[...]and that the type of computing muscle necessary to run more than the meekest fileserver would be either more cheaply purchased in PC components[...]
I would not want to sound redundant here, but have you ever heard of VT? Speaking of "computing muscle", these guys have built the world's third-fastest supercomputer with G5's, for pocket money (as far as supercomputers go). Yeah, Moore's Law and whatever but your statement is definitely arguable nowadays (really arguable, some would claim just false). Please drop this dated misconception.
And no, I will not base my business central storage and computing center off some WalMart cheapo clone, I will buy some brand with their guarantee and support.
more reliably purchased in IBM iron
IMHO, this is also arguable (though not so much as point one). Please take a close look at the little big chip(s) inside an Apple -say G5- server... I you look closely you will see a shiny gasp! IBM logo. Yeah, incredible. I am sure these guys at IBM must know something or two about processor design... and they have Apple share the stuff.
As for reliability... well, I have not hard facts, but given my personal experience, I have had Macs in headless service (and they were not even servers) for years. No shites, no silly bugs, no crashes, none, zip, no HD breakdowns, nada. I can't even remember when I last formatted my G4, when was it? When I ****ing bought and partitioned it, years ago, back in the OS9 era. Not necessarily SPARC-quality, but for that price I can buy a bunch of G5 stuff.
" I mean, I'd give up aesthetics for say $50 off the price tag"
You cannot begin to imagine the zillions of people that would not agree with you on that.
For my part, I could dress up in the cheapest possible khaki outfits during all my life, but I strangely prefer to spend a few more bucks to look smart. Please indulge in my bizarresque tastes. That doesn't mean I exclusively buy custom-tailored Armani suits but you get my meaning.
Cost, with stuff that is perceived as personal -and no, a PC does not count-, is somewhat less important when compared against other factors. That happens for example with stuff that is wearable.
Look, I'm no MS fan, but they have not released an operating system since they started their "trustworthy" initiative. The Windows operating systems being discussed are old (WinXP came out in 2001), and obviously full of holes--so full of holes that MS had to start this whole focus on security.
XP might be old, but it is what people are allowed to buy *now*, so your point does not apply. It is insecure *now* and it is being sold *now* (read, not discontinued or the like).
So, how about we give MS a chance and at least wait for them to release an OS under their "secure by design, default, and deployment" banner before we start ripping it. We may be pleasantly surprised (although I doubt it).
I have just installed a network of computers, loaded with MS software I just bought. I need to be secure now, not in 2-3 years time.
Sorry to cross-post (posted on previous discussion) but I'm lazy (and point still stands). Here's another rebuttal from me that uses no personal attacks or any of that crap:
Dear Mr. Ulanoff,
I am writing to you just to send you a couple of informative references on general computer security. I promise to stick to the basics, and I am sure you will dig deeper if interested.
One of the basics of remote exploits is the ability to -once a remote vulnerability is discovered-, send malicious code snippets that get executed with privileges on the target computer. For instance, they might be sent exploiting a buffer overflow bug or a flawed service left running on an open port.
This is well known in the MS Windows world and even Linux, as they commonly share the same underlying hardware architecture (namely x86). There is plenty of information on how to build such malicious code snippets (basically anyone knowledgeable in x86 assembler can do it) as well as pre-built apps and scripts to send them. This is well known. It is also well known that a vulnerability must be present for the code to be able to be executed at all.
It is a common myth that -by following this logic-, other platforms that are less used, like for example MacOSX (subject of a security article of your own), are more secure because technical knowledge about them is less common (eg. PPC assembler language) and are not so commonly used. One might think the malicious code needs to be built by real gurus, few in number, that have no interest in doing that.
*However*, doing a trivial search on Google (also published on/. and so seen by thousands) this paper shows up:
Is a no-nonsense compilation of MacOSX PPC malicious payloads and the rationale behind them. After copy-pasting from it, anyone can do remote attacks on MacOSX, *provided* a vulnerability is actually found. No vulnerability, no attack. The paper requires a low level of technical knowledge and actually has little merit (apart from being somewhat clear and concise).
So, using information freely available, easily found, in common knowledge (published on/., not some backwater usenet), anyone could attack MacOSX boxes, *if* a vulnerability is discovered in it or in its running services.
So it *cannot* be possibly said that MacOSX achieves its high level of security by obscurity. It accomplishes it by *design*.
It is really sad that the old argument of 'security by obscurity' is being raised over and over. Read that paper.
Mr. Ulanoff, I promised you two links and I have provided only one. The other is not actually a link but a reference. Just walk to your nearest technical bookstore or Computer Science library, look for the PPC assembly and architecture books that have been publicily available for years. My cheapo college library has them, yours surely has.
I am looking forward to further informed security articles by you. Please do not hesitate to mail me should you need further references on this or any other technical question.
I am writing to you just to send you a couple of informative references on general computer security. I promise to stick to the basics, and I am sure you will dig deeper if interested.
One of the basics of remote exploits is the ability to -once a remote vulnerability is discovered-, send malicious code snippets that get executed with privileges on the target computer. For instance, they might be sent exploiting a buffer overflow bug or a flawed service left running on an open port.
This is well known in the MS Windows world and even Linux, as they commonly share the same underlying hardware architecture (namely x86). There is plenty of information on how to build such malicious code snippets (basically anyone knowledgeable in x86 assembler can do it) as well as pre-built apps and scripts to send them. This is well known. It is also well known that a vulnerability must be present for the code to be able to be executed at all.
It is a common myth that -by following this logic-, other platforms that are less used, like for example MacOSX (subject of a security article of your own), are more secure because technical knowledge about them is less common (eg. PPC assembler language) and are not so commonly used. One might think the malicious code needs to be built by real gurus, few in number, that have no interest in doing that.
*However*, doing a trivial search on Google (also published on/. and so seen by thousands) this paper shows up:
Is a no-nonsense compilation of MacOSX PPC malicious payloads and the rationale behind them. After copy-pasting from it, anyone can do remote attacks on MacOSX, *provided* a vulnerability is actually found. No vulnerability, no attack. The paper requires a low level of technical knowledge and actually has little merit (apart from being somewhat clear and concise).
So, using information freely available, easily found, in common knowledge (published on/., not some backwater usenet), anyone could attack MacOSX boxes, *if* a vulnerability is discovered in it or in its running services.
So it *cannot* be possibly said that MacOSX achieves its high level of security by obscurity. It accomplishes it by *design*.
It is really sad that the old argument of 'security by obscurity' is being raised over and over. Read that paper.
Mr. Ulanoff, I promised you two links and I have provided only one. The other is not actually a link but a reference. Just walk to your nearest technical bookstore or Computer Science library, look for the PPC assembly and architecture books that have been publicily available for years. My cheapo college library has them, yours surely has.
I am looking forward to further informed security articles by you. Please do not hesitate to mail me should you need further references on this or any other technical question.
The RIAA rapid-action commandos are scrambling as of now.
Destination: Apple headquarters.
Primary Objective: ensure that any Apple employee does not listen either intentionally or unintentionally to any iPod sent in for battery replacement. That would be a clear infrigement of intellectual property. Royaltes must be paid for any complete songs or fragments overheard.
Secondary Objective: nail some of those PowerBooks...
I repeat, I repeat: all units head to Apple HQ immediately.
The article is cool enough (first official confirmation of the 3rd spot) but after stating this in simple terms, they go on bashing Big Mac with the 'future' clusters that will beat it big time.
It might be well true that BM will be beaten, but please, a more positive spin on the present achievements would be in good order. If in 6 months it gets beaten, yeah, cool, but it will be *then*, not now. Pleaaseee, wasn't it over, that pointless subliminal Apple bashing?
dani++
Re:Ha! I just read this!!
on
The Scar
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I have just read both Perdido Street Station and the Scar and I have found both volumes to be very interesting indeed.
Mieville manages to do a mixture of genres an ideas without falling for the old cliches of "to find something new, just mix some of the old". Surprisingly enough, the author manages to surprise the reader with a few snippets of worlds not yet visited, of tales yet untold.
The ideas seem to have been trimmed down just for the sake of being too large to fit on the book and have crumbled out of the pages to perhaps surprise us in the not too distant future, with more novels to come.
Another interesting thing is that Mieville has not resorted to the too common fashion of forcing multi-volume series on the readers, just to please editorals. Luck? Dunno, but it is somehow surprising how C.M. has managed to overcome this being a relatively new writer and not so well known after all.
I sincerely hope that Mieville is going to write about a totally different subject for one novel, just to prevent ending up as a soap-opera former-genius writer, falling into the lure of Bas-Lag for 5 novels or so. After that creative hiatus, a couple of good histories set up in the same world would be greatly welcome! Yeah, whatever, but I absolutely hate the Robert-Jordan-esque eternal feet-dragging, that's my op.
C.M. is about to join my small list of favourite writers, name inscribed in golden letters, just alongside Gene Wolfe, Julian May, Dan Simmons, Linda Nagata and a few others...
As a long-time user of non-Linux free software, I am enraged that plenty of free as in beer and free as in speech software that I use on my MacOSX (and by extension on the Linux boxes I administer) is not targeted.
Waves frantically!!! "Yo! Microsoft! Here, here!"
It seems that MS is concentrating on Linux as the single source of its marketing campaign. Though Linux poses a 'threat' in their minds, I firmly believe that is other non-OS opensource stuff that is 'threatening' them. Yeah, Linux is kind of perceived as the champion of OSS, but...
They should be saying "Apache is evil" instead of "Linux is evil", much greater actuality and perception of competition. However, I think they would have a harder time trying to justify that. I doubt their marketing droids see this at all, though.
A little tear streaked down on my cheek! O' the good ole' days!!!
Nowadays, with the advent of MacOSX (chugging along, thanks) and Linux, these little critters are a thing of the past....
Oh! You mean that they aren't exctinct like the ill-fated dinosaucers!?!? Geez! You mean they only run on MS Windows! You kidding? And to help them procreate and run rampant like in the ancient days, uncle Bill leaves the ports open??? Good 'ncle Bill!
PS: before the hordes of trolls and uninformed bots advocating the alleged security-via-obscurity of MacOSX come in by the legion, please do a google and a slashdot search (yes it even was published here) on PowerPC shell-codes, thank you. After having read and thouroughly understood the ample PDF's, come back and dare to post.
SPOILER: the CS library next to you surely has a publicily available wrinkled PowerPC assembly and arch book for you, go read them.
Mmmm.... yup. Before you take the dust off the books, just read my link. I was referring to implementation. And I was taking the hardware acceleration of Quartz Extreme into account, which is a big deal. I think the OpenGL acceleration opens whole new worlds unthinkable in DP. This the wiki article fails to mention.
Shaking the good ol' Xerox panthom is cool, but not in this case.
Yuuum. As reported on MacNN, it seems that, this 'new' technology is already running on MacOSX.
Um, MS has quietly made an acquisition of company Creature House that produces an amazing raster and vector drawing program, namely Expression 3. Check out the discrete notices at the bottom of both pages.
The product is^H^Hwas available for Wind and MacOSX. Now they will just put a new sticker to the Wind version, kill the MacOSX version (unles the MBU somehow salvages it, unlikely as it will definitely be touted as a revolutionary 'new' thingie) and re-implement some core features in.NET so it crashes like hell.
Never ceasing to amaze, can't they just implement anything themselves?!?! For God's sake!!!
Those graphic designers are hard to get to switch to something new. Many know MacOS and Apple so well, I can't see them switching. I'm guessing M$ will somehow disable interoperability support in their OS.
Windows? Couldn't they come up with a better name? The blatant rip-off of not only ideas, but names, is insane.
Your question about Novell's capital is easy. They are a cash positive company and have remained so during most of their existence. Last I heard about a year ago, they had about $600 million cash in the bank.
Yeah, and Apple has, like, 4+ billion? And it has taken them years, literally tons of good news and amazing product introductions (iTMS, G5, Panther, iPod...) just to take that bloody 'beleaguered' moniker off them.
English is my *third* language. I strive daily to better master Shakespeare's and Snoop Doggy Dog's language but it seems that I am ultimately doomed to colossal failure.
As a matter of fact, I try to use the dictionary and spell-checkers only when strictly necessary to better learn the language. After more than 6 years of 3rd language learning classes and stuff I have found this strict rule to be of a great help.
On the other humble hand, I stand corrected on the brewn-brewed issue, the thing is that I have seen 'brewn' sooo much (specially on the Internet), I thought it was correct.
Geez, cheking out that CLI admin document. Pretty extensive and hands-on.
Starts up with basic commands (ssh and the like), giving way to more in-depth info, XML configuration files, etc.
There seems to be some sort of centralized group of commands. For instance, there is the 'systemsetup' command, that handles a plethora of tasks: energy saver, time, sleep-wakeup, languages, startup... That might be helpful and a cool deviation from the traditional make-changes-in-many-places syndrome that has plagued UNIX and the like for years.
OTOH, there's a nice review of Panther Server with cool screenshots on Maccentral.
Go to IBM, ask them to lend you a couple of G5 cores. Go and design a new motherboard that will accept it and be able to plug in to it lots of goodies. Remeber it must not fry the G5's when running at full speed, that is a requeriment.
Remember to check in with your impressive feat before 2013.
Interconnects entail the same complexity and costs on G5's and Dell's (of course this is a bit simplified, but in the big picture, you can rule out this difference).
Redundancy, it may very well be that it is definitely cheaper to use software redundancy than to increase hardware complexity, costs and maintenance factoring in hardware power supply redundancy, ECC RAM and such. VT uses a custom built software called Deja Vu to create software redundancy. Yeah, this soft. could be factored in to the cost of the whole setup, but it might be unquantifiable, as would be costs like 'coming up with the idea and feasibility study'.
You mean that a UNIX(MacOSX) sysadmin and a Linux sysadmin would differ greatly in income or in training level? In fact, it can definitely be argued that MacOSX sysadmins would require a lower level of knowledge.
Programming: do you think that you are seen plain vanilla VC++ coding on those two beasts? Coders at that level know what they are doing big time. PhD's developing parallel code usually are not stopped by the paint in the boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
[...]and that the type of computing muscle necessary to run more than the meekest fileserver would be either more cheaply purchased in PC components[...]
I would not want to sound redundant here, but have you ever heard of VT? Speaking of "computing muscle", these guys have built the world's third-fastest supercomputer with G5's, for pocket money (as far as supercomputers go). Yeah, Moore's Law and whatever but your statement is definitely arguable nowadays (really arguable, some would claim just false). Please drop this dated misconception.
And no, I will not base my business central storage and computing center off some WalMart cheapo clone, I will buy some brand with their guarantee and support.
more reliably purchased in IBM iron
IMHO, this is also arguable (though not so much as point one). Please take a close look at the little big chip(s) inside an Apple -say G5- server... I you look closely you will see a shiny gasp! IBM logo. Yeah, incredible. I am sure these guys at IBM must know something or two about processor design... and they have Apple share the stuff.
As for reliability... well, I have not hard facts, but given my personal experience, I have had Macs in headless service (and they were not even servers) for years. No shites, no silly bugs, no crashes, none, zip, no HD breakdowns, nada. I can't even remember when I last formatted my G4, when was it? When I ****ing bought and partitioned it, years ago, back in the OS9 era. Not necessarily SPARC-quality, but for that price I can buy a bunch of G5 stuff.
dani++
You cannot begin to imagine the zillions of people that would not agree with you on that.
For my part, I could dress up in the cheapest possible khaki outfits during all my life, but I strangely prefer to spend a few more bucks to look smart. Please indulge in my bizarresque tastes. That doesn't mean I exclusively buy custom-tailored Armani suits but you get my meaning.
Cost, with stuff that is perceived as personal -and no, a PC does not count-, is somewhat less important when compared against other factors. That happens for example with stuff that is wearable.
dani++
XP might be old, but it is what people are allowed to buy *now*, so your point does not apply. It is insecure *now* and it is being sold *now* (read, not discontinued or the like).
So, how about we give MS a chance and at least wait for them to release an OS under their "secure by design, default, and deployment" banner before we start ripping it. We may be pleasantly surprised (although I doubt it).
I have just installed a network of computers, loaded with MS software I just bought. I need to be secure now, not in 2-3 years time.
dani++
Sorry to cross-post (posted on previous discussion) but I'm lazy (and point still stands). Here's another rebuttal from me that uses no personal attacks or any of that crap:
/. and so seen by thousands) this paper shows up:
S X_ Shellcode_Assembly.pdf
/., not some backwater usenet), anyone could attack MacOSX boxes, *if* a vulnerability is discovered in it or in its running services.
Dear Mr. Ulanoff,
I am writing to you just to send you a couple of informative references on general computer security. I promise to stick to the basics, and I am sure you will dig deeper if interested.
One of the basics of remote exploits is the ability to -once a remote vulnerability is discovered-, send malicious code snippets that get executed with privileges on the target computer. For instance, they might be sent exploiting a buffer overflow bug or a flawed service left running on an open port.
This is well known in the MS Windows world and even Linux, as they commonly share the same underlying hardware architecture (namely x86). There is plenty of information on how to build such malicious code snippets (basically anyone knowledgeable in x86 assembler can do it) as well as pre-built apps and scripts to send them. This is well known. It is also well known that a vulnerability must be present for the code to be able to be executed at all.
It is a common myth that -by following this logic-, other platforms that are less used, like for example MacOSX (subject of a security article of your own), are more secure because technical knowledge about them is less common (eg. PPC assembler language) and are not so commonly used. One might think the malicious code needs to be built by real gurus, few in number, that have no interest in doing that.
*However*, doing a trivial search on Google (also published on
http://www.securiteam.com/securityreviews/PPC_O
Is a no-nonsense compilation of MacOSX PPC malicious payloads and the rationale behind them. After copy-pasting from it, anyone can do remote attacks on MacOSX, *provided* a vulnerability is actually found. No vulnerability, no attack. The paper requires a low level of technical knowledge and actually has little merit (apart from being somewhat clear and concise).
So, using information freely available, easily found, in common knowledge (published on
So it *cannot* be possibly said that MacOSX achieves its high level of security by obscurity. It accomplishes it by *design*.
It is really sad that the old argument of 'security by obscurity' is being raised over and over. Read that paper.
Mr. Ulanoff, I promised you two links and I have provided only one. The other is not actually a link but a reference. Just walk to your nearest technical bookstore or Computer Science library, look for the PPC assembly and architecture books that have been publicily available for years. My cheapo college library has them, yours surely has.
I am looking forward to further informed security articles by you. Please do not hesitate to mail me should you need further references on this or any other technical question.
Best regards,
xxxxxxx
Dear Mr. Ulanoff,
/. and so seen by thousands) this paper shows up:
S X_ Shellcode_Assembly.pdf
/., not some backwater usenet), anyone could attack MacOSX boxes, *if* a vulnerability is discovered in it or in its running services.
I am writing to you just to send you a couple of informative references on general computer security. I promise to stick to the basics, and I am sure you will dig deeper if interested.
One of the basics of remote exploits is the ability to -once a remote vulnerability is discovered-, send malicious code snippets that get executed with privileges on the target computer. For instance, they might be sent exploiting a buffer overflow bug or a flawed service left running on an open port.
This is well known in the MS Windows world and even Linux, as they commonly share the same underlying hardware architecture (namely x86). There is plenty of information on how to build such malicious code snippets (basically anyone knowledgeable in x86 assembler can do it) as well as pre-built apps and scripts to send them. This is well known. It is also well known that a vulnerability must be present for the code to be able to be executed at all.
It is a common myth that -by following this logic-, other platforms that are less used, like for example MacOSX (subject of a security article of your own), are more secure because technical knowledge about them is less common (eg. PPC assembler language) and are not so commonly used. One might think the malicious code needs to be built by real gurus, few in number, that have no interest in doing that.
*However*, doing a trivial search on Google (also published on
http://www.securiteam.com/securityreviews/PPC_O
Is a no-nonsense compilation of MacOSX PPC malicious payloads and the rationale behind them. After copy-pasting from it, anyone can do remote attacks on MacOSX, *provided* a vulnerability is actually found. No vulnerability, no attack. The paper requires a low level of technical knowledge and actually has little merit (apart from being somewhat clear and concise).
So, using information freely available, easily found, in common knowledge (published on
So it *cannot* be possibly said that MacOSX achieves its high level of security by obscurity. It accomplishes it by *design*.
It is really sad that the old argument of 'security by obscurity' is being raised over and over. Read that paper.
Mr. Ulanoff, I promised you two links and I have provided only one. The other is not actually a link but a reference. Just walk to your nearest technical bookstore or Computer Science library, look for the PPC assembly and architecture books that have been publicily available for years. My cheapo college library has them, yours surely has.
I am looking forward to further informed security articles by you. Please do not hesitate to mail me should you need further references on this or any other technical question.
Best regards,
xxxxxxx
If on MacOSX, just google for it, if on Windows...
If speaking about the iTunes Music Store and not simply, 'iTunes', please clarify.
dani++
The RIAA rapid-action commandos are scrambling as of now.
Destination: Apple headquarters.
Primary Objective: ensure that any Apple employee does not listen either intentionally or unintentionally to any iPod sent in for battery replacement. That would be a clear infrigement of intellectual property. Royaltes must be paid for any complete songs or fragments overheard.
Secondary Objective: nail some of those PowerBooks...
I repeat, I repeat: all units head to Apple HQ immediately.
dani++
The article is cool enough (first official confirmation of the 3rd spot) but after stating this in simple terms, they go on bashing Big Mac with the 'future' clusters that will beat it big time.
It might be well true that BM will be beaten, but please, a more positive spin on the present achievements would be in good order. If in 6 months it gets beaten, yeah, cool, but it will be *then*, not now. Pleaaseee, wasn't it over, that pointless subliminal Apple bashing?
dani++
Yeah, I have just read both Perdido Street Station and the Scar and I have found both volumes to be very interesting indeed.
Mieville manages to do a mixture of genres an ideas without falling for the old cliches of "to find something new, just mix some of the old". Surprisingly enough, the author manages to surprise the reader with a few snippets of worlds not yet visited, of tales yet untold.
The ideas seem to have been trimmed down just for the sake of being too large to fit on the book and have crumbled out of the pages to perhaps surprise us in the not too distant future, with more novels to come.
Another interesting thing is that Mieville has not resorted to the too common fashion of forcing multi-volume series on the readers, just to please editorals. Luck? Dunno, but it is somehow surprising how C.M. has managed to overcome this being a relatively new writer and not so well known after all.
I sincerely hope that Mieville is going to write about a totally different subject for one novel, just to prevent ending up as a soap-opera former-genius writer, falling into the lure of Bas-Lag for 5 novels or so. After that creative hiatus, a couple of good histories set up in the same world would be greatly welcome! Yeah, whatever, but I absolutely hate the Robert-Jordan-esque eternal feet-dragging, that's my op.
C.M. is about to join my small list of favourite writers, name inscribed in golden letters, just alongside Gene Wolfe, Julian May, Dan Simmons, Linda Nagata and a few others...
dani++
Yeah, also add in some oblique to SCO actually owning SMTP's IP and by transitivity, you.
Waves frantically!!! "Yo! Microsoft! Here, here!"
It seems that MS is concentrating on Linux as the single source of its marketing campaign. Though Linux poses a 'threat' in their minds, I firmly believe that is other non-OS opensource stuff that is 'threatening' them. Yeah, Linux is kind of perceived as the champion of OSS, but...
They should be saying "Apache is evil" instead of "Linux is evil", much greater actuality and perception of competition. However, I think they would have a harder time trying to justify that. I doubt their marketing droids see this at all, though.
dani++
Nowadays, with the advent of MacOSX (chugging along, thanks) and Linux, these little critters are a thing of the past....
Oh! You mean that they aren't exctinct like the ill-fated dinosaucers!?!? Geez! You mean they only run on MS Windows! You kidding? And to help them procreate and run rampant like in the ancient days, uncle Bill leaves the ports open??? Good 'ncle Bill!
PS: before the hordes of trolls and uninformed bots advocating the alleged security-via-obscurity of MacOSX come in by the legion, please do a google and a slashdot search (yes it even was published here) on PowerPC shell-codes, thank you. After having read and thouroughly understood the ample PDF's, come back and dare to post.
SPOILER: the CS library next to you surely has a publicily available wrinkled PowerPC assembly and arch book for you, go read them.
Shaking the good ol' Xerox panthom is cool, but not in this case.
Nitpick++
Amazing idea!!! No wonder it has been thoroughly implemented before. Just exactly in the terms you describe...
Um, MS has quietly made an acquisition of company Creature House that produces an amazing raster and vector drawing program, namely Expression 3. Check out the discrete notices at the bottom of both pages.
The product is^H^Hwas available for Wind and MacOSX. Now they will just put a new sticker to the Wind version, kill the MacOSX version (unles the MBU somehow salvages it, unlikely as it will definitely be touted as a revolutionary 'new' thingie) and re-implement some core features in .NET so it crashes like hell.
Never ceasing to amaze, can't they just implement anything themselves?!?! For God's sake!!!
Those graphic designers are hard to get to switch to something new. Many know MacOS and Apple so well, I can't see them switching. I'm guessing M$ will somehow disable interoperability support in their OS.
Windows? Couldn't they come up with a better name? The blatant rip-off of not only ideas, but names, is insane.
Yeah, and Apple has, like, 4+ billion? And it has taken them years, literally tons of good news and amazing product introductions (iTMS, G5, Panther, iPod...) just to take that bloody 'beleaguered' moniker off them.
Don't wave 'cash in hand' too freely =).
dani++
Definitely Apple deserves more credit and unlike other companies, the benefit of the doubt until official statements are made.
English is my *third* language. I strive daily to better master Shakespeare's and Snoop Doggy Dog's language but it seems that I am ultimately doomed to colossal failure.
As a matter of fact, I try to use the dictionary and spell-checkers only when strictly necessary to better learn the language. After more than 6 years of 3rd language learning classes and stuff I have found this strict rule to be of a great help.
On the other humble hand, I stand corrected on the brewn-brewed issue, the thing is that I have seen 'brewn' sooo much (specially on the Internet), I thought it was correct.
Starts up with basic commands (ssh and the like), giving way to more in-depth info, XML configuration files, etc.
There seems to be some sort of centralized group of commands. For instance, there is the 'systemsetup' command, that handles a plethora of tasks: energy saver, time, sleep-wakeup, languages, startup... That might be helpful and a cool deviation from the traditional make-changes-in-many-places syndrome that has plagued UNIX and the like for years.
OTOH, there's a nice review of Panther Server with cool screenshots on Maccentral.
In fact, he kinda demoed it first on a Mac.
Go to IBM, ask them to lend you a couple of G5 cores. Go and design a new motherboard that will accept it and be able to plug in to it lots of goodies. Remeber it must not fry the G5's when running at full speed, that is a requeriment.
Remember to check in with your impressive feat before 2013.
Repeat after me: IT RUNS MACOSX
PDF presentation link.
Redundancy, it may very well be that it is definitely cheaper to use software redundancy than to increase hardware complexity, costs and maintenance factoring in hardware power supply redundancy, ECC RAM and such. VT uses a custom built software called Deja Vu to create software redundancy. Yeah, this soft. could be factored in to the cost of the whole setup, but it might be unquantifiable, as would be costs like 'coming up with the idea and feasibility study'.
You mean that a UNIX(MacOSX) sysadmin and a Linux sysadmin would differ greatly in income or in training level? In fact, it can definitely be argued that MacOSX sysadmins would require a lower level of knowledge.
Programming: do you think that you are seen plain vanilla VC++ coding on those two beasts? Coders at that level know what they are doing big time. PhD's developing parallel code usually are not stopped by the paint in the boxes.
dani++
Comes builtin, but they are using Infiniband to interconnect as stated in the press release.
Just a correction, as your post kind of implies they are using Gb exclusively.