First of all, let me say I think it's great that there are a lot of programmers out there (myself included) who take the time to write free software.
What bothers me is the user interface design. While I understand there have been plenty of UI design tools out on the market that have this same design, Visual Basic is of course the one that first comes to my mind. Look at the interface, it looks like a clone of VB.
When will the programmers of the world wake up and realize that Microsoft's user interfaces suck. Sure, they have all that wonderful user testing they do, and some will argue that Microsoft has refined the design very well with that testing. However, I'm of the opinion that it lacks any sort of design whatsoever. It is a clear example of design by committee gone horribly, horribly wrong.
All of the MS apps have the same (or similar) UI. Unweildy menus with a billion options along with unweildy toolbars with a million icons. As if that wasn't bad enough we have the properties table whereby we have a list of options, usually aranged alphabetically, on the left side, with values on the right.
These programs might get the job done, but they are far from ideal. The interface confuses the user by presenting him with many options all at once. Then, when someone finally realizes that it's too hard to use the program, they add wizards that force the user into a linear progression of choices-- essentially preventing the user from seeing the big picture and instead holding their hand.
It may be the current state of the industry, and it may be an interface that a lot of people are comfortable with (having used it for so long) but it's by far not the best design I've seen. It's also not true that because the task is complex the interface needs to be. Look at the Macintosh. Yes, I use Mac OS X. No, I never used Macs before that. There are a lot of great things about the OS X interface.
Menus are reasonable. There's no chevrons at the bottom of them revealing all of the choices; if there's that many choices, then something is wrong. Toolbars are another great example. They have a handful or two of very large icons that are easy to spot. The whole purpose of a toolbar is to provide very quick access to very commonly used and unique functions, not to duplicate the menus in the toolbars. For instance, you rarely find toolbar buttons for new, open, save, and print. Those are functions that are always located in the file menu, why duplicate that on the toolbar? The purpose of the toolbar is not to save a click, it's to save your brain from having to think which menu to pull down to send your e-mail or to compose a new one (something specific to an e-mail program). It's also great for back and forward buttons (something specific to a browser).
Another great UI design is the inspector panel or floating pallette. To some extent, this has been copied on other systems (on Microsoft as right-click -> properties) but it's not quite the same. The inspector is different, it's a modeless dialog that follows the item you have selected. A find dialog functions similarly, it always operates on the active window yet it can stay open and will always do what any normal person would expect.
The final key concept I can think of on short notice is drag and drop. Drag and drop is too often overlooked. When first getting familiar with the mac, there were countless times I pondered for a few seconds about how to do something, and on a whim I figure, ah, what the heck, lemme try drag and drop. Sure enough, it worked. Now (after only about a half a year of using the mac) it's the first thing I try. Why burden myself with trying to dig through a menu for some predefined action when I can just do what I want to do and have it work?
That's just a quick rundown of some of the often overlooked problems with user interfaces, and a quick rundown of already implemented solutions to those problems. Don't get me wrong, OS X has its UI warts. For instance, in 10.2
Did that Dell have a SuperDrive (not a ComboDrive) and FireWire as well as built in wireless networking and a processor that doesn't run at half speed most of the time?
How was the weight? Was it as light as the PowerBook?
What about the optical drive. Did it have a tray that just looks like it's waiting to break off or was it a slot-loader?
There's a lot of other factors (especially on a laptop) besides processor and RAM. If your major deciding factor was that you wanted the fastest processor and the most RAM for the cheapest price, then an Apple is a poor choice. If you want the other goodies then an Apple is your only choice.
So if your laptop does not have all the extra goodies, what exactly do you use that mega-hyped fast Intel processor for? Running Office XP? Hmm.. well, yeah.. you'll need it for that.;-)
Right, 'cause you know how NT doesn't have an all powerful superuser account. Oh wait, it does. And you know how UNIX systems simply must require the root account to be used. Oh wait, they don't.
NT is more advanced in the sense that it is more complex. If you know UNIX there is hardly anything you can do with Windows NT that is any more secure than UNIX.
UNIX merely exposes the truth about security. Windows NT exposes a model that makes things appear secure when often times there is at least a back door or two that nobody has thought about simply because the security model is so complex.
In other words, Windows NT is more about "feel good" security whereas UNIX is more about real security. Besides, ACLs are possible on UNIX if you really want the added complexity.
First of all, I think Apple does in fact license the UNIX name from the open group (at least I heard they did). Furthermore, if you go to their website you will see the term UNIX based with a notice that UNIX is a trademark of the open group.
Second, there actually isn't anything "standard UNIX" about X11. X11 happens to be the only graphical environment ever available for Linux (and any other free UNIX as far as I know) but it certainly doesn't even come close to being the only one. The first graphical UNIX environments that come to my mind are NeWS, CDE, and Nextstep. Only one of those (CDE) is X11 based. The other two ran on display postscript servers. Now if you are the typical linux weenie that frequents slashdot, then I suppose you'd think of GNOME and KDE first and throw in Window Maker and CDE for good measure, but that's not what I think of when I think traditional UNIX desktop.
Of course, if you don't already know, Mac OS X is essentially Nextstep with a display PDF window server instead of dispaly postscript window server, more compatibility with traditional Mac programming techniques, and a few other modern goodies.
I'm somewhat puzzled by your last question. Seeing as how all of the APIs are public and many of them come from Nextstep (which is released publicly as the Openstep specification) I find it amusing that you even bothered to ask. YES, it can be done. NO, it will not be done. Why? Because no one wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Now if you mean porting a Cocoa application from OS X to another UNIX, then you can already do that. GNUstep implements as closesly as possible the latest Openstep specification. It's been a work in progress for about a decade now. It was (perhaps still is?) the official GNU GUI. It's really in dire need of good developers willing to finish the core programming then modernize it. Unfortunately, too many developers seem to be interested in GNOME and KDE-- lame attempts to copy Microsoft Windows. Perhaps that's because a lot of the talent in the pool these days has used a lot of MSW. That's a shame because it's probably one of the worst GUIs ever created and is a horrible reference point. C'est la vie.
No, having a root account is not a great failure of POSIX. The great failure is in irresponsibly using the root account like most Linux systems do.
There are far too many things on a Linux system that require root access. Adding ACLs is only have the battle, the other battle is using them responsibly.
However, even without ACLs you can use tools like sudo to avoid passing out the one true root password, or even avoid having a usable root account at all, except through sudo.
Basically, there's a number of things that your typical Linux system does not do that could be done to improve security and accountability.
Pardon me for picking on you, but I find these kinds of comments troublesome; you aren't the first to make them.
Why exactly should AOL, a (fairly) normal profitable company, disburse lawsuit monies to its customers? They are suing the spammers because it is already costing AOL money to handle the spam. As big as they are, don't forget that they are in fact an ISP.
ISPs have a lot of costs, one of those costs that can even kill a smaller provider is spam. If AOL wins this case (and if they hopefully set a precedent) then ISPs will be able to charge the spammers for money they should have already paid.
Realize that the costs of spam are already coming out of your pocket. Part of that money you send to your ISP every month is used to cover these costs. Presumably, if an ISP can recover the cost from the spammers, then they won't have to charge additional monies for dealing with spam because it's already paid for.
The ISP market is still pretty cut-throat, so as more ISPs are reimbursed for their costs of handling spam, the price difference will be reflected in the service fees in order to stay competitive.
As far as spammers going offshore, that's really an easy solution. If they are in a country that doesn't allow them to be sued for spamming, then just block all mail from that country. Black lists are an excellent method of, erm, persuading people to change their minds about allowing spam.
Thanks. I must have seen the date for a reprint (which I was afraid of) but I figrued since the author was still alive and even did the screenplay that chances are the book hasn't been around for that long. Didn't realize Clerks was as old as 1994 either.
Even at 1985 I still don't believe it's an original quote. My guess is that Irving wrote it down because he'd heard somebody use it and thought it was a good quote.
Sorry, there's no way that "Either shit or get off the pot" can be attributed to John Irving. I'd heard it colloquialy many times long before the book was published (1996).
So, as far as I know, it's non-attributable. Though if anyone can find an older source, I'd like to see it.
Beating someone over the head with the box is commercial use?
Last I looked, non-commercial use referred to not using it in a commercial setting (i.e. in a company).
This "common sense" argument doesn't work. Software licensing in and of itself is not common sense. MS is being contradictory here. Sure, the guy led him on (bravo) but that doesn't mean they aren't being contradictory.
It clearly shows that Microsoft's employees aren't even aware of what licensing software means. If that's the case, how is anyone else supposed to know?
In case you aren't aware, the guy is completely right. You are/not/ allowed to use software without a license. Bill Gates himself fought to make sure copyrights and licenses were enforced. He made his bed, so now he can sleep in it!
So, the same company that enforced software licensing now releases a disc without a license. The guy is right, that means he has absolutely NO legal right to use it or do anything with it whatsoever. Those were the laws that Microsoft had a hand in creating.
So he called up Microsoft and asked them for the license. Instead of being trained to give someone an appropraite license the employee actually said that software without a license can be used for non-commercial purposes.
No one is to blame here except Microsoft for creating stupid laws to suit there purpose that are so screwed up apparently they can't train their own employees on them.
I'm the one saying I don't have all the facts and you think I'd assume something like that? That would be far, far worse than the assumptions made by the sensationalist Wired reporter.
I decided to take the logical approach which tells me that he is probably in solitairy for protection. I'm not certain of that, but that's my guess. My main concern is that he is being treated well and has ample access to his lawyer.
You can say all you want about due process being violated by holding someone. Personally I feel that that is a murky issue, especially in times like these. However, what's definitely NOT a murky issue is being treated properly and having access to a lawyer. If he doesn't have those things then I will certainly concede the point that our justice system is going to hell. Case in point: wasn't Mitnik actually denied the right to call his lawyer because they were scared he'd detonate a nuclear weapon through the telephone!? Now THAT is fucking nutso. But holding someone with ample access to their lawyer is, in my mind, a fairly reasonable thing to do under special circumstances.
Yes. I was mainly pissed off at the Wired article. The NYT article was a lot better. I also had a look at the free Mike site.
Since I'm just hearing about the subject and I can clearly say I don't have all the facts, I can't say exactly what should or should not be done. What I can say is that in a week I wonder if anybody on Slashdot will remember Mike? I will certainly try. I hope there's a slashback about this, even if only to say he's still being held with no details available.
The NYT article was a lot better at explaining the details. I now see that the REAL issue seems to be that they don't even have the intention of charging him with a crime, but they need his testimony.
As another poster pointed out, if they are merely using him as a witness, then why isn't he at a hotel with his family and an armed guard? I'm going to play a wait and see approach on this one. There's a good chance the government knows something we don't here. I'm not so much concerned with him being held as I am with his well being. A few points:
Is he safe?
Is he in good health?
Is his family safe?
Has he been given ample access to his lawyer?
In fact, the thing that concerns me more than anything is that he have ample access to his lawyer. Lawyers (like them or not) serve a definite purpose, and one of those is to be the outside contact for a man in prison. Presumably, if he's being treated badly then his lawyer will know and take action.
Having a good lawyer is definitely the biggest part of due process. Fortunately, this guy sounds like he's fairly well off, and his friends are already helping him out with the defense fund. I want to see the outcome in a week. I suppose if I don't see a slashback on it, or you don't then maybe we can try to remind each other about it.
However, in times of war the rules need to be bent a little bit to accommodate.
Baloney. IMO, it's in time of war (what war? Congress never declared war) that we need to adhere most strongly to the rules, because that's when they're most likely to be subverted.
That's your opinion. I have mine. One difference is that yours is based on the "slippery slope" theory, while mine is based on historical facts.
During every time of war the rules have been bent, and they have always gone back to normal, or often times have rebounded to the point of lunacy-- where everyone starts making up rights that they don't have but think they somehow deserve.
Whoops. I missed the NYT article which was a lot more informative, as well as the Free Mike website (that while certainly biased, at least layed down some facts).
Therefore I was commenting entirely on the Wired article, and in that respect my point still stands. THAT article was a sensationalistic piece of shit.
Would it have killed you to read the fucking article, or the Free Mike website?
Somehow I managed to miss the (well written) NYT article. I still am hesitant to make a determination on this.
I do feel the government should release some basic facts about the case-- nothing that jeopardizes the investigation, but perhaps they could give a clue as to why they are holding this guy.
Most of the terrorists didn't have high paying technology jobs that required a lot of their time, so in that respect Mike doesn't fit the profile. It would be helpful for the government to at least release a little information here. It's been two weeks since he was arrested, so I think that some basic information is a little past due at this point.
It may be that the people who run this charity with ties to terrorism want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy.
This is the single dumbest thing posted on Slashdot so far this year, and that's saying something.
Okay. You got me there. That portion of my argument was poorly thought out and weak. The rest of it wasn't too bad though IMHO.
Would it have killed you to read the fucking article, or the Free Mike website?
As a matter of fact I did read the entire (fucking) article. I thought it was rather lacking in information. Perhaps I will post again after checking out the Free Mike website.
Ironically, people would agree with you more about the "sensationalism" if the article had bothered discuss the impact on the poor guy's family at all, which it didn't.
But that would only trigger people to immediately notice that it's sensationalistic. The way it is now most people will be fooled.
Unless more information is released, we won't know until he is allowed to and/or desires to comment. I repeat again: why didn't his wife make a statement? That really bothered me. She's not in prison, and presumably she will do what is best for her husband. If it was truly best for her husband that there was public outcry against this, then I would have to assume she'd say something.
But instead we have a sensationalist story with a clearly political agenda telling us that all of our rights are going in to the toilet. Just because a few people are held doesn't mean that due process isn't being followed.
The cops already have a hard enough time keeping criminals in jail. We've already had a terrorist attack on our nation because we led them right through the door. I don't disagree with you that due process should be followed, but could you at least think of the benefits of holding people? He's not in general population with Big Jim. He's in isolation. He's got a cell to himself, he's presumably getting three squares a day, he's allowed contact with his family and his lawyer, and when the case blows over he will return to his life.
I fail to see any gross violations of his rights. Sure, it sucks being in prison at all, but it could be a lot worse for him.
You purport to know a lot about the constitution, but let me quote the relevant ammendment (the fifth):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Clearly, it does not state what "due process" exactly is. That is the beauty of the constitution. Defining "due process" is the job of the legislature-- just like defining everything else is. If they fuck it up badly, then and only then is it in the hands of a judge.
So, even taking into account the facts that we do know, can you honestly state that he has been deprived of due process? Remember, this story was posted to Slashdot by someone opposed to the anti-terrorism legislation. But that's just the thing, that's now the law. That law effectively states that this guy/is/ getting due process. If you don't like it, then talk with your congressman. Don't rape the justice system with public outcry and judicial oversight. Judicial oversight is reserved for times when the congress is way out of line (and I don't believe that is the case here).
I just wanted to point out that if you are an American citizen, you still have rights, before and after proof of guilt is established -- especially before. Due process applies to the guilty and the innocent alike.
Yes, I am. And even people who aren't citizens have rights in this country. However, in times of war the rules need to be bent a little bit to accommodate. Historically this has been true and should continue to be true. There's a very fine balance to be acheived here.
What bothers me are polarized opinions. Those that state people cannot be held for even a few days are missing the point of due process. Even worse, those who think we should lock 'em all up and figure out if they're guilty or not later are definitely missing the point.
That's all ancillary to my main point though. The point was that the article is all sensationalism and speculation and little fact. It pains me to see rational discussion about tough issues like this killed by polarized opinions.
Perhaps his wife could have said something. But she didn't. The reporter didn't even mention attempting to contact her.
It's sensationalist bullshit. Don't be fooled just because you agree with part of it.
As for Mitnick, well, I don't know what to say. Most of the reason he was held for so long was because of an ignorant justice system as well as an ignorant public, and (worst of all) a sensationalist media.
I would normally say, go ahead, fall right into that trap. But in this case, it affects me; what if I were to get arrested and the only people willing to come to my "defense" were mob-thinkers such as yourself to whom nobody in the real world listens anyway. Whether the author is (supposedly) championing the rights of those being held (more like fattening his wallet) or deriding Mitnick for "stealing" or "damaging" or "vandalizing" computer systems it's all the same. Instead of practicing mob-think on Slashdot, why don't you get in touch with the rest of the world?
Back when Mitnick was in prison, if I'd actually KNOWN his story, I'd have championed his cause. But I didn't know his story. And if you don't know the story (or at least most of it) then you just sound like a fool. That's why mitnick was able to be held-- because nobody in the real world gave enough of a shit. No one realized that the extent of his crime was rather small. Everyone thought that he was some big time hacker. Even the computer people I talked with at the time were always praising him for his (clearly criminal) actions. Had someone actually come out and said: Sure, what he did was wrong, but is it right to hold him without a trial in front of an inept (when it comes to computers) judge? Perhaps if more people outside of the "slippery slope" category had noticed that this wasn't just another "slippery slope" case but was the real deal, Kevin would have been better off.
THAT is what I'm talking about when I tell you not to jump to conclusions so quickly, it only weakens past, present, and future arguments.
Dude.. next time, try READING my comment before posting a rebuttal.
No one (except the parties directly involved) can say what the real story is here. I made no suggestion whatsoever that holding people without bail and without reason is acceptable.
What I am saying is that the article had hardly any facts and was mostly a sensationalist piece. That's bullshit. A bunch of loons commenting on Slashdot every time some reporter writes a sensationalist story does nothing to help anyone except big media. Get a clue.
To clarify my point. I find it really hard to believe that they have no reason whatsoever for holding this guy. They say they've sealed all of the court documents. Perhaps he was charged with something. Perhaps he's in witness protection and this is all a ruse. WHO FUCKING KNOWS. Certainly the author of the article didn't know shit, yet he decided to take the opportunity to post some sensationalist bullshit on the weakening of our rights to further his journalistic and political career. If you think that article was written to help that man out, then you'd be SORELY mistaken. If he is indeed in witness protection then trumping up the discussion about "his rights" is not a good idea.
Like it or not, there are times when the police do need to hold people for reasons they cannot disclose to the public at large. The best thing to do in these situation is to keep an eye on the situation while it exists. It's like the "continuing war coverage" going on now. The best thing to do is to sit back, keep an eye on it, and take in information. When it's all said and done, then you take action. When this passes he'll be able to speak out. And if he was wronged, then the people who wronged him should be brought to justice. In the mean time, let it be and have just a little faith in the people working for our governments to do the right thing. It's the lack of respect for authority and media sensationalism that is really killing this country. My guess.. Slashdot won't even give a shit after this guy has been released or been to trial. That's really a shame because that is the appropriate time to make the decision to take action.
Having been a long time Red Hat user (though really most distros are the same), I can see why there is this trend toward standardized binary distributions. Hell, that's what the current crop of distros are.
However, I think it's a bad system for free software (or even for non-free software with source available). In my mind, the next big distro will be something based off of Gentoo. I installed Gentoo on my PowerMac G4 a week ago and all I can say is.. WOW. It's barebones certainly, but portage is something really special. I'm still primarily using OS X (and will be for the foreseeable future) but Gentoo is a fun toy to play with.
Someone ought to take Gentoo and build a user-friendly distro around it. Eventually, all the distros should just use Portage. I say this after having used it for a week. It's that good. Don't get me wrong, it still needs some tweaking I'm sure, but the overall setup is great. The package manager really makes no assumptions about the system. You can completely shoot yourself in the foot with it if you want. Personally I've found apt-get to be too rigid (whether running on debian or on an RPM based distro). RPM in and of itself is also too rigid.
Remember, emerge is merely ONE front end to the portage system. It certainly looks possible to write a more end-user friendly one.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, let me say I think it's great that there are a lot of programmers out there (myself included) who take the time to write free software.
What bothers me is the user interface design. While I understand there have been plenty of UI design tools out on the market that have this same design, Visual Basic is of course the one that first comes to my mind. Look at the interface, it looks like a clone of VB.
When will the programmers of the world wake up and realize that Microsoft's user interfaces suck. Sure, they have all that wonderful user testing they do, and some will argue that Microsoft has refined the design very well with that testing. However, I'm of the opinion that it lacks any sort of design whatsoever. It is a clear example of design by committee gone horribly, horribly wrong.
All of the MS apps have the same (or similar) UI. Unweildy menus with a billion options along with unweildy toolbars with a million icons. As if that wasn't bad enough we have the properties table whereby we have a list of options, usually aranged alphabetically, on the left side, with values on the right.
These programs might get the job done, but they are far from ideal. The interface confuses the user by presenting him with many options all at once. Then, when someone finally realizes that it's too hard to use the program, they add wizards that force the user into a linear progression of choices-- essentially preventing the user from seeing the big picture and instead holding their hand.
It may be the current state of the industry, and it may be an interface that a lot of people are comfortable with (having used it for so long) but it's by far not the best design I've seen. It's also not true that because the task is complex the interface needs to be. Look at the Macintosh. Yes, I use Mac OS X. No, I never used Macs before that. There are a lot of great things about the OS X interface.
Menus are reasonable. There's no chevrons at the bottom of them revealing all of the choices; if there's that many choices, then something is wrong. Toolbars are another great example. They have a handful or two of very large icons that are easy to spot. The whole purpose of a toolbar is to provide very quick access to very commonly used and unique functions, not to duplicate the menus in the toolbars. For instance, you rarely find toolbar buttons for new, open, save, and print. Those are functions that are always located in the file menu, why duplicate that on the toolbar? The purpose of the toolbar is not to save a click, it's to save your brain from having to think which menu to pull down to send your e-mail or to compose a new one (something specific to an e-mail program). It's also great for back and forward buttons (something specific to a browser).
Another great UI design is the inspector panel or floating pallette. To some extent, this has been copied on other systems (on Microsoft as right-click -> properties) but it's not quite the same. The inspector is different, it's a modeless dialog that follows the item you have selected. A find dialog functions similarly, it always operates on the active window yet it can stay open and will always do what any normal person would expect.
The final key concept I can think of on short notice is drag and drop. Drag and drop is too often overlooked. When first getting familiar with the mac, there were countless times I pondered for a few seconds about how to do something, and on a whim I figure, ah, what the heck, lemme try drag and drop. Sure enough, it worked. Now (after only about a half a year of using the mac) it's the first thing I try. Why burden myself with trying to dig through a menu for some predefined action when I can just do what I want to do and have it work?
That's just a quick rundown of some of the often overlooked problems with user interfaces, and a quick rundown of already implemented solutions to those problems. Don't get me wrong, OS X has its UI warts. For instance, in 10.2
Did that Dell have a SuperDrive (not a ComboDrive) and FireWire as well as built in wireless networking and a processor that doesn't run at half speed most of the time?
How was the weight? Was it as light as the PowerBook?
What about the optical drive. Did it have a tray that just looks like it's waiting to break off or was it a slot-loader?
There's a lot of other factors (especially on a laptop) besides processor and RAM. If your major deciding factor was that you wanted the fastest processor and the most RAM for the cheapest price, then an Apple is a poor choice. If you want the other goodies then an Apple is your only choice.
So if your laptop does not have all the extra goodies, what exactly do you use that mega-hyped fast Intel processor for? Running Office XP? Hmm.. well, yeah.. you'll need it for that. ;-)
Right, 'cause you know how NT doesn't have an all powerful superuser account. Oh wait, it does. And you know how UNIX systems simply must require the root account to be used. Oh wait, they don't.
NT is more advanced in the sense that it is more complex. If you know UNIX there is hardly anything you can do with Windows NT that is any more secure than UNIX.
UNIX merely exposes the truth about security. Windows NT exposes a model that makes things appear secure when often times there is at least a back door or two that nobody has thought about simply because the security model is so complex.
In other words, Windows NT is more about "feel good" security whereas UNIX is more about real security. Besides, ACLs are possible on UNIX if you really want the added complexity.
First of all, I think Apple does in fact license the UNIX name from the open group (at least I heard they did). Furthermore, if you go to their website you will see the term UNIX based with a notice that UNIX is a trademark of the open group.
Second, there actually isn't anything "standard UNIX" about X11. X11 happens to be the only graphical environment ever available for Linux (and any other free UNIX as far as I know) but it certainly doesn't even come close to being the only one. The first graphical UNIX environments that come to my mind are NeWS, CDE, and Nextstep. Only one of those (CDE) is X11 based. The other two ran on display postscript servers. Now if you are the typical linux weenie that frequents slashdot, then I suppose you'd think of GNOME and KDE first and throw in Window Maker and CDE for good measure, but that's not what I think of when I think traditional UNIX desktop.
Of course, if you don't already know, Mac OS X is essentially Nextstep with a display PDF window server instead of dispaly postscript window server, more compatibility with traditional Mac programming techniques, and a few other modern goodies.
I'm somewhat puzzled by your last question. Seeing as how all of the APIs are public and many of them come from Nextstep (which is released publicly as the Openstep specification) I find it amusing that you even bothered to ask. YES, it can be done. NO, it will not be done. Why? Because no one wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Now if you mean porting a Cocoa application from OS X to another UNIX, then you can already do that. GNUstep implements as closesly as possible the latest Openstep specification. It's been a work in progress for about a decade now. It was (perhaps still is?) the official GNU GUI. It's really in dire need of good developers willing to finish the core programming then modernize it. Unfortunately, too many developers seem to be interested in GNOME and KDE-- lame attempts to copy Microsoft Windows. Perhaps that's because a lot of the talent in the pool these days has used a lot of MSW. That's a shame because it's probably one of the worst GUIs ever created and is a horrible reference point. C'est la vie.
No, having a root account is not a great failure of POSIX. The great failure is in irresponsibly using the root account like most Linux systems do.
There are far too many things on a Linux system that require root access. Adding ACLs is only have the battle, the other battle is using them responsibly.
However, even without ACLs you can use tools like sudo to avoid passing out the one true root password, or even avoid having a usable root account at all, except through sudo.
Basically, there's a number of things that your typical Linux system does not do that could be done to improve security and accountability.
Pardon me for picking on you, but I find these kinds of comments troublesome; you aren't the first to make them.
Why exactly should AOL, a (fairly) normal profitable company, disburse lawsuit monies to its customers? They are suing the spammers because it is already costing AOL money to handle the spam. As big as they are, don't forget that they are in fact an ISP.
ISPs have a lot of costs, one of those costs that can even kill a smaller provider is spam. If AOL wins this case (and if they hopefully set a precedent) then ISPs will be able to charge the spammers for money they should have already paid.
Realize that the costs of spam are already coming out of your pocket. Part of that money you send to your ISP every month is used to cover these costs. Presumably, if an ISP can recover the cost from the spammers, then they won't have to charge additional monies for dealing with spam because it's already paid for.
The ISP market is still pretty cut-throat, so as more ISPs are reimbursed for their costs of handling spam, the price difference will be reflected in the service fees in order to stay competitive.
As far as spammers going offshore, that's really an easy solution. If they are in a country that doesn't allow them to be sued for spamming, then just block all mail from that country. Black lists are an excellent method of, erm, persuading people to change their minds about allowing spam.
Thanks. I must have seen the date for a reprint (which I was afraid of) but I figrued since the author was still alive and even did the screenplay that chances are the book hasn't been around for that long. Didn't realize Clerks was as old as 1994 either.
Even at 1985 I still don't believe it's an original quote. My guess is that Irving wrote it down because he'd heard somebody use it and thought it was a good quote.
Sorry, there's no way that "Either shit or get off the pot" can be attributed to John Irving. I'd heard it colloquialy many times long before the book was published (1996).
So, as far as I know, it's non-attributable. Though if anyone can find an older source, I'd like to see it.
You aren't making any sense.
Beating someone over the head with the box is commercial use?
Last I looked, non-commercial use referred to not using it in a commercial setting (i.e. in a company).
This "common sense" argument doesn't work. Software licensing in and of itself is not common sense. MS is being contradictory here. Sure, the guy led him on (bravo) but that doesn't mean they aren't being contradictory.
So then giving his friends copies of that software would be okay since that's hardly commercial use, right?
Assuming you do take "you may use it for any non-commercial purpose" as the written license, that's hardly a license in typical Microsoft fashion.
Insightful? My ass.
It clearly shows that Microsoft's employees aren't even aware of what licensing software means. If that's the case, how is anyone else supposed to know?
In case you aren't aware, the guy is completely right. You are /not/ allowed to use software without a license. Bill Gates himself fought to make sure copyrights and licenses were enforced. He made his bed, so now he can sleep in it!
So, the same company that enforced software licensing now releases a disc without a license. The guy is right, that means he has absolutely NO legal right to use it or do anything with it whatsoever. Those were the laws that Microsoft had a hand in creating.
So he called up Microsoft and asked them for the license. Instead of being trained to give someone an appropraite license the employee actually said that software without a license can be used for non-commercial purposes.
No one is to blame here except Microsoft for creating stupid laws to suit there purpose that are so screwed up apparently they can't train their own employees on them.
Err no.. NOT AT ALL!
I'm the one saying I don't have all the facts and you think I'd assume something like that? That would be far, far worse than the assumptions made by the sensationalist Wired reporter.
I decided to take the logical approach which tells me that he is probably in solitairy for protection. I'm not certain of that, but that's my guess. My main concern is that he is being treated well and has ample access to his lawyer.
You can say all you want about due process being violated by holding someone. Personally I feel that that is a murky issue, especially in times like these. However, what's definitely NOT a murky issue is being treated properly and having access to a lawyer. If he doesn't have those things then I will certainly concede the point that our justice system is going to hell. Case in point: wasn't Mitnik actually denied the right to call his lawyer because they were scared he'd detonate a nuclear weapon through the telephone!? Now THAT is fucking nutso. But holding someone with ample access to their lawyer is, in my mind, a fairly reasonable thing to do under special circumstances.
Yes. I was mainly pissed off at the Wired article. The NYT article was a lot better. I also had a look at the free Mike site.
Since I'm just hearing about the subject and I can clearly say I don't have all the facts, I can't say exactly what should or should not be done. What I can say is that in a week I wonder if anybody on Slashdot will remember Mike? I will certainly try. I hope there's a slashback about this, even if only to say he's still being held with no details available.
The NYT article was a lot better at explaining the details. I now see that the REAL issue seems to be that they don't even have the intention of charging him with a crime, but they need his testimony.
As another poster pointed out, if they are merely using him as a witness, then why isn't he at a hotel with his family and an armed guard? I'm going to play a wait and see approach on this one. There's a good chance the government knows something we don't here. I'm not so much concerned with him being held as I am with his well being. A few points:
In fact, the thing that concerns me more than anything is that he have ample access to his lawyer. Lawyers (like them or not) serve a definite purpose, and one of those is to be the outside contact for a man in prison. Presumably, if he's being treated badly then his lawyer will know and take action.
Having a good lawyer is definitely the biggest part of due process. Fortunately, this guy sounds like he's fairly well off, and his friends are already helping him out with the defense fund. I want to see the outcome in a week. I suppose if I don't see a slashback on it, or you don't then maybe we can try to remind each other about it.
Yes, I know. But you can't get a bounds rectangle (text extents) that way.
Thanks though!
That's your opinion. I have mine. One difference is that yours is based on the "slippery slope" theory, while mine is based on historical facts.
During every time of war the rules have been bent, and they have always gone back to normal, or often times have rebounded to the point of lunacy-- where everyone starts making up rights that they don't have but think they somehow deserve.
Whoops. I missed the NYT article which was a lot more informative, as well as the Free Mike website (that while certainly biased, at least layed down some facts).
Therefore I was commenting entirely on the Wired article, and in that respect my point still stands. THAT article was a sensationalistic piece of shit.
Somehow I managed to miss the (well written) NYT article. I still am hesitant to make a determination on this.
I do feel the government should release some basic facts about the case-- nothing that jeopardizes the investigation, but perhaps they could give a clue as to why they are holding this guy.
Most of the terrorists didn't have high paying technology jobs that required a lot of their time, so in that respect Mike doesn't fit the profile. It would be helpful for the government to at least release a little information here. It's been two weeks since he was arrested, so I think that some basic information is a little past due at this point.
Okay. You got me there. That portion of my argument was poorly thought out and weak. The rest of it wasn't too bad though IMHO.
As a matter of fact I did read the entire (fucking) article. I thought it was rather lacking in information. Perhaps I will post again after checking out the Free Mike website.
But that would only trigger people to immediately notice that it's sensationalistic. The way it is now most people will be fooled.
;-)
Yes, exactly my point.
Unless more information is released, we won't know until he is allowed to and/or desires to comment. I repeat again: why didn't his wife make a statement? That really bothered me. She's not in prison, and presumably she will do what is best for her husband. If it was truly best for her husband that there was public outcry against this, then I would have to assume she'd say something.
But instead we have a sensationalist story with a clearly political agenda telling us that all of our rights are going in to the toilet. Just because a few people are held doesn't mean that due process isn't being followed.
The cops already have a hard enough time keeping criminals in jail. We've already had a terrorist attack on our nation because we led them right through the door. I don't disagree with you that due process should be followed, but could you at least think of the benefits of holding people? He's not in general population with Big Jim. He's in isolation. He's got a cell to himself, he's presumably getting three squares a day, he's allowed contact with his family and his lawyer, and when the case blows over he will return to his life.
I fail to see any gross violations of his rights. Sure, it sucks being in prison at all, but it could be a lot worse for him.
You purport to know a lot about the constitution, but let me quote the relevant ammendment (the fifth):
Clearly, it does not state what "due process" exactly is. That is the beauty of the constitution. Defining "due process" is the job of the legislature-- just like defining everything else is. If they fuck it up badly, then and only then is it in the hands of a judge.
So, even taking into account the facts that we do know, can you honestly state that he has been deprived of due process? Remember, this story was posted to Slashdot by someone opposed to the anti-terrorism legislation. But that's just the thing, that's now the law. That law effectively states that this guy /is/ getting due process. If you don't like it, then talk with your congressman. Don't rape the justice system with public outcry and judicial oversight. Judicial oversight is reserved for times when the congress is way out of line (and I don't believe that is the case here).
Yes, I am. And even people who aren't citizens have rights in this country. However, in times of war the rules need to be bent a little bit to accommodate. Historically this has been true and should continue to be true. There's a very fine balance to be acheived here.
What bothers me are polarized opinions. Those that state people cannot be held for even a few days are missing the point of due process. Even worse, those who think we should lock 'em all up and figure out if they're guilty or not later are definitely missing the point.
That's all ancillary to my main point though. The point was that the article is all sensationalism and speculation and little fact. It pains me to see rational discussion about tough issues like this killed by polarized opinions.
Perhaps his wife could have said something. But she didn't. The reporter didn't even mention attempting to contact her.
It's sensationalist bullshit. Don't be fooled just because you agree with part of it.
As for Mitnick, well, I don't know what to say. Most of the reason he was held for so long was because of an ignorant justice system as well as an ignorant public, and (worst of all) a sensationalist media.
I would normally say, go ahead, fall right into that trap. But in this case, it affects me; what if I were to get arrested and the only people willing to come to my "defense" were mob-thinkers such as yourself to whom nobody in the real world listens anyway. Whether the author is (supposedly) championing the rights of those being held (more like fattening his wallet) or deriding Mitnick for "stealing" or "damaging" or "vandalizing" computer systems it's all the same. Instead of practicing mob-think on Slashdot, why don't you get in touch with the rest of the world?
Back when Mitnick was in prison, if I'd actually KNOWN his story, I'd have championed his cause. But I didn't know his story. And if you don't know the story (or at least most of it) then you just sound like a fool. That's why mitnick was able to be held-- because nobody in the real world gave enough of a shit. No one realized that the extent of his crime was rather small. Everyone thought that he was some big time hacker. Even the computer people I talked with at the time were always praising him for his (clearly criminal) actions. Had someone actually come out and said: Sure, what he did was wrong, but is it right to hold him without a trial in front of an inept (when it comes to computers) judge? Perhaps if more people outside of the "slippery slope" category had noticed that this wasn't just another "slippery slope" case but was the real deal, Kevin would have been better off.
THAT is what I'm talking about when I tell you not to jump to conclusions so quickly, it only weakens past, present, and future arguments.
Dude.. next time, try READING my comment before posting a rebuttal.
No one (except the parties directly involved) can say what the real story is here. I made no suggestion whatsoever that holding people without bail and without reason is acceptable.
What I am saying is that the article had hardly any facts and was mostly a sensationalist piece. That's bullshit. A bunch of loons commenting on Slashdot every time some reporter writes a sensationalist story does nothing to help anyone except big media. Get a clue.
To clarify my point. I find it really hard to believe that they have no reason whatsoever for holding this guy. They say they've sealed all of the court documents. Perhaps he was charged with something. Perhaps he's in witness protection and this is all a ruse. WHO FUCKING KNOWS. Certainly the author of the article didn't know shit, yet he decided to take the opportunity to post some sensationalist bullshit on the weakening of our rights to further his journalistic and political career. If you think that article was written to help that man out, then you'd be SORELY mistaken. If he is indeed in witness protection then trumping up the discussion about "his rights" is not a good idea.
Like it or not, there are times when the police do need to hold people for reasons they cannot disclose to the public at large. The best thing to do in these situation is to keep an eye on the situation while it exists. It's like the "continuing war coverage" going on now. The best thing to do is to sit back, keep an eye on it, and take in information. When it's all said and done, then you take action. When this passes he'll be able to speak out. And if he was wronged, then the people who wronged him should be brought to justice. In the mean time, let it be and have just a little faith in the people working for our governments to do the right thing. It's the lack of respect for authority and media sensationalism that is really killing this country. My guess.. Slashdot won't even give a shit after this guy has been released or been to trial. That's really a shame because that is the appropriate time to make the decision to take action.
Having been a long time Red Hat user (though really most distros are the same), I can see why there is this trend toward standardized binary distributions. Hell, that's what the current crop of distros are.
However, I think it's a bad system for free software (or even for non-free software with source available). In my mind, the next big distro will be something based off of Gentoo. I installed Gentoo on my PowerMac G4 a week ago and all I can say is.. WOW. It's barebones certainly, but portage is something really special. I'm still primarily using OS X (and will be for the foreseeable future) but Gentoo is a fun toy to play with.
Someone ought to take Gentoo and build a user-friendly distro around it. Eventually, all the distros should just use Portage. I say this after having used it for a week. It's that good. Don't get me wrong, it still needs some tweaking I'm sure, but the overall setup is great. The package manager really makes no assumptions about the system. You can completely shoot yourself in the foot with it if you want. Personally I've found apt-get to be too rigid (whether running on debian or on an RPM based distro). RPM in and of itself is also too rigid.
Remember, emerge is merely ONE front end to the portage system. It certainly looks possible to write a more end-user friendly one.