Not sure it takes "a real mind", just for most programmers solving the problem quickly (in human terms) is much more important than how much performance you can squeeze out of the hardware.
(Basically computers have gotten cheaper, and programmers haven't)
It's highly debatable if C++ is all that efficient, compared to ANSI C for example.
Actually I'm sort of agreeing with you. But I do accept that blind faith in the automatic garbage collector isn't good, it stops people thinking about their algorithms. While garbage collectors are amazingly efficient, leaning on them too hard does nothing to promote performance. But as I suggest, there are many other things you can do to hurt performance that have a much bigger impact.
That is only true if you compile it, effectively loosing all the other benefits you claim.
I don't think I claimed Java could actually live up to "write once run anywhere" - quite the reverse actually, I said it was close enough. Compiling it doesn't change that - it's still very portable. Might need compiling again. I don't understand the point your making.
"(don't tell anyone - but I quite like playing Tetris on my phone, thanks Java)." so? I can play C# games on my phone, talk about logical fallacies, sheesh. Most phones run Java, in fact most everything runs Java - that's kind of the point. Would C# exist without Java? Seriously, would gaming on phones be the same without Java (I mean if Java had never existed)? I seriously doubt it, sure there would be games - but things would be quite different.
You go right ahead and sit there thinking that without Java there wouldn't be any applications on your phone.
Don't worry, I don't think that
Trouble shooting any large Java application is a nightmare.
Trouble shooting any large enough application is a nightmare. In my experience.
Of course, I don't agree at all, but it's nice to read it (as I do know what you're talking about). I do think that in 2008, solving **normal** business problems (whatever the hell that means) worrying about pointers and memory allocation seems to be a bit of an unnecessary distraction.
But sure, it does rather depend - it's also true that leaning too hard on the automatic garbage collector can't help performance. I have seen code that allocates vast splashes of memory and the de-references it all in a tight loop, and you do have to think: "hmm is this a good idea, wouldn't it be better to think about what's going on?" But this isn't the worst sin, how many programs ask for vast numbers of database rows then allow the code to pick and choose what's actually needed rather than create a more defined query? All fine and dandy on the development box where the DB and the APP are on the same system - not so flippin' clever when you deploy with multiple application servers hitting the DB. Quite frankly, some of these noobs need to think about what they are leaning on.
Many of us used Sun boxes at Uni (I did) then suffered IBM boxes (although SMIT was quite spiffy) in our jobs. Strangely we started to wish we had the old Sun boxes back. (Or is this just me?)
Many of us moved from C (and C++) to Java, see above.
We love Java because we know Java, it does everything, and if you've grown with it, then it's OK. Sure, coming to Java from cold today it seems really complex.
Is Java perfect? LOL! No, not even close. But Java is fun to program in. Java programs aren't wedded to any particular OS/Hardware combination (I'd admit they don't quite live up to the "write once/run everywhere" promise, but it's close enough). Java has proved amazingly adaptable - and speed isn't really as much of an issue as the haters claim, if it was we'd all write assembler. Java isn't really far off the speed of C++. As for no multiple inheritance - do you REALLY want that?! There is a reason pretty much every phone has Java on it (don't tell anyone - but I quite like playing Tetris on my phone, thanks Java).
As for Sun, well they do make some really nice boxes, and they are giving us some great stuff (DTrace anyone?)
That's exactly the point I'm (unsuccessfully) trying to make. Making this easy to understand is hard. Anyone who thinks otherwise should then consider that the computer's owner is nine years old. (I pick nine as I was nine when I had my first computer)
We read this is as the application saying: "give me a blank cheque, and while you're at it, the keys to your car".
OK, I can see that. But this isn't really helpful without either:
An Admin
Reducing the OS functionality
Actually I can even imagine securing Windows if we're willing to use an admin to nurse every install. (More likely we have one boot image, and all users boot that, or some kind of WinTerm type solution)
I would agree that Unix (and Unix-a-likes) makes securing the OS simpler (well probably some Windows maven would find some similar wheeze on XP/Vista) but it's not really going to fly if Mr Idiot-And-I-Love-Pron owns (not pwns) the box.
I imagine the number is zero. I don't see it as actually impossible to do, but it's harder.
Firstly there are more Linux "versions" and compatibility between them isn't universal (here that actually helps).
Linux normally makes more sensible choices for default actions (this isn't always true - you can build Linux to be very Windows-like in it's actions, usually in the name of making it "easy", but that's isn't how most are put together).
There are plenty of Windows boxes about, why waste time doing anything else? Remember these days this is all about cash, nobody is doing this "to be cool".
There is a lot of information kicking about regarding Windows, and how to hack it - less so Linux.
Actually you mean "fewer complaints". But they'd be much more rabid!
(Hey, I'm a Mac user too... but I can see the funny side)
Re:Designate Windows OS as Terrorist Tool
on
New Botnet Dwarfs Storm
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Actually while I don't totally buy this (Windows gets a lot of "drive by" infections) you do make a compelling point. Even a "secure OS" cannot help if the users is willing to type their admin password at anything that asks for it.
Of course, you could make code show what it will do upfront ("This program will create files in your home directory, but won't open any network ports, or modify any files it didn't create"). This is something that could be done (I think Microsoft's "managed code" is a valid template for this approach). But the UI is really hard to nail, and the user must still read and understand what's being proposed. Consider: "This program will modify system files and read any files on the system, and open network connections both on the local zone and the Internet", does the average user allow that to run? Perhaps not, but what if it's pron?! Seriously, though - can an OS be secure, if it's users don't make rational choices?
Is it just me, or does putting Windows on this little box make no sense at all?
I mean, what am I going to do with it with Windows? I can't run games. I'm not going to use Word/Excel to the extent where I will notice the difference from OpenOffice.org (not on the little keyboard). I just can't see the point, especially when I'll need to run an "Internet Security Suite" (which won't do the machine any favours).
Personally the slightly bigger screen and Ubuntu sounds perfect (in this form factor). Bigger battery and bluetooth would be icing on the cake.
But where did ML even get this information?! Sometimes I think these guys will write anything (Can you say "Gartner"?)
I think it more likely that the hand of MS is to be seen here - afterall if the PS3 is not here till 2007 and then at $900, well perhaps I would be better off getting a Xbox360 now...
We're going to have to agree to differ about Windows and NeXTSTEP's stability.
Comparing glibc and IE is comparing apples and oranges. With Linux you'd need to replace glibc with something that implemented the same functionality, but you can change the window manager or browser without difficulty.
Cutting and pasting code isn't modularity - this is what Visual Studio encourages (code snippits). Simply put, nobody but Microsoft would even have thought to add such a feature.
WMF needed extra patches applied if Office was installed - simply put the code was duplicated from Windows into Office. It should have been in a framework that Office called.
This kind of "design" is totally different to Mac OS X - where there are modules and clear interfaces. Microsoft have said that Windows Vista is a total rewrite of Windows around these design ideas, clearly XP wasn't!
Given the right PC (back in the day) with supported cards - NeXTSTEP ran just fine (it wasn't unstable).
Microsoft stated that they couldn't remove IE because they'd "integrated" it - which seems the opposite of a clean modular implementation. Further evidence is the WMF flaw that needed several patches applied (clearly that bug was in many places - same code, "cut and pasted" all over Windows and various applications!).
Well there is an element of this - but NeXTSTEP ran okay on PCs (and at its core Mac OS X is NeXTSTEP). The problems of creating drivers isn't trivial, but actually Mac OS X is stable for more reasons than just a small hardware ecosystem. So I guess I half agree with you.
Really part of the key is less backward compatibility, Windows tries to too hard to support everything that has gone before, Mac OS X worries about this less. This makes for a more stable system. (Again this is only part of the answer)
I most of the rest of the key is clearly defined frameworks, and a modular design. I still find it amazing that Microsoft didn't do this - and that they told us they didn't do this. Maybe this is the biggest reason of all why Mac OS X seems so stable compared with what we're used to.
Actually I think we could see the GPLv2 work exactly as RMS wants - and a GPLv3 fork of Linux (minus the DRM stuff) could be created. If enough people want it (or more likely enough people reject DRM in Linux).
Putting DRM support into Linux seems to run against the wishes of a lot of the people who created it. RMS has an important point on this - DRM is all about who controls my computer - me, or some corp? These are the same suits that wanted to stop DVDs from playing on Linux - I don't think we owe them any favours.
Of course, stealing IP is still stealing! But not letting me use my computer to play music I've bought (or films, or whatever) because it's not the same box isn't right (why should I buy the same music twice, once for my desktop and again for my laptop?)
Err, that's an odd logic - we'll put DRM in to the kernel, then opt out when we create content?! I don't get it - Linux as attracted the following of (firstly) people attracted to "free" (as in "freedom") so why should Linux have tools to restrict this freedom? Makes no sense.
Am I missing the point?
So all of a sudden Linux wants to stop me playing that tune/movie/application/whatever on my laptop unless I buy two copies. Is Linux going to go the way of Unix & Minix for similar reasons? Am I missing something?
Err, this isn't security we're talking about here. Security isn't me not losing "my stuff" (a disk crash can do that), secuirty is YOU not stealing "my stuff".
For most home users THAT'S important (bank details, order details, hell even my address and phone number). You imagine how well a phishing attack would work on most users if they knew about open orders (from say Amazon) by reading your files. I think that's much more important to most users!
Of course we all backup our files! Jeesh this is/. we're not a bunch of egotictical morons;-)
Objective C++, create wrappers for the C++ classes. This isn't a silver bullet, but the result is much easier than C++. C++ is a pig of a language, limiting programmers to Objective C makes code much easier to read (and single superclasses are easier).
Err sounds like they even know WHERE in Microsoft's code the problem lies - so why would the affect Apple? AMD is quite a different animal, and dual processors (and dual cores) have uncovered software issues for years...
This simply isn't a Mac issue (at this time) so why the FUD? Perhaps Linux is affected Oh I see how easy it is to inject some FUD - I withdraw the question;-)
BTW, having spent sometime with an iMac (Core Duo) it is very quiet compared to a PPC one...
Exactly, most of the time these flaws are not exploitable (given how we use Unix today). I still think they should be fixed, but this isn't the sensational "sky's falling in" presented in the article.
You can disallow access to the shell (via "terminal.app") for "normal" users (Mac OS X won't allow root login by default anyway) but that's an "extra step" so most users won't do it (fair enough).
Yes it does see ironic that this guy wanted to create a news story rather than submit "fixes" to the Darwin project (the open source project associated with Mac OS X)!
Like most systems, Mac OS X is fairly insecure if you have physical access to the machine anyway (there are "extra steps" you can take to secure it, but here my sympathy is with Apple - if this was enabled by default it would be a huge pain for "most users"). Mac OS X has many features that will secure a Mac that someone has physical access to. Clearly the files should be backed up to a physically secure location (after all I can always remove the disk and reformat it on another system - the OS can't help me there) and "File Vault" should be switched on (so I can't drop the disk into a Mac I DO have root access too, and read the files). Sure I can't stop someone "breaking the Mac" but my files are "safe" (here I mean, I have the backup, and nobody can read them that I don't want reading them). These steps are especially useful on a laptop.
Well sure this is a problem. Given how most Macs are used you don't need priveledge escalation to, for most Mac users a program that wipes out their home directory is bad enough! This isn't ActiveX though;-)
In general you should not run a program that comes from someone you don't "trust", on any OS (I realise that this isn't allways possible). Solaris seems to have useful features in this regard, and this would be very nice on the Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you keep Windows patched? Oh sorry forgot this was /. how do you download Linux?
Ah, not doing either of those? For God sake, stick with dial-up I can't take the extra spam!!!
Not sure it takes "a real mind", just for most programmers solving the problem quickly (in human terms) is much more important than how much performance you can squeeze out of the hardware.
(Basically computers have gotten cheaper, and programmers haven't)
It's highly debatable if C++ is all that efficient, compared to ANSI C for example.
Actually I'm sort of agreeing with you. But I do accept that blind faith in the automatic garbage collector isn't good, it stops people thinking about their algorithms. While garbage collectors are amazingly efficient, leaning on them too hard does nothing to promote performance. But as I suggest, there are many other things you can do to hurt performance that have a much bigger impact.
"ava isn't really far off the speed of C++"
That is only true if you compile it, effectively loosing all the other benefits you claim.
I don't think I claimed Java could actually live up to "write once run anywhere" - quite the reverse actually, I said it was close enough. Compiling it doesn't change that - it's still very portable. Might need compiling again. I don't understand the point your making. "(don't tell anyone - but I quite like playing Tetris on my phone, thanks Java)."so? I can play C# games on my phone, talk about logical fallacies, sheesh. Most phones run Java, in fact most everything runs Java - that's kind of the point. Would C# exist without Java? Seriously, would gaming on phones be the same without Java (I mean if Java had never existed)? I seriously doubt it, sure there would be games - but things would be quite different.
You go right ahead and sit there thinking that without Java there wouldn't be any applications on your phone.
Don't worry, I don't think that Trouble shooting any large Java application is a nightmare.Trouble shooting any large enough application is a nightmare. In my experience.
Heh, I like it.
Of course, I don't agree at all, but it's nice to read it (as I do know what you're talking about). I do think that in 2008, solving **normal** business problems (whatever the hell that means) worrying about pointers and memory allocation seems to be a bit of an unnecessary distraction.
But sure, it does rather depend - it's also true that leaning too hard on the automatic garbage collector can't help performance. I have seen code that allocates vast splashes of memory and the de-references it all in a tight loop, and you do have to think: "hmm is this a good idea, wouldn't it be better to think about what's going on?" But this isn't the worst sin, how many programs ask for vast numbers of database rows then allow the code to pick and choose what's actually needed rather than create a more defined query? All fine and dandy on the development box where the DB and the APP are on the same system - not so flippin' clever when you deploy with multiple application servers hitting the DB. Quite frankly, some of these noobs need to think about what they are leaning on.
Why do we the /. crown love Sun/Java?
Many of us used Sun boxes at Uni (I did) then suffered IBM boxes (although SMIT was quite spiffy) in our jobs. Strangely we started to wish we had the old Sun boxes back. (Or is this just me?)
Many of us moved from C (and C++) to Java, see above.
We love Java because we know Java, it does everything, and if you've grown with it, then it's OK. Sure, coming to Java from cold today it seems really complex.
Is Java perfect? LOL! No, not even close. But Java is fun to program in. Java programs aren't wedded to any particular OS/Hardware combination (I'd admit they don't quite live up to the "write once/run everywhere" promise, but it's close enough). Java has proved amazingly adaptable - and speed isn't really as much of an issue as the haters claim, if it was we'd all write assembler. Java isn't really far off the speed of C++. As for no multiple inheritance - do you REALLY want that?! There is a reason pretty much every phone has Java on it (don't tell anyone - but I quite like playing Tetris on my phone, thanks Java).
As for Sun, well they do make some really nice boxes, and they are giving us some great stuff (DTrace anyone?)
That's exactly the point I'm (unsuccessfully) trying to make. Making this easy to understand is hard. Anyone who thinks otherwise should then consider that the computer's owner is nine years old. (I pick nine as I was nine when I had my first computer)
We read this is as the application saying: "give me a blank cheque, and while you're at it, the keys to your car".
OK, I can see that. But this isn't really helpful without either:
An Admin
Reducing the OS functionality
Actually I can even imagine securing Windows if we're willing to use an admin to nurse every install. (More likely we have one boot image, and all users boot that, or some kind of WinTerm type solution)
I would agree that Unix (and Unix-a-likes) makes securing the OS simpler (well probably some Windows maven would find some similar wheeze on XP/Vista) but it's not really going to fly if Mr Idiot-And-I-Love-Pron owns (not pwns) the box.
I imagine the number is zero. I don't see it as actually impossible to do, but it's harder.
Firstly there are more Linux "versions" and compatibility between them isn't universal (here that actually helps).
Linux normally makes more sensible choices for default actions (this isn't always true - you can build Linux to be very Windows-like in it's actions, usually in the name of making it "easy", but that's isn't how most are put together).
There are plenty of Windows boxes about, why waste time doing anything else? Remember these days this is all about cash, nobody is doing this "to be cool".
There is a lot of information kicking about regarding Windows, and how to hack it - less so Linux.
Actually you mean "fewer complaints". But they'd be much more rabid!
(Hey, I'm a Mac user too... but I can see the funny side)
Actually while I don't totally buy this (Windows gets a lot of "drive by" infections) you do make a compelling point. Even a "secure OS" cannot help if the users is willing to type their admin password at anything that asks for it.
Of course, you could make code show what it will do upfront ("This program will create files in your home directory, but won't open any network ports, or modify any files it didn't create"). This is something that could be done (I think Microsoft's "managed code" is a valid template for this approach). But the UI is really hard to nail, and the user must still read and understand what's being proposed. Consider: "This program will modify system files and read any files on the system, and open network connections both on the local zone and the Internet", does the average user allow that to run? Perhaps not, but what if it's pron?! Seriously, though - can an OS be secure, if it's users don't make rational choices?
Still, I'm not running Windows here...
The crapware on Windows is much better than Linux [ducks] ;-)
Me too - still don't Windows XP on it though...
Is it just me, or does putting Windows on this little box make no sense at all?
I mean, what am I going to do with it with Windows? I can't run games. I'm not going to use Word/Excel to the extent where I will notice the difference from OpenOffice.org (not on the little keyboard). I just can't see the point, especially when I'll need to run an "Internet Security Suite" (which won't do the machine any favours).
Personally the slightly bigger screen and Ubuntu sounds perfect (in this form factor). Bigger battery and bluetooth would be icing on the cake.
But where did ML even get this information?! Sometimes I think these guys will write anything (Can you say "Gartner"?)
I think it more likely that the hand of MS is to be seen here - afterall if the PS3 is not here till 2007 and then at $900, well perhaps I would be better off getting a Xbox360 now...
I don't see this as in Sony's best interests.
We're going to have to agree to differ about Windows and NeXTSTEP's stability.
Comparing glibc and IE is comparing apples and oranges. With Linux you'd need to replace glibc with something that implemented the same functionality, but you can change the window manager or browser without difficulty.
Cutting and pasting code isn't modularity - this is what Visual Studio encourages (code snippits). Simply put, nobody but Microsoft would even have thought to add such a feature.
WMF needed extra patches applied if Office was installed - simply put the code was duplicated from Windows into Office. It should have been in a framework that Office called.
This kind of "design" is totally different to Mac OS X - where there are modules and clear interfaces. Microsoft have said that Windows Vista is a total rewrite of Windows around these design ideas, clearly XP wasn't!
Given the right PC (back in the day) with supported cards - NeXTSTEP ran just fine (it wasn't unstable).
Microsoft stated that they couldn't remove IE because they'd "integrated" it - which seems the opposite of a clean modular implementation. Further evidence is the WMF flaw that needed several patches applied (clearly that bug was in many places - same code, "cut and pasted" all over Windows and various applications!).
Well there is an element of this - but NeXTSTEP ran okay on PCs (and at its core Mac OS X is NeXTSTEP). The problems of creating drivers isn't trivial, but actually Mac OS X is stable for more reasons than just a small hardware ecosystem. So I guess I half agree with you.
Really part of the key is less backward compatibility, Windows tries to too hard to support everything that has gone before, Mac OS X worries about this less. This makes for a more stable system. (Again this is only part of the answer)
I most of the rest of the key is clearly defined frameworks, and a modular design. I still find it amazing that Microsoft didn't do this - and that they told us they didn't do this. Maybe this is the biggest reason of all why Mac OS X seems so stable compared with what we're used to.
Actually I think we could see the GPLv2 work exactly as RMS wants - and a GPLv3 fork of Linux (minus the DRM stuff) could be created. If enough people want it (or more likely enough people reject DRM in Linux).
Putting DRM support into Linux seems to run against the wishes of a lot of the people who created it. RMS has an important point on this - DRM is all about who controls my computer - me, or some corp? These are the same suits that wanted to stop DVDs from playing on Linux - I don't think we owe them any favours.
Of course, stealing IP is still stealing! But not letting me use my computer to play music I've bought (or films, or whatever) because it's not the same box isn't right (why should I buy the same music twice, once for my desktop and again for my laptop?)
Err, that's an odd logic - we'll put DRM in to the kernel, then opt out when we create content?! I don't get it - Linux as attracted the following of (firstly) people attracted to "free" (as in "freedom") so why should Linux have tools to restrict this freedom? Makes no sense.
Am I missing the point?
So all of a sudden Linux wants to stop me playing that tune/movie/application/whatever on my laptop unless I buy two copies. Is Linux going to go the way of Unix & Minix for similar reasons? Am I missing something?
Err, this isn't security we're talking about here. Security isn't me not losing "my stuff" (a disk crash can do that), secuirty is YOU not stealing "my stuff".
/. we're not a bunch of egotictical morons ;-)
For most home users THAT'S important (bank details, order details, hell even my address and phone number). You imagine how well a phishing attack would work on most users if they knew about open orders (from say Amazon) by reading your files. I think that's much more important to most users!
Of course we all backup our files! Jeesh this is
Objective C++, create wrappers for the C++ classes. This isn't a silver bullet, but the result is much easier than C++. C++ is a pig of a language, limiting programmers to Objective C makes code much easier to read (and single superclasses are easier).
Blakey Rat said: "And it only takes 4 days to get your video capture card working, that is, if you can manage it at all!"
:-)
Sure, but at least it won't get a Virus and send a picture of you in your undercrackers to Paris Hilton's cell phone.
Err sounds like they even know WHERE in Microsoft's code the problem lies - so why would the affect Apple? AMD is quite a different animal, and dual processors (and dual cores) have uncovered software issues for years...
;-)
This simply isn't a Mac issue (at this time) so why the FUD? Perhaps Linux is affected Oh I see how easy it is to inject some FUD - I withdraw the question
BTW, having spent sometime with an iMac (Core Duo) it is very quiet compared to a PPC one...
Exactly, most of the time these flaws are not exploitable (given how we use Unix today). I still think they should be fixed, but this isn't the sensational "sky's falling in" presented in the article.
You can disallow access to the shell (via "terminal.app") for "normal" users (Mac OS X won't allow root login by default anyway) but that's an "extra step" so most users won't do it (fair enough).
Yes it does see ironic that this guy wanted to create a news story rather than submit "fixes" to the Darwin project (the open source project associated with Mac OS X)!
Like most systems, Mac OS X is fairly insecure if you have physical access to the machine anyway (there are "extra steps" you can take to secure it, but here my sympathy is with Apple - if this was enabled by default it would be a huge pain for "most users"). Mac OS X has many features that will secure a Mac that someone has physical access to. Clearly the files should be backed up to a physically secure location (after all I can always remove the disk and reformat it on another system - the OS can't help me there) and "File Vault" should be switched on (so I can't drop the disk into a Mac I DO have root access too, and read the files). Sure I can't stop someone "breaking the Mac" but my files are "safe" (here I mean, I have the backup, and nobody can read them that I don't want reading them). These steps are especially useful on a laptop.
Well sure this is a problem. Given how most Macs are used you don't need priveledge escalation to, for most Mac users a program that wipes out their home directory is bad enough! This isn't ActiveX though ;-)
In general you should not run a program that comes from someone you don't "trust", on any OS (I realise that this isn't allways possible). Solaris seems to have useful features in this regard, and this would be very nice on the Mac.