I wonder if this has any implications for Dell's partnership with EMC. Will Dell not be pushing EMC's low-end iSCSI storage now that they have their own? Or do the offerings from this new acquisition not compete at the same level as the EMC products? This will kill Dell's relationship with EMC, something Dell's been trying to do for a while anyway. The Equallogic products compete directly with EMC's low- and mid- range stuff.
Disclaimer: my employer has a substantial investment in Equallogic gear I help manage.
The lesson from Vista is that releasing a broken and incomplete OS so you can fix it in the field is no longer acceptable. Ignoring your testers complaints on usability and performance issues will no longer get it done. I suspect that the disaster that was Vista's release is one of the things that caused Apple to reassess their Leopard release date.
With that said, it's obvious that the Vista release cycle was a death march from the get go. There's little chance you can jettison that many major features during the development cycle and still end up with a quality release in the end. Killing cool features also kills developer morale and poor morale causes poor quality.
The point is, the code from inception was organized by the developer as 'either GPL or BSD'. Anyone contributing code to that should recognize that. If someone choses to follow GPL, devs shouldn't get offended, they knew what they were getting into. If you don't want to play by the rules of a segment of a project, go away. Claiming that people cannot strip the BSD license on a redistribution is like saying because one of the licenses is GPL, you must always ship the source code. But that's just the problem isn't it? It seems to me that the original authors intended to allow everyone who receives their work the option to license the work under either the BSD or the GPL license. If you strip one of the licenses out of the file aren't you specifically denying everyone the right to choose with license they want to use?
The intent of the original authors was for everyone to have the choice of license, not just the guy who submits the kernel patch.
He says that you cannotmodify a file to remove a license without permission, but he fails to acknowledge that a dual licensed file gives you that permission with the other license. If the GPL gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the BSD license from that file. If the BSD license gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the GPL license from that file. So long as I comply with the remaining license, I have permission to distribute the result, as the remaining license is what gives me legal permission from the copyright holder. I'm sorry, but no. Let's put it terms of the GPL: If you remove one of the licensees in a dual-licesned source file, then you force every other person who receives that file (from your source tree) to accept the one license you left behind. You have, therefore, have denied the people who receive someone elses work from you a right you know the original author intended to convey to everyone. That's more than just dishonest, that's illegal.
But if you say FOX enough times in your article submission, people will start to think it's relevant. The identity KTTV's corporate masters are relevant. Not because the journalism was yellow, but because it's clearly incompetent. The fact that this piece aired without anyone in the station's management asking, "what the F are you talking about?" makes the name of the person who signs the paychecks completely relevant.
I also find it hard to believe that there's no one inside Fox that watches each and every newscast that comes out of LA, if at least look for packages that can be used nationally.
An affiliate, like an individual franchise, isn't owned by the overall corporation. Actually this affiliate, in the #2 TV and radio market, is owned by Fox Television Stations, Inc. Fox owns (pdf, sorry) 30 affiliates including affiliates in 9 of the top 10 markets. You'll find that NBC, ABC and CBS have very similar station ownership stats.
At it's lowest level, the Mac OS X kernel (XNU) is based on Mach 3.0 with a BSD "personality" to provide (mostly) POSIX kernel APIs and helpful functionality such as a network stack. The OS X userland is mostly ported from FreeBSD and NetBSD. On top of that is Cocoa, Carbon, Java and all of the other APIs normally used for application development.
As an interesting note is how Jobs described the OS the phone uses. He said "OS X." Normally Apple refers to their desktop operating system as "Mac OS X." That tells us a few things about what's really going on inside the phone.
My educated would be: the phone does run the Mach part of XNU, likely runs at least parts of the BSD subsystem and the I/O Kit device driver interface. Apple has also said that the iPhone supports PDF. This leads me to guess that parts of WindowServer and CoreGraphics are there. The references to Widgets support this as well. Widgets also tell us something else: WebKit is available. Calling the browser Safari supports this.
So, it's not the Mac OS X that runs on this laptop, but it would appear that enough of the existing OS X technology is there to call it OS X. Though, all of this is total speculation the product isn't on sale so it really can't be analyzed.
Finely, I'm still not entirely sure the no third-party apps bit is a forever thing. We don't know anything but what they've said, but I'll wait until Apple's World Wide Developer Conference (which interestingly is usually just about the time the iPhone ships) before I'll pass judgement on that.
The copyright statement at the top of the file is not a reliable guideline as to who the copyright holders in the file are. You have to examine all the nontrivial modifications to the file as well. That means that even if the file has a "Regents of the University of California..." copyright header, they may be other copyright holders too, and they might not have waived the advertising clause. So that header does help a bit, but it doesn't solve the problem. Nyet. Unless otherwise specified in the license header, copyright on commits to the FreeBSD tree are assigned to the FreeBSD Project. NetBSD commits are assigned to the NetBSD Foundation.
Also, I talked to an old school FreeBSD commiter about this issue. In the early 1990s he wrote drivers for a couple proprietary CDRom interfaces. In 1998 or '99 he was asked to wave Clause 3 on his drivers along with all of the other commiters (he's got an email exchange with jkh on the subject that he's digging up). In general, both groups have the same policy: contributions to the tree have to have a license that's compatible with the existing license. Certain GNU tools not included. I'm sure there are other limited cases where his has been waived, but this would be exceeding rare.
1. The clause that's being referred to is clause three which states:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: The operative phrase being, "mentioning features or use of this software." Somehow I doubt there's so much with mentioning the features or use of libkvm no matter what the actual meaning of the word advertising is.
2. I've gone through all 15 of the.c files in my FreeBSD tree, exactly 2 of them have what *may* be a non-waived clause three: kvm_arm.c, and kvm_powerpc.c. The rest of the files are either copyright the Regents, don't have clause three, or use the CMU license.
The two files are copyright Wolfgang Solfrank and TooLs GmbH. I would submit that there is probably a clause three waiver from these folks; it's just that we haven't found it yet. Also, removing the two effected files would have no effect on functionality. Neither the ARM or PPC ports are functional.
The FUD here may not have been intentional, but it is FUD none the less.
The FUDsters do have a point when it comes to out-of-date or low-profile software:
If an adversary knows YOU run last-year's version of apache or that you run some obscure open-source database on your web site, they can find and exploit bugs that are either already fixed or that nobody else is looking for.
That's no different than a site running Windows 2000, or IIS 1.1 on their website. This point also holds true for closed source as well as open source. The intent is differentiate between closed and open source, but that fails on this point.
I've found that the best way to approach this issue is by using the academic argument. In academia, researchers write papers, get them reviewed by their peers, published, then reviewed some more. This is how we build institutional knowledge in our society. Open source is software that has built in peer review. Closed source software has no peer review. It's like someone holding a press conference to announce they've cured cancer, but they won't tell anyone how they did it. Would you believe someone who told you he's cured cancer but can't tell you how? You'd believe him if he told you he's cured cancer AND he had a copy of an AMA journal with his paper on the topic.
I also find that doing thinks like pointing to Netcraft measurements, WHILE telling the customer how much they'll be paying in licenseing and consulting fees to rent their software if they decide to switch works wonders. Those microsoft sales types generally forget to mention that Microsoft actually expects people to pay them money in exchange for using their software.
Actually none of the ISPs have any interest in reducing spam. They make to much money off of the spam operators and the sites that host the products provided by the spammers. Taking actual measures to reduce spam would cost the ISPs to much money.
Spammers steal to advertise a "product." They steal resources from anyone they need to advertise their product. You don't suppose these people run the other parts of the their business the same way? Legitimate IPSs don't enjoy hosting spammers in any fashion. This is why nearly all spamming done using cracked botnet zombies (baring a sizable chunk of mainsleaze spam). A quick check of the spam in my Junk folder indicates that most spammers host their websites on non-US systems, or are broken. On a nearly weekly basis I watch a small shared webhosting provider get hosed when his spamming customer lies to him, then screws him out of payment when the webhoster's provider gets involved. The vast majority of the ISPs in the civilized universe want spammers to loose IP connectivity. The largest of sites spend *millions* blocking spam both inbound and outbound.
Instead, they want to make money from legimate companies that want to get their messages to end users. This is a win win for the ISPs, but does nothing for end users.
It's a win for the users as well. The AOL mail client will be able to tell the user that the mail they're reading is indeed from Bank of America, and that other piece of mail is not from BoA. If AOL and Yahoo! know that BoA's mail all has goodmail tokens, and BoA mail shows up that doesn't have mail, it must therefore be a phish (seriously, go look at Goodmail's website complete with the AOL mail client screen shots). AOL's goodmail implementation is ONLY for transctional mail. That was the basis of Gingras' statement.
The handwaving about AOL charging to deliver mail is, of course, interesting. One would think that AOL is going to make out like bandits on all of the spam they'll be delivering now. That's simply not the case. The goodmail system is designed to support itself, not AOL or Yahoo!. Goodmail will be charging enough to keep themselves in business and keep the accreditation program working. I somehow doubt there's much left in the cost structure to kickback to AOL in any amount they can measure.
As discussed many times here the only way to defeat spam is to choke off the money flow to the people that use spam to advertise. There are two ways to stop the flow of money. First is to go after the spammers and advertisers. So far this has proven ineffective.
Is the strategy ineffective or is our execution of the strategy ineffective? We have weak anti-spam laws that do more to enable the practice than to actually put a stop to it. We have standards bodies that can't come up with effective reputation and sender authorization systems, leaving ISPs to invent their own solution (see goodmail). We have transit providers who don't have the guts to de-peer a rouge network who won't clean up what they're transiting.
Second way is to go after the idiots that actually buy stuff from spammers.
Wow. You don't actually think people *buy* real stuff from spammers? And that the spammers are really selling the stuff they're advertising? Ok, maybe the pharma spammers, but the rest of them? Not so much. These people are theves. They steal for a living.
Going back a week in my Junk box, I see pharma spam, penis pill spam, p0rn spam, mortgage spam, 419 spam, and pump-n-dump spam. Exactly what products are being sold in the spam I've gotten in the last week? Of the things in my list that even sound like products (drugs, penis pills, p0rn, and mortgages) none of those are products that need to be sold by cost shifted advertising. If you have to resort to these tactics to see these products, there's something wrong with the products. That's assuming
The labels aren't that smart. It won't work anyway. Major media empires have only been successful on the Innernet when their content has been interesting to the Innernet consuming public.
Now a days if you put out shit, we treat it like shit. On the Innernet The Man can not decide what you like and do not like.
That explanation for the 100 song limit is flawed. All the device has to do is check the available amount of flash space to determine how many songs can fit on it. It makes absolutely no difference if it is a 512 meg or a 4 Gig drive.
You misunderstand my point. Apple does not want you to put more songs in the phone, hence the limit. If you want more songs with your personal music player they would prefer it if you bought an iPod with more capacity. The same holds true for every iPod Apple sells. In these cases, the internal storage isn't technically replaceable, so if you want more, you buy a device with more storage inside it.
There is a simple explanation for the 100 song limit that has already been alluded to in various statements by Motorola and Apple.
The SanDisk Transflash drive in the phone is removable and replaceable. There is nothing stopping a ROKR owner from replacing the 512M drive with a much larger one (such as the 1G version). Therefore it makes perfect since to put an artificial limit on the number of songs. The USB 1.1 transfer rates are likely a factor as well.
I own one, and use iTunes on a nearly daily basis on public transportation to and from work. It's much more discrete than carrying around an iPod (two of which I also own) and is something I have to have in my pocket anyway. The 100 song limit doesn't bother me so much, and I refill it about once a week so the transfer rates, while annoying, are tolerable.
And yes, the phone's interface is a bit clunky, but I find most cell phones suffer from this affliction. My biggest gripe is what appears to be a lack of processing power. The command response borders on dreadful. A more complete j2me environment would have been helpful as well, but that's generally an issue with Motorola.
I've have found both from being managed, and managing myself that "geeks" do not need managing. We need a steady stream of interesting work and realistic gloals. For the most part we don't have a hard time finding both ourselves. At most we, from time to time, need help. We need help finding the time to take time off.
The most important thing to remember: make sure everyone is interested in what they are doing. If it's boring it will be hard to get a quality product in the end. Not all work can be interesting; but the less boring it is, the greater the commitment to the product people who work on it have.
Sounds like "across the street from the provider" has suddenly become prime nerd real estate
Well.. the Parent is modded "funny", but I've made it a point to live as close to the CO as possible for years for this very reason. In my case it serves a dual purpose: Besides putting me less than 4000 wire feet from the dslam, it's also helpfully positioned to block the sun for 9 or 10 hours a day.
I think you missed the point there...the point isn't that the House passed the bill, but that the Senate wasn't expected to. Thus, the attachment of this bill to military spending is entirely relevant, since its chances on its own were poor.
Well.. Let us understand why the Senate wasn't going to pass the bill.
You see, one of the provisions in the bill is that people who obtain state ID (which is de-facto proof of citizenship) actually prove that they are, in fact, citizens of the United States and the State in which they are attempting to obtain ID in. I'll remind everyone that in many states, all it takes to get voter's registration is ID.
This provision is troublesome to certain segments of the business community who depend on the ability to hire people who are in our country illegally, as it makes it a lot harder for the illegal workers to get documentation.
Now, granted, we as a society need to do something about the 12-20 Million people who are here illegally. We need to do something that's realistic, but does not reward people who did not follow the law when they decided to come here (and, by implication punish the people who did follow then law when they came here).
As for RealID: Recommendation:Secure identification should begin in the United
States.The federal government should set standards for the issuance
of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers
licenses.Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a prob-
lem of theft.At many entry points to vulnerable facilities,including
gates for boarding aircraft,sources of identification are the last oppor-
tunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check
whether they are terrorists. [The 911 Commission Report. p407.]
Total shipments were 48.4 million for 2004q4. So, Apple's share of that is 1.7%. HP, in contrast, shipped 7.5 million PCs in the same time frame, a 15.5% share.
Why is it that there's constant hand wringing over apple's market share, and there's NOT constant hand wringing over BMW's (who holds less a share of the automobile market than Apple does of the personal computer market) market share? I didn't buy I mac because I wanted a Ford Torus. I bought a mac because I wanted luxury.
With that said, Apple's 90% share of the HDD based music player, and 70% share of the (DRMed) online music market is pretty impressive. I don't think either holds, but it will certainly be quite hard to unseat Apple from the top of either pile (with no real challenger in sight).
Actually they did. Apple, howerver, choose to be subtle about it. Here. And I quote:
iChat Server. Host your own private and secure inside-the-firewall iChat server that uses your own namespace and works with both Tiger's iChat AV and popular Jabber clients available on Windows, Linux and PDAs.
and:
Your Very Own iChat and Blog Servers
You can now host your own iChat server. Instant Messaging serves as a vital means of communication for organizations of all sizes, so it's useful to deploy and run your own private and secure IM server. Based on the open source Jabber project, the new iChat server in Tiger Server lets your company protect its internal communications by defining its own namespace, and use SSL/TLS encryption to ensure privacy. The iChat server works with both the iChat client in Mac OS X Tiger and popular open source clients available for Windows, Linux and even PDAs.
This isn't a secret, and you don't have to be an "Apple Insider" to know about it, you just have to (carefully) read the language on their own website.
> So... Darwin users/developers. Does this problem affect the open source Darwin?
Well, for one, it made it easier for me to find the issue in the source tree: <a href="http://cvs.opendarwin.org/index.cgi/isoutil/ cd9660.util_main.m?rev=1.1.1.6&content-type=text/x -cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=apple">here</a>)
i nt main( int argc, const char *argv[] ) { const char *myActionPtr; int myError = FSUR_IO_SUCCESS; char myRawDeviceName[256]; char myDeviceName[256]; int mnt_flag;
/* Build our device name (full path), should end up with something like: */ /*/dev/disk1s2 */ strcpy( &myDeviceName[0], DEVICE_PREFIX ); strcat( &myDeviceName[0], argv[2] ); <======
Now.. I personally wouldn't have used strcat in this case, strncat is your friend. One also notes DoVerifyArgs(), which does check the length of argv[2]:
/* Make sure device (argv[2]) is something reasonable */ myDeviceLength = strlen( argv[2] ); if ( myDeviceLength < 2 ) { goto ExitThisRoutine; }
Sigh.. to make sure it's not too short. I've seen worse, but I have also had a CS 202 prof who would fail a student for this kind of thing.
[ Three cheers for the paranoia in slash that made this post nearly impossible ]
Re:What about laptop power management???
on
Mac OS X 10.2.4 Is Out
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Try resetting the PMU. You'll have to reset the time, but it seems to correct a large number of problems with power management.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: my employer has a substantial investment in Equallogic gear I help manage.
The lesson from Vista is that releasing a broken and incomplete OS so you can fix it in the field is no longer acceptable. Ignoring your testers complaints on usability and performance issues will no longer get it done. I suspect that the disaster that was Vista's release is one of the things that caused Apple to reassess their Leopard release date.
With that said, it's obvious that the Vista release cycle was a death march from the get go. There's little chance you can jettison that many major features during the development cycle and still end up with a quality release in the end. Killing cool features also kills developer morale and poor morale causes poor quality.
The intent of the original authors was for everyone to have the choice of license, not just the guy who submits the kernel patch.
I also find it hard to believe that there's no one inside Fox that watches each and every newscast that comes out of LA, if at least look for packages that can be used nationally.
At it's lowest level, the Mac OS X kernel (XNU) is based on Mach 3.0 with a BSD "personality" to provide (mostly) POSIX kernel APIs and helpful functionality such as a network stack. The OS X userland is mostly ported from FreeBSD and NetBSD. On top of that is Cocoa, Carbon, Java and all of the other APIs normally used for application development.
As an interesting note is how Jobs described the OS the phone uses. He said "OS X." Normally Apple refers to their desktop operating system as "Mac OS X." That tells us a few things about what's really going on inside the phone.
My educated would be: the phone does run the Mach part of XNU, likely runs at least parts of the BSD subsystem and the I/O Kit device driver interface. Apple has also said that the iPhone supports PDF. This leads me to guess that parts of WindowServer and CoreGraphics are there. The references to Widgets support this as well. Widgets also tell us something else: WebKit is available. Calling the browser Safari supports this.
So, it's not the Mac OS X that runs on this laptop, but it would appear that enough of the existing OS X technology is there to call it OS X. Though, all of this is total speculation the product isn't on sale so it really can't be analyzed.
Finely, I'm still not entirely sure the no third-party apps bit is a forever thing. We don't know anything but what they've said, but I'll wait until Apple's World Wide Developer Conference (which interestingly is usually just about the time the iPhone ships) before I'll pass judgement on that.
Also, I talked to an old school FreeBSD commiter about this issue. In the early 1990s he wrote drivers for a couple proprietary CDRom interfaces. In 1998 or '99 he was asked to wave Clause 3 on his drivers along with all of the other commiters (he's got an email exchange with jkh on the subject that he's digging up). In general, both groups have the same policy: contributions to the tree have to have a license that's compatible with the existing license. Certain GNU tools not included. I'm sure there are other limited cases where his has been waived, but this would be exceeding rare.
1. The clause that's being referred to is clause three which states: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: The operative phrase being, "mentioning features or use of this software." Somehow I doubt there's so much with mentioning the features or use of libkvm no matter what the actual meaning of the word advertising is.
2. I've gone through all 15 of the
The two files are copyright Wolfgang Solfrank and TooLs GmbH. I would submit that there is probably a clause three waiver from these folks; it's just that we haven't found it yet. Also, removing the two effected files would have no effect on functionality. Neither the ARM or PPC ports are functional.
The FUD here may not have been intentional, but it is FUD none the less.
Why is it that when apple does this kind of thing it's somehow "cool", but when Microsoft does it, it's somehow "evil"?
Because when Apple does it, it becomes a well documented, open API. Microsoft? Not so much.
The FUDsters do have a point when it comes to out-of-date or low-profile software:
If an adversary knows YOU run last-year's version of apache or that you run some obscure open-source database on your web site, they can find and exploit bugs that are either already fixed or that nobody else is looking for.
That's no different than a site running Windows 2000, or IIS 1.1 on their website. This point also holds true for closed source as well as open source. The intent is differentiate between closed and open source, but that fails on this point.
I've found that the best way to approach this issue is by using the academic argument. In academia, researchers write papers, get them reviewed by their peers, published, then reviewed some more. This is how we build institutional knowledge in our society. Open source is software that has built in peer review. Closed source software has no peer review. It's like someone holding a press conference to announce they've cured cancer, but they won't tell anyone how they did it. Would you believe someone who told you he's cured cancer but can't tell you how? You'd believe him if he told you he's cured cancer AND he had a copy of an AMA journal with his paper on the topic.
I also find that doing thinks like pointing to Netcraft measurements, WHILE telling the customer how much they'll be paying in licenseing and consulting fees to rent their software if they decide to switch works wonders. Those microsoft sales types generally forget to mention that Microsoft actually expects people to pay them money in exchange for using their software.
Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh (senior) is the federal judge.
And furthermore, United States Federal Judges don't appear on ballets.
That's my Slashdot civics lesson for the day. Please remember to vote out the bums tomorrow.
Actually none of the ISPs have any interest in reducing spam. They make to much money off of the spam operators and the sites that host the products provided by the spammers. Taking actual measures to reduce spam would cost the ISPs to much money.
Spammers steal to advertise a "product." They steal resources from anyone they need to advertise their product. You don't suppose these people run the other parts of the their business the same way? Legitimate IPSs don't enjoy hosting spammers in any fashion. This is why nearly all spamming done using cracked botnet zombies (baring a sizable chunk of mainsleaze spam). A quick check of the spam in my Junk folder indicates that most spammers host their websites on non-US systems, or are broken. On a nearly weekly basis I watch a small shared webhosting provider get hosed when his spamming customer lies to him, then screws him out of payment when the webhoster's provider gets involved. The vast majority of the ISPs in the civilized universe want spammers to loose IP connectivity. The largest of sites spend *millions* blocking spam both inbound and outbound.
Instead, they want to make money from legimate companies that want to get their messages to end users. This is a win win for the ISPs, but does nothing for end users.
It's a win for the users as well. The AOL mail client will be able to tell the user that the mail they're reading is indeed from Bank of America, and that other piece of mail is not from BoA. If AOL and Yahoo! know that BoA's mail all has goodmail tokens, and BoA mail shows up that doesn't have mail, it must therefore be a phish (seriously, go look at Goodmail's website complete with the AOL mail client screen shots). AOL's goodmail implementation is ONLY for transctional mail. That was the basis of Gingras' statement.
The handwaving about AOL charging to deliver mail is, of course, interesting. One would think that AOL is going to make out like bandits on all of the spam they'll be delivering now. That's simply not the case. The goodmail system is designed to support itself, not AOL or Yahoo!. Goodmail will be charging enough to keep themselves in business and keep the accreditation program working. I somehow doubt there's much left in the cost structure to kickback to AOL in any amount they can measure.
As discussed many times here the only way to defeat spam is to choke off the money flow to the people that use spam to advertise. There are two ways to stop the flow of money. First is to go after the spammers and advertisers. So far this has proven ineffective.
Is the strategy ineffective or is our execution of the strategy ineffective? We have weak anti-spam laws that do more to enable the practice than to actually put a stop to it. We have standards bodies that can't come up with effective reputation and sender authorization systems, leaving ISPs to invent their own solution (see goodmail). We have transit providers who don't have the guts to de-peer a rouge network who won't clean up what they're transiting.
Second way is to go after the idiots that actually buy stuff from spammers.
Wow. You don't actually think people *buy* real stuff from spammers? And that the spammers are really selling the stuff they're advertising? Ok, maybe the pharma spammers, but the rest of them? Not so much. These people are theves. They steal for a living.
Going back a week in my Junk box, I see pharma spam, penis pill spam, p0rn spam, mortgage spam, 419 spam, and pump-n-dump spam. Exactly what products are being sold in the spam I've gotten in the last week? Of the things in my list that even sound like products (drugs, penis pills, p0rn, and mortgages) none of those are products that need to be sold by cost shifted advertising. If you have to resort to these tactics to see these products, there's something wrong with the products. That's assuming
The labels aren't that smart. It won't work anyway. Major media empires have only been successful on the Innernet when their content has been interesting to the Innernet consuming public.
Now a days if you put out shit, we treat it like shit. On the Innernet The Man can not decide what you like and do not like.
That explanation for the 100 song limit is flawed. All the device has to do is check the available amount of flash space to determine how many songs can fit on it. It makes absolutely no difference if it is a 512 meg or a 4 Gig drive.
You misunderstand my point. Apple does not want you to put more songs in the phone, hence the limit. If you want more songs with your personal music player they would prefer it if you bought an iPod with more capacity. The same holds true for every iPod Apple sells. In these cases, the internal storage isn't technically replaceable, so if you want more, you buy a device with more storage inside it.
There is a simple explanation for the 100 song limit that has already been alluded to in various statements by Motorola and Apple.
The SanDisk Transflash drive in the phone is removable and replaceable. There is nothing stopping a ROKR owner from replacing the 512M drive with a much larger one (such as the 1G version). Therefore it makes perfect since to put an artificial limit on the number of songs. The USB 1.1 transfer rates are likely a factor as well.
I own one, and use iTunes on a nearly daily basis on public transportation to and from work. It's much more discrete than carrying around an iPod (two of which I also own) and is something I have to have in my pocket anyway. The 100 song limit doesn't bother me so much, and I refill it about once a week so the transfer rates, while annoying, are tolerable.
And yes, the phone's interface is a bit clunky, but I find most cell phones suffer from this affliction. My biggest gripe is what appears to be a lack of processing power. The command response borders on dreadful. A more complete j2me environment would have been helpful as well, but that's generally an issue with Motorola.
Simple: don't.
I've have found both from being managed, and managing myself that "geeks" do not need managing. We need a steady stream of interesting work and realistic gloals. For the most part we don't have a hard time finding both ourselves. At most we, from time to time, need help. We need help finding the time to take time off.
The most important thing to remember: make sure everyone is interested in what they are doing. If it's boring it will be hard to get a quality product in the end. Not all work can be interesting; but the less boring it is, the greater the commitment to the product people who work on it have.
More or less. Or I could be full of shit.
Sounds like "across the street from the provider" has suddenly become prime nerd real estate
Well.. the Parent is modded "funny", but I've made it a point to live as close to the CO as possible for years for this very reason. In my case it serves a dual purpose: Besides putting me less than 4000 wire feet from the dslam, it's also helpfully positioned to block the sun for 9 or 10 hours a day.
I think you missed the point there...the point isn't that the House passed the bill, but that the Senate wasn't expected to. Thus, the attachment of this bill to military spending is entirely relevant, since its chances on its own were poor.
Well.. Let us understand why the Senate wasn't going to pass the bill.
You see, one of the provisions in the bill is that people who obtain state ID (which is de-facto proof of citizenship) actually prove that they are, in fact, citizens of the United States and the State in which they are attempting to obtain ID in. I'll remind everyone that in many states, all it takes to get voter's registration is ID.
This provision is troublesome to certain segments of the business community who depend on the ability to hire people who are in our country illegally, as it makes it a lot harder for the illegal workers to get documentation.
Now, granted, we as a society need to do something about the 12-20 Million people who are here illegally. We need to do something that's realistic, but does not reward people who did not follow the law when they decided to come here (and, by implication punish the people who did follow then law when they came here).
As for RealID:
Recommendation:Secure identification should begin in the United States.The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses.Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a prob- lem of theft.At many entry points to vulnerable facilities,including gates for boarding aircraft,sources of identification are the last oppor- tunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists. [The 911 Commission Report. p407.]
The Commission is 100% correct.
... about Apple's continued success is that there is no apparent successor to Steve Jobs. Back in the beige days before Jobs
Yes they do. (just to name a few)
Total shipments were 48.4 million for 2004q4. So, Apple's share of that is 1.7%. HP, in contrast, shipped 7.5 million PCs in the same time frame, a 15.5% share.
Why is it that there's constant hand wringing over apple's market share, and there's NOT constant hand wringing over BMW's (who holds less a share of the automobile market than Apple does of the personal computer market) market share? I didn't buy I mac because I wanted a Ford Torus. I bought a mac because I wanted luxury.
With that said, Apple's 90% share of the HDD based music player, and 70% share of the (DRMed) online music market is pretty impressive. I don't think either holds, but it will certainly be quite hard to unseat Apple from the top of either pile (with no real challenger in sight).
Download PDF here (1.6MB). It has screenshots.
Which causes Preview.app to crash on my iBook....
Actually they did. Apple, howerver, choose to be subtle about it. Here. And I quote:
iChat Server. Host your own private and secure inside-the-firewall iChat server that uses your own namespace and works with both Tiger's iChat AV and popular Jabber clients available on Windows, Linux and PDAs.
and:
Your Very Own iChat and Blog Servers
You can now host your own iChat server. Instant Messaging serves as a vital means of communication for organizations of all sizes, so it's useful to deploy and run your own private and secure IM server. Based on the open source Jabber project, the new iChat server in Tiger Server lets your company protect its internal communications by defining its own namespace, and use SSL/TLS encryption to ensure privacy. The iChat server works with both the iChat client in Mac OS X Tiger and popular open source clients available for Windows, Linux and even PDAs.
This isn't a secret, and you don't have to be an "Apple Insider" to know about it, you just have to (carefully) read the language on their own website.
> So... Darwin users/developers. Does this problem affect the open source Darwin?
/ cd9660.util_main.m?rev=1.1.1.6&content-type=text/x -cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=apple">here</a>)
/* Verify our arguments */
/* Build our device name (full path), should end up with something like: */
/* /dev/disk1s2 */
/* Make sure device (argv[2]) is something reasonable */
Well, for one, it made it easier for me to find the issue in the source tree: <a href="http://cvs.opendarwin.org/index.cgi/isoutil
i nt main( int argc, const char *argv[] )
{
const char *myActionPtr;
int myError = FSUR_IO_SUCCESS;
char myRawDeviceName[256];
char myDeviceName[256];
int mnt_flag;
if ( (myError = DoVerifyArgs( argc, argv, &mnt_flag )) != 0 )
goto AllDone;
strcpy( &myDeviceName[0], DEVICE_PREFIX );
strcat( &myDeviceName[0], argv[2] ); <======
Now.. I personally wouldn't have used strcat in this case, strncat is your friend. One also notes DoVerifyArgs(), which does check the length of argv[2]:
myDeviceLength = strlen( argv[2] );
if ( myDeviceLength < 2 )
{
goto ExitThisRoutine;
}
Sigh.. to make sure it's not too short. I've seen worse, but I have also had a CS 202 prof who would fail a student for this kind of thing.
[ Three cheers for the paranoia in slash that made this post nearly impossible ]
Try resetting the PMU. You'll have to reset the time, but it seems to correct a large number of problems with power management.