The fact is also that for most users and Apple's target market, they neither care that some unknown UI hacker won't be able to change her interface anymore, or make such such changes available for others.
What this means is:
They won't be turned off of Macs because of some rebellious "fight the power" attitude (a reference to the submitter's not switching to a mac because of this).
They won't be interested in, or even be aware of, any such mods.
And the AC whom you responded to was talking to the Slashdot audience in general (and the submitter in particular) and not the typical Apple user. And the/. audience is quick (sometimes too quick) to get riled up over a misunderstanding of issues. I applaud them for trying to stop it before it started. (Course, 5:Insightful is a bit over the top for something that's obvious.)
I dunno, maybe the original submission wasn't well thought out. The article is clearly about UI changes but they responded as if Apple had said they were tossing out the APSL and ceasing all further open source projects.
Having said that, I don't really think that UI changes affect Apple negatively. As you said, Apple has a target market. That target market expects the OS to look and work a certain way. That target market isn't GOING to change their UI. That target market will continue to Perceive the Reality that Apple puts forth unto them.
It can be argued even (and the Wired article touches on this) that UI hacking by those who care actually _help_ Apple. Many changes to MacOS over the years came from someone a hack. Even MacTCP (though not a UI hack) was a hack for a long time before Apple took it as their own.
All the Linux dedicated servers run fine on BSD. On FreeBSD:/usr/ports/games/halflifeserver/usr/ports/games/hl-server* (includes CS, DOD, etc)/usr/ports/games/q3server/usr/ports/games/q3server-* (includes RA, etc)/usr/ports/games/utserver/usr/ports/games/bnetd (Disabled, but you can find the source on your own and remove the IGNORE macro from the Makefil)/usr/ports/games/mythserver
And if there's not a Port (remember, Ports aren't necessarily "ports", but are just a way to easily install an application, be it from source - with or without patches - or binary) you can likely still install it following whatever directions are included.
Finally? It has been since day one. The addition of bash and automake, etc doesn't make it _more_ traditional. If anything it's less.
I'm not against the inclusion of Bash (though finding out that/bin/sh is a copy of the Bash binary is hugely disturbing [It was a bad idea when it was a copy of/bin/zsh too./bin/sh should be Bourne and nothing else. That's tradition for you.]) or automake (though the autotools suite is mindfucking bloatware) or any of the new things that have been added. But they're all non-traditional, but still very good or necessary (automake) additions.
The only difference in the Unix layer is an updated FreeBSD base, userland and libraries.
FWIW, the BSD portion of OSX/Darwin is from FreeBSD (3.2 for 10.0 - 10.1.5 and recently synched with 4.4 for 10.2). There's a few config files, etc that are from Net and Open though.
Your reason for keeping current should be the software's value and not it's cost. The argument of waiting for the _next_ release to upgrade fails because there's always a _next_ release. At some point you have to decide if the features of a given release are of value to you.
Apple's release schedule has always followed the model of Big Release followed by free or paygrade releases followed by another Big Release. Big Releases are full releases and cost full price. The upgrades in between are free or cheap. I suspect that the people complaining now are new Mac users (I am too, but I'm familiar with Apple's release history) and just aren't used to it yet.
Everyone keep in mind that Microsoft doesn't do this at all (Some people may point out that Service Packs are free, but they only fix broken stuff and don't provide new OS features) and OSX is far far superior and OSX 10.2 is well worth the cost, whether you have OS9, 10.0 or 10.1.
The parent btw was trying to point out that non MacOS users wouldn't be buying MacOS X. The only people buying 10.2 are people who already have MacOS which means that Apple would have to give a discount to _everyone_. This is at least the point (however flaky and full of holes) the parent was trying to make. It wasn't referring to the software, it's value or it's cost.
Neither KMail nor Evolution or any MUA will help in anyway. These are end user applications. The Question is how do you convert an Exchange Mail Store (a broken DB based binary storage of everyone's mail) into 150 mbox or Maildir style Unix mailboxes, AND get their passwords out of Windows and into FreeBSD (if they're not kept in clear text in any billing software already.)
Your answer would be right if the question was "How do I switch from Outlook [Express] on Windows to some other mail program on FreeBSD?"
That's not what this is at all. You of course _do_ generate your keys like normal and distribute your.pub key to your server(s) of choice.
This is akin to starting X via "ssh-agent startx" (or your ~/.X* scripts if you use [x|g|k|w]dm, etc) so that all applications inherit the SSH_AUTH_SOCK and SSH_AGENT_PID environment variables.
This also provides an analog to the X based openssh-askpass dialog.
Finally, and this is the novel part...it adds it to MacOSX's KeyChain system so that all apps - not just Terminal.app and [x|a|e]term - can use it. Their example is Project Builder which can be set to use SSH to do CVS logins instead of the default (which is presumably pserver).
He meant private key of course. The public key is readable by world and installed on the server side. It's the private key that's encrypted with your passphrase.
In response to BigBir3d:
He didn't say that at all.
In response to AC:
BigBir3d's point was that once someone gets ahold of your private - albeit encrypted - ssh key, they can bruteforce your passphrase. PKI is only as secure as your keys (length/phrase/security[ie, Do You Know Where Your Private Keys Are?])
All your points are mostly valid except for saying it's an excuse not to have to remember passwords. Why then do ssh-agent/ssh-add exist at all? Having all apps be able to access SSH_AUTH_SOCK and SSH_AGENT_PID is a good thing. It's ok to question this implementation, but the goal is a good one.
Re:I'd like a tutorial on
on
Learning IPv6?
·
· Score: 2
FreeBSD has supported IPv6 for years and has been able to do IPv6 _only_, (including IPv6 network installs) for at least a year.
The "description" in the package list of sysinstall is really just a one line 'comment' for that package. If sysinstall can't show the _actual_ full description, you can look at it in/usr/ports/category/program/pkg-descr (it's the pkg-comment that's used in the package list) or at www.freebsd.org/ports
Loss of Jordan? He hasn't gone anywhere, he just works for Apple now instead of WR/BSDi/WC. FreeBSD isn't a company and doesn't employ anyone. He's still -core and still the lead P.R. person.
It is fully immune. Free|Net|OpenBSD are listed because they do use zlib and the same (already patched in Jan and Feb) bug exists. However, it's not exploitable because double-frees don't cause apps to segfault. THAT code was checked in (In FreeBSD) over 6 years ago.
I've been using the closed-source FSGS server to play StarCraft on and hadn't even heard of bnetd until this story appeared. This isn't about Open Source, it's about Free Software. I just want to be able to play on any server I want with the software I bought.
Slashdot Mirror
- They won't be turned off of Macs because of some rebellious "fight the power" attitude (a reference to the submitter's not switching to a mac because of this).
- They won't be interested in, or even be aware of, any such mods.
And the AC whom you responded to was talking to the Slashdot audience in general (and the submitter in particular) and not the typical Apple user. And theI dunno, maybe the original submission wasn't well thought out. The article is clearly about UI changes but they responded as if Apple had said they were tossing out the APSL and ceasing all further open source projects.
Having said that, I don't really think that UI changes affect Apple negatively. As you said, Apple has a target market. That target market expects the OS to look and work a certain way. That target market isn't GOING to change their UI. That target market will continue to Perceive the Reality that Apple puts forth unto them.
It can be argued even (and the Wired article touches on this) that UI hacking by those who care actually _help_ Apple. Many changes to MacOS over the years came from someone a hack. Even MacTCP (though not a UI hack) was a hack for a long time before Apple took it as their own.
World of Warcraft, a MMORPG.
All the Linux dedicated servers run fine on BSD. On FreeBSD: /usr/ports/games/halflifeserver /usr/ports/games/hl-server* (includes CS, DOD, etc) /usr/ports/games/q3server /usr/ports/games/q3server-* (includes RA, etc) /usr/ports/games/utserver /usr/ports/games/bnetd (Disabled, but you can find the source on your own and remove the IGNORE macro from the Makefil) /usr/ports/games/mythserver
And if there's not a Port (remember, Ports aren't necessarily "ports", but are just a way to easily install an application, be it from source - with or without patches - or binary) you can likely still install it following whatever directions are included.
While I appreciate the humor in your observation of that irony, this only refers to developers.
Finally? It has been since day one. The addition of bash and automake, etc doesn't make it _more_ traditional. If anything it's less.
/bin/sh is a copy of the Bash binary is hugely disturbing [It was a bad idea when it was a copy of /bin/zsh too. /bin/sh should be Bourne and nothing else. That's tradition for you.]) or automake (though the autotools suite is mindfucking bloatware) or any of the new things that have been added. But they're all non-traditional, but still very good or necessary (automake) additions.
I'm not against the inclusion of Bash (though finding out that
The only difference in the Unix layer is an updated FreeBSD base, userland and libraries.
The model with the cellphone on Softroad's site is the actor that plays the nerdy lab rat on C.S.I.
FWIW, the BSD portion of OSX/Darwin is from FreeBSD (3.2 for 10.0 - 10.1.5 and recently synched with 4.4 for 10.2). There's a few config files, etc that are from Net and Open though.
Your reason for keeping current should be the software's value and not it's cost. The argument of waiting for the _next_ release to upgrade fails because there's always a _next_ release. At some point you have to decide if the features of a given release are of value to you.
Apple's release schedule has always followed the model of Big Release followed by free or paygrade releases followed by another Big Release. Big Releases are full releases and cost full price. The upgrades in between are free or cheap. I suspect that the people complaining now are new Mac users (I am too, but I'm familiar with Apple's release history) and just aren't used to it yet.
Everyone keep in mind that Microsoft doesn't do this at all (Some people may point out that Service Packs are free, but they only fix broken stuff and don't provide new OS features) and OSX is far far superior and OSX 10.2 is well worth the cost, whether you have OS9, 10.0 or 10.1.
The parent btw was trying to point out that non MacOS users wouldn't be buying MacOS X. The only people buying 10.2 are people who already have MacOS which means that Apple would have to give a discount to _everyone_. This is at least the point (however flaky and full of holes) the parent was trying to make. It wasn't referring to the software, it's value or it's cost.
Neither KMail nor Evolution or any MUA will help in anyway. These are end user applications. The Question is how do you convert an Exchange Mail Store (a broken DB based binary storage of everyone's mail) into 150 mbox or Maildir style Unix mailboxes, AND get their passwords out of Windows and into FreeBSD (if they're not kept in clear text in any billing software already.)
Your answer would be right if the question was "How do I switch from Outlook [Express] on Windows to some other mail program on FreeBSD?"
It wasn't a real question. I was hoping that my response would make the parent realize that the feature that ssh-agent provides is one that is needed.
That's not what this is at all. You of course _do_ generate your keys like normal and distribute your .pub key to your server(s) of choice.
This is akin to starting X via "ssh-agent startx" (or your ~/.X* scripts if you use [x|g|k|w]dm, etc) so that all applications inherit the SSH_AUTH_SOCK and SSH_AGENT_PID environment variables.
This also provides an analog to the X based openssh-askpass dialog.
Finally, and this is the novel part...it adds it to MacOSX's KeyChain system so that all apps - not just Terminal.app and [x|a|e]term - can use it. Their example is Project Builder which can be set to use SSH to do CVS logins instead of the default (which is presumably pserver).
He meant private key of course. The public key is readable by world and installed on the server side. It's the private key that's encrypted with your passphrase.
In response to BigBir3d:
He didn't say that at all.
In response to AC:
BigBir3d's point was that once someone gets ahold of your private - albeit encrypted - ssh key, they can bruteforce your passphrase. PKI is only as secure as your keys (length/phrase/security[ie, Do You Know Where Your Private Keys Are?])
You Karma Whore. :) This would be useful if the link wasn't already available from the referenced link. :)
All your points are mostly valid except for saying it's an excuse not to have to remember passwords. Why then do ssh-agent/ssh-add exist at all? Having all apps be able to access SSH_AUTH_SOCK and SSH_AGENT_PID is a good thing. It's ok to question this implementation, but the goal is a good one.
FreeBSD has supported IPv6 for years and has been able to do IPv6 _only_, (including IPv6 network installs) for at least a year.
Uh, so don't buy it?
It's called it _Free_BSD for a reason.
#3) That's as much due to OpenStep's ties with BSD and the BSD license than FreeBSD being better than Linux.
#4) It's not theft when it's been given away.
Are you just a total tard or a plant from some company trying to spread FUD?
This combined with your WindRiver/FreeBSD 6.0 troll earlier leads me to believe the second.
Yes, there's nothing the FreeBSD project can do to prevent people from using their code. That's their INTENT. They _want_ their code used.
The public CVS server is anonymous, read-only access. The master cvs repository is only writable for FreeBSD committers (about 300) with accounts.
The "description" in the package list of sysinstall is really just a one line 'comment' for that package. If sysinstall can't show the _actual_ full description, you can look at it in /usr/ports/category/program/pkg-descr (it's the pkg-comment that's used in the package list) or at www.freebsd.org/ports
Loss of Jordan? He hasn't gone anywhere, he just works for Apple now instead of WR/BSDi/WC. FreeBSD isn't a company and doesn't employ anyone. He's still -core and still the lead P.R. person.
Your question should have been "How is it that Linux users can put out Slashdot, a mostly ...."
It hasn't been on DaemonNews.
It is fully immune. Free|Net|OpenBSD are listed because they do use zlib and the same (already patched in Jan and Feb) bug exists. However, it's not exploitable because double-frees don't cause apps to segfault. THAT code was checked in (In FreeBSD) over 6 years ago.
The complaint is that the _ability_ to manually enable/disable ACPI options has been disabled (ie, doesn't exist.)
I've been using the closed-source FSGS server to play StarCraft on and hadn't even heard of bnetd until this story appeared. This isn't about Open Source, it's about Free Software. I just want to be able to play on any server I want with the software I bought.
No one's cracking anything. You missed the point entirely.