What happens if you don't patch a Mac? Possible intrusion is what happens, Same as on Wndows
Possible intrusion is still a lot better than absolute definite unquestionable intrusion. I'm still waiting for a good remote exploit for OS X to appear. Meanwhile, Apple makes it a lot easier to patch with their Software Update that contains timely updates.
Tell your friend not to install all that stuff that gives him malware.
What makes you think the guy's friend is installing all that stuff? Some of it may present nothing more than a strange (to the average person) EULA dialog while web browsing, but a lot of stuff these days installs itself silently through holes in Internet Explorer.
The answer to the quick-identification problem is tha the personalised stamps have a common part (with the queens head, plus one of a number of designs) with the photo next to that.
So all you need is a stool or something so that you can be high enough to show the camera that you're wearing your kilt in proper regimental style?
Um, no. No matter what your or anyone else's wet dreams of running OS X on a $100 beige box motherboard may be like, Apple is not going to switch to an x86 CPU. They've already been through one CPU change, it took like five years to finish, and it was rather painful. Then they've gone through an OS change, which also took five years and was another rather painful transition.
Neither developers nor customers will stand for yet another such change, just as things have finally settled down. Besides, there is absolutely NO REASON for them to switch, except possibly for parts availablity. They don't have enough market share to need that many more parts, and they already have 64 bits without 20 years of x86 instruction set baggage, thank you very much. You have failed to produce any reason why Apple would switch other than that it would make AMD fanboys like you drool about being able to run OS X on the l33t g4m1ng b0x they already have.
Even if Apple did go x86, they wouldn't use a PC BIOS. They'd use Open Firmware, and the disks would use the same disk partitioning that Apple has used since before 1990. It would not run on an ABit board from Fry's, and Apple would make no effort for it to be easy to do so, nor would they sell boxed OS X for non-Apple computers.
That would be a bit difficult, as they've just sold the PC division to an Asian company, and why would Apple want that anyhow? I'm thinking that IBM will find some way to fit Apple and OS X into the void left by selling off their PC division, but not by buying them out. Perhaps IBM might act as a reseller, maybe even with their own case designs? (But not clones, as Apple has already been there, and decided that it didn't really want to do that.)
Just as long as whatever happens, Apple doesn't fsck up things like they did with Motorola. Motorola was using Macs up through the clone days, then (mostly as a response to Apple pulling the plug on cloning, IIRC, but then MacOS 8.1 wasn't exactly "enterprise class", either), Motorola got rid of all their internal PPC desktops, and didn't even seem to care that they were using CPUs made by a competitor.
Can anyone actually see Mr. Jobs actually going for this?
If he can see it as IBM coming to him, I can see him going for it, and grinning from ear-to-ear the whole time. Originally he considered IBM to be "the enemy". The marching army of shined shoes and suits, against his culture of sandals and T-shirts. (It just so happened that he was so focused on beating IBM that he didn't see Bill Gates and Microsoft as competition until they were firmly entrenched.) This would be something like a symbolic surrender of the IBM culture to the Apple culture, if the speculation in TFA is anywhere near prophetic.
Victory is a dish best served with a nice dessert of apple pie.
Also announced today were the plans to construct a new NASA engineering and research center in Bangalore, India.
But if Clinton was still president, NASA's new engineering and research center would be in Bentonville, Arkansas, with thousands of launch centers nationwide!
Apple is doing pretty good by taking the middle road. Kernel, BSD utils, and compiler are open-source; graphics, window manager, IDE and apps are closed-source.
Where did I say Delphi's objects were stack-based? I was talking about its ancestor, TP 5.5. It was quite literally C++ objects implemented with a Pascal syntax. That way they didn't have to support heavy use of heap objects, because, as I said, TP 5.5's heap management sucked. If you randomly allocated and freed a lot of small blocks in random order, it would run out of memory just from the free list alone. Not to mention that it ran in x86 Real Mode, so nothing could be more than 65521 bytes (65536 - 15) long.
Re:Price and licensing killed Delphi
on
Delphi Renaissance
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But then Borland quietly upped the price and changed the licensing.
They also never seemed to grasp the concept of bundling trial versions into books. I never saw a book+CD about Delphi that had anything resembling a trial version of Delphi. This meant you already had to have a copy just to try the examples from the book.
The main reason I never used Delphi was that I was pretty much all-Mac at the time, but the #2 reason was that the price of entry was too steep for just trying it out. Pascal was never the problem, because I used that on the Mac for years, and Turbo Pascal used a UCSD dialect similar to what the Mac used.
If so, it was a bad dream, because Borland never came out with Object Pascal as it was originally defined, and had already been implemented by Apple. What they came up with should really have been called Pascal++, because it was Pascal with C++ style objects. Why? Because their heap code sucked chocolate salty balls at the time, and could never have handled the kind of memory management that heap-only objects would have required.
I have three OS X desktops at home. One (a Blue & White G3) replaced my old web server which was an old K6 baby-AT BYO box running Slackware. There's also an 8-year old Power Tower Pro running 10.2.8 for which I have a second B&W G3 to replace it when I get around to it. The other is a "Windtunnel" G4.
I don't use them much any more... in person, at least. Thanks to fixed-IP DSL, 802.11b, and house-wide Ethernet, I find that I mostly use them through SSH or VNC or AFP from my 17-inch Powerbook (aka my "17-inch iPod"). But every now and then I do have to go in there to start a DVD-R burning to archive stuff.
Correction... I just remembered the 4400. The 6100 may have been like using a computer that ran on molasses, but the 4400 was just plain crap. It was also the only model to use its particular type of RAM.
Maybe Apple could gain market share briefly by selling junk. It wouldn't gain repeat customers, and it wouldn't work for long.
Apple did used to sell junk. Although they didn't try all that hard to compete on price. Ever hear of "Performa"? The 6100 series was probably the worst Mac that Apple ever made, and the 475 wasn't much better.
I don't see anyone suggesting that BMW or Cadillac should make cars to compete with Hyundai.
I've been using Macs since 1985, and I've got to agree that wacked-out Mac fanatics are more rabid and wacked-out than most other computer fanatics, with the possible exception of the rabid Free Software types (the ones who think OGG and the GPL will save the world, as opposed to mere Linux/BSD fanatics).
I still agree that it's a bit farfetched to think that rabid Mac cultists would skew the poll by admitting that they had recently switched from a PC (doesn't fit with their mindset), much less that a poll of 400-600 iPod users would get a sufficient number of rabid Mac cultists to skew it anyhow.
I was actually thinking about that the other day. Have you noticed how the Windows version of iTunes makes a point of having almost the same "brushed metal" interface as the Mac version? I don't know how well it stands out in XP, but it certainly stands out in W2K. Maybe every time a Windows user sees the iTunes window, he/she can hear a voice in the back of their head saying "if you switch, everything will look this spiffy!"
Er. I meant I got a _Gamecube_ on day one. Major brain fart there. Other than that, WTF are you babbling about? I'm not worse off for anything. When it came right down to it, I didn't really care about not getting a DS on release after all. All I really wanted was something with a backlight that was sufficiently more improved over what I had than the SP was to justify spending real money. I like the wide design of the GBA-1 and DS (and Nomad) better than the narrow SP design.
Just because there's a new open-source *nix contender doesn't mean that Linux is going to suddenly be switched away from. Part of what attracts people to Linux is the GPL licensing, which you won't get with Solaris. Some people prefer GPL, some prefer BSD-style. Another major factor in the rise of Linux was stagnation in BSD due to the AT&T lawsuit at the time.
That being said, BSD (and probably OS X as well) stands to gain a lot more from Solaris than Linux does if its license is more compatible.
Slashdot Mirror
Possible intrusion is still a lot better than absolute definite unquestionable intrusion. I'm still waiting for a good remote exploit for OS X to appear. Meanwhile, Apple makes it a lot easier to patch with their Software Update that contains timely updates.
Tell your friend not to install all that stuff that gives him malware.
What makes you think the guy's friend is installing all that stuff? Some of it may present nothing more than a strange (to the average person) EULA dialog while web browsing, but a lot of stuff these days installs itself silently through holes in Internet Explorer.
So all you need is a stool or something so that you can be high enough to show the camera that you're wearing your kilt in proper regimental style?
(be sure to smile!)
That's okay, it runs Irix. I'm sure you could have found a local 'sploit quickly enough. Irix was famous for its lack of security.
...it's got to be litigious!
Neither developers nor customers will stand for yet another such change, just as things have finally settled down. Besides, there is absolutely NO REASON for them to switch, except possibly for parts availablity. They don't have enough market share to need that many more parts, and they already have 64 bits without 20 years of x86 instruction set baggage, thank you very much. You have failed to produce any reason why Apple would switch other than that it would make AMD fanboys like you drool about being able to run OS X on the l33t g4m1ng b0x they already have.
Even if Apple did go x86, they wouldn't use a PC BIOS. They'd use Open Firmware, and the disks would use the same disk partitioning that Apple has used since before 1990. It would not run on an ABit board from Fry's, and Apple would make no effort for it to be easy to do so, nor would they sell boxed OS X for non-Apple computers.
That would be a bit difficult, as they've just sold the PC division to an Asian company, and why would Apple want that anyhow? I'm thinking that IBM will find some way to fit Apple and OS X into the void left by selling off their PC division, but not by buying them out. Perhaps IBM might act as a reseller, maybe even with their own case designs? (But not clones, as Apple has already been there, and decided that it didn't really want to do that.)
Just as long as whatever happens, Apple doesn't fsck up things like they did with Motorola. Motorola was using Macs up through the clone days, then (mostly as a response to Apple pulling the plug on cloning, IIRC, but then MacOS 8.1 wasn't exactly "enterprise class", either), Motorola got rid of all their internal PPC desktops, and didn't even seem to care that they were using CPUs made by a competitor.
Apple was created by guys who smoked pot.
I think you may be slightly off...
/whoa, look at all the pretty colors...
I'm not counting Crossover, since it requires an x86 CPU. Which would kind of miss the whole point.
Isn't that what Steve does in the executive washroom?
If he can see it as IBM coming to him, I can see him going for it, and grinning from ear-to-ear the whole time. Originally he considered IBM to be "the enemy". The marching army of shined shoes and suits, against his culture of sandals and T-shirts. (It just so happened that he was so focused on beating IBM that he didn't see Bill Gates and Microsoft as competition until they were firmly entrenched.) This would be something like a symbolic surrender of the IBM culture to the Apple culture, if the speculation in TFA is anywhere near prophetic.
Victory is a dish best served with a nice dessert of apple pie.
But if Clinton was still president, NASA's new engineering and research center would be in Bentonville, Arkansas, with thousands of launch centers nationwide!
Didn't we outsource that already?
Apple is doing pretty good by taking the middle road. Kernel, BSD utils, and compiler are open-source; graphics, window manager, IDE and apps are closed-source.
Where did I say Delphi's objects were stack-based? I was talking about its ancestor, TP 5.5. It was quite literally C++ objects implemented with a Pascal syntax. That way they didn't have to support heavy use of heap objects, because, as I said, TP 5.5's heap management sucked. If you randomly allocated and freed a lot of small blocks in random order, it would run out of memory just from the free list alone. Not to mention that it ran in x86 Real Mode, so nothing could be more than 65521 bytes (65536 - 15) long.
They also never seemed to grasp the concept of bundling trial versions into books. I never saw a book+CD about Delphi that had anything resembling a trial version of Delphi. This meant you already had to have a copy just to try the examples from the book.
The main reason I never used Delphi was that I was pretty much all-Mac at the time, but the #2 reason was that the price of entry was too steep for just trying it out. Pascal was never the problem, because I used that on the Mac for years, and Turbo Pascal used a UCSD dialect similar to what the Mac used.
I meant TP 5.5. I got a lot of mileage out of TP 5.0, that's for sure.
I guess I was imagining TP 6.5, then.
If so, it was a bad dream, because Borland never came out with Object Pascal as it was originally defined, and had already been implemented by Apple. What they came up with should really have been called Pascal++, because it was Pascal with C++ style objects. Why? Because their heap code sucked chocolate salty balls at the time, and could never have handled the kind of memory management that heap-only objects would have required.
I don't use them much any more... in person, at least. Thanks to fixed-IP DSL, 802.11b, and house-wide Ethernet, I find that I mostly use them through SSH or VNC or AFP from my 17-inch Powerbook (aka my "17-inch iPod"). But every now and then I do have to go in there to start a DVD-R burning to archive stuff.
Correction... I just remembered the 4400. The 6100 may have been like using a computer that ran on molasses, but the 4400 was just plain crap. It was also the only model to use its particular type of RAM.
Apple did used to sell junk. Although they didn't try all that hard to compete on price. Ever hear of "Performa"? The 6100 series was probably the worst Mac that Apple ever made, and the 475 wasn't much better.
I don't see anyone suggesting that BMW or Cadillac should make cars to compete with Hyundai.
I still agree that it's a bit farfetched to think that rabid Mac cultists would skew the poll by admitting that they had recently switched from a PC (doesn't fit with their mindset), much less that a poll of 400-600 iPod users would get a sufficient number of rabid Mac cultists to skew it anyhow.
It does now.
I was actually thinking about that the other day. Have you noticed how the Windows version of iTunes makes a point of having almost the same "brushed metal" interface as the Mac version? I don't know how well it stands out in XP, but it certainly stands out in W2K. Maybe every time a Windows user sees the iTunes window, he/she can hear a voice in the back of their head saying "if you switch, everything will look this spiffy!"
Er. I meant I got a _Gamecube_ on day one. Major brain fart there. Other than that, WTF are you babbling about? I'm not worse off for anything. When it came right down to it, I didn't really care about not getting a DS on release after all. All I really wanted was something with a backlight that was sufficiently more improved over what I had than the SP was to justify spending real money. I like the wide design of the GBA-1 and DS (and Nomad) better than the narrow SP design.
That being said, BSD (and probably OS X as well) stands to gain a lot more from Solaris than Linux does if its license is more compatible.