or may not be a Mac. For creating little utilities quickly it is extremely hard to beat Cocoa. To give you an indication you can create a text editor with support for formatting (bold, italic, underline, different fonts, etc, etc, etc) *and* images (added to the document via drag and drop) in less than 30 lines of code and about half an hour (files save out to rtf). Oh, and that includes an as-you-type spell checker.
You used to develop applications quickly in VB, now Cocoa has gone above and beyond, letting you build *good* applications quickly.
Most development, are made just filling in already made game-templates.
Most of the time in your life when you want something done you pay someone else to do it. However, the fact still remains that *someone* has to actually do it or it won't get done. It doesn't matter that a lot of games are made by using licenced game engines, someone has to create the game engine and Mac OS X will be very useful for that.
Because, as has been pointed out numerous times we're talking about development *tools* not the actual program. SDL is *not* an option here because it is useless in the development project but very useful as part of the final product (excuse the misuse of terms, the meaning should be clear).
I have just started developing with Cocoa and it's really great. The "Application Builder" works flawlessly together with the "Interface Builder".
More significant than this though is that you have so much choice about how you develop. You could choose to use Apple's free Project Builder (called "Application Builder" in the parent post) and Interface builder. You could just use one or the other or you could use something completely different. BBEdit is very popular for editing text files - mostly HTML but is quite suitable for code as well. JBuilder is available for the Java types or you can really cut loose and go command line. My work environment is a combination of OS X, vim and ant. You could also use make, autoconf, emacs, XEmacs, gvim or heck go wild and use ed!
OS X lets you work the way you want to work. You can choose your work environment or switch between them and then you can go a step further. You can choose which API you wanted to work with. You can quite happily combine Carbon, Cocoa, the BSD layer , Java and X-Windows into the one application. That level of choice just doesn't exist anywhere else. That's before you get into things like Real Basic (VB work-a-like) and MetaCard (HyperCard work-a-like). Oh and did I mention perl? Tk? TcL? Qt?
Pretty much any Linux (or other UNIX) tool can be run on OS X and most Windows development tools lock you into using that particular tool. On Mac OS the tools work together so well that you can select the right tool not just for the application but for each part of the application. Do yourself a favour, go out and actually try development on MacOS (even if the target is for another OS) before you make up your mind about it's worth.
you could play multi-player games via 802.11. (Assuming it is supported in the games of course.)
Just to clarify (or correct depending on what was actually meant) - Airport is integrated into Mac OS the same way the modem or ethernet is so the game only has to support network play, not specifically airport.
One other correction from this thread (but not the parent post), Mac's have about 5% market share not 4% - hence the Steve Jobs quote: "5 down, 95 to go". Also, 5% market share is a *huge* number of computers. There are more people who use Macs than people who buy Proserpine Cane Growers Suger but I assure you the Proserpine Cane Growers are making plenty of money. You don't need to target Windows to make money in the computing world - you just need to target an audience.
Most of the really hot-shot computer folks I know have degrees in English, or psychology. Just because that was interesting to them, and then they wound up working in computers.
I'm assuming a fair bit here, but I'd bet that most of them studied English or psychology because IT degrees weren't around when they went to University. You have to remember that computers haven't been mainstream for all that long. I happen to fit into the age group that saw the introduction of computers as a widespread tool. I grew up using computers, but there was only one other kid in the district that had done the same.
What this means is that when you find anyone above the age of 30 (and often younger) they most likely didn't grow up with computers and have changed over from some other area. That's not a bad thing, but you shouldn't nessecarily expect that you can still do that kind of thing as easily as they did. Now we have readily available supplies of people who actually trained in IT so why would you hire an English major as a code monkey?
The caveat here though, is that you shouldn't take advice from the youngun's (like me) because they really don't have any experience as to what the market place is after. The reality is that IT has gone and changed so fast that noone really knows what the best way to get into it is at this point in time. I would tend to agree with the people who are recommending doing what you enjoy - but don't just sit back and enjoy it, work hard, get good marks and always look for opportunities to learn more.
I have a physics degree, and I work with XML developing a web solution for insurance companies.
Why then would you ever expect to use specific knowledge from your degree? You studied physics and then went into computing and insurance? The fields aren't even close.
I majored in computer science and artificial intelligence (double major) and am now an analyst programmer who uses the specific knowledge he gained in his course daily. You can't expect a uni degree in one area to provide you with specific knowledge in a different area.
I do agree with you though that general problem solving skills and reasoning is more important than specific knowledge, however every problem area requires a slightly differently tuned approach to it and so area specific knowledge is required. Completing a general degree will not stand most people in good stead to achieve in specific areas - which computing is one. I would not try to apply my computing experience and reasoning to brick laying (brick reuse is not a good idea), I would go out and read up on specific knowledge about brick laying.
Without area specific knowledge you cannot achieve anything significant. Without knowledge and reasoning, you cannot easily acquire area specific knowledge. Don't discount either.
The current champion watchdog of plagerism at Griffith University in Australia is still Google. Of course, this is mostly useful for essay assignments rather than code, but has been successfully used for code on occasions as well.
The process simply involves searching for a few key phrases from the essay and seeing what comes up. If the student has pulled the essay from the internet, they almost always get caught out like this. The secret to it though is that lecturers keep their eyes open for sudden improvements in quality or argument, grammer or phrasing. Though the class may be up to three or four hundred students, assignments are marked by the tutors so the number is reduced to sixty or at most ninety. This also means that the tutors know the students fairly well because they have the small group contact from the tutes.
About the only time I remember this method failing was when a rich picture was required as part of an assignment and everyone used MS Word clip art and came out with almost the exact same rich picture. I guess they figured they couldn't accuse the whole class of cheating....
I think Steve gets it fine. So do I, so do a good chunk of the posters thus far. But apparently, you don't get it.
That's exactly what has really interested me about/. of late - the way the majority of comments has changed from being anti-mac to the majority of comments being pro-mac. How many times have you read comments like "try and Mac and you'll understand" in the past few months? Either/. is being infested by large numbers of Mac-heads (who seem to have a lot of moderator points) or Apple is making big inroads into the Linux/BSD/Geek market.
The fact is, most people who dislike Macs are remembering them from years back (look at the guy who based his argument on OS 8 and a Beige G3 in an earlier comment). If you really want to get an idea of what Macs are like *now* you have to go use one. That's where the stunning designs and the new Apple Stores come in. The new iMac is something that you feel you just have to play with (even if you would never buy one) and the Apple Store puts it right there in your face and gives you the opportunity to play with it and if comments on/. are anything to go buy (God help us all), it's working.
Well, it is technically correct in what it says, but it unfortunately leaves out a lot. The time to acquire a target is a function of distance to and size of the target as well as a range of other factors. The most significant factor that is left out is one that is used throughout the article, motor memory.
Suggestions such as: as the user pulls further down the menu, more movement of the mouse is necessary to get a corresponding movement of the pointer
is a perfect example of when not to apply Fittz law. Technically this should be faster, but in reality it blows the users motor memory for how far the mouse should be moved away and results not just in a slower access to that menu, but if used pervasively enough, slow access to everything because the user can no longer guage how far the pointer will move. In short, since moving the pointer is so fundamental to using a GUI, it should be completely consistent to take full advantage of motor memory.
Another indication is: What they should have done was to curve the keyboard sharply upward, so that merely lifting the finger a few degrees would access the numeric and function keys, aiding both precision and speed.
because it changes how you go about striking a key - you now use an upward action for some keys and downward for others, thus losing motor memory. More than that though, a downward stroke of the fingers is significantly more easily controlled, confident and faster than an outward or upward push. Our fingers handle hitting downward quite sharply, but the ends of our fingers are quite sensitive (or worse still, have finger nails which slip around) so using a downward action moves the point of impact further down from the tips of our fingers (though still up towards the tips so we can hit the keys cleanly) and bending the keyboard up would in fact reduce access time and accuracy.
Finally, at least one person has mentioned that keyboard shortcuts are faster, and this is true in some circumstances. If the shortcut is unintuitive it is not going to be useful. For instance, think about the keyboard shortcuts that save you the most time - I'll bet they're the shortcuts for save (meta-key + s), quit (command-q Mac only really, alt-f4 is a bit too much of a stretch for most people to use cleanly) and probably print (meta-key + p). These are fast because they are so persistant through the user interface that they become intuitive. Alt-F-right-right-down-down is neither intuitive or fast. The time taken thinking about what the key combination is has to be factored into the time required to achieve the goal. Having keyboard shortcuts for everything is not the way to create an effective GUI - have intuitive and easy to remember keyboard shortcuts for the most commonly used tasks however will markedly improve the usability of an application.
It is clear to me that you haven't used an NT based machine in a networked environment.
It is clear to me that you've never used a Mac. We've seen the UNIX and Windows arguments so for completeness sake, here's the Mac argument. Mac in this comment refers to Mac OS X 10.1.2.
From first hand experience, a well-administrered Win2k network is a god-send, especially for most "lusers".
From first hand experience, a Mac is a god-send, especially for most "lusers" straight out of the box with no configuration required.
Second, I have no idea why you would think you need to get into DOS to repair an error
I'm yet to experience an error which required at absolute worst a reboot to fix. For the record, I have no real problems with reboots so I use it as a magical fix-all a fair bit, there was likely a way to avoid the reboot but I didn't look for it. Also, this would have happened less than 10 times in what is almost a year of OS X usage now.
Finally, Win2k/XP is such an amazing jump forward in stability compared to 95/98 that its laughable you would deny this. The NT based OS's are the only reedeming feature of the entire histroy of MS OSen.
The BSD underpinnings of OS X are simply delightful. They not only provide exceptional stability and all the other UNIX advantages that NT tries to bring to Windows, but also a really nice, powerful command line to use if you want it either for remote administration or just because that's how you like to work. Most importantly though, the command line isn't required - everything a normal user is going to want to do can be done with the GUI.
True, I have had my share of killed tasks - but then again if you've ever tried to run Netscape on FreeBSD you know the feeling. Bad programs crash. All I ask of the OS is that it doesn't puke when a mal-behaved program dies.
This is a very good point - bad programs do crash, however the OS shouldn't just stay afloat, but continue to work seamlessly. Ever crashed Nero (or probably any other CD burning software)? You suddenly can't burn CDs anymore until you reboot. No such problems on OS X. Ever installed software on Windows - reboot! Much less frequent on OS X though a lot of software has the annoying habit of using a reboot instead of simply running the appropriate startup scripts. Since these scripts are easy to find you can do this manually if you want.
I think in a general sense you miss what typical users, business users, and power users want from a deskop operating. All they really want is to never have to reboot their machine when they don't want to. Win2k made admirable strides in that direction. My first impressions of XP are that the trend continues, though not with the dramatic leaps that a 95->Win2k upgrade would see.
If that's what they want they should undoubtably be using UNIX. Mac OS X is a good UNIX for this but not the best due to the range of programs that claim they require a reboot but don't really need it. Still, you reboot OS X far less than even Windows XP. I would suggest that users want more than this however.
As for security holes - properly setup machines are key.
Bzzt. Bad software design alert! There is no reason that a shipping OS should have security risks turned on. A lot of Linux distros get this wrong and Windows definitely does. Mac OS X seems to get it right however. The root account is disabled encouraging people to use sudo (as is common on BSD systems), software update is set to run weekly, services are all turned off by default and most importantly, the latest copy of the OS is installed on new computers. Things fall behind a bit in the distribution channel but generally when the OS is installed onto new Apple computers, it is the latest version. Windows may run windows update automatically, but newer versions of the OS should be injected straight into the supply chain instead of continuing to create outdated products.
I never attach any desktop to the Internet directly. That includes my Red Hat boxes as well as my Windows machines. Its simply not smart. A nice router/firewall is key to security in any environment - from 1 to 10,000 PCs.
Good for you. Many people don't want to waste time and money to get this kind of thing set up and working. Providing a secure OS is the first step to having a secure system and you should never rely on your firewall/router to protect you (multiple levels of security provide the best security, "give the bastards nothing" mentality).
Second, with a well thoughout and comprehensive security policy you will never feel the pinch of these brazen security holes. WinXP has had one major security bug (UPnP) discovered so far - the vast majority of WinXP users were patched before an exploit has even been developed.
I would tend to suggest that most WinXP boxes are still unpatched and, I haven't checked this, but I wouldn't be surprised if MS is still shipping copies of XP without the security patch. Also, the comprehensive security policy should be enabled by default, you shouldn't have to set it up yourself. Mac OS X to my knowledge has had no remote root exploits and only a couple of other security issues. OS X very clearly has had fewer security issues than any other OS currently available and being almost a year old now, it's not like it's that big a new comer that noone has been looking into it.
The last 6-months have lead to a serious uptick in MS's comittment to security. I expect it to only get better.
Better does not instill much confidence. Apple has a brilliant record for security in the past (okay, so OS 9 lacking a command line was a big advantage to that, but still) so MS has a long way to go to catch up. No points for improvement from me, only points for achieving.
All and all, I can say that Win2k is a great desktop OS. I really think that most of your problems lie in poor administration, poor implementation, and incorrect configuration. And those problems can bring down ANY operating system faster than any silly bug or virus.
Ahh, but if the OS comes poorly configured to start with than it's the OS's fault, not the users. There is absolutely no reason why Windows couldn't be configured properly when it is first installed.
Now a little bit of info on my computing experience: on my desk is a Windows XP box and a Mac OS X laptop. In the corner is a Linux server, firewall and router, at work is a Windows 98 box and a big beefy Solaris server. I've had 3 years plus experience with Windows, Mac and Linux so I'm well positioned to compare all three.
In summary, I prefer the Mac for most things because it just works, I don't have to tweak it all the time. I like Linux because it sits in the corner and does it's job tirelessly and without having to be checked up on - plus it's remote administration abilities are second to none. I don't have any reason to like Windows because it provides me no benefits over OSX and Linux and because it needs so much tweaking to get it into a usable state. However it is the pick of the OSs for games. So there is no answer for which OS is better, but rather which OS is better for a particular task and a particular user.
While a great application, it has a VERY aggressive advertisement scheme. It regularly pops up adverts that you can only kill with a Ctrl+Alt+Del, End Task.
Every once in a while it pops up an advert that you can kill by clicking the close button for the window. I'm not sure what version you're using but I've never had a problem with clicking the close button to get rid of the ad.
What happened to the good ol' days when programmers--real programmers--wrote very clever, small and fast programs?
We decided we wanted to do more with our computers. It's all very well to long for the days of very clever, small and fast programs but it's entirely another thing to create software which does all the things we have come to expect today while still keeping the software incredibly small and fast. It's even harder when you want to stay within a tight schedule and budget.
Lets look at something near and dear to our hearts, something that many of us here have contributed to and something that isn't affected by budgets or timelines (well, mostly) - the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is undoubtably a very good piece of software development, arguably the best that's currently available and it has been created by a wide range of people many of who come from the days when RAM and CPU time was expensive. Despite this, the linux kernel is certainly not small, and it shouldn't be. It has a wide range of devices to support, it has to be able to handle multiple users simultaneously and it provides a bunch of services that previously would never have been provided in an OS, let alone in a kernel.
It could be argued that the Linux kernel is clever, and with my lack of knowledge of the kernel source I can't really comment. I think it is safe to assume that it's not as clever as it could be though - it doesn't use every trick in the book to reduce file size and increase efficiency because it's no longer small enough to make that kind of thing feasible. It's also modularised so that things can be loaded and unloaded as needed, there's extra code and overhead required to provide that. Finally, it supports a range of architectures now and is more portable. Going back to the old ways of doing things gives up all those benefits.
Finally, the linux kernel is not fast - it is comparably fast for all the things it does, but it is not as fast on a per-cycle basis as OS's were back when every cycle mattered. It does however provide more features (like loadable modules), more portability and a faster release schedule for fewer man hours.
So when you really sit down and think about it, while programs these days take up more RAM and CPU power there are a range of benefits that come from this. You should also note that comparatively the overall experience of using a computer has become radically faster then it previously used to. You may think that a program feels slow when you run it on a 3 year old machine, but what you fail to realise is that you've just gotten used to how much faster your new machine is. Having said that, some software is just plain crap, but so are some cars and bridges so the bad apples don't just come from software engineering.
Why should the processor have to predict the next mess of instructions, load them into a cache, find out it predicted incorrectly, dump the cache, find the correct location, load the instructions...
Incredibly poor chip design actually. This problem really only becomes significant when pipelines are made too long (such as in the P4). The pipelines are extended to make it possible to use a higher Mhz rating - though because of the extended pipeline and the problems caused by having to guess ahead so far the CPU doesn't actually function anywhere near as fast as the Mhz would indicate it should. This is why people talk about the Megahertz Myth - there's a ton of information on it around the web.
Why are processors marketed by their internal clock speed when they spend most of their time waiting for data?
Because consumers don't understand computers well enough to know this and Mhz has been used as a rating mechanism for so long (and previously it had been reasonably accurate). Marketers will jump at any opportunity to make their product sound better than the competition.
And above all, why does software suck so badly?
It doesn't. There is and always has been poorly written software but to say that all software sucks is unjustified. There are cars that break down due to manufacturing defects, bridges that collapse, constructions which go over time and budget and a myriad of failures from all types of engineering so of course not all software is perfect but it is improving whether or not you like the way it is improving is another matter.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To claim that GM foods are bad because a corporation that have done evil things is a proponent of it, is no more valid an argument than claiming that since Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, the real value must be something else.
A number of people have stated that this analogy is incorrect already, but none of them seem to be getting the point through to people, so let me try an analogy to show why these actions are in fact reason to question the GM production from Monsanto.
Let's say that you have a friend who you've known for a fair while and trust. You tell this friend a secret which is really important to you that it is kept secret and they break your trust by telling a whole bunch of people your secret with no reasonable justification for these actions. Needless to say you're pretty annoyed, you yell and scream etc, etc. Then you notice that your friend gets on really well with your girlfriend.
Now, there is no evidence to suggest that your friend is doing anything with your girlfriend and before this friend betrayed your trust you never would have even thought he would steal your girlfriend - but you never would have thought he'd breach your trust either. It's pretty clear in this situation that while you shouldn't jump to conclusions you probably shouldn't put blind faith into your friend who has clearly and blatantly betrayed your trust.
Now lets suppose that you know a corporation who makes weed killer and the weed killer works really well - you've been buying it for a fair while now. Suddenly you discover that in producing this weed killer the company has been dumping all kinds of dangerous chemicals into a river - affecting a significant number of people - with no good reason.
Then you notice that this corporation is producing genetically modified foods (which you regularly eat). Clearly it's not a time to go jumping to conclusions, but it's also not all that wise to continue to put your blind faith in the corporation.
Whether or not there is evidence that the GM foods produced by Monsanto are good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant. When a company shows this much flagrant disregard for the health and saftey of people, it is probably worth taking a closer look at their other areas of operation - not doing so is akin to burying your head in the sand.
Now, I sincerely hope that you'll never have occasion to regret your decision to shirk your duty to protect yourself and your family with adequate weapons
I have no such duty to arm myself in order to protect myself. It is sensible for me to avoid trouble, but it is not my duty to be prepared to kill or even to harm anyone and it would be a very sad society if it was.
as much as I hope that I will never need to point a weapon at a human being, but my right to be prepared for such an event is not contingent on the approval of my neighbors.
You are more than capable of preparing to defend yourself without the use of semi-automatic weapons. You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble. You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in your home if you challenge them. Anyone who comes into your home with the intent to harm you rather than steal your possessions will have harmed you long before you have a chance to get your gun ready to fire. Anyone who comes into your house purely to rob you will not harm you if you don't put up a fight.
There are always exceptions, but there are always times when a gun won't protect you. All in all, you're better off avoiding trouble rather than arming yourself so that you win the battle, but like I said. It is up to the society as to what is best, because this is an issue that affects the society. Whether or not you carry a gun will not affect me, because I am well out of firing range.
BTW, the incompetent perp who tried to detonate his shoes last week wasn't stopped by a policeman, was he?
No, but the case proves my point because noone in the area had a gun, and he was still stopped. Hence, this is an example of not needing a gun to protect yourself.
For the record, I have not mentioned anything about centralisation of threat, defence or police. I make the claim that there is no hard and fast rule for these decisions and they should be made by the society. I personally, prefer living in a society which has gun control as do the majority of Australians, hence we have gun control laws. That's how democracy works.
If only Australia had one of those anachronistic US-style constitutions, bits of paper from another era...
Because a bit of paper will protect our children so well. The constitution is just another form of law and it does not solve the problem. So I submit that the bigger problem is that people think laws will solve every problem when history has shown that this is clearly not the case.
Even if there where 300 such events, schools would still be one of the safest places to be. Don't fall under the spell of the alarmist crap the media throws at you because it's a slow year for the news.
And even if there was only ever one such event, it would be no less of a tragedy. Don't fall under the spell of being desensitised to horrific events because it's such a big year for the news.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.gamers.org/~quinet/lilo/penguins-en.htm l
Securing it is actually very simple. Let the beowolf work as one computer (that's the point right?) and put that computer behind a firewall. You can argue that you shouldn't rely on a firewall as your protection, so assume the firewall is part of the cluster but specifically assigned to interfacing with the world. Now you have a perfectly normal computer which can be secured the same way as always.
I would be surprised if there was no way to set a password or some kind of permissions in pooch however I wouldn't know as I simply don't have a need to investigate that - my beowolf isn't connected to the internet directly (and security isn't a huge issue anyway). There are a wide range of situations where security isn't a concern - particularly in school labs or such where they're behind about 10 different firewalls anyway (at least that's the way it works here in Australia).
(And it's *so* worth being modded as off-topic for the chance to show how useless those ads are.)
Ah but see, the Mac's don't need to be the same and it's still just as easy. You should be comparing setting up a bunch of random Mac's and a bunch of random PCs. Even if you have identical PC's that's not the only advantage. The big advantage is that you don't have to go off and configure a whole heap of stuff, you just drag and drop the program you want, select the nodes to run it on and click start.
Perhaps you should try actually setting up a Mac beowolf cluster before claiming it isn't easier...
Agreed, however if you'd ever actually tried to use the product you'd realise that this is not the case. Let me show you through exactly how simple it is in just 10 simple steps:
- Grab a bunch of Macs, a switch and a monitor.
- Plug Macs into the power.
- Plug a keyboard and the monitor into the first mac and turn it on.
- Configure the network through the easy to use Networking Control panel. Or alternatively don't configure it and throw a DHCP server into the mix somewhere.
- Install and run pooch (drag and drop from the disk image it comes on then double click).
- Repeat for each Mac.
- On the last Mac, pick an application you want to run on the cluster, drag and drop it into pooch.
- Select which Mac's you'd like to help out with running this program.
- Click start.
- There is no step 10.....
Voila! The best bit about this is that I've never even read the pooch manual, yet I've still managed to set up my own Mac Beowolf cluster. I've looked into Linux beowolf clustering a number of times and gotten hopelessly lost and confused despite having respectable Linux knowledge.If you've ever set up a Mac beowolf cluster you'll very quickly realise that there is no comparison in ease of use and anyone who argues otherwise is clearly uninformed.
Like always, don't bash what you haven't tried...
It is as long as you understand the concepts of code modularity. One application does not have to be made up of one monolithic hunk of code. Component based design allows you to easily write each component in the language that is most suitable for it, rather than having to decide on the basis of the whole application.
Not only that, but it increases the ability to reuse code as it doesn't matter if the code is in a different language it can still be plugged into the current project as another component.
So *that's* why they include a couple of Apple stickers with every new computer..... Stick them on the side of your clone and you can run OS X all you like...
Disclaimer: Yes, this is a joke... but an interesting concept none-the-less.
You used to develop applications quickly in VB, now Cocoa has gone above and beyond, letting you build *good* applications quickly.
Most of the time in your life when you want something done you pay someone else to do it. However, the fact still remains that *someone* has to actually do it or it won't get done. It doesn't matter that a lot of games are made by using licenced game engines, someone has to create the game engine and Mac OS X will be very useful for that.
Because, as has been pointed out numerous times we're talking about development *tools* not the actual program. SDL is *not* an option here because it is useless in the development project but very useful as part of the final product (excuse the misuse of terms, the meaning should be clear).
More significant than this though is that you have so much choice about how you develop. You could choose to use Apple's free Project Builder (called "Application Builder" in the parent post) and Interface builder. You could just use one or the other or you could use something completely different. BBEdit is very popular for editing text files - mostly HTML but is quite suitable for code as well. JBuilder is available for the Java types or you can really cut loose and go command line. My work environment is a combination of OS X, vim and ant. You could also use make, autoconf, emacs, XEmacs, gvim or heck go wild and use ed!
OS X lets you work the way you want to work. You can choose your work environment or switch between them and then you can go a step further. You can choose which API you wanted to work with. You can quite happily combine Carbon, Cocoa, the BSD layer , Java and X-Windows into the one application. That level of choice just doesn't exist anywhere else. That's before you get into things like Real Basic (VB work-a-like) and MetaCard (HyperCard work-a-like). Oh and did I mention perl? Tk? TcL? Qt?
Pretty much any Linux (or other UNIX) tool can be run on OS X and most Windows development tools lock you into using that particular tool. On Mac OS the tools work together so well that you can select the right tool not just for the application but for each part of the application. Do yourself a favour, go out and actually try development on MacOS (even if the target is for another OS) before you make up your mind about it's worth.
Just to clarify (or correct depending on what was actually meant) - Airport is integrated into Mac OS the same way the modem or ethernet is so the game only has to support network play, not specifically airport.
One other correction from this thread (but not the parent post), Mac's have about 5% market share not 4% - hence the Steve Jobs quote: "5 down, 95 to go". Also, 5% market share is a *huge* number of computers. There are more people who use Macs than people who buy Proserpine Cane Growers Suger but I assure you the Proserpine Cane Growers are making plenty of money. You don't need to target Windows to make money in the computing world - you just need to target an audience.
I'm assuming a fair bit here, but I'd bet that most of them studied English or psychology because IT degrees weren't around when they went to University. You have to remember that computers haven't been mainstream for all that long. I happen to fit into the age group that saw the introduction of computers as a widespread tool. I grew up using computers, but there was only one other kid in the district that had done the same.
What this means is that when you find anyone above the age of 30 (and often younger) they most likely didn't grow up with computers and have changed over from some other area. That's not a bad thing, but you shouldn't nessecarily expect that you can still do that kind of thing as easily as they did. Now we have readily available supplies of people who actually trained in IT so why would you hire an English major as a code monkey?
The caveat here though, is that you shouldn't take advice from the youngun's (like me) because they really don't have any experience as to what the market place is after. The reality is that IT has gone and changed so fast that noone really knows what the best way to get into it is at this point in time. I would tend to agree with the people who are recommending doing what you enjoy - but don't just sit back and enjoy it, work hard, get good marks and always look for opportunities to learn more.
Why then would you ever expect to use specific knowledge from your degree? You studied physics and then went into computing and insurance? The fields aren't even close.
I majored in computer science and artificial intelligence (double major) and am now an analyst programmer who uses the specific knowledge he gained in his course daily. You can't expect a uni degree in one area to provide you with specific knowledge in a different area.
I do agree with you though that general problem solving skills and reasoning is more important than specific knowledge, however every problem area requires a slightly differently tuned approach to it and so area specific knowledge is required. Completing a general degree will not stand most people in good stead to achieve in specific areas - which computing is one. I would not try to apply my computing experience and reasoning to brick laying (brick reuse is not a good idea), I would go out and read up on specific knowledge about brick laying.
Without area specific knowledge you cannot achieve anything significant. Without knowledge and reasoning, you cannot easily acquire area specific knowledge. Don't discount either.
The process simply involves searching for a few key phrases from the essay and seeing what comes up. If the student has pulled the essay from the internet, they almost always get caught out like this. The secret to it though is that lecturers keep their eyes open for sudden improvements in quality or argument, grammer or phrasing. Though the class may be up to three or four hundred students, assignments are marked by the tutors so the number is reduced to sixty or at most ninety. This also means that the tutors know the students fairly well because they have the small group contact from the tutes.
About the only time I remember this method failing was when a rich picture was required as part of an assignment and everyone used MS Word clip art and came out with almost the exact same rich picture. I guess they figured they couldn't accuse the whole class of cheating....
That's exactly what has really interested me about /. of late - the way the majority of comments has changed from being anti-mac to the majority of comments being pro-mac. How many times have you read comments like "try and Mac and you'll understand" in the past few months? Either /. is being infested by large numbers of Mac-heads (who seem to have a lot of moderator points) or Apple is making big inroads into the Linux/BSD/Geek market.
The fact is, most people who dislike Macs are remembering them from years back (look at the guy who based his argument on OS 8 and a Beige G3 in an earlier comment). If you really want to get an idea of what Macs are like *now* you have to go use one. That's where the stunning designs and the new Apple Stores come in. The new iMac is something that you feel you just have to play with (even if you would never buy one) and the Apple Store puts it right there in your face and gives you the opportunity to play with it and if comments on /. are anything to go buy (God help us all), it's working.
Suggestions such as:
as the user pulls further down the menu, more movement of the mouse is necessary to get a corresponding movement of the pointer
is a perfect example of when not to apply Fittz law. Technically this should be faster, but in reality it blows the users motor memory for how far the mouse should be moved away and results not just in a slower access to that menu, but if used pervasively enough, slow access to everything because the user can no longer guage how far the pointer will move. In short, since moving the pointer is so fundamental to using a GUI, it should be completely consistent to take full advantage of motor memory.
Another indication is:
What they should have done was to curve the keyboard sharply upward, so that merely lifting the finger a few degrees would access the numeric and function keys, aiding both precision and speed.
because it changes how you go about striking a key - you now use an upward action for some keys and downward for others, thus losing motor memory. More than that though, a downward stroke of the fingers is significantly more easily controlled, confident and faster than an outward or upward push. Our fingers handle hitting downward quite sharply, but the ends of our fingers are quite sensitive (or worse still, have finger nails which slip around) so using a downward action moves the point of impact further down from the tips of our fingers (though still up towards the tips so we can hit the keys cleanly) and bending the keyboard up would in fact reduce access time and accuracy.
Finally, at least one person has mentioned that keyboard shortcuts are faster, and this is true in some circumstances. If the shortcut is unintuitive it is not going to be useful. For instance, think about the keyboard shortcuts that save you the most time - I'll bet they're the shortcuts for save (meta-key + s), quit (command-q Mac only really, alt-f4 is a bit too much of a stretch for most people to use cleanly) and probably print (meta-key + p). These are fast because they are so persistant through the user interface that they become intuitive. Alt-F-right-right-down-down is neither intuitive or fast. The time taken thinking about what the key combination is has to be factored into the time required to achieve the goal. Having keyboard shortcuts for everything is not the way to create an effective GUI - have intuitive and easy to remember keyboard shortcuts for the most commonly used tasks however will markedly improve the usability of an application.
It is clear to me that you've never used a Mac. We've seen the UNIX and Windows arguments so for completeness sake, here's the Mac argument. Mac in this comment refers to Mac OS X 10.1.2.
From first hand experience, a well-administrered Win2k network is a god-send, especially for most "lusers".
From first hand experience, a Mac is a god-send, especially for most "lusers" straight out of the box with no configuration required.
Second, I have no idea why you would think you need to get into DOS to repair an error
I'm yet to experience an error which required at absolute worst a reboot to fix. For the record, I have no real problems with reboots so I use it as a magical fix-all a fair bit, there was likely a way to avoid the reboot but I didn't look for it. Also, this would have happened less than 10 times in what is almost a year of OS X usage now.
Finally, Win2k/XP is such an amazing jump forward in stability compared to 95/98 that its laughable you would deny this. The NT based OS's are the only reedeming feature of the entire histroy of MS OSen.
The BSD underpinnings of OS X are simply delightful. They not only provide exceptional stability and all the other UNIX advantages that NT tries to bring to Windows, but also a really nice, powerful command line to use if you want it either for remote administration or just because that's how you like to work. Most importantly though, the command line isn't required - everything a normal user is going to want to do can be done with the GUI.
True, I have had my share of killed tasks - but then again if you've ever tried to run Netscape on FreeBSD you know the feeling. Bad programs crash. All I ask of the OS is that it doesn't puke when a mal-behaved program dies.
This is a very good point - bad programs do crash, however the OS shouldn't just stay afloat, but continue to work seamlessly. Ever crashed Nero (or probably any other CD burning software)? You suddenly can't burn CDs anymore until you reboot. No such problems on OS X. Ever installed software on Windows - reboot! Much less frequent on OS X though a lot of software has the annoying habit of using a reboot instead of simply running the appropriate startup scripts. Since these scripts are easy to find you can do this manually if you want.
I think in a general sense you miss what typical users, business users, and power users want from a deskop operating. All they really want is to never have to reboot their machine when they don't want to. Win2k made admirable strides in that direction. My first impressions of XP are that the trend continues, though not with the dramatic leaps that a 95->Win2k upgrade would see.
If that's what they want they should undoubtably be using UNIX. Mac OS X is a good UNIX for this but not the best due to the range of programs that claim they require a reboot but don't really need it. Still, you reboot OS X far less than even Windows XP. I would suggest that users want more than this however.
As for security holes - properly setup machines are key.
Bzzt. Bad software design alert! There is no reason that a shipping OS should have security risks turned on. A lot of Linux distros get this wrong and Windows definitely does. Mac OS X seems to get it right however. The root account is disabled encouraging people to use sudo (as is common on BSD systems), software update is set to run weekly, services are all turned off by default and most importantly, the latest copy of the OS is installed on new computers. Things fall behind a bit in the distribution channel but generally when the OS is installed onto new Apple computers, it is the latest version. Windows may run windows update automatically, but newer versions of the OS should be injected straight into the supply chain instead of continuing to create outdated products.
I never attach any desktop to the Internet directly. That includes my Red Hat boxes as well as my Windows machines. Its simply not smart. A nice router/firewall is key to security in any environment - from 1 to 10,000 PCs.
Good for you. Many people don't want to waste time and money to get this kind of thing set up and working. Providing a secure OS is the first step to having a secure system and you should never rely on your firewall/router to protect you (multiple levels of security provide the best security, "give the bastards nothing" mentality).
Second, with a well thoughout and comprehensive security policy you will never feel the pinch of these brazen security holes. WinXP has had one major security bug (UPnP) discovered so far - the vast majority of WinXP users were patched before an exploit has even been developed.
I would tend to suggest that most WinXP boxes are still unpatched and, I haven't checked this, but I wouldn't be surprised if MS is still shipping copies of XP without the security patch. Also, the comprehensive security policy should be enabled by default, you shouldn't have to set it up yourself. Mac OS X to my knowledge has had no remote root exploits and only a couple of other security issues. OS X very clearly has had fewer security issues than any other OS currently available and being almost a year old now, it's not like it's that big a new comer that noone has been looking into it.
The last 6-months have lead to a serious uptick in MS's comittment to security. I expect it to only get better.
Better does not instill much confidence. Apple has a brilliant record for security in the past (okay, so OS 9 lacking a command line was a big advantage to that, but still) so MS has a long way to go to catch up. No points for improvement from me, only points for achieving.
All and all, I can say that Win2k is a great desktop OS. I really think that most of your problems lie in poor administration, poor implementation, and incorrect configuration. And those problems can bring down ANY operating system faster than any silly bug or virus.
Ahh, but if the OS comes poorly configured to start with than it's the OS's fault, not the users. There is absolutely no reason why Windows couldn't be configured properly when it is first installed.
Now a little bit of info on my computing experience: on my desk is a Windows XP box and a Mac OS X laptop. In the corner is a Linux server, firewall and router, at work is a Windows 98 box and a big beefy Solaris server. I've had 3 years plus experience with Windows, Mac and Linux so I'm well positioned to compare all three.
In summary, I prefer the Mac for most things because it just works, I don't have to tweak it all the time. I like Linux because it sits in the corner and does it's job tirelessly and without having to be checked up on - plus it's remote administration abilities are second to none. I don't have any reason to like Windows because it provides me no benefits over OSX and Linux and because it needs so much tweaking to get it into a usable state. However it is the pick of the OSs for games. So there is no answer for which OS is better, but rather which OS is better for a particular task and a particular user.
Every once in a while it pops up an advert that you can kill by clicking the close button for the window. I'm not sure what version you're using but I've never had a problem with clicking the close button to get rid of the ad.
Are you kidding me? Study week is the only time I ever watch movies....
We decided we wanted to do more with our computers. It's all very well to long for the days of very clever, small and fast programs but it's entirely another thing to create software which does all the things we have come to expect today while still keeping the software incredibly small and fast. It's even harder when you want to stay within a tight schedule and budget.
Lets look at something near and dear to our hearts, something that many of us here have contributed to and something that isn't affected by budgets or timelines (well, mostly) - the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is undoubtably a very good piece of software development, arguably the best that's currently available and it has been created by a wide range of people many of who come from the days when RAM and CPU time was expensive. Despite this, the linux kernel is certainly not small, and it shouldn't be. It has a wide range of devices to support, it has to be able to handle multiple users simultaneously and it provides a bunch of services that previously would never have been provided in an OS, let alone in a kernel.
It could be argued that the Linux kernel is clever, and with my lack of knowledge of the kernel source I can't really comment. I think it is safe to assume that it's not as clever as it could be though - it doesn't use every trick in the book to reduce file size and increase efficiency because it's no longer small enough to make that kind of thing feasible. It's also modularised so that things can be loaded and unloaded as needed, there's extra code and overhead required to provide that. Finally, it supports a range of architectures now and is more portable. Going back to the old ways of doing things gives up all those benefits.
Finally, the linux kernel is not fast - it is comparably fast for all the things it does, but it is not as fast on a per-cycle basis as OS's were back when every cycle mattered. It does however provide more features (like loadable modules), more portability and a faster release schedule for fewer man hours.
So when you really sit down and think about it, while programs these days take up more RAM and CPU power there are a range of benefits that come from this. You should also note that comparatively the overall experience of using a computer has become radically faster then it previously used to. You may think that a program feels slow when you run it on a 3 year old machine, but what you fail to realise is that you've just gotten used to how much faster your new machine is. Having said that, some software is just plain crap, but so are some cars and bridges so the bad apples don't just come from software engineering.
Why should the processor have to predict the next mess of instructions, load them into a cache, find out it predicted incorrectly, dump the cache, find the correct location, load the instructions...
Incredibly poor chip design actually. This problem really only becomes significant when pipelines are made too long (such as in the P4). The pipelines are extended to make it possible to use a higher Mhz rating - though because of the extended pipeline and the problems caused by having to guess ahead so far the CPU doesn't actually function anywhere near as fast as the Mhz would indicate it should. This is why people talk about the Megahertz Myth - there's a ton of information on it around the web.
Why are processors marketed by their internal clock speed when they spend most of their time waiting for data?
Because consumers don't understand computers well enough to know this and Mhz has been used as a rating mechanism for so long (and previously it had been reasonably accurate). Marketers will jump at any opportunity to make their product sound better than the competition.
And above all, why does software suck so badly?
It doesn't. There is and always has been poorly written software but to say that all software sucks is unjustified. There are cars that break down due to manufacturing defects, bridges that collapse, constructions which go over time and budget and a myriad of failures from all types of engineering so of course not all software is perfect but it is improving whether or not you like the way it is improving is another matter.
A number of people have stated that this analogy is incorrect already, but none of them seem to be getting the point through to people, so let me try an analogy to show why these actions are in fact reason to question the GM production from Monsanto.
Let's say that you have a friend who you've known for a fair while and trust. You tell this friend a secret which is really important to you that it is kept secret and they break your trust by telling a whole bunch of people your secret with no reasonable justification for these actions. Needless to say you're pretty annoyed, you yell and scream etc, etc. Then you notice that your friend gets on really well with your girlfriend.
Now, there is no evidence to suggest that your friend is doing anything with your girlfriend and before this friend betrayed your trust you never would have even thought he would steal your girlfriend - but you never would have thought he'd breach your trust either. It's pretty clear in this situation that while you shouldn't jump to conclusions you probably shouldn't put blind faith into your friend who has clearly and blatantly betrayed your trust.
Now lets suppose that you know a corporation who makes weed killer and the weed killer works really well - you've been buying it for a fair while now. Suddenly you discover that in producing this weed killer the company has been dumping all kinds of dangerous chemicals into a river - affecting a significant number of people - with no good reason.
Then you notice that this corporation is producing genetically modified foods (which you regularly eat). Clearly it's not a time to go jumping to conclusions, but it's also not all that wise to continue to put your blind faith in the corporation.
Whether or not there is evidence that the GM foods produced by Monsanto are good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant. When a company shows this much flagrant disregard for the health and saftey of people, it is probably worth taking a closer look at their other areas of operation - not doing so is akin to burying your head in the sand.
I have no such duty to arm myself in order to protect myself. It is sensible for me to avoid trouble, but it is not my duty to be prepared to kill or even to harm anyone and it would be a very sad society if it was.
as much as I hope that I will never need to point a weapon at a human being, but my right to be prepared for such an event is not contingent on the approval of my neighbors.
You are more than capable of preparing to defend yourself without the use of semi-automatic weapons. You are also capable of preventing harm to yourself by simply following the instructions and not causing trouble. You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in your home if you challenge them. Anyone who comes into your home with the intent to harm you rather than steal your possessions will have harmed you long before you have a chance to get your gun ready to fire. Anyone who comes into your house purely to rob you will not harm you if you don't put up a fight.
There are always exceptions, but there are always times when a gun won't protect you. All in all, you're better off avoiding trouble rather than arming yourself so that you win the battle, but like I said. It is up to the society as to what is best, because this is an issue that affects the society. Whether or not you carry a gun will not affect me, because I am well out of firing range.
BTW, the incompetent perp who tried to detonate his shoes last week wasn't stopped by a policeman, was he?
No, but the case proves my point because noone in the area had a gun, and he was still stopped. Hence, this is an example of not needing a gun to protect yourself.
For the record, I have not mentioned anything about centralisation of threat, defence or police. I make the claim that there is no hard and fast rule for these decisions and they should be made by the society. I personally, prefer living in a society which has gun control as do the majority of Australians, hence we have gun control laws. That's how democracy works.
Because a bit of paper will protect our children so well. The constitution is just another form of law and it does not solve the problem. So I submit that the bigger problem is that people think laws will solve every problem when history has shown that this is clearly not the case.
And even if there was only ever one such event, it would be no less of a tragedy. Don't fall under the spell of being desensitised to horrific events because it's such a big year for the news.