I'm sorry you seem to have been outsmarted by a search engine.
I belive the phrase that's apt is something about you being replaceble with a very small shell script...
Re:French using out dated technology, Film at 11!
on
Minitel Hits Twenty
·
· Score: 1
Hey dude, we're talking about the early eighties.
Erm, my point was that this was developed in the UK in the early seventies (though it was only truly launched in to consumer homes in the late seventies, as I mentioned).
because when all you need is to play Tetris, doing it on the Xbox adds no value.
That's *exactly* my point..
People don't want to 'just play Tetris'. How many people still play Atari 2600's for fun (emulated or otherwise) and are entirely happy with that?
Realistically it's going to be a number much less than 0.1% of the number of XBox users. It's not a number big enough to have any impact on uptake.
My folks use the BBC's Ceefax service because they can't get broadband and it's handy for checking the news and what's on next, it doesn't mean they don't have internet access.
Re:French using out dated technology, Film at 11!
on
Minitel Hits Twenty
·
· Score: 1
France's bizzare xenophonic-rooted obsession with the outdated Minitel I am not sure what's xenophobic about that. Oh, maybe your remark is.
Your not that bright then are you?
It's popular because it's 'home grown', the same way that Amstrad was popular in the UK because it was 'home grown' (regardless of the fact that it was often a poor choice).
There is no point in being politically correct if it's just an excuse to cover up ignorance, the French are the most protectionist country in Europe which has been made amply clear many times (the Yahoo debacle, the hassle over the Canadian Univercity with a 'lower than permitted percentage of French content on it's web site', their Import and Export policies, their enormous subsidies to their own producers).
The difference between the minitel and other similar systems (Prestel, BBS,...) is that the minitel worked and was VERY popular. Probably more people used the minitel than prestel and BBS put together.
WHAT? Are you on DRUGS? Really are you insane?
Prestel worked just fine, and the BTS system (used by Prestel, the BBC's Oracle) was used in over a dozen countries (not just 'France'), so, erm NO.
And do you have any idea how popular BBS's were (and even still are in some places?).
Differences between Ceefax and Prestel
on
Minitel Hits Twenty
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It had more than a passing similarty to Ceefax, Prestel *was* a version of the Ceefax service, developed in the early 70's. The BBC went on to produce ORACLE, and the Post Office went on to produce Prestel, the all used the same protocol (BTS).
However, readers should note that Prestel was not simply like what people think of as being 'Ceefax' today, Prestel could display on much higher spec'd terminals, you could download and install software via Prestel, and perfom transactions, and use mail.
You've got think, the first telex system was invented in the UK and we don't really bother with it any more (apart from a few sputtering pages displaying the latest news headlines in hotel lobbies), that should be a sign it's day is at an end.
As for being xenophobic, well this standard was used in many countries (I'm not sure how many, but more than 10), and in any case that comment rather misses the point that the UK is not clinging to this service but rather actively seeking to replace it (with a new much improved solution). It's supported for legacy reasons (i.e. lots of older televisions with out digital decoders still find it useful).
The French are still trying to find new ways to use Minitel, even building new hardware, simply because it's 'their' system.
If you don't get it I won't bother explaining it. Just look around some other European countries and see how many of them are still clinging to similar desperately antiquated systems, *sarcasam* oh your right, the French arn't really xenphobic, it's all in our heads, they don't really go around hassing web site providers and educational establishements because they don't have a high enough percentage of French content, we just imagined it. *end sarcasam*
No, because Minitel is crap, Google does not provided a Minitel interface, Minitel is crap, pr0n doesn't look very good on a Minitel system and did I mention Minitel is crap?;)
Seriously though I'm not trolling, but Minitel wasn't even best of breed (let alone first to market) when it was released.
With this in mind, I thinik asking:
Do you think Minitel may be slowing the rate of Internet takeup in France? I mean, why bother buying a computer when you already have this nice little Minitel terminal that does just about everything you need without any unnecessary complications?
Is akin to asking 'Do you think the existance of Atari 2600's is slowing uptake of the XBox?'.
French using out dated technology, Film at 11!
on
Minitel Hits Twenty
·
· Score: 1, Troll
This is tedius news - other similar (& better, though YMMV) systems, like the UK's Prestel service were invented before this (Prestel was started 24 years ago in the 1970's).
The difference is, that unlike France's bizzare xenophonic-rooted obsession with the outdated Minitel, other large scale BBS systems have been shutdown because they have been rendered useless after the invention and subsequent uptake of the World Wide Web.
(ObNote: I used to work at Prestel On Line, the Internet provision arm of Prestel which was founded in the mid 90's).
Your post contains so many odd and/or illogical statements I felt compelled to reply.
"How did Sony with with the PS2?"
Discounting Sega, they were first to market.
Why discount Sega? - Sega were first to market with a comprarable console *years* before Playstation 2 (the Dreamcast was released in 1998).
"They got into the market far later than all except Microsoft;"
You forget the generational cycles in the video game industry. To an extent, all bets are off when the next generation of console rolls out, which means (discounting the Dreamcast) Sony had the first-mover advantage.
They relied primarily on the sucess of the origional Playstation brand to sell the Playstation 2. This is what kept people from investing in Dreamcast's - they had been constantly told the 'next big thing' is round the corner, and they were led to belive it would be far better than anything they have previously seen.
Sony have a lot of great consumer technology but ought to be ashamed of themsevels for the PS2. Partly because it is has proved very difficult for developers to use the Emotion Engine effectively, and partly because simply the hardware is not particularly capeable (support for only low resolution textures, lack of hardware support for environmental effects, max polygon limits that proved an issue almost immediately [compare DOA3 on PS2 with DOA3 on XBox]).
After the initial rush of playing great games such as GTA:VC many regular users are only just beginning to realise that the PS2 is a bit of let down from a hardware perspective (which was something most hard core gamers realised in the first few weeks, not that it would necessarily stop you from buying one, just that you might not by many games for it). Even looking at some games such as Rogue Squadron on the GameCube is enough to make Playstation owners lament the lack of hardware accelerated special effects on their own console.
"their hardware is far behind the XBox,"
Debatable. We're not exactly comparing a Genesis with an SNES.
No it's not really debatable, it's simple statement of truth, the XBox is a far more able console than the Playstation 2. There surely can be few rational people who doubt this?
A hard disk, a network interface, and crucially - the ability to shift more polygons per second, with much more detailed textures as well as hardware rendered effects* including bump mapping, environment mapping, reflection and Full Screen Anti-Aliasing make it a more capable console (and, with these features built in it is of note that it still retails for less than a Playstation 2).
[* = While the Playstation 2 can also do effects such as bump mapping, they are not hardware accelerated and the frame rate takes such a hit as a result that few developers have been able to use it (which is why it's rarely present in games).]
The Playstation 2 is not anything like a good as it should have been considering the Dreamcast was released in 1998. The PS2 has primarily been successful because of the hype that followed due to the overwhelming success of the original Playstation and because of leverage it has been able to exert on publishers* (e.g. with the Grand Theft Auto series), not because it is competing on technical merit.
[* = Much as have Microsoft have done with Bungie.]
"Sega, who's technology was often cutting edge and who had a long history in the industry, is now defunct in the hardware market."
Sega's problems were never because of either hardware or software. Their main pitfall was marketing. In my opinion, if the Sega Saturn had been backwards-compatible, Sony would be the one out of the hardware business.
You mean Mega CD games? They were not popular in any case, which means that wouldn't have helped. Perhaps you mean with cartridge based media? They already tried this with the Mega CD and 32X fiasco's - both of which were also no
I think your thinking of the funnidest joke in the world, which they used to kill Germans with (and could only be repeated in German because it was so funny it would kill allied troops if they were to hear it in English).
CRAP!!! "Serious Cracker" is an oxymoron!!! It's like saying "Mischevious Do-Gooder!"
That's bizzare and illogical, and very untrue.
It's a crime. Like bombing the L is a crime. It has a tangable, and criticaly costable, impact on companies (and not just the companies that are victims of attacks).
There are people (i.e. those who do it) who don't think that tagging should be regarded as a crime, but then they don't tend to be amoung those of us who contribute the most to society. People who commit these kind of crimes rarely think they are serious, or that they are doing any real damage. And I'm not just talking about crackers, pick pockets, shop lifters, car radio thieves and even burgalars will all use the same excuses (it doesn't cost anyone anything really, it all comes out of insurance, the vicitim can afford it).
If your not knowledgeable enough to realise the impact of cleaning up after tedious crackers then I'm not surprised you think the debate is going nowhere, I don't think your listening to the opposing side hard enough to hear what points they are making.
The multiple network, systems and security admins (who all need to work together) at providers, telco's and carriers that get dragged into every investigation don't go out and grab their pay cheques from trees - it comes from the companies they work for and in costs that get passed down to the consumer.
I don't know about the rest of you, but from my angle, this conversation aint going anywhere... The only people that are making any sense on this blog are the ones trying not to make sense - and I have a hunch they are the only ones that have any knowledge in this area to boot... But of course, obfuscation goes with the territory...
Anyone trying not to make sense is not someone I think you want to be listening too much to, sounds they like are concentrating on style over content.
You come accross like someone who's utterly bought into the pretentious garbage perpetuated by young wannabies and script kiddies the world over. It still amazes me that people think just because someone _looks_ cool or _sounds_ cool they must know what they are talking about.
Oh please, and just what the hell is a "serious cracker"
A 'serious cracker' I would define as someone who habitually exploits systems to satisfy their own wants or needs (as opposed to someone who's just experimented and broken into a few out of, say, idle curiosity).
This is not a distinction I've created - it's already widely used in other contexts too, you can be a regarded 'casual' thief/drug user/cracker, and can commit minor offences (loitering, littering, speeding), you can also be regarded as a serious criminal who commits commit serious offences (GBH, GTA, fraud).
You don't honestly think this type of generalizing is constructive do you? [sighs]
Yes I do - I think generalizing can be a practical and useful mechanism.
s/imbibe you with any/not mean you automatically imbibe/ s/orientated/oriented/ s/microcode/shell code/
Personally, I have better things to do than endlessly proof read posts, I'm not getting paid for it, have Real Work (TM) to do and most people seem to be happy to put up with the odd spelling & grammer mistake. I'm also quite happy as long as I can roughly understand what/. posters are driving at, I'm not paying for them to type up their POV's so I'm just happy they post things of value at all.
How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't. So how do you devise a tracking system which a hacker wouldn't detect? You can't.
Utter garbage.
That is completely analogous to saying only a burglar could design a security system, which is the point an earlier poster was making.
There is phrase 'send a thief to catch a thief', which makes for a good Hollywood script, but this is not good everyday practice, which the rest of the world has already worked out. The idea behind the phrase is that the a thief has information that can be useful in catching another thief, but thieves make VERY bad policemen.
Being a hax0r does imbibe you with any knowledge of how to develop secure systems. In the same way that being a successful scam artist does not put you in a good position to design a more secure credit card. Most crackers have no knowledge of using secure systems, break ins that occur usually down to trivial holes, which all non-security orientated developers know how to fix (and code against), these holes occur simply because best practices are not always followed.
Commercial systems designed with security in mind (e.g. trusted operating systems, encrypted networks, systems that use seperate signed keys for all inter-process and inter-host transactions, networks that have hard-wired one way Ethernet links) tend to cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars to build, and require a team with a strong mix of OS, Software Development and Networking knowledge.
Knowing how to defeat a burglar alarm system is a far cry from knowing how to build one, just as knowing how to write microcode to exploit a buffer overflow is a far cry from knowing how to write and develop for a secure environment.
All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.
Crackers break into secure software, they don't have experience in designing secure software. They would make awful systems that would be just a vulnerable but in different ways - developing secure solutions requires a design approach that bears this in mind.
Serious crackers are *not* suitable canidates for security experts.
Yep it's mostly FreeBSD backend, but the front end is IIS (and a smallish percentage of the backend servers are Windows based too).
I think most large companies are in the same boat, but I think as Microsoft have such a large number of staff, such intimate knowledge of the software they are deploying and such a huge budget that they could manage projects a better to prevent instances like this.
While I think that companies that start out well and grow big all eventually out grow their roots and typically end up the same way (and I think that this happens in all fields) I would equally have though Microsoft would have had a few good project managers to oversee the process to ensure that best practices were being followed, especially with something as critical as Passport.
The design. You could simply not do that im my implimentation. Yes it might have security bugs, but NOTHING as fundamentially and basically broken as that. It IS down to the design, and I think it's very important to understand if you want to write good (stable and secure) code.
I am aghast that you might think that allowing you to change a user's password via passing bogus form parameters is not an amazingly bad thing (for the world's biggest single sign-on service at that). It should be immediately obvious that it is simply mornic.
In my application, for example, you can't change the password without providing existing authentication details to the lower level API ('AuthUser' which calls 'User', which calls 'GetUserInfo', which calls 'DB Interface', which calls 'IO' which calls the raw database interface and get's the data out).
[Note: Names of libraries are examples, not AFAIR actual name used.]
The importance in the design is in using abstraction, I don't use so many libraries for fun, it is because it makes code ultilmately managable, gives you numerous checkpoints, and gives you fantastic debuging (when implimented correctly, a challange in itself.).
But the importance is in that the users details are never trusted, the details passed are always verified against what's actually in the database for that user - even if the function can only be called from another embeded function - this makes it very secure in that it's not possible to fake being another user without first authenticating as them as an inspection of the users details is done in EVERY library function.
There are API's for the CGI scripts to interface with, and there are API's for those backend libraries interface with, right at the bottom there is a single API which deals with the IO. This gives easy database portability as well as providing a layer of security as you never interface with the database via a script, only via an API (which is the source of many problems as far as commercial web security goes, if they only accessed data via tight abstracted intefaces they simply would not be anything like as exploitable).
Buy taking such an approach to the design it means an attacker could perfom an exploit to upload/create a Perl script on the server to change a users password and they still wouldn't be able to unless they had authenticated first (though of course if they could do that then you would have other issues!).
While it's true that if I was still working on it I could think of a layer or two I'd like to add, I'm confident that, though it may have errors in the CGI which could be open to abuse, it's no open to such blatant and clealry obvious abuse.
PS: Actually yes it is public, but you require a paid subscription (or to get a demo account for your organisation) to access it.
These people do not care about security. If they did, they would learn how. It is easy (even though it exposes the need for more work) to write secure software if you assume a hostile operating environment.
I agree that it creates more work, and that these people do not care about security, but I don't belive it's possible to change there approach if it's so broken they don't think about potential abuse from day one.
Even the people who prefer to write sloppy hacks can be made to practice security if there is a culture of "how can we keep this from breaking?"
Do you really think so?
I can't say I agree as I've personally never seen 'how can we keep this from breaking' in any development culture (other than the project I looked after;), and I don't belive that unless your actually doing part of someone's job for them that you can be sure they are taking an approprate approach. Though I'd be interested to here if people have experienced that kind of environment. I assume it must happen somewhere, in the finance / banking world perhaps?
The only well developed systems I've come across have been directly down to the skills of the developer (or lead developer) responsible, rather than a result of a culture in the environment.
This has left me with the impression that the only way to do things well is to simply have the right staff, and that exercises in establishing or changing corporate culture are largely (though not completely) a waste of reasources.
I spent a year on contract developing a product, web based (on Unix), which allowed users and managers spend budgets as allocated by management in real time and I spent 3 doing just planning and develping the auth system (as it has company/office/team/user levels (user@team.office.company for the username) it was addmittedly a little more complex than your average auth system).
In the end the system has a really solid auth system everything is authenticated and when you try and actually make a transaction there is a multi tiered system that checks budget approval at user, office, team and company level.
It required mind numbing discussions again and again to get it done but it was resolved in the end. I'm glad the projects over though, repeately explaining why it was nesseary to take a long and stable and secure approach (rather than a quick hack approach) to non technical people is very draining (their simple approach, though the wouldn't admit it if you asked them, was actually 'hack it together as quickly as possible', which is what a lot of competitors had done, which is why they had such poor systems, which is why this company was started).
I utterly, utterly dispair when I see cgi scripts that don't have a decent authentication mechanisim. With rare exception (along the lines of everybody makes mistakes) it's just incompotence, there are simply people out there who really should not design or impliment systems or write software (even CGI's).
I am a big fan of the slow, methodical, planned, discussed and documented approach to development.
The previous exploits for hotmail were poor, but I recall that at least of one of them was due to an error error that I can empathise with to some extent (it wasn't as blatant), but I am stunned at the level of ineptitude shown by this particular exploit, but I know the same stupid mistakes are repeated all over the place...
Sure, no probs, I probably should have done that in my post first time round...
For PowerPC, Motorola actually roll their own there was a Slashdot article about it a while back. The Motorola ones are particularly cool because they are dual CPU and dual on board ethernet (and of course are regular ATX form factor). You could also get an AmigaOne board (ATX) (currently Pre-Order), or a Pegasos Dual board http://www.amigasuperbit.com/indexcataloge/531.htm (MicroATX).
You can a motherboard and CPU for ~600 Euro from these guys, which is not at all bad.
There are other sites too, but you do have to Google for them. All of these run Linux, and while they may not seem that fast from reading the specs, of if you've ever tried a Power Macintosh of a similar spec that seemed slow on that speed of CPU, don't worry as Linux is extremely fast in comparison to Mac OS X (quite amazingly so, especially as gcc does not optimise compiled code for Altivec (work currently being sponsored by Red Hat, and being done by Alan Cox I think I read...). I've posted this before, but Linux runs much faster than Mac OS X on my G4 PowerBook than Mac OS X does, there is so much difference it's in speed it's scary (and it's not just Mac OS X's GUI that slows the system down, general IO is slower, meaning *everything* (networking, disk access, memory usage) is slower [which is:-) or:-( depending on your position on Linux/Mac OS X:] ).
For SPARC, the SPARC Product Directory web site has quite a few places you buy them from. Tadpole are particularly cool as they make SPARC laptops. A lot of companies simply re-sell Sun parts they buy OEM.
One company, Sun Rise (UK) buy Sun motherboards, CPU's etc OEM from the US and resell them in their own cases in interesting & powerful configurations. Apparently this pisses of Sun UK, but Sun US are quite happy to keep selling them the parts, so they continue to build systems that way...
They are really very good systems and the midrange systems are a much better (and much cheaper) than anything Sun offers, there support is good too, but I think their sales & marketing side of things lets them down I think (their web site is appalling and they don't really seem to know how to drum up business with technology oriantated firms, e.g. ISP's, Telco's, the seem to be after other markets...). They are still worth looking at though...you will save 50% on the cost of hardware (compared to buying from Sun), and you'll get a much better midrange system than anything Sun currently offer.
NB: Sun Rise actually sell business (not consumer) products, but I thought this might be interesting to some people none the less.
Prices vary quite a bit for them (none charge as much as Sun though, most are less than half the cost). Second hand might be best if cost is a big consideration, a complete Dual CPU SPARC system can be had on ebay for ~700 USD.
As for Alpha systems, apart direct from HP/Compaq there are a few component sales in Google like these guys, but most of them are complete systems, badged as 'Workstations', an example is Microway who sell a reasonably affordable complete system (even ships with Red Hat or Windows 2000 (if you like that sort of thing;)).
Alpha systems are more expensive than SPARC (and twice as much as PPC systems), and while I think the PPC systems are better value for money, if you did want to go 'all out' and get an Alpha system you can get one for around 1,300 USD (CPU + Motherboard).
People who complain that the 'Wintel' have a monopoly and that we are all locked in and at their mercy......and yet who also choose to do nothing by then purchasing Microsoft Windows & Intel CPU's.
If you are REALLY worried about DRM...
You could buy a generic PowerPC system, SPARC system, or even an Alpha system (or Sun Desktop or Macintosh, if you have a little more money). They are all still being manufactured and sold new, as desktop systems.
Any one who can build a PC system (which for all practical purposes is everybody reading this) can build a generic PowerPC based system (or SPARC) just as easily as an Intel based system. A power supply, a DVD/CD-R drive, some RAM, a Hard Disk, a NIC and your done. It's entirely possible the only thing you'd need to change would be your power supply, you could keep your existing DVD and CD Write, Hard Disk, Network Card, Monitor, your case even your RAM (depending on your existing motherboard).
What's the point of buying a non-Intel based system?
As long as their are other smaller vendors around, they are going to want to keep their edge to maintain their competitiveness. If people purchase from them instead because they can avoid DRM technologies they will have a vested interest (as a smaller player) in not being DRM enabled, and they will not implement it.
It is much like the situation with DVD region encoding, even mainstream hardware companies produce region free DVD players despite attempted restrictions, simply because it is what consumers want. Consumers don't want technology to limit them in overly zealous ways.
It may very well be the case that consumers blindly purchase DRM enabled technology and that it gains quite an installed user base through stealth, but as long as there is even a tiny niche market for goods that aren't (and in reality the educated consumer market is actually/far/ from niche!) then it's imperative to remember that there will always be several alternatives - where their is demand, supply always follows.
All that Microsoft can do is prevent Windows from working with non DRM enabled drives (and persuade partners, like Intel, to do the same) - they have no means to persuade component producers such as motherboard manufacturers, clone CPU makers or hard disk manufacturers to stop making non DRM enabled devices when there is a huge and perpetual market for them.
So what if future Microsoft operating systems - and even Intel's own CPU's ONLY support DRM enabled hardware? It's clear who the only long term loser in that situation is going to be. I don't care if someone else has DRM enabled Microsoft based system, if they prefer the convenience and easy of use, then fine with me. I won't be running that system, but it's their choice.
If systems become restrictive enough to get in the way of fair use (which, by all accounts, is a key part of DRM) then alternatives will very quickly come to market.
But I don't run Windows (or rely on x86 CPU's) I have Linux, Solaris, PowerPC's and UltraSPARCs, so I don't care what Windows and/or Intel users get up to in the privacy of their own houses.
This scares the hell out of me, and think long and hard about what the implications of such an act can cause if this becomes "mainstream".
Not me. There is still plenty of choice.
If you don't like this organisations way of doing business don't buy into it - I don't run Windows and I don't use Intel CPU's (I have only Ultrasparc's and PPC's)[1], so it doesn't bother me what stupid messes the rest of the world get's itself tangled in.
If your serious about having alternatives you need to put your money where you mouth is and stop acting in a self defeating manner by continualy purchasing from vendors you don't like. Telling others to will switch won't accomplish anything, you need to do it yourself.
[1] Though I'm on a crash-tastic[2] work Windows 2000 x86 computer in the office atm. [2] It's nearly as bad as GNOME2/KDE3 on Solaris...
Before he bought it he did a little research on it, and I did too. We both came to the same conclusion - DLP is better than LCD.
If you look this up on Google I expect you'll find what we did - every retailer I checked said DLP was better (and that what small shortcomings it does have in comparison to LCD are being rapildy overcome with some new 'magical' rev 2 chipset[1] which seems to eliminate them).
I think that even after 5 min research on the web (or by asking your retailer) you'd know the answer to this question - and that all retailers and projectionists seem to be largely in complete agreement - so I don't think this article is newsworthy.
[0] That's a lie - I like to moan. [1] The name of it escapes me.
I'm not sure how they came up with some of these sizes - it's a cool site but some of the sizes are just plain wrong.
The Kurzon (sp?) ships are way to big, as is one of the Jem'ar (sp?) ships. The same goes for a couple of the Star Wars ships.:/
Granted there might be parts of the series where sizes are reflected poorly, but it's misleading to reflect them grossly distorted.
More on my experience/comments from Apple reseller
on
12" PowerBook Wobble?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah I know had a lot of problems with mine, but they were _all_ generic problems with the design.:/ Not everyone had all these problems, but then not everyone will use their laptop nearly as much I used mine.
e.g. The DVD drive ruining discs, weakness in the white plastic frame due to overstress, the keys coming of the keyboard when I typed, excessive heat, origional power supply litteraly coming apart, hard disk dying within 2 months (cheap Tosh braned HD, as opposed to IBM Travelstar, which I replaced it with myself), insane amounts of paint flaking, unsafe amounts of head distribution, battery charging issues, sleep (& wake from sleep) issues, etc.
I'm not bitter about them, they were to some extent unforseable problems that would be difficult to spot without real world usage and you expect a few problems with cutting edge 1st versions of complicated consumer products.
The annoying part for me is that despite addressing: the keyboard, dvd drive, hard disk manufacturer, power supply, paint, the the strain put on the plastic frame, the head dissipation, the sleep/wake from sleep issues the new modles _still_ have more problems that (AFAIC) is reasonably acceptable.
Interesting comments from a big Apple reseller here in London when I was talking to him about getting a new Apple laptops just a few weeks ago...
He said the 15" models still have loads of issues due the size/weight/design compromises and recommended against getting one. He said the 17" ones were much sturdier and seemed less prone to strain/breaking but that they had had a few problems already with it, but that the smaller 12" seemed to be best (which I agree with, it's clearly much more sturdy, more like an iBook).
The iBook design is not as nice asthetically IMO, but it's *much* tougher.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, so that's a Troll is it?
So did the UK not develop Prestel then?
And was it not launched in the 1970's?
And did I not used to work for Prestel?
I'm sorry you seem to have been outsmarted by a search engine.
I belive the phrase that's apt is something about you being replaceble with a very small shell script...
Hey dude, we're talking about the early eighties.
Erm, my point was that this was developed in the UK in the early seventies (though it was only truly launched in to consumer homes in the late seventies, as I mentioned).
because when all you need is to play Tetris, doing it on the Xbox adds no value.
That's *exactly* my point..
People don't want to 'just play Tetris'. How many people still play Atari 2600's for fun (emulated or otherwise) and are entirely happy with that?
Realistically it's going to be a number much less than 0.1% of the number of XBox users. It's not a number big enough to have any impact on uptake.
My folks use the BBC's Ceefax service because they can't get broadband and it's handy for checking the news and what's on next, it doesn't mean they don't have internet access.
France's bizzare xenophonic-rooted obsession with the outdated Minitel
...) is that the minitel worked and was VERY popular. Probably more people used the minitel than prestel and BBS put together.
I am not sure what's xenophobic about that. Oh, maybe your remark is.
Your not that bright then are you?
It's popular because it's 'home grown', the same way that Amstrad was popular in the UK because it was 'home grown' (regardless of the fact that it was often a poor choice).
There is no point in being politically correct if it's just an excuse to cover up ignorance, the French are the most protectionist country in Europe which has been made amply clear many times (the Yahoo debacle, the hassle over the Canadian Univercity with a 'lower than permitted percentage of French content on it's web site', their Import and Export policies, their enormous subsidies to their own producers).
The difference between the minitel and other similar systems (Prestel, BBS,
WHAT? Are you on DRUGS? Really are you insane?
Prestel worked just fine, and the BTS system (used by Prestel, the BBC's Oracle) was used in over a dozen countries (not just 'France'), so, erm NO.
And do you have any idea how popular BBS's were (and even still are in some places?).
It had more than a passing similarty to Ceefax, Prestel *was* a version of the Ceefax service, developed in the early 70's. The BBC went on to produce ORACLE, and the Post Office went on to produce Prestel, the all used the same protocol (BTS).
However, readers should note that Prestel was not simply like what people think of as being 'Ceefax' today, Prestel could display on much higher spec'd terminals, you could download and install software via Prestel, and perfom transactions, and use mail.
You've got think, the first telex system was invented in the UK and we don't really bother with it any more (apart from a few sputtering pages displaying the latest news headlines in hotel lobbies), that should be a sign it's day is at an end.
As for being xenophobic, well this standard was used in many countries (I'm not sure how many, but more than 10), and in any case that comment rather misses the point that the UK is not clinging to this service but rather actively seeking to replace it (with a new much improved solution). It's supported for legacy reasons (i.e. lots of older televisions with out digital decoders still find it useful).
The French are still trying to find new ways to use Minitel, even building new hardware, simply because it's 'their' system.
If you don't get it I won't bother explaining it. Just look around some other European countries and see how many of them are still clinging to similar desperately antiquated systems, *sarcasam* oh your right, the French arn't really xenphobic, it's all in our heads, they don't really go around hassing web site providers and educational establishements because they don't have a high enough percentage of French content, we just imagined it. *end sarcasam*
No, because Minitel is crap, Google does not provided a Minitel interface, Minitel is crap, pr0n doesn't look very good on a Minitel system and did I mention Minitel is crap? ;)
Seriously though I'm not trolling, but Minitel wasn't even best of breed (let alone first to market) when it was released.
With this in mind, I thinik asking:
Do you think Minitel may be slowing the rate of Internet takeup in France? I mean, why bother buying a computer when you already have this nice little Minitel terminal that does just about everything you need without any unnecessary complications?
Is akin to asking 'Do you think the existance of Atari 2600's is slowing uptake of the XBox?'.
This is tedius news - other similar (& better, though YMMV) systems, like the UK's Prestel service were invented before this (Prestel was started 24 years ago in the 1970's).
The difference is, that unlike France's bizzare xenophonic-rooted obsession with the outdated Minitel, other large scale BBS systems have been shutdown because they have been rendered useless after the invention and subsequent uptake of the World Wide Web.
(ObNote: I used to work at Prestel On Line, the Internet provision arm of Prestel which was founded in the mid 90's).
Your post contains so many odd and/or illogical statements I felt compelled to reply.
"How did Sony with with the PS2?"
Discounting Sega, they were first to market.
Why discount Sega? - Sega were first to market with a comprarable console *years* before Playstation 2 (the Dreamcast was released in 1998).
"They got into the market far later than all except Microsoft;"
You forget the generational cycles in the video game industry. To an extent, all bets are off when the next generation of console rolls out, which means (discounting the Dreamcast) Sony had the first-mover advantage.
They relied primarily on the sucess of the origional Playstation brand to sell the Playstation 2. This is what kept people from investing in Dreamcast's - they had been constantly told the 'next big thing' is round the corner, and they were led to belive it would be far better than anything they have previously seen.
Sony have a lot of great consumer technology but ought to be ashamed of themsevels for the PS2. Partly because it is has proved very difficult for developers to use the Emotion Engine effectively, and partly because simply the hardware is not particularly capeable (support for only low resolution textures, lack of hardware support for environmental effects, max polygon limits that proved an issue almost immediately [compare DOA3 on PS2 with DOA3 on XBox]).
After the initial rush of playing great games such as GTA:VC many regular users are only just beginning to realise that the PS2 is a bit of let down from a hardware perspective (which was something most hard core gamers realised in the first few weeks, not that it would necessarily stop you from buying one, just that you might not by many games for it). Even looking at some games such as Rogue Squadron on the GameCube is enough to make Playstation owners lament the lack of hardware accelerated special effects on their own console.
"their hardware is far behind the XBox,"
Debatable. We're not exactly comparing a Genesis with an SNES.
No it's not really debatable, it's simple statement of truth, the XBox is a far more able console than the Playstation 2. There surely can be few rational people who doubt this?
A hard disk, a network interface, and crucially - the ability to shift more polygons per second, with much more detailed textures as well as hardware rendered effects* including bump mapping, environment mapping, reflection and Full Screen Anti-Aliasing make it a more capable console (and, with these features built in it is of note that it still retails for less than a Playstation 2).
[* = While the Playstation 2 can also do effects such as bump mapping, they are not hardware accelerated and the frame rate takes such a hit as a result that few developers have been able to use it (which is why it's rarely present in games).]
The Playstation 2 is not anything like a good as it should have been considering the Dreamcast was released in 1998. The PS2 has primarily been successful because of the hype that followed due to the overwhelming success of the original Playstation and because of leverage it has been able to exert on publishers* (e.g. with the Grand Theft Auto series), not because it is competing on technical merit.
[* = Much as have Microsoft have done with Bungie.]
"Sega, who's technology was often cutting edge and who had a long history in the industry, is now defunct in the hardware market."
Sega's problems were never because of either hardware or software. Their main pitfall was marketing. In my opinion, if the Sega Saturn had been backwards-compatible, Sony would be the one out of the hardware business.
You mean Mega CD games? They were not popular in any case, which means that wouldn't have helped. Perhaps you mean with cartridge based media? They already tried this with the Mega CD and 32X fiasco's - both of which were also no
I think your thinking of the funnidest joke in the world, which they used to kill Germans with (and could only be repeated in German because it was so funny it would kill allied troops if they were to hear it in English).
CRAP!!! "Serious Cracker" is an oxymoron!!! It's like saying "Mischevious Do-Gooder!"
That's bizzare and illogical, and very untrue.
It's a crime. Like bombing the L is a crime. It has a tangable, and criticaly costable, impact on companies (and not just the companies that are victims of attacks).
There are people (i.e. those who do it) who don't think that tagging should be regarded as a crime, but then they don't tend to be amoung those of us who contribute the most to society. People who commit these kind of crimes rarely think they are serious, or that they are doing any real damage. And I'm not just talking about crackers, pick pockets, shop lifters, car radio thieves and even burgalars will all use the same excuses (it doesn't cost anyone anything really, it all comes out of insurance, the vicitim can afford it).
If your not knowledgeable enough to realise the impact of cleaning up after tedious crackers then I'm not surprised you think the debate is going nowhere, I don't think your listening to the opposing side hard enough to hear what points they are making.
The multiple network, systems and security admins (who all need to work together) at providers, telco's and carriers that get dragged into every investigation don't go out and grab their pay cheques from trees - it comes from the companies they work for and in costs that get passed down to the consumer.
I don't know about the rest of you, but from my angle, this conversation aint going anywhere... The only people that are making any sense on this blog are the ones trying not to make sense - and I have a hunch they are the only ones that have any knowledge in this area to boot... But of course, obfuscation goes with the territory...
Anyone trying not to make sense is not someone I think you want to be listening too much to, sounds they like are concentrating on style over content.
You come accross like someone who's utterly bought into the pretentious garbage perpetuated by young wannabies and script kiddies the world over. It still amazes me that people think just because someone _looks_ cool or _sounds_ cool they must know what they are talking about.
Oh please, and just what the hell is a "serious cracker"
A 'serious cracker' I would define as someone who habitually exploits systems to satisfy their own wants or needs (as opposed to someone who's just experimented and broken into a few out of, say, idle curiosity).
This is not a distinction I've created - it's already widely used in other contexts too, you can be a regarded 'casual' thief/drug user/cracker, and can commit minor offences (loitering, littering, speeding), you can also be regarded as a serious criminal who commits commit serious offences (GBH, GTA, fraud).
You don't honestly think this type of generalizing is constructive do you? [sighs]
Yes I do - I think generalizing can be a practical and useful mechanism.
Here's some regular expressions, just for you:
l code/
/. posters are driving at, I'm not paying for them to type up their POV's so I'm just happy they post things of value at all.
s/imbibe you with any/not mean you automatically imbibe/
s/orientated/oriented/
s/microcode/shel
Personally, I have better things to do than endlessly proof read posts, I'm not getting paid for it, have Real Work (TM) to do and most people seem to be happy to put up with the odd spelling & grammer mistake. I'm also quite happy as long as I can roughly understand what
How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't. So how do you devise a tracking system which a hacker wouldn't detect? You can't.
Utter garbage.
That is completely analogous to saying only a burglar could design a security system, which is the point an earlier poster was making.
There is phrase 'send a thief to catch a thief', which makes for a good Hollywood script, but this is not good everyday practice, which the rest of the world has already worked out. The idea behind the phrase is that the a thief has information that can be useful in catching another thief, but thieves make VERY bad policemen.
Being a hax0r does imbibe you with any knowledge of how to develop secure systems. In the same way that being a successful scam artist does not put you in a good position to design a more secure credit card. Most crackers have no knowledge of using secure systems, break ins that occur usually down to trivial holes, which all non-security orientated developers know how to fix (and code against), these holes occur simply because best practices are not always followed.
Commercial systems designed with security in mind (e.g. trusted operating systems, encrypted networks, systems that use seperate signed keys for all inter-process and inter-host transactions, networks that have hard-wired one way Ethernet links) tend to cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars to build, and require a team with a strong mix of OS, Software Development and Networking knowledge.
Knowing how to defeat a burglar alarm system is a far cry from knowing how to build one, just as knowing how to write microcode to exploit a buffer overflow is a far cry from knowing how to write and develop for a secure environment.
All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.
Crackers break into secure software, they don't have experience in designing secure software. They would make awful systems that would be just a vulnerable but in different ways - developing secure solutions requires a design approach that bears this in mind.
Serious crackers are *not* suitable canidates for security experts.
Just noticed - I spend 3 *months* doing the planing (not 3 years, as it appears, must have deleted the word 'months') oops.
Yep it's mostly FreeBSD backend, but the front end is IIS (and a smallish percentage of the backend servers are Windows based too).
I think most large companies are in the same boat, but I think as Microsoft have such a large number of staff, such intimate knowledge of the software they are deploying and such a huge budget that they could manage projects a better to prevent instances like this.
While I think that companies that start out well and grow big all eventually out grow their roots and typically end up the same way (and I think that this happens in all fields) I would equally have though Microsoft would have had a few good project managers to oversee the process to ensure that best practices were being followed, especially with something as critical as Passport.
Thats why OSS will succeed.
I definately agree with that.
Microsoft Rule #3: GUI standards are no longer necessary. Shiny objects are always user-friendly.
;).
I think this can be even more appropriately applied to Apple too (after all the years of UI guidelines that went out the window with Mac OS X
Who's to say your system is any more secure?
The design. You could simply not do that im my implimentation. Yes it might have security bugs, but NOTHING as fundamentially and basically broken as that. It IS down to the design, and I think it's very important to understand if you want to write good (stable and secure) code.
I am aghast that you might think that allowing you to change a user's password via passing bogus form parameters is not an amazingly bad thing (for the world's biggest single sign-on service at that). It should be immediately obvious that it is simply mornic.
In my application, for example, you can't change the password without providing existing authentication details to the lower level API ('AuthUser' which calls 'User', which calls 'GetUserInfo', which calls 'DB Interface', which calls 'IO' which calls the raw database interface and get's the data out).
[Note: Names of libraries are examples, not AFAIR actual name used.]
The importance in the design is in using abstraction, I don't use so many libraries for fun, it is because it makes code ultilmately managable, gives you numerous checkpoints, and gives you fantastic debuging (when implimented correctly, a challange in itself.).
But the importance is in that the users details are never trusted, the details passed are always verified against what's actually in the database for that user - even if the function can only be called from another embeded function - this makes it very secure in that it's not possible to fake being another user without first authenticating as them as an inspection of the users details is done in EVERY library function.
There are API's for the CGI scripts to interface with, and there are API's for those backend libraries interface with, right at the bottom there is a single API which deals with the IO. This gives easy database portability as well as providing a layer of security as you never interface with the database via a script, only via an API (which is the source of many problems as far as commercial web security goes, if they only accessed data via tight abstracted intefaces they simply would not be anything like as exploitable).
Buy taking such an approach to the design it means an attacker could perfom an exploit to upload/create a Perl script on the server to change a users password and they still wouldn't be able to unless they had authenticated first (though of course if they could do that then you would have other issues!).
While it's true that if I was still working on it I could think of a layer or two I'd like to add, I'm confident that, though it may have errors in the CGI which could be open to abuse, it's no open to such blatant and clealry obvious abuse.
PS: Actually yes it is public, but you require a paid subscription (or to get a demo account for your organisation) to access it.
These people do not care about security. If they did, they would learn how. It is easy (even though it exposes the need for more work) to write secure software if you assume a hostile operating environment.
;), and I don't belive that unless your actually doing part of someone's job for them that you can be sure they are taking an approprate approach. Though I'd be interested to here if people have experienced that kind of environment. I assume it must happen somewhere, in the finance / banking world perhaps?
I agree that it creates more work, and that these people do not care about security, but I don't belive it's possible to change there approach if it's so broken they don't think about potential abuse from day one.
Even the people who prefer to write sloppy hacks can be made to practice security if there is a culture of "how can we keep this from breaking?"
Do you really think so?
I can't say I agree as I've personally never seen 'how can we keep this from breaking' in any development culture (other than the project I looked after
The only well developed systems I've come across have been directly down to the skills of the developer (or lead developer) responsible, rather than a result of a culture in the environment.
This has left me with the impression that the only way to do things well is to simply have the right staff, and that exercises in establishing or changing corporate culture are largely (though not completely) a waste of reasources.
I agree completely.
I spent a year on contract developing a product, web based (on Unix), which allowed users and managers spend budgets as allocated by management in real time and I spent 3 doing just planning and develping the auth system (as it has company/office/team/user levels (user@team.office.company for the username) it was addmittedly a little more complex than your average auth system).
In the end the system has a really solid auth system everything is authenticated and when you try and actually make a transaction there is a multi tiered system that checks budget approval at user, office, team and company level.
It required mind numbing discussions again and again to get it done but it was resolved in the end. I'm glad the projects over though, repeately explaining why it was nesseary to take a long and stable and secure approach (rather than a quick hack approach) to non technical people is very draining (their simple approach, though the wouldn't admit it if you asked them, was actually 'hack it together as quickly as possible', which is what a lot of competitors had done, which is why they had such poor systems, which is why this company was started).
I utterly, utterly dispair when I see cgi scripts that don't have a decent authentication mechanisim. With rare exception (along the lines of everybody makes mistakes) it's just incompotence, there are simply people out there who really should not design or impliment systems or write software (even CGI's).
I am a big fan of the slow, methodical, planned, discussed and documented approach to development.
The previous exploits for hotmail were poor, but I recall that at least of one of them was due to an error error that I can empathise with to some extent (it wasn't as blatant), but I am stunned at the level of ineptitude shown by this particular exploit, but I know the same stupid mistakes are repeated all over the place...
Sure, no probs, I probably should have done that in my post first time round...
m (MicroATX).
:-) or :-( depending on your position on Linux/Mac OS X :] ).
;)).
For PowerPC, Motorola actually roll their own there was a Slashdot article about it a while back. The Motorola ones are particularly cool because they are dual CPU and dual on board ethernet (and of course are regular ATX form factor). You could also get an AmigaOne board (ATX) (currently Pre-Order), or a Pegasos Dual board http://www.amigasuperbit.com/indexcataloge/531.ht
You can a motherboard and CPU for ~600 Euro from these guys, which is not at all bad.
There are other sites too, but you do have to Google for them. All of these run Linux, and while they may not seem that fast from reading the specs, of if you've ever tried a Power Macintosh of a similar spec that seemed slow on that speed of CPU, don't worry as Linux is extremely fast in comparison to Mac OS X (quite amazingly so, especially as gcc does not optimise compiled code for Altivec (work currently being sponsored by Red Hat, and being done by Alan Cox I think I read...). I've posted this before, but Linux runs much faster than Mac OS X on my G4 PowerBook than Mac OS X does, there is so much difference it's in speed it's scary (and it's not just Mac OS X's GUI that slows the system down, general IO is slower, meaning *everything* (networking, disk access, memory usage) is slower [which is
For SPARC, the SPARC Product Directory web site has quite a few places you buy them from. Tadpole are particularly cool as they make SPARC laptops. A lot of companies simply re-sell Sun parts they buy OEM.
One company, Sun Rise (UK) buy Sun motherboards, CPU's etc OEM from the US and resell them in their own cases in interesting & powerful configurations. Apparently this pisses of Sun UK, but Sun US are quite happy to keep selling them the parts, so they continue to build systems that way...
They are really very good systems and the midrange systems are a much better (and much cheaper) than anything Sun offers, there support is good too, but I think their sales & marketing side of things lets them down I think (their web site is appalling and they don't really seem to know how to drum up business with technology oriantated firms, e.g. ISP's, Telco's, the seem to be after other markets...). They are still worth looking at though...you will save 50% on the cost of hardware (compared to buying from Sun), and you'll get a much better midrange system than anything Sun currently offer.
NB: Sun Rise actually sell business (not consumer) products, but I thought this might be interesting to some people none the less.
Prices vary quite a bit for them (none charge as much as Sun though, most are less than half the cost). Second hand might be best if cost is a big consideration, a complete Dual CPU SPARC system can be had on ebay for ~700 USD.
As for Alpha systems, apart direct from HP/Compaq there are a few component sales in Google like these guys, but most of them are complete systems, badged as 'Workstations', an example is Microway who sell a reasonably affordable complete system (even ships with Red Hat or Windows 2000 (if you like that sort of thing
Alpha systems are more expensive than SPARC (and twice as much as PPC systems), and while I think the PPC systems are better value for money, if you did want to go 'all out' and get an Alpha system you can get one for around 1,300 USD (CPU + Motherboard).
Filled under things I don't like:
...and yet who also choose to do nothing by then purchasing Microsoft Windows & Intel CPU's.
/far/ from niche!) then it's imperative to remember that there will always be several alternatives - where their is demand, supply always follows.
People who complain that the 'Wintel' have a monopoly and that we are all locked in and at their mercy...
If you are REALLY worried about DRM...
You could buy a generic PowerPC system, SPARC system, or even an Alpha system (or Sun Desktop or Macintosh, if you have a little more money). They are all still being manufactured and sold new, as desktop systems.
Any one who can build a PC system (which for all practical purposes is everybody reading this) can build a generic PowerPC based system (or SPARC) just as easily as an Intel based system. A power supply, a DVD/CD-R drive, some RAM, a Hard Disk, a NIC and your done. It's entirely possible the only thing you'd need to change would be your power supply, you could keep your existing DVD and CD Write, Hard Disk, Network Card, Monitor, your case even your RAM (depending on your existing motherboard).
What's the point of buying a non-Intel based system?
As long as their are other smaller vendors around, they are going to want to keep their edge to maintain their competitiveness. If people purchase from them instead because they can avoid DRM technologies they will have a vested interest (as a smaller player) in not being DRM enabled, and they will not implement it.
It is much like the situation with DVD region encoding, even mainstream hardware companies produce region free DVD players despite attempted restrictions, simply because it is what consumers want. Consumers don't want technology to limit them in overly zealous ways.
It may very well be the case that consumers blindly purchase DRM enabled technology and that it gains quite an installed user base through stealth, but as long as there is even a tiny niche market for goods that aren't (and in reality the educated consumer market is actually
All that Microsoft can do is prevent Windows from working with non DRM enabled drives (and persuade partners, like Intel, to do the same) - they have no means to persuade component producers such as motherboard manufacturers, clone CPU makers or hard disk manufacturers to stop making non DRM enabled devices when there is a huge and perpetual market for them.
So what if future Microsoft operating systems - and even Intel's own CPU's ONLY support DRM enabled hardware? It's clear who the only long term loser in that situation is going to be. I don't care if someone else has DRM enabled Microsoft based system, if they prefer the convenience and easy of use, then fine with me. I won't be running that system, but it's their choice.
If systems become restrictive enough to get in the way of fair use (which, by all accounts, is a key part of DRM) then alternatives will very quickly come to market.
But I don't run Windows (or rely on x86 CPU's) I have Linux, Solaris, PowerPC's and UltraSPARCs, so I don't care what Windows and/or Intel users get up to in the privacy of their own houses.
This scares the hell out of me, and think long and hard about what the implications of such an act can cause if this becomes "mainstream".
Not me. There is still plenty of choice.
If you don't like this organisations way of doing business don't buy into it - I don't run Windows and I don't use Intel CPU's (I have only Ultrasparc's and PPC's)[1], so it doesn't bother me what stupid messes the rest of the world get's itself tangled in.
If your serious about having alternatives you need to put your money where you mouth is and stop acting in a self defeating manner by continualy purchasing from vendors you don't like. Telling others to will switch won't accomplish anything, you need to do it yourself.
[1] Though I'm on a crash-tastic[2] work Windows 2000 x86 computer in the office atm.
[2] It's nearly as bad as GNOME2/KDE3 on Solaris...
I hate to moan[0], but this is _really_ not news!
My flatmate got a DLP projector on eBay.
Before he bought it he did a little research on it, and I did too. We both came to the same conclusion - DLP is better than LCD.
If you look this up on Google I expect you'll find what we did - every retailer I checked said DLP was better (and that what small shortcomings it does have in comparison to LCD are being rapildy overcome with some new 'magical' rev 2 chipset[1] which seems to eliminate them).
I think that even after 5 min research on the web (or by asking your retailer) you'd know the answer to this question - and that all retailers and projectionists seem to be largely in complete agreement - so I don't think this article is newsworthy.
[0] That's a lie - I like to moan.
[1] The name of it escapes me.
I'm not sure how they came up with some of these sizes - it's a cool site but some of the sizes are just plain wrong.
The Kurzon (sp?) ships are way to big, as is one of the Jem'ar (sp?) ships. The same goes for a couple of the Star Wars ships.
Granted there might be parts of the series where sizes are reflected poorly, but it's misleading to reflect them grossly distorted.
Yeah I know had a lot of problems with mine, but they were _all_ generic problems with the design. :/ Not everyone had all these problems, but then not everyone will use their laptop nearly as much I used mine.
e.g. The DVD drive ruining discs, weakness in the white plastic frame due to overstress, the keys coming of the keyboard when I typed, excessive heat, origional power supply litteraly coming apart, hard disk dying within 2 months (cheap Tosh braned HD, as opposed to IBM Travelstar, which I replaced it with myself), insane amounts of paint flaking, unsafe amounts of head distribution, battery charging issues, sleep (& wake from sleep) issues, etc.
I'm not bitter about them, they were to some extent unforseable problems that would be difficult to spot without real world usage and you expect a few problems with cutting edge 1st versions of complicated consumer products.
The annoying part for me is that despite addressing: the keyboard, dvd drive, hard disk manufacturer, power supply, paint, the the strain put on the plastic frame, the head dissipation, the sleep/wake from sleep issues the new modles _still_ have more problems that (AFAIC) is reasonably acceptable.
Interesting comments from a big Apple reseller here in London when I was talking to him about getting a new Apple laptops just a few weeks ago...
He said the 15" models still have loads of issues due the size/weight/design compromises and recommended against getting one. He said the 17" ones were much sturdier and seemed less prone to strain/breaking but that they had had a few problems already with it, but that the smaller 12" seemed to be best (which I agree with, it's clearly much more sturdy, more like an iBook).
The iBook design is not as nice asthetically IMO, but it's *much* tougher.