*Hands up to project management* Fair point. I'd forgotton about that:)
Wheather open-source itself improves reliability is up for debate, though. I think the limited scope of open-source development is the factor that gives the software it's reliability. There is nothing that can be done about it. Without corporate muscle, or millions of competant programmers, you can't expect an OS to do everything. Windows main failing is that it has to try and do everything, and that's what causes it's unreliability at the core. Linux doesn't, and isn't expected to, work on everything. Linux is developed steadily and properly. That's why it's more reliable. That's not because it's open-source, but an indication of good coding. Closed-source software could take the same careful pace if companies wished it. Unfortuantely, working 80% of the time on 80% of products seems to be the target.
If BeOS had been open source, it would still be a viable OS today.
The keyword you use is "viable." Would it really be viable in ten years? I don't have a Mac, so I'm not here to spout Mac lovers slogans, but the whole point of an OS is to get things done. Word processing, gaming, whatever. If Be was open-source, you'd end up with a BorgOS instead. Small parts bolted on as and when needed: "We will adapt." And, as the article in this topic refers to, an OS like that (Linux being an OS like that) simply won't hang together. Be would not be the same. Ten years down the road, it'll be a crashing, feeezing heap. It would get screwed around with so much that you'd probably end up wishing it would have just died, thanks for the memories.
Clinging to the past is a curious geek trait, when technology is all about moving forward. If the Apple cash cow dries up, then Mac users would have to let MacOS go. Change isn't a Bad Thing. Just go out and get the OS that gets the things you need to do done, and leave the past behind.
...why is it called ALICE? Is it a deliberate attempt to confuse people who already relate ALICE to the ALICEbot? Is ALICE simply just a very adpatable acronym? Does ALICE the acronym deserve an acronym to describe it's acronymity? Adaptable Language In Crappy English, perhaps?
I *competely* agree. What is a Mac? It already uses a Mobility Radeon, and most probably a lot of other x86 technology. So what defines it? The PPC processor I suppose, making sure it's completely incompatible with Windows. Using an x86 processor would not in anyway harm Apple, it could be the saviour. Think about it people.
How many people are put off buying Apple because they simply can't afford to not have Windows running smoothly and quickly (not Virtual PC emulated)? Thousands, if not more. Now, if they could run Windows on their Apple machine, would they buy it? Yes. The TiBook is a wonder of engineering, everything about it is right. It is the best notebook money can buy, and put in the x86 marketplace, it would sell in even greater numbers. The current x86 laptops don't even come close.
So why does Apple not include x86 processors? Are they simply being bitchy about it? Is it because of incompatibility worries? Why should Apple care? They design their laptops and what technology should go in, they can make sure it works completely and utterly efficentely. If people want to start putting in thier own El Cheapo parts, that's their problem.
I think they're scared. They currentely have a solid, captive market and fear letting them go. They fear that whilst they can charge inflated prices to the market they have now, they can't do it elsewhere. And they'd be right. But of course, in comes in profit/volume. Apple would sell a greater volume, make just as much (if not more) cash and finally have a much deeper market penetration.
It all works. It's just a shame Jobs can't see it.
Hah, you're right:) But "inventors", "innovators", "crazies" or however they wish to call themselves keep making this stuff, and it is just a matter of time before someone gets battered. And, in the UK at least, even if you were caught using it, you'd still get less time in the chokey than manslaughter (don't know how they say it in the US: killing without premeditation), despite the fact it amounts to the same thing.
Anyway, who said there was anything bad with identikit responses?;)
Re:The Next Step
on
Dashboard Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
On the idiot box I saw something like this, where a small HUD was projected to the corner of the windscreen, which screened thermal imagery to the driver to be used in conditions of poor visibility. Worryingly, I would doubt it took long for some fool to post on the Internet how to turn it into a DVD player, causing people everywhere to crash their cars at the nail-biting final scene...
I think a full on windscreen display would be a bit OTT. By the time that comes viable, the cars will be flying themselves:)
Do drivers really need any more distractions? They're supposed to be watching the road, rather than whomping through pedestrians. Why the hell would you want to play UT in the car? Frag a few people at the traffic lights? The real kicker is that it doesn't actually run when the engine is off. Hooray!
However, the rather pointless walnut styling on the keyboard really sells the thing to me:)
When will companies realise that mass authentication simply doesn't work? It's supposed to make online purchasing easier for the average consumer. Aren't consumers doing that already? Many people use exactly the same password for each online shopping site they visit. I know my family does, despite my repeated protests at what might happen if someone snags the password. But after the Hotmail Passport grabber, having the same password seems more secure! The more sites that use mass authentication systems, the more crackers will find the holes and exploit them for all they are worth.
I'm not completely sure, but doesn't that "18 month" rule simply apply to clock rates rather than actual power? Perhaps they mean ten-fold increase against other processors clocked at the same speed?
Who are AMD and Intel trying to kid? I mean, does anyone really care about such advances which we won't see until 2009? It's just more transistors, so the speed will boost. But at the stupendous rate Intel and AMD are cranking out faster and faster clocked processors, such things will simply not matter in 2009. "Ooo, I can get another 8 FPS out of Quake 7 over and above the 50 frames I can't physically see anyway." Roll on biological or quantum computation.
Hacking School is malicious
on
Hacker U.
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hacking is a Good Thing. It teaches skills and leads to important security holes being filled. By learning about these holes, everyone benefits with the joys of greater knowledge (wooo! Alturistic:) ) But there are already places where you can learn hacking. They call themselves: Universities.
A lot of courses (at least the ones I have seen) provide a foundation in how to hack, simply because it is the only way to make sure that any systems you create are secure, and tests new technology as well. For example, I've seen two Universites here in the UK that do this. At the University of Bristol, they are researching into how to hack smart chips, whilst University of Nottingham let you try and hack their network. Of course, this is all built into a well-rounded course teaching students Computer Science.
Where does that leave the idea of "hacking schools"? It puts them quite definitely in the malicious camp. If these people were hacking to increase their skills, they would be taught other things at the same time (ala University). But this "school" is starting people out with hacking, and giving a few lessons in C and Linux for those that don't know. It's not about being a better computer user, it's about being a better hacker, which can only be used for the more nefarious of purposes.
Yes, James Bond may be the greatest English export IMHO, but I don't really think that the plot from Tomorrow Never Dies is particuarly realistic (false GPS signals fed to targetted areas) It's quite simply a waste of money. The US government could pull the plug at any time, encode the transmissions or fake the results (possibly), but that is so unlikely. Euro-US relations are far too strong to warrant such expense.
I reckon that cracking open a console, and being able to hack it's arse off looks like a lot of fun indeed. It may well be a PC, but it's cheap (compared to building your own), and does the job of running games better than my home brew beast, which is only a year old. The thought of squeezing out extra FPS on Halo makes me go all shivery.
Slashdot Mirror
*Hands up to project management* Fair point. I'd forgotton about that :)
Wheather open-source itself improves reliability is up for debate, though. I think the limited scope of open-source development is the factor that gives the software it's reliability. There is nothing that can be done about it. Without corporate muscle, or millions of competant programmers, you can't expect an OS to do everything. Windows main failing is that it has to try and do everything, and that's what causes it's unreliability at the core. Linux doesn't, and isn't expected to, work on everything. Linux is developed steadily and properly. That's why it's more reliable. That's not because it's open-source, but an indication of good coding. Closed-source software could take the same careful pace if companies wished it. Unfortuantely, working 80% of the time on 80% of products seems to be the target.
If BeOS had been open source, it would still be a viable OS today.
The keyword you use is "viable." Would it really be viable in ten years? I don't have a Mac, so I'm not here to spout Mac lovers slogans, but the whole point of an OS is to get things done. Word processing, gaming, whatever. If Be was open-source, you'd end up with a BorgOS instead. Small parts bolted on as and when needed: "We will adapt." And, as the article in this topic refers to, an OS like that (Linux being an OS like that) simply won't hang together. Be would not be the same. Ten years down the road, it'll be a crashing, feeezing heap. It would get screwed around with so much that you'd probably end up wishing it would have just died, thanks for the memories.
Clinging to the past is a curious geek trait, when technology is all about moving forward. If the Apple cash cow dries up, then Mac users would have to let MacOS go. Change isn't a Bad Thing. Just go out and get the OS that gets the things you need to do done, and leave the past behind.
...why is it called ALICE? Is it a deliberate attempt to confuse people who already relate ALICE to the ALICEbot? Is ALICE simply just a very adpatable acronym? Does ALICE the acronym deserve an acronym to describe it's acronymity? Adaptable Language In Crappy English, perhaps?
I *competely* agree. What is a Mac? It already uses a Mobility Radeon, and most probably a lot of other x86 technology. So what defines it? The PPC processor I suppose, making sure it's completely incompatible with Windows. Using an x86 processor would not in anyway harm Apple, it could be the saviour. Think about it people.
How many people are put off buying Apple because they simply can't afford to not have Windows running smoothly and quickly (not Virtual PC emulated)? Thousands, if not more. Now, if they could run Windows on their Apple machine, would they buy it? Yes. The TiBook is a wonder of engineering, everything about it is right. It is the best notebook money can buy, and put in the x86 marketplace, it would sell in even greater numbers. The current x86 laptops don't even come close.
So why does Apple not include x86 processors? Are they simply being bitchy about it? Is it because of incompatibility worries? Why should Apple care? They design their laptops and what technology should go in, they can make sure it works completely and utterly efficentely. If people want to start putting in thier own El Cheapo parts, that's their problem.
I think they're scared. They currentely have a solid, captive market and fear letting them go. They fear that whilst they can charge inflated prices to the market they have now, they can't do it elsewhere. And they'd be right. But of course, in comes in profit/volume. Apple would sell a greater volume, make just as much (if not more) cash and finally have a much deeper market penetration.
It all works. It's just a shame Jobs can't see it.
Hah, you're right :) But "inventors", "innovators", "crazies" or however they wish to call themselves keep making this stuff, and it is just a matter of time before someone gets battered. And, in the UK at least, even if you were caught using it, you'd still get less time in the chokey than manslaughter (don't know how they say it in the US: killing without premeditation), despite the fact it amounts to the same thing.
;)
Anyway, who said there was anything bad with identikit responses?
On the idiot box I saw something like this, where a small HUD was projected to the corner of the windscreen, which screened thermal imagery to the driver to be used in conditions of poor visibility. Worryingly, I would doubt it took long for some fool to post on the Internet how to turn it into a DVD player, causing people everywhere to crash their cars at the nail-biting final scene... :)
I think a full on windscreen display would be a bit OTT. By the time that comes viable, the cars will be flying themselves
Do drivers really need any more distractions? They're supposed to be watching the road, rather than whomping through pedestrians. Why the hell would you want to play UT in the car? Frag a few people at the traffic lights? The real kicker is that it doesn't actually run when the engine is off. Hooray! :)
However, the rather pointless walnut styling on the keyboard really sells the thing to me
When will companies realise that mass authentication simply doesn't work? It's supposed to make online purchasing easier for the average consumer. Aren't consumers doing that already? Many people use exactly the same password for each online shopping site they visit. I know my family does, despite my repeated protests at what might happen if someone snags the password. But after the Hotmail Passport grabber, having the same password seems more secure! The more sites that use mass authentication systems, the more crackers will find the holes and exploit them for all they are worth.
I'm not completely sure, but doesn't that "18 month" rule simply apply to clock rates rather than actual power? Perhaps they mean ten-fold increase against other processors clocked at the same speed?
Who are AMD and Intel trying to kid? I mean, does anyone really care about such advances which we won't see until 2009? It's just more transistors, so the speed will boost. But at the stupendous rate Intel and AMD are cranking out faster and faster clocked processors, such things will simply not matter in 2009. "Ooo, I can get another 8 FPS out of Quake 7 over and above the 50 frames I can't physically see anyway." Roll on biological or quantum computation.
Hacking is a Good Thing. It teaches skills and leads to important security holes being filled. By learning about these holes, everyone benefits with the joys of greater knowledge (wooo! Alturistic :) ) But there are already places where you can learn hacking. They call themselves: Universities.
A lot of courses (at least the ones I have seen) provide a foundation in how to hack, simply because it is the only way to make sure that any systems you create are secure, and tests new technology as well. For example, I've seen two Universites here in the UK that do this. At the University of Bristol, they are researching into how to hack smart chips, whilst University of Nottingham let you try and hack their network. Of course, this is all built into a well-rounded course teaching students Computer Science.
Where does that leave the idea of "hacking schools"? It puts them quite definitely in the malicious camp. If these people were hacking to increase their skills, they would be taught other things at the same time (ala University). But this "school" is starting people out with hacking, and giving a few lessons in C and Linux for those that don't know. It's not about being a better computer user, it's about being a better hacker, which can only be used for the more nefarious of purposes.
Yes, James Bond may be the greatest English export IMHO, but I don't really think that the plot from Tomorrow Never Dies is particuarly realistic (false GPS signals fed to targetted areas) It's quite simply a waste of money. The US government could pull the plug at any time, encode the transmissions or fake the results (possibly), but that is so unlikely. Euro-US relations are far too strong to warrant such expense.
I reckon that cracking open a console, and being able to hack it's arse off looks like a lot of fun indeed. It may well be a PC, but it's cheap (compared to building your own), and does the job of running games better than my home brew beast, which is only a year old. The thought of squeezing out extra FPS on Halo makes me go all shivery.