"Umm, instead of trying to discredit the guy maybe you should do a little more research."
You mean by trying to install it on two iMacs that have OS X retail installed (which I did), or do you mean by verifing with external sources (which I also did)
From what I can tell, it non rootless if you compile it yourslef and currently doesnt work rootless at all.
"What I like the best is the XonX program that a bunch of sourceforgers are working on. By hitting Command-Alt A"
This comment suggests that on some level you are bullshitting these people. The final version of OS X broke XFree86 and hence XonX doesn't with OS X final.
OS X is nice, but don't make stuff up.
Troll time, cause this is just fucking stupid. I had someone ask me last night why I use a Mac and I found it difficult to explain how a bunch of little easyness adds up to a nice system. When this is a great example, even if Apple had such massive security holes and released a patch, they would NEVER give such idiotic instructions. It's like Microsoft is saying "We are too damn lazy to actually patch IE so that it installs without the massive security hole AND additionaly we are too damn lazy to write a patch that works on all affected systems, therefore you may have to upgrade your version of IE (how convient) then patch it"
Stupid, just fucking stupid. Get a clue Microsoft.
I decided to fnd out jst hw good the comprssn was, and comprssd this post, thn uncompss it bfore psting. As y cn se yo hardy lose anythg in he cmpressn. Futhermore
It relly nt that bad of comps and everyn shld use it.
It has been known for some time that MS screws its customers with licenses. To use Win2K for any heavy use web site costs a FORTUNE. WinME is expensive. Win2K Pro is expensive. Office is unbelievably expensive. MS has little trolls running around businesses constantly demanding to see proof that its MS software is "properly" licensed. Generally speaking, I've always had the impression that MS screwed thier customers. Which is why I'm not one of them.
So please CmdrTaco, please don't do the knee jerk response and post EVERYTHING that goes against MS, we already KNOW how full of shit Gate and co are...and anyways, after a certain point it just makes you look like a troll.
"You can bitch about the bugs in IE and it's security hazards, but if they get fixed this fast then it really detracts from your argument that Microsoft sucks"
There is absolutly no way my mom would EVER know about this problem. No way at all. There are MILLIONS of people out there and will continue to be for some time the same MILLIONS that are have and use versions of IE that have this problem.
With.NET around the corner, one can only come to the conclusion that it will be even worse since obviously Verisign has been socially enginered, MS has made this kind of mistake, and people are not educated enough to use and update technology. Wtih MS controlling how people see the internet, we about to enter the world of mystical sci-fi where code can be run remotely on anyones machine, viruses are spead merely my downloading an email, and people can just enter someone elses machine when they are connected to the internet.
Oh wait, we are already there.
So, with all due respect, MS does suck. They are the ONLY company that ships an OS that has the "undocumented feature" that allows web pages to run code on peoples machines. My Macs have NEVER had this problem. My BeOS box has never had this problem. I can think of no other OS that has had this problem, except the "innovative" Microsoft.
"...A Web service provider can expose their system (programmed using.NET) using SOAP and UDDI and then you can leverage those services through your site/application very easily...."
This is a bunch of meaningless techno babble and doesn't answer the question. The questions should have been much deeper anyways, so I'll rephrase it.
What is.Net from a End User point of view, how is it different for the features Java, Macromedia, and W3C Compliance can offerer developers TODAY, and why whould I can about it as an MacOS X user?
Last time I checked, none of the Windows/Linux native filesystems support Fat binaries, neither of the OSs support anything like packages (ie, OS X style), in fact I can think of NO WAY for a single file to have two exectables (one for Windows and one for Linux) on either of these OSs. Therefore this can't be a binary.
Since the scripting languages for each OS are totally different (with the exception of software that supports Javascript and other web compliant software) from one another (perl,awk,sed,bash, vs. AcitiveX and its sister "technologies"), I can think of no way that a script can infect both systems, especially since it infects other files "in the same folder".
This just looks like one big prank leading up to April Fools, people. Has anyone even heard of this company?
"IF OS X wasn't built to run on a closed hardware platform"
You mispelt "IF I could BUILD my own OS X machine"
Apples hardware specs are OPEN. You can download a complete and comprehensive spec on all of Apples hardware. All the chips are buyable on the open market, the core OS source code is open, and the ROM is no longer used in OS X. Any company can build MacOS X compatible boxes, today, they just don't. Second, do you realize how little choice there really is in chip sets on the x86 side, if you actually want reliable hardware?
"I count 7 supported machine types on Apple's website"
Spin, nothing more. Lets see every piece of hardware Apple has created in what, 3 years, maybe 4 is suppored by OS X. WinME essentially requires a new machine to run reliably, WinXP will require a machine made in the same time span as OS X to run at any reasonable speed, and Linux is slow as shit on hardware with less than 128MB of RAM (if you want to use Gnome or KDE).
7 Pieces of supported hardware? I can count at least 5 iMacs supported, Several generations of G3 towers and AIO machines, three generations of G4s, and what 4 generations of Powerbooks. This is not even mentioning the chip revisions Apple never branded as a seperate machine. One thing I can say about MacOS X, when it claims to support a machine, it supports that machine. Unlike the hack and slash installs I have done with Linux (which has never been pretty), just to get something as simple as sound and/or video to work.
This is a suprising to hear coming from Texas. I wonder what kinda of reasoning this is. This isn't like the V-Chip where there was an agreed on standard for rating that is used by most if not all stations. This is the lowest common demoninator applied in an inaffectual manner. Most censorware ban entire ISP merely because they allow porn sites to do business with them, when average Joe has no idea his ISP is on that list.
I wonder if the people of Texas ever heard of something called Market Economics. As time goes on, ISPs and OEMs will compete more and more based on how consumer friendly they are, and people who need censorware will be able to get it with their machine, ISP service, or favorite shrinkwrapped package; pretty much like they can today, except then they will have something that works.
"The true problem is the inhearent complexity of software"
This is utter bullshit. Airplanes are "inhearently complex" but Boeing doesn't put on into the air until they make sure it can fly for a VERY long time with as low maintaince as possible. I expect all software companies to STOP using it customers as beta testers, and actually test their software before they release it.
E-mail is not as "real" as snail mail. What looks more impressive, 50 thousand emails or 50 thousand letters? The emails can be ignored and never downloaded, the snail mail just filled up your office and part of the hall way. The letters are gonna get your attention because if you dont do something about it, you won't be able to get in your office.
According to an article over at Bloomberg, there was no ruling yesterday.
It seems Bloombergs servers make it difficult to link directly to the article, and this info is pseudo redundant since I got it from an AC below, who isn't being modded up.
His link is invalid. I suppose its the dynamic
servers over at Bloomberg. You will see an article there that says there was NO ruling yesterday. The ElectronicNews was WRONG.
"Quite misleading. One might be tricked into believing a preliminary ruling limited the scope of Rambus patents, when in reality, it only means that a preliminary ruling limited the scope of Rambus patents."
Problem is that it didn't limit the SCOPE of any patent. It merely said that, most likely (remember its a preliminary ruling), RAMBUS's patent doesn't even apply in the case of SDRAM. No "limiting of scope" and no invalidation of any part of the patent, just a Judge being safe and agreeing with an "expert" that RAMBUS has no patent on SDRAM.
It seems there is a new way for a company to earn money and it comes in several forms.
1. Go to standards commities, listen to all the sugestions, and patent them in the hope that one day the suggestions are use. (which is what
RAMBUS is alleged to have done by some)
2. Go to a standards commities and suggest your recently filed patent as a standard, in the hope someone will listen and add it to the standard. (which is what MS did with CSS)
In order for standards to be accepted or even used for that matter, there NEEDS to be full disclosure and trust at the comitties. Meaning: No Patents Allowed. Really, the EU, The US, and other interested parties should sign a treaty that agrees on a uniform language to prevent patents from going into or out of a conference. That and the definition of "non-trival" when applied to a patent should mean more than "something a high school grad wouldn't understand". Sure, I don't understand RAM design, but there are those who KNOW what non-trivial is and it seems RAMBUS has patented a non-trivial technology.
When I read the./ headline and article, my first thought was, "there goes their patent". Then I read the article and reread the headline and it made more sense. Rambus patent hasn't been touched, the Judge has merely sided with an "expert witness" in saying that Rambus's patent doesn't even apply to SDRAM, since SDRAM doesn't use the technology in the patent.
With all due respect, especially since I trust MS about as fart as I can throw them, but Office for the Macintosh is superior to Office for the PC and fully compatible as long as you know PC Office limitations(yes, you read right, Limitations of the PC version of Office when compared to the Mac version of Office). For example, don't go putting Quicktime movies in a PowerPoint presentation that is destined for PC. The PC can't handle it.
Windows version of IE is just starting to get features mac users have enjoyed for YEARS. Nice cookie filtering, nice GUI, and better standards support, et al. Granted, MS proprietary web design doesnt work on Mac IE as well as it does on PC, but thats to their disadvantage since over 50% of the web is made on a Mac.
MS sucks, but they aren't screwing thier Mac customers.
How can it cost ME money in form of a "consumer tax" to keep a company on the internet from collecting private information? It just doesn't stand up to reason. I think the only way this "consumer tax" would exist is if they actually started trying to lock down their servers from outside break-ins and keep some 7337 5cR1p7 k11613 from taking my CC number when I purchase from a company stupid enough not to apply security fixes on a regular basis. If that is they case, I'll gladly pay my "consumer tax"...
Slashdot Mirror
You mean by trying to install it on two iMacs that have OS X retail installed (which I did), or do you mean by verifing with external sources (which I also did)
From what I can tell, it non rootless if you compile it yourslef and currently doesnt work rootless at all.
My retail bought copy of OS X doesn't work with it and other peoples OS X final don't work with it.
Yeah, none of them except this one.
This comment suggests that on some level you are bullshitting these people. The final version of OS X broke XFree86 and hence XonX doesn't with OS X final. OS X is nice, but don't make stuff up.
Troll time, cause this is just fucking stupid. I had someone ask me last night why I use a Mac and I found it difficult to explain how a bunch of little easyness adds up to a nice system. When this is a great example, even if Apple had such massive security holes and released a patch, they would NEVER give such idiotic instructions. It's like Microsoft is saying "We are too damn lazy to actually patch IE so that it installs without the massive security hole AND additionaly we are too damn lazy to write a patch that works on all affected systems, therefore you may have to upgrade your version of IE (how convient) then patch it"
Stupid, just fucking stupid. Get a clue Microsoft.
It relly nt that bad of comps and everyn shld use it.
So please CmdrTaco, please don't do the knee jerk response and post EVERYTHING that goes against MS, we already KNOW how full of shit Gate and co are...and anyways, after a certain point it just makes you look like a troll.
There is absolutly no way my mom would EVER know about this problem. No way at all. There are MILLIONS of people out there and will continue to be for some time the same MILLIONS that are have and use versions of IE that have this problem.
With .NET around the corner, one can only come to the conclusion that it will be even worse since obviously Verisign has been socially enginered, MS has made this kind of mistake, and people are not educated enough to use and update technology. Wtih MS controlling how people see the internet, we about to enter the world of mystical sci-fi where code can be run remotely on anyones machine, viruses are spead merely my downloading an email, and people can just enter someone elses machine when they are connected to the internet.
Oh wait, we are already there.
So, with all due respect, MS does suck. They are the ONLY company that ships an OS that has the "undocumented feature" that allows web pages to run code on peoples machines. My Macs have NEVER had this problem. My BeOS box has never had this problem. I can think of no other OS that has had this problem, except the "innovative" Microsoft.
This is a bunch of meaningless techno babble and doesn't answer the question. The questions should have been much deeper anyways, so I'll rephrase it.
What is .Net from a End User point of view, how is it different for the features Java, Macromedia, and W3C Compliance can offerer developers TODAY, and why whould I can about it as an MacOS X user?
What exactly is .NET from a user point of view and why should I care about it as a OS X user?
Since the scripting languages for each OS are totally different (with the exception of software that supports Javascript and other web compliant software) from one another (perl,awk,sed,bash, vs. AcitiveX and its sister "technologies"), I can think of no way that a script can infect both systems, especially since it infects other files "in the same folder".
This just looks like one big prank leading up to April Fools, people. Has anyone even heard of this company?
My new band Etallica just released an album "Nd Ustice Or LL" which we will promptly be submitting for approval.
You mispelt "IF I could BUILD my own OS X machine" Apples hardware specs are OPEN. You can download a complete and comprehensive spec on all of Apples hardware. All the chips are buyable on the open market, the core OS source code is open, and the ROM is no longer used in OS X. Any company can build MacOS X compatible boxes, today, they just don't. Second, do you realize how little choice there really is in chip sets on the x86 side, if you actually want reliable hardware?
"I count 7 supported machine types on Apple's website"
Spin, nothing more. Lets see every piece of hardware Apple has created in what, 3 years, maybe 4 is suppored by OS X. WinME essentially requires a new machine to run reliably, WinXP will require a machine made in the same time span as OS X to run at any reasonable speed, and Linux is slow as shit on hardware with less than 128MB of RAM (if you want to use Gnome or KDE).
7 Pieces of supported hardware? I can count at least 5 iMacs supported, Several generations of G3 towers and AIO machines, three generations of G4s, and what 4 generations of Powerbooks. This is not even mentioning the chip revisions Apple never branded as a seperate machine. One thing I can say about MacOS X, when it claims to support a machine, it supports that machine. Unlike the hack and slash installs I have done with Linux (which has never been pretty), just to get something as simple as sound and/or video to work.
Look on the bright side, it may finally end a long and prestigeous era for Russia when MIR comes down, but we might get a free taco out of it!
I wonder if the people of Texas ever heard of something called Market Economics. As time goes on, ISPs and OEMs will compete more and more based on how consumer friendly they are, and people who need censorware will be able to get it with their machine, ISP service, or favorite shrinkwrapped package; pretty much like they can today, except then they will have something that works.
This is utter bullshit. Airplanes are "inhearently complex" but Boeing doesn't put on into the air until they make sure it can fly for a VERY long time with as low maintaince as possible. I expect all software companies to STOP using it customers as beta testers, and actually test their software before they release it.
Email is an annoyance, snail mail is a reality.
It seems Bloombergs servers make it difficult to link directly to the article, and this info is pseudo redundant since I got it from an AC below, who isn't being modded up.
His link is invalid. I suppose its the dynamic servers over at Bloomberg. You will see an article there that says there was NO ruling yesterday. The ElectronicNews was WRONG.
Problem is that it didn't limit the SCOPE of any patent. It merely said that, most likely (remember its a preliminary ruling), RAMBUS's patent doesn't even apply in the case of SDRAM. No "limiting of scope" and no invalidation of any part of the patent, just a Judge being safe and agreeing with an "expert" that RAMBUS has no patent on SDRAM.
Brain fart alert! I meant to type
RAMBUS has patented a trivial technology
1. Go to standards commities, listen to all the sugestions, and patent them in the hope that one day the suggestions are use. (which is what RAMBUS is alleged to have done by some)
2. Go to a standards commities and suggest your recently filed patent as a standard, in the hope someone will listen and add it to the standard. (which is what MS did with CSS)
In order for standards to be accepted or even used for that matter, there NEEDS to be full disclosure and trust at the comitties. Meaning: No Patents Allowed. Really, the EU, The US, and other interested parties should sign a treaty that agrees on a uniform language to prevent patents from going into or out of a conference. That and the definition of "non-trival" when applied to a patent should mean more than "something a high school grad wouldn't understand". Sure, I don't understand RAM design, but there are those who KNOW what non-trivial is and it seems RAMBUS has patented a non-trivial technology.
When I read the ./ headline and article, my first thought was, "there goes their patent". Then I read the article and reread the headline and it made more sense. Rambus patent hasn't been touched, the Judge has merely sided with an "expert witness" in saying that Rambus's patent doesn't even apply to SDRAM, since SDRAM doesn't use the technology in the patent.
With all due respect, especially since I trust MS about as fart as I can throw them, but Office for the Macintosh is superior to Office for the PC and fully compatible as long as you know PC Office limitations(yes, you read right, Limitations of the PC version of Office when compared to the Mac version of Office). For example, don't go putting Quicktime movies in a PowerPoint presentation that is destined for PC. The PC can't handle it.
Windows version of IE is just starting to get features mac users have enjoyed for YEARS. Nice cookie filtering, nice GUI, and better standards support, et al. Granted, MS proprietary web design doesnt work on Mac IE as well as it does on PC, but thats to their disadvantage since over 50% of the web is made on a Mac.
MS sucks, but they aren't screwing thier Mac customers.
How can it cost ME money in form of a "consumer tax" to keep a company on the internet from collecting private information? It just doesn't stand up to reason. I think the only way this "consumer tax" would exist is if they actually started trying to lock down their servers from outside break-ins and keep some 7337 5cR1p7 k11613 from taking my CC number when I purchase from a company stupid enough not to apply security fixes on a regular basis. If that is they case, I'll gladly pay my "consumer tax"...