As a Mac developer, Linux user, and someone who's actually used Mac OS X, I think I can give you a pretty good idea how it will work. There's already a few X11 Servers for Mac OS 8/9. The one I'm most familiar with is MacX (aren't all these X names getting confusing).
MacX will either let you have one big-ass MacOS window that contains your X-based desktop (with whatever window manager you want), or it can put each X window in its own Mac OS window, giving everything a much more Mac-like feel. I imagine Tenon will adopt a similar strategy: all the window widgets will be Aqua-fied, but the contents of the window will be the same as always, since they're controlled mainly by the application. Tenon's X server will probably also support a "big-ass window" mode, and maybe also a full-screen mode.
Just to set the record straight, Carmack hacked X to run on Mac OS X server, and the hack was promptly ported to Darwin, seeing as it lacked a GUI.
My dream system: quad G4s, three monitors. Monitor 1: Aqua. Monitor 2: X11 Monitor 3: CLUI
I've always wondered why Mac users get so goddamned high-and-mighty about email viruses. Macs are NOT immune to email viruses, just the current batch of Windows-centric ones. I, or anyone else experienced with AppleScript, could write an email virus that would duplicate most of the features of Melissa, I-Love-You, or other email viruses. Outlook Express, Eudora, and Claris Emailer are all scriptable.
It's true that Mac users would probably have to decompress the attached virus and then double-click it, but that could easily be accomplished through basic social engineering. Also, there wouldn't be a file extension to give away the fact it was a script... (Just call it Pamela.jpg and give it a custom icon).
About the only things the Mac really has going for it to prevent such a catastrophy is a smaller userbase.
If I was going to create a virus (which I'm not--I'm not evil, but it's fun thinking about it), it would parse IE's preferences to get your home address (from AutoFill), and use it to order pizza for you from Pizza Hut's online ordering site. With anchovies.
Maybe Mandrake called the reviewer because they were disappointed they didn't get the glowing bullshit MS products usually get from Jesse "Find out why the next generation of MS shit will make ME stick my head up my ass" Berst.
Seriously, though, is anyone really that influenced by some dead trees, some shiny plastic, nice pictures, and tech support? Maybe that would buy off Berst, but I'd like to think most people have slightly more integrity.
I think it's much more likely that any pro-Linux bias is due simply to the huge amount of hype and energy surrounding Linux. When you combine something new that just happens to be half-decent with the moral/technical/economical superiority zealotry in the Linux camp, you get powerful hype (don't get me wrong, a good chunk of that hype is deserved, either on the basis of what Linux is or what it can be).
Hold on here... The Tucows article says that reviewers are being biased to favourably review free software because Linux companies give them free copies of their software if they do. The software they're being bribed with is free, goddammit. I could see if they were being bribed with a full retail version of Electric Image or some other $10,000+ software package. It's sad when a journalist's integrity costs three $0.30 CDs, a $3.00 manual, and a $2.75 cardboard box.:-)
Are they really too lazy to download RedHat, or are they just too stupid. (Hey, this IS ZDNet we're talking about).
You have to be 18 to rent or BUY the game. RTFA (Read The Fucking Article):-)
As an (ashamed) citizen of British Columbia, I think this is just another step down the road to a Nerf world (name stolen from PJ O'Rourke) where the government tries to protect us from everything. Next thing you know, ID Software will find itself facing 20 wrongful death suits for Columbine...
British Columbia is an absolutely beautiful province (we have coast, mountains, rain forest, desert, you name it), but the political climate here sucks even worse than Vancouver winter weather. May a hail of cluesticks fall upon us...
Two reasons. I am going to take it into a repair shop, but I have to find some way of getting it there first. I'm a student, so I don't have a car, and carrying the 40 pound iMac (handle or no) the mile to the bus stop isn't easy. I'm hoping to find a friend with a car who can drive me.
The other reason is I don't want to have to pay $200 to get a new AV board. If it just broke, yeah, my tough luck, should have bought the extended warranty. It didn't just break, though. It was designed incorrectly. I'd be willing to bet they're either using substandard components, or pusing components beyond what they're rated for. It wouldn't be the first time Apple has done something like that.
I don't think I should have to pay for someone else's design flaw.
What would be nice is if Apple would just ship me a new AV board, along with a box to return my broken one (which they would hopefully study to figure out how to prevent this in the future). Instead, I have to lug the whole goddamn computer into a dealer before they'll even tell me whether they'll cover it. It's obviously a known issue, they're just trying to shove it under the rug.
I had to go through the same crap when my CD-ROM drive died, and the idiot tech at the closest dealer wanted to reformat my hard drive to see if that was the problem. (No, I'm not taking it back to that place). Fortunately, it was on warranty then, so I didn't have to deal with too much crap.
I suppose this is what I deserve for buying an iMac.
If only I could play Diablo II on my iMac... Unfortunately, my revision A iMac suffers from the infamous "Green Light Of Death" syndrome (GLOD). Moderators, yes, this is an off-topic rant, but I'm trying to help and warn others.
GLOD is due to problems with the analog video board (inside the monitor part of the iMac enclosure) that can make it impossible to switch monitor resolutions, use the monitor energy saver, or to reboot the iMac without unplugging it. In severe cases, it can make the computer unusable. A search for GLOD on the iMac discussion board in Apple's Tech Exchange uncovers dozens of posts in the past 60 days alone, yet somehow Apple Tech Support denies all knowledge of the problem.
If it was just me, it would have been a random hardware failure, and my tough luck since I'm off warranty. With the volume of complaints about it (and the articles on MacFixit), it's obvious it's a design flaw. It apparently also affects some of their monitors and other models of iMacs. I'm currently getting the run-around and the usual denials from Apple Customer Service. Either they're totally ignorant and don't read their discussion boards, or they're in denial mode so they don't have to recall a million iMacs...
Apple used to build really solid hardware. I've seen 128K Macs (the originals!) survive over 16 years. It's sad that my iMac has suffered two hardware problems in 16 months.
The moral of the story? Always buy the extended warranty if you have to buy a Mac... At least I can gut my iMac and turn it into a nice LinuxPPC box...
As a hardcore Mac user (and programmer) and Linux user, I am very much looking forward to Mac OS X. My biggest complaint is that I've been waiting for over 5 years for a modern OS for the Mac, and I still have to wait a little longer.
I think most knowledgable Mac users will appreciate the stability and performance of BSD, while the less sophisticated users will be wowed by the Chewy GUI Goodness (tm) that is Aqua. Apple knows what it's doing. Now if they'd just do something about Cocoa for Windows...
The Classic environment is just a modified version of Blue Box (a.k.a. MacOS.app in Mac OS X Server). Apps run at about 95% of the speed they would on a native Mac system. This is on the developer previews, of course, performance may change...
The cool part is that Classic takes advantage of Mac OS X's superior (to Mac OS 9) memory management, so the Mac OS 9 running in Classic thinks it has a gig of RAM or something crazy like that (exactly how much depends on a bunch of factors).
I think Apple's UFS is a bit different that the normal UFS. HFS+ is the default filesystem for Mac OS X, but, if you're a developer, you want a UFS partition because a few Unix programs break when compiling on HFS+ (due to case issues: HFS+ preserves case but is not case-sensitive, so moof.c and Moof.c cannot coexist).
I forget where, but I got the source to part or all of Gerry's ICQ... If you want it, email me and I'll see if I can dig it up. It's probably not big-O Open Source, but it's free, and the source is out there.
Actually, I'm a poor exploited co-op student, so I only make $14:-)
Also, it would have taken 20 minutes to do as good or better--I could have written a hack that would have done the job in under five minutes.
My point was that the mentality in the Mac community differs from that in the Open source community. An Open source developer writes a somewhat useful hack, and throws it and its source out into the world. A Mac developer writes a little utility in 2 hours, and tries to gouge people for it. !!!Generality alert!!! There are many exceptions on both sides... Don't flame me...
Don't get me wrong, I think a $15 shareware fee for something really cool that took a lot of effort (like Ambrosia's Escape Velocity or Ares) is quite fair. It's just people charging for stupid one-day hacks that bugs me.
I'm thinking of creating a modified version of the GPL called "Guiltware", with the added clause that all software developers that don't use an Open Source license must hang their heads in shame every time they use my program.
And I've wondered this myself. Frankly, I get pissed off when I see someone ask $5 for an AppleScript that I could write in 20 minutes. There are a few open source Mac programs out there (Gerry's ICQ, Mactella...), but it's mostly stuff that has its origin on other platforms.
Why haven't I written anything myself? Well, I haven't been in the game too long, and I haven't yet gotten past the "I wish there was a program that did this..." stage yet, and I just don't have a lot of spare time. If I was going to write an Open Source program, it would probably be for Linux or Mac OS X. Memory management on the Mac is kind of painful (damn handles).
What would it take to get me to write for Mac OS? Well, I wouldn't bother with Mac OS 9, since it's on its way out. Mac OS X is appealing, but it would really help if Cocoa was cross-platform (I know it is, but Apple won't license it for Windows any more). I think Mac OS X will see a major increase in the amount of open source development, especially since a large portion of the OS is open source.
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
Using a program requires loading it into RAM, which is considered copying. Thus, you can't use the program except if you agree to the license. If you have no license to use copyrighted material, you can't legally use it.
Actually, it's not yet known whether the GPL will legally be considered a contract, a copyright license, or both. This was discussed in the article linked from a recent Slashdot story.
So, the GPL may be affected by UCITA. Of course, the GPL disclaims warranties, so it's in the clear in that respect.
Still, the death of free software would almost be worthwhile if it meant Microsoft had to comply with strict software warranty laws.:-)
>A program can be installed at any time and that won't kill other, existing programs.
This doesn't apply to Microsoft products:-) Installing Internet Explorer 5, Outlook Express 5, and Outlook for Exchange in the wrong order will break one or more of those applications. Of course, Microsoft's sloppy practices with shared libraries are hardly Apple's fault. There are a few other programs where deleting the preferences hoses the app, but that's also because the programmers didn't do things the way they're supposed to.
A lot of the Chewy Goodness of the Mac OS is actually due to programmers voluntarily following conventions Apple has set out (i.e., the Human Interface Guidelines). Apple deserves credit for thinking beyond the OS to the entire user experience.
IMHO, the Mac GUI is simply the best thing out there (I haven't given BeOS a fair shot yet, though). What's behind the scenes in Mac OS 9 isn't nearly as nice. As a programmer, I hate how Mac memory management works. Handles might have been a good idea 16 years ago, but they sure suck now. All the pascal crap floating around in the OS is annoying, too. Of course, the user never sees any of that...
OS X should be the best of both worlds. As for the case-sensitivity weirdness, there's a simple solution: if you want backwards compatibility with Mac OS 9, use HFS+. If you want a case-sensitive file system, use UFS. You can even mix and match to get everything you need.
As I understand things, if Acme Software leaked Adobe trade secrets to MacNN in violation of an NDA, and MacNN published them, both Acme and MacNN are liable. Trade secrets do not lose protection if they are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.
Unless Bhatia (of MacNN) is telling the truth and he came by the feature guide for PhotoShop 6.0 legally, Adobe is perfectly within their rights to sue the pants off MacNN. It's illegal to publish trade secrets which were illegally obtained (as would be the case if a disgruntled employee or ex-employee emailed them to MacNN).
OTOH, if Adobe screwed up and had the feature guide publically available on their website or something else equally stupid, MacNN is in the clear.
That's a very important point, and I imagine the court case will hinge upon that.
I've got to say, in terms of pure eye candy, it's got nothing on Aqua. Some of the GNOME appearances/skins I've seen have been pretty nice, but usability suffered. Without using Eazel's GUI, I can't comment on it's usability... Aqua, on the other hand, is quite well done, considering the developmental stage it's at (yes, the dock still sucks, but it sucks less--and Apple still has time).
I'm starting to think good GUI is the only thing Open Source can't do better than commercial software. You really do need the coherence and focus of a commercial software team to design and implement a consistent, mature, efficient GUI. I am trying to change this, in my small way:-)
It sounds like a smarter firewall that communicates with other firewalls on the same network. Not a huge advance in technology, just some marketroid got carried away. Here are the amazing features/capabilities it has:
port scans: it detects port scans. Most firewalls do this. Theirs just detects ones that take place over a longer period, too.
faint probes: isn't this pretty much the same as above? So it detects "stealth" scans, etc. A lot of firewalls do this.
trojan horses: it recognizes "patterns" indicative of trojan horses. Tripwire, anyone?
denial of service attacks there's only so much you can do without changing the upstream routing hardware/logic, especially against DDoS or DoS from a source with higher bandwidth (wanna bet Sandia has a really fat pipe, though?)
security functions are integrated with ordinary everyday network use: email and web browsing are integrated into the security agent? How does that work? All I can think of is global security settings. Kinda nice, but is that really necessary if you're not running buggy MS junk?
'live' programs such as the I-Love-You virus are prohibited this is a problem of stupid users and really bad design. Untrusted scripts/executables shouldn't run automatically, and user education is the most important part of any security system.
Really, this just sounds like a souped-up firewall + Tripwire. Nothing too revolutionary. Wanna bet that a properly-configured OpenBSD box could have held off those four script kiddies (err, "experienced hackers") for 16 hours, too?
Sorry for being so bloody sarcastic, but this just sounds like the kind of marketroid detail-free crap that ZDNet usually turns out.
I don't think Doubleclick has much to worry about. Technically, all their ads come from the same domain (doubleclick.net or whatever), whereas this patent covers sending "unique identifiers" to servers on different domains.
Besides, AFAIK, cookies will only be sent back to servers in the same domain as the originating server (cookies can be attached to images, which is how Doubleclick does their tracking). This patent shouldn't affect cookies as we know them.
Now, if CNet has found a way to circumvent the (already pathetic) security and privacy protection on cookies, we have something to worry about.
Yeah, what's up with someone moding my post as a troll? It definitely wasn't. I hope they get bitchslapped for bad moderation. Is everything that doesn't agree with the Slashdot party line automatically a troll?
Anyway, I do think we want to stay clear of asking for new anti-spam laws or more government involvement. Still, if the spammer can be prosecuted under existing laws, go for it. I wonder if the way he "hacked" into that company's mail server was really just him taking advantage of the fact that it was configured wrong and allowed anonymous remailing.
Slashdot Mirror
As a Mac developer, Linux user, and someone who's actually used Mac OS X, I think I can give you a pretty good idea how it will work. There's already a few X11 Servers for Mac OS 8/9. The one I'm most familiar with is MacX (aren't all these X names getting confusing).
MacX will either let you have one big-ass MacOS window that contains your X-based desktop (with whatever window manager you want), or it can put each X window in its own Mac OS window, giving everything a much more Mac-like feel. I imagine Tenon will adopt a similar strategy: all the window widgets will be Aqua-fied, but the contents of the window will be the same as always, since they're controlled mainly by the application. Tenon's X server will probably also support a "big-ass window" mode, and maybe also a full-screen mode.
Just to set the record straight, Carmack hacked X to run on Mac OS X server, and the hack was promptly ported to Darwin, seeing as it lacked a GUI.
My dream system: quad G4s, three monitors.
Monitor 1: Aqua.
Monitor 2: X11
Monitor 3: CLUI
I've always wondered why Mac users get so goddamned high-and-mighty about email viruses. Macs are NOT immune to email viruses, just the current batch of Windows-centric ones. I, or anyone else experienced with AppleScript, could write an email virus that would duplicate most of the features of Melissa, I-Love-You, or other email viruses. Outlook Express, Eudora, and Claris Emailer are all scriptable.
It's true that Mac users would probably have to decompress the attached virus and then double-click it, but that could easily be accomplished through basic social engineering. Also, there wouldn't be a file extension to give away the fact it was a script... (Just call it Pamela.jpg and give it a custom icon).
About the only things the Mac really has going for it to prevent such a catastrophy is a smaller userbase.
If I was going to create a virus (which I'm not--I'm not evil, but it's fun thinking about it), it would parse IE's preferences to get your home address (from AutoFill), and use it to order pizza for you from Pizza Hut's online ordering site. With anchovies.
Maybe Mandrake called the reviewer because they were disappointed they didn't get the glowing bullshit MS products usually get from Jesse "Find out why the next generation of MS shit will make ME stick my head up my ass" Berst.
Seriously, though, is anyone really that influenced by some dead trees, some shiny plastic, nice pictures, and tech support? Maybe that would buy off Berst, but I'd like to think most people have slightly more integrity.
I think it's much more likely that any pro-Linux bias is due simply to the huge amount of hype and energy surrounding Linux. When you combine something new that just happens to be half-decent with the moral/technical/economical superiority zealotry in the Linux camp, you get powerful hype (don't get me wrong, a good chunk of that hype is deserved, either on the basis of what Linux is or what it can be).
Hold on here... The Tucows article says that reviewers are being biased to favourably review free software because Linux companies give them free copies of their software if they do. The software they're being bribed with is free, goddammit. I could see if they were being bribed with a full retail version of Electric Image or some other $10,000+ software package. It's sad when a journalist's integrity costs three $0.30 CDs, a $3.00 manual, and a $2.75 cardboard box. :-)
Are they really too lazy to download RedHat, or are they just too stupid. (Hey, this IS ZDNet we're talking about).
You have to be 18 to rent or BUY the game. RTFA (Read The Fucking Article) :-)
As an (ashamed) citizen of British Columbia, I think this is just another step down the road to a Nerf world (name stolen from PJ O'Rourke) where the government tries to protect us from everything. Next thing you know, ID Software will find itself facing 20 wrongful death suits for Columbine...
British Columbia is an absolutely beautiful province (we have coast, mountains, rain forest, desert, you name it), but the political climate here sucks even worse than Vancouver winter weather. May a hail of cluesticks fall upon us...
Two reasons. I am going to take it into a repair shop, but I have to find some way of getting it there first. I'm a student, so I don't have a car, and carrying the 40 pound iMac (handle or no) the mile to the bus stop isn't easy. I'm hoping to find a friend with a car who can drive me.
The other reason is I don't want to have to pay $200 to get a new AV board. If it just broke, yeah, my tough luck, should have bought the extended warranty. It didn't just break, though. It was designed incorrectly. I'd be willing to bet they're either using substandard components, or pusing components beyond what they're rated for. It wouldn't be the first time Apple has done something like that.
I don't think I should have to pay for someone else's design flaw.
What would be nice is if Apple would just ship me a new AV board, along with a box to return my broken one (which they would hopefully study to figure out how to prevent this in the future). Instead, I have to lug the whole goddamn computer into a dealer before they'll even tell me whether they'll cover it. It's obviously a known issue, they're just trying to shove it under the rug.
I had to go through the same crap when my CD-ROM drive died, and the idiot tech at the closest dealer wanted to reformat my hard drive to see if that was the problem. (No, I'm not taking it back to that place). Fortunately, it was on warranty then, so I didn't have to deal with too much crap.
I suppose this is what I deserve for buying an iMac.
If only I could play Diablo II on my iMac... Unfortunately, my revision A iMac suffers from the infamous "Green Light Of Death" syndrome (GLOD). Moderators, yes, this is an off-topic rant, but I'm trying to help and warn others.
GLOD is due to problems with the analog video board (inside the monitor part of the iMac enclosure) that can make it impossible to switch monitor resolutions, use the monitor energy saver, or to reboot the iMac without unplugging it. In severe cases, it can make the computer unusable. A search for GLOD on the iMac discussion board in Apple's Tech Exchange uncovers dozens of posts in the past 60 days alone, yet somehow Apple Tech Support denies all knowledge of the problem.
If it was just me, it would have been a random hardware failure, and my tough luck since I'm off warranty. With the volume of complaints about it (and the articles on MacFixit), it's obvious it's a design flaw. It apparently also affects some of their monitors and other models of iMacs. I'm currently getting the run-around and the usual denials from Apple Customer Service. Either they're totally ignorant and don't read their discussion boards, or they're in denial mode so they don't have to recall a million iMacs...
Apple used to build really solid hardware. I've seen 128K Macs (the originals!) survive over 16 years. It's sad that my iMac has suffered two hardware problems in 16 months.
The moral of the story? Always buy the extended warranty if you have to buy a Mac... At least I can gut my iMac and turn it into a nice LinuxPPC box...
-YADMU (Yet Another Disgruntled Mac User).
As a hardcore Mac user (and programmer) and Linux user, I am very much looking forward to Mac OS X. My biggest complaint is that I've been waiting for over 5 years for a modern OS for the Mac, and I still have to wait a little longer.
I think most knowledgable Mac users will appreciate the stability and performance of BSD, while the less sophisticated users will be wowed by the Chewy GUI Goodness (tm) that is Aqua. Apple knows what it's doing. Now if they'd just do something about Cocoa for Windows...
The Classic environment is just a modified version of Blue Box (a.k.a. MacOS.app in Mac OS X Server). Apps run at about 95% of the speed they would on a native Mac system. This is on the developer previews, of course, performance may change...
The cool part is that Classic takes advantage of Mac OS X's superior (to Mac OS 9) memory management, so the Mac OS 9 running in Classic thinks it has a gig of RAM or something crazy like that (exactly how much depends on a bunch of factors).
I think Apple's UFS is a bit different that the normal UFS. HFS+ is the default filesystem for Mac OS X, but, if you're a developer, you want a UFS partition because a few Unix programs break when compiling on HFS+ (due to case issues: HFS+ preserves case but is not case-sensitive, so moof.c and Moof.c cannot coexist).
I forget where, but I got the source to part or all of Gerry's ICQ... If you want it, email me and I'll see if I can dig it up. It's probably not big-O Open Source, but it's free, and the source is out there.
Actually, I'm a poor exploited co-op student, so I only make $14 :-)
Also, it would have taken 20 minutes to do as good or better--I could have written a hack that would have done the job in under five minutes.
My point was that the mentality in the Mac community differs from that in the Open source community. An Open source developer writes a somewhat useful hack, and throws it and its source out into the world. A Mac developer writes a little utility in 2 hours, and tries to gouge people for it. !!!Generality alert!!! There are many exceptions on both sides... Don't flame me...
Don't get me wrong, I think a $15 shareware fee for something really cool that took a lot of effort (like Ambrosia's Escape Velocity or Ares) is quite fair. It's just people charging for stupid one-day hacks that bugs me.
I'm thinking of creating a modified version of the GPL called "Guiltware", with the added clause that all software developers that don't use an Open Source license must hang their heads in shame every time they use my program.
Goddamit, sorry about the italics. I stupidly closed the italics tag with a /A tag. At least it wasn't a blink tag :-)
And I've wondered this myself. Frankly, I get pissed off when I see someone ask $5 for an AppleScript that I could write in 20 minutes. There are a few open source Mac programs out there (Gerry's ICQ, Mactella...), but it's mostly stuff that has its origin on other platforms.
Why haven't I written anything myself? Well, I haven't been in the game too long, and I haven't yet gotten past the "I wish there was a program that did this..." stage yet, and I just don't have a lot of spare time. If I was going to write an Open Source program, it would probably be for Linux or Mac OS X. Memory management on the Mac is kind of painful (damn handles).
What would it take to get me to write for Mac OS? Well, I wouldn't bother with Mac OS 9, since it's on its way out. Mac OS X is appealing, but it would really help if Cocoa was cross-platform (I know it is, but Apple won't license it for Windows any more). I think Mac OS X will see a major increase in the amount of open source development, especially since a large portion of the OS is open source.
If you want a fast, low power-consumption chip to run Linux, why not a PowerPC? Sure, it's not x86, but there's a number of good PPC linux ports.
Yes, PPC has higher power consumption than Crusoe, but much lower than any equivalent x86. How do you think the new iMacs work with no fan?
From the article, it sounds like PPC would give you much better performance...
Actually, it's not yet known whether the GPL will legally be considered a contract, a copyright license, or both. This was discussed in the article linked from a recent Slashdot story.
:-)
So, the GPL may be affected by UCITA. Of course, the GPL disclaims warranties, so it's in the clear in that respect.
Still, the death of free software would almost be worthwhile if it meant Microsoft had to comply with strict software warranty laws.
That's not entirely true...
:-) Installing Internet Explorer 5, Outlook Express 5, and Outlook for Exchange in the wrong order will break one or more of those applications. Of course, Microsoft's sloppy practices with shared libraries are hardly Apple's fault. There are a few other programs where deleting the preferences hoses the app, but that's also because the programmers didn't do things the way they're supposed to.
>A program can be installed at any time and that won't kill other, existing programs.
This doesn't apply to Microsoft products
A lot of the Chewy Goodness of the Mac OS is actually due to programmers voluntarily following conventions Apple has set out (i.e., the Human Interface Guidelines). Apple deserves credit for thinking beyond the OS to the entire user experience.
IMHO, the Mac GUI is simply the best thing out there (I haven't given BeOS a fair shot yet, though). What's behind the scenes in Mac OS 9 isn't nearly as nice. As a programmer, I hate how Mac memory management works. Handles might have been a good idea 16 years ago, but they sure suck now. All the pascal crap floating around in the OS is annoying, too. Of course, the user never sees any of that...
OS X should be the best of both worlds. As for the case-sensitivity weirdness, there's a simple solution: if you want backwards compatibility with Mac OS 9, use HFS+. If you want a case-sensitive file system, use UFS. You can even mix and match to get everything you need.
Here's a picture of the happy couple (it's not exactly the best shot, but at least you can see both of them).
Where's the obligatory conversion of 40Gbps into X Libraries of Congress/second?
#include "ianal.h"
As I understand things, if Acme Software leaked Adobe trade secrets to MacNN in violation of an NDA, and MacNN published them, both Acme and MacNN are liable. Trade secrets do not lose protection if they are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.
Unless Bhatia (of MacNN) is telling the truth and he came by the feature guide for PhotoShop 6.0 legally, Adobe is perfectly within their rights to sue the pants off MacNN. It's illegal to publish trade secrets which were illegally obtained (as would be the case if a disgruntled employee or ex-employee emailed them to MacNN).
OTOH, if Adobe screwed up and had the feature guide publically available on their website or something else equally stupid, MacNN is in the clear.
That's a very important point, and I imagine the court case will hinge upon that.
I've got to say, in terms of pure eye candy, it's got nothing on Aqua. Some of the GNOME appearances/skins I've seen have been pretty nice, but usability suffered. Without using Eazel's GUI, I can't comment on it's usability... Aqua, on the other hand, is quite well done, considering the developmental stage it's at (yes, the dock still sucks, but it sucks less--and Apple still has time).
:-)
I'm starting to think good GUI is the only thing Open Source can't do better than commercial software. You really do need the coherence and focus of a commercial software team to design and implement a consistent, mature, efficient GUI. I am trying to change this, in my small way
It sounds like a smarter firewall that communicates with other firewalls on the same network. Not a huge advance in technology, just some marketroid got carried away. Here are the amazing features/capabilities it has:
port scans: it detects port scans. Most firewalls do this. Theirs just detects ones that take place over a longer period, too.
faint probes: isn't this pretty much the same as above? So it detects "stealth" scans, etc. A lot of firewalls do this.
trojan horses: it recognizes "patterns" indicative of trojan horses. Tripwire, anyone?
denial of service attacks there's only so much you can do without changing the upstream routing hardware/logic, especially against DDoS or DoS from a source with higher bandwidth (wanna bet Sandia has a really fat pipe, though?)
security functions are integrated with ordinary everyday network use: email and web browsing are integrated into the security agent? How does that work? All I can think of is global security settings. Kinda nice, but is that really necessary if you're not running buggy MS junk?
'live' programs such as the I-Love-You virus are prohibited this is a problem of stupid users and really bad design. Untrusted scripts/executables shouldn't run automatically, and user education is the most important part of any security system.
Really, this just sounds like a souped-up firewall + Tripwire. Nothing too revolutionary. Wanna bet that a properly-configured OpenBSD box could have held off those four script kiddies (err, "experienced hackers") for 16 hours, too?
Sorry for being so bloody sarcastic, but this just sounds like the kind of marketroid detail-free crap that ZDNet usually turns out.
I don't think Doubleclick has much to worry about. Technically, all their ads come from the same domain (doubleclick.net or whatever), whereas this patent covers sending "unique identifiers" to servers on different domains.
Besides, AFAIK, cookies will only be sent back to servers in the same domain as the originating server (cookies can be attached to images, which is how Doubleclick does their tracking). This patent shouldn't affect cookies as we know them.
Now, if CNet has found a way to circumvent the (already pathetic) security and privacy protection on cookies, we have something to worry about.
Yeah, what's up with someone moding my post as a troll? It definitely wasn't. I hope they get bitchslapped for bad moderation. Is everything that doesn't agree with the Slashdot party line automatically a troll?
Anyway, I do think we want to stay clear of asking for new anti-spam laws or more government involvement. Still, if the spammer can be prosecuted under existing laws, go for it. I wonder if the way he "hacked" into that company's mail server was really just him taking advantage of the fact that it was configured wrong and allowed anonymous remailing.