Seems unlikely they would have 27,000 PCs with hardware that isn't supported by Windows 7, and if they do it would make sense to get a driver created for it. More likely it's just their usual incompetence.
Go down to your local underfunded hospital. There's lots of old hardware floating around that are just chugging away doing their jobs even though you wouldn't want to run anything more modern on them, like something that requires more than 32 megs of ram.
Maybe the software for the laser engraver is running on dos and the latest version of windows won't support it in a dosbox? Kind of like all those win9x games, and win32 games with 16-bit installers.
[[and they can always leave a few isolated XP boxes up to support laser engravers and the like.]]
Not if they have software or hardware has to have a network connection for 3rd party licensing purposes..
That's the future for Windows 10. Your network goes down, you don't just lose your "cloud", but the ability to do pretty much anything. They'll make sure they keep a local cache of the start menu ads, "for your convenience during the interruption of service."
"Web standards" aren't. They are like post-a-bomb cockroaches - they keep proliferating and mutating. Same with browsers.
As a long-time opponent of Java, I have to say that with the advances made, it's more than good enough, and code written a decade ago for 5.0 that doesn't run in a browser runs just fine in 8.0. Just need the current runtime for your particular host (the class files can just be copied from one OS to the other and run). Just don't use either native methods, and use the provided abstractions for things like directory separators in file names.
And if you didn't, the only class files you'll have to decompile and fix are the ones affected - the code in the other class files will still run fine.
Well, all those people who didn't upgrade from DOS are still laughing./
As are those running Java applications, where all you have to do is copy the class files to your new machine and if you didn't use native functions or other non-portable code, or a custom java (such as on cell phones back in the day) you're still sitting pretty. (No, I'm not talking about "browser apps", which are rather limited to begin with.)
On today's computers, the problems with Java's speed are pretty much gone for most use cases.
Code targeted for java 1.5 (aka Java 5.0) released in 2004 runs just fine under 8.0 (the current release) released in 2014.
In a system where everyone is supposed to match someone, all a disguise will do is cause the system to present the closest match, even if it's wrong. No problem.
If you run them but you don't get the exact same usage (for example, being able to create files in a directory that are called Makefile and makefile and MAKEFILE, or SomeClass.java and SOMECLASS.java (the second one used like a c header file to contain class variables declared final used by SomeClass and possibly other classes, and not just descendants) and see them all in Windows Explorer or the Windows version of Eclipse) because the underlying Windows subsystem doesn't support it, even when you change the register key to HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\kernel\obcaseinsensitive to zero, it may NOT be "good enough", even though cygwin64 has no problems with it.
If you were pointing out how weak my argument is, you failed. Nobody calls a system by combining the name or brand of the user space programs with the kernel on any computer. Not OSX. Not Linux. Not *BSD. Not Windows. Trying to make an exception for linux by referring to it as gnu/linux is for, as I said, freetards.
Otherwise, all those graphic artists would be running Adobe/Windows, not Adobe Photoshop ON Windows. Nor do we have Java/Android/Linux (or if Oracle had their way in court, Oracle/Android).
The UI. My sister loves hers, and she can keep it. Mind you, it's pretty long in the tooth now, but still runs just fine, which justifies the premium she paid for it.
These are all pictures where the person was not trying to modify their appearance to be able to hide in plain sight. Temporary collagen injections (or even just some padding inside your cheeks), using tape (hidden under a wig) to raise the eyebrow arch vertically, or stretch the eyelids horizontally, some padding to give yourself dumbo ears, use of makeup to alter the appearance of facial bone structure via shading and highlighting, making the nose narrower using dabs of crazy glue to stick parts of the nasal septum together...
Enough differences, and the identification will fail.
Wow, just wow. BSD was around long before linux. FreeBSD isn't just used to underpin OSX either - it's also the OS for the last few Playstations (FreeBSD 9 as modified by Sony).
I'm sorry. I didn't state my actual question very clearly.
What I meant was "Isn't macOS closer to what a Linux afficianado would "recognize" (once we get past the GUI stuff), than what MS has train-wrecked together here?"
Sorry if I misunderstood. It would be if it weren't for "the Apple way" stuff getting in the way. Same as Ubuntu is more usable without unity. I guess we all have our preferences. That being said, anyone who already wanted a collection of *nix utilities to run under windows will have already downloaded cygwin, which has really improved.
Nobody gives a shit about calling it gnu except a few freetards. Most of the software on the typical distro dvd is NOT gnu. Go suck some more of stallman's foot cheese.
Usenet was pretty fast if everyone was using the same server. So, everyone I know switched to using Google to access/post to usenet, and it was pretty much real-time.
I beg to differ. There are trillions of pounds sterling, but look how quickly it tanked after brexit. Sentiment, not hard facts, determines value in today's markets. That's the problem with fiat currencies, and it looks unsolvable (plus there are extreme disincentives to solving it).
A user space without a kernel is useless. However, there's no reason anyone can't just add the code they want to the kernel to perform specific tasks, no user space required. The kernel's printk function isn't user space, even though it shows you all those pretty boot messages. The kernel can also do all sorts of other stuff, including interacting with the user by parsing the user's command-line arguments at boot time.
You can build any arbitrary functionality you want directly into the kernel - just the core kernel and a bunch of loadable modules (or you can even compile them right in so they're available without needing to be loaded by the module loader).
The question is why would you bother? In the context of this article, which is about security concerns, having no bloated user space means less of an attack surface.
And I say the same who insist on calling it "gnu/linux" - they lost, grow up and get over it. It's not gnu/linux any more than it's gnu/freebsd, gnu/osx, or (ahem) oracle/android.
The "translation" is not the same as done in, say, a JIT. There's no dynamic (or static) translation - you're dealing with precompiled binaries. People worked for a while on static translation, so that a binary from one platform would be translated into a binary on the other platform, but copyright issues killed that idea. shims have no copyright issues.
Wow, just wow. BSD was around long before linux. FreeBSD isn't just used to underpin OSX either - it's also the OS for the last few Playstations (FreeBSD 9 as modified by Sony).
And yet it's not "linux on Windows", and can't be considered that. Same as wine is not "windows on linux". And for the purposes of this article that is whining about security, you cannot exploit bugs in the linux kernel when the linux kernel isn't even there. They should take a hint from the wine developers and call it "talea" - "this ain't linux, enough already" (with the hype).
No, because in this case there is no linux kernel code in it. Drivers are not kernel code - that's why the whole fuss about free/open and proprietary drivers, and how the linux devs refuse to look at bugs that the dump reveals are using a tainted kernel - one that is running on a system with proprietary drivers. You would know that if you had a clue, instead of being determined to be an ass.
Will they take bitcoin or other eCoins for payment? A little arbitrage here and there for the masses who don't have servers sitting in the stock exchange's basements...
Help them (the government) ease into handling e-currencies for profit.
Slashdot Mirror
M$ doesn't sell or support XP anymore, release the source code and let the market create it's own security patches.
Maybe everyone can buy patches for windows 2000 server from the Russian mob or a github account
Your scenario means the sysadmins must forever deal with exceptions, control tightly the set of applications, the trusted sources and so on.
And how is this different from what goes on every day under any scenario dealing with networked computers?
Seems unlikely they would have 27,000 PCs with hardware that isn't supported by Windows 7, and if they do it would make sense to get a driver created for it. More likely it's just their usual incompetence.
Go down to your local underfunded hospital. There's lots of old hardware floating around that are just chugging away doing their jobs even though you wouldn't want to run anything more modern on them, like something that requires more than 32 megs of ram.
Maybe the software for the laser engraver is running on dos and the latest version of windows won't support it in a dosbox? Kind of like all those win9x games, and win32 games with 16-bit installers.
[[and they can always leave a few isolated XP boxes up to support laser engravers and the like.]]
Not if they have software or hardware has to have a network connection for 3rd party licensing purposes. .
That's the future for Windows 10. Your network goes down, you don't just lose your "cloud", but the ability to do pretty much anything. They'll make sure they keep a local cache of the start menu ads, "for your convenience during the interruption of service."
"Web standards" aren't. They are like post-a-bomb cockroaches - they keep proliferating and mutating. Same with browsers.
As a long-time opponent of Java, I have to say that with the advances made, it's more than good enough, and code written a decade ago for 5.0 that doesn't run in a browser runs just fine in 8.0. Just need the current runtime for your particular host (the class files can just be copied from one OS to the other and run). Just don't use either native methods, and use the provided abstractions for things like directory separators in file names.
And if you didn't, the only class files you'll have to decompile and fix are the ones affected - the code in the other class files will still run fine.
Well, all those people who didn't upgrade from DOS are still laughing./
As are those running Java applications, where all you have to do is copy the class files to your new machine and if you didn't use native functions or other non-portable code, or a custom java (such as on cell phones back in the day) you're still sitting pretty. (No, I'm not talking about "browser apps", which are rather limited to begin with.)
On today's computers, the problems with Java's speed are pretty much gone for most use cases.
Code targeted for java 1.5 (aka Java 5.0) released in 2004 runs just fine under 8.0 (the current release) released in 2014.
In a system where everyone is supposed to match someone, all a disguise will do is cause the system to present the closest match, even if it's wrong. No problem.
If you run them but you don't get the exact same usage (for example, being able to create files in a directory that are called Makefile and makefile and MAKEFILE, or SomeClass.java and SOMECLASS.java (the second one used like a c header file to contain class variables declared final used by SomeClass and possibly other classes, and not just descendants) and see them all in Windows Explorer or the Windows version of Eclipse) because the underlying Windows subsystem doesn't support it, even when you change the register key to HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\kernel\obcaseinsensitive to zero, it may NOT be "good enough", even though cygwin64 has no problems with it.
If you were pointing out how weak my argument is, you failed. Nobody calls a system by combining the name or brand of the user space programs with the kernel on any computer. Not OSX. Not Linux. Not *BSD. Not Windows. Trying to make an exception for linux by referring to it as gnu/linux is for, as I said, freetards.
Otherwise, all those graphic artists would be running Adobe/Windows, not Adobe Photoshop ON Windows. Nor do we have Java/Android/Linux (or if Oracle had their way in court, Oracle/Android).
The UI. My sister loves hers, and she can keep it. Mind you, it's pretty long in the tooth now, but still runs just fine, which justifies the premium she paid for it.
These are all pictures where the person was not trying to modify their appearance to be able to hide in plain sight. Temporary collagen injections (or even just some padding inside your cheeks), using tape (hidden under a wig) to raise the eyebrow arch vertically, or stretch the eyelids horizontally, some padding to give yourself dumbo ears, use of makeup to alter the appearance of facial bone structure via shading and highlighting, making the nose narrower using dabs of crazy glue to stick parts of the nasal septum together ...
Enough differences, and the identification will fail.
Wow, just wow. BSD was around long before linux. FreeBSD isn't just used to underpin OSX either - it's also the OS for the last few Playstations (FreeBSD 9 as modified by Sony).
I'm sorry. I didn't state my actual question very clearly. What I meant was "Isn't macOS closer to what a Linux afficianado would "recognize" (once we get past the GUI stuff), than what MS has train-wrecked together here?"
Sorry if I misunderstood. It would be if it weren't for "the Apple way" stuff getting in the way. Same as Ubuntu is more usable without unity. I guess we all have our preferences. That being said, anyone who already wanted a collection of *nix utilities to run under windows will have already downloaded cygwin, which has really improved.
Nobody gives a shit about calling it gnu except a few freetards. Most of the software on the typical distro dvd is NOT gnu. Go suck some more of stallman's foot cheese.
WTF? Can't you even read? If you're going to try to troll me, at least put a bit of effort in it.
Usenet was pretty fast if everyone was using the same server. So, everyone I know switched to using Google to access/post to usenet, and it was pretty much real-time.
I beg to differ. There are trillions of pounds sterling, but look how quickly it tanked after brexit. Sentiment, not hard facts, determines value in today's markets. That's the problem with fiat currencies, and it looks unsolvable (plus there are extreme disincentives to solving it).
A user space without a kernel is useless. However, there's no reason anyone can't just add the code they want to the kernel to perform specific tasks, no user space required. The kernel's printk function isn't user space, even though it shows you all those pretty boot messages. The kernel can also do all sorts of other stuff, including interacting with the user by parsing the user's command-line arguments at boot time.
You can build any arbitrary functionality you want directly into the kernel - just the core kernel and a bunch of loadable modules (or you can even compile them right in so they're available without needing to be loaded by the module loader).
The question is why would you bother? In the context of this article, which is about security concerns, having no bloated user space means less of an attack surface.
And I say the same who insist on calling it "gnu/linux" - they lost, grow up and get over it. It's not gnu/linux any more than it's gnu/freebsd, gnu/osx, or (ahem) oracle/android.
The "translation" is not the same as done in, say, a JIT. There's no dynamic (or static) translation - you're dealing with precompiled binaries. People worked for a while on static translation, so that a binary from one platform would be translated into a binary on the other platform, but copyright issues killed that idea. shims have no copyright issues.
Wow, just wow. BSD was around long before linux. FreeBSD isn't just used to underpin OSX either - it's also the OS for the last few Playstations (FreeBSD 9 as modified by Sony).
And yet it's not "linux on Windows", and can't be considered that. Same as wine is not "windows on linux". And for the purposes of this article that is whining about security, you cannot exploit bugs in the linux kernel when the linux kernel isn't even there. They should take a hint from the wine developers and call it "talea" - "this ain't linux, enough already" (with the hype).
You want Usenet. Twitter is garbage in comparison.
No, because in this case there is no linux kernel code in it. Drivers are not kernel code - that's why the whole fuss about free/open and proprietary drivers, and how the linux devs refuse to look at bugs that the dump reveals are using a tainted kernel - one that is running on a system with proprietary drivers. You would know that if you had a clue, instead of being determined to be an ass.
Help them (the government) ease into handling e-currencies for profit.