All the flaws described in his examples need the "hacker" to login to the system with an account on that system. Most Macs disallow remote login (default) and you'd need an account and password anyway. Am I saying this isn't a problem? No, I'm not saying that, but these are not problems that "normal" users need to concern themselves with. Macs simply aren't used like "old style Unix" (I still miss the PDP) user don't share a Mac and login together with terminals (TTYs or X-Windows). So to the average home or even business user this isn't an issue.
Should these flaws be there? No, I might well want to share my Mac (especially in an academic setting) and a user gaining control over the root account IS a problem. So these things should be fixed. But I don't think this is quite the huge deal the article is trying to present it as.
Should Mac users been more security aware? Perhaps, keeping your Mac up to date with patches, thinking before installing things (do I trust this?) are to be advised no matter what platform you're using (Windows, Linux or Mac OS X). Anti-Virus is worthwhile so that Mac doesn't become a hiding place for infections (that could affect other platforms reading those files) and will provide the mechanism for protection if/when a Mac OS X virus is released. Clamav seems like a reasonable choice right now.
Err, what about context? Have you never said something that "in context" was fine, looked VERY BAD once the rest of what you said was removed? Now what I'm suggesting is you offer cash and there is more than a temptation to destort what's being said. Context can be more than 1 lecture long by the way, it would be very easy to catch your professor out, even unintentionally (by not waiting for the meaning to becore clear).
Also "radical views" have had a habit of being right, ("the earth is not the center of all creation", as an example) so should we just stop them?
Who is this guy to say what views are "acceptable"? How tolorant is society, when this goes on? How free are we when we feel this is acceptable?
I've heard this argument before (no really). On the face of it, it has something going for it - OK, now why is it wrong?
Well if the PC isn't connected, it can't download updates to Windows (patches) and its Anti-Virus/Firewall/Anti-Spam etc. So when it is connected it will probably be a poor position security wise. From a practical perspective has anyone tryed to keep a PC "all patched up" over dial-up? Takes forever to download the patches, it isn't actually practical. So no, getting proper security utilities in place (and setting them up correctly) then connecting via ADSL (or similar) will probably improve the security. One tip though - don't get your friend to set it up.;-)
Yeah, I think perhaps even they understand this now. Anyway you can hardly consider a company the size of Sony to actually be "of one mind". I imagine their workmates who make the Sony PCs were probably as dismayed as anyone.
So Sony make nice product? Yes, some - am I going to deny myself that because someone senior in Sony Music was a moron? No. Did I warn everyone I knew not to buy the affected CDs? Hell, Yes!
Sadly the attitude that Sony showed is all too common in companies. Can we really stop buying from all of them?
Oops - I miss quoted, and changed the sense of what I was trying to say. He actually made the point that the disk aren't 2-3 times as fast, just the processor (and of course that's debatable).
Otherwise I kind of agree. Steve of course was trying to say that this new iMac was fast (of course, it isn't actually - most of the time it'll be emulating a PPC). Now do I blame him? No, when the apps are "universal" this new iMac will be faster (mostly because it's dual core). Would I buy an iMac G5 today? No, I wouldn't their performance advantage will be very short lived. Would I buy an iMac (Core Duo)? Yeah, I know it'll not be at it's best on day 1, (unless I only want to run iLife and iWork) but that's OK, she's going to get Universal Applications pretty quickly.
Was Steve completely honest in his Stevenote? Well let's just say I think the "reality distortion field" was working, but not turned up to its full intensity!
Actually Steve never said that the system was that fast, he was only talking about the chip. He said "the disks are 2 the 3 times as fast" so I don't see why we find it so amazing that the real world performance is lower than the benchmarks. It is always going depend on the application. So an application that spends most of its time waiting for the disk isn't going to see much of a speed up with a faster processor (it'll see a little because it'll move from wait-state to wait-state faster). For a lot of applications this is the norm (described as "disk bound").
What is probably more important (for home users) is actually something Steve side stepped, these new iMac should generate less heat and therefore run more quietly (because the fans won't need to spin as fast/often) for users in a domestic setting this is important.
I think most people who buy Macs (especially iMacs) are not buying it because they think it's the fastest computer around (amazing as it may sound there are other factors in the purchasing decision).
Actually I was amazed they moved it down - usually companies try and cover up such losses.
But you have to question the whole thing when the FBI basically doesn't believe what they're being told! What was the point of asking? Why didn't they just make the whole damn thing up?
Perhaps they could have approached the problem from the other end - look at the amount spent of IT security and said the loses must be less than that, because otherwise companies are not acting in their share holders interest. (I'm not actually serious about this - while I know this idea is stupid and flawed, I don't think it's more flawed than what they actually did!)
Err, I kind of think this a fair assement, This isn't like the chicken and the egg, we know what came first here; the virus, then came AntiVirus software. Having to buy this stuff actually IS a result of cybercrime.
If there was no trespass or theft, why would I buy locks? (I wouldn't, they'd not exist)
Actually Apple shipped "Mac" Servers that ran NT in Australia. They also shipped rebadged IBM RS/6000s as servers too (here in the UK) it looked kinda Mac like (if you imagine a honking deskside box with "Quadra" looks). This "Mac" was PReP or CHRP (I can't remeber which - sorry), the plan being to make all Macs PReP, then (new plan) CHRP - but both specifications were too expensive for Apple.
Well this shows an important point - it's very easy for a Mac to become a "Typhoid Mary" (carrying infected files while being imune to the infection itself). For users who have Macs and PCs this can be quite a problem, or for users who run Virtual PC. Mac clearly has advantages from a security point of view (less of them, ask for admin password before allow admin task to run) but this is not a "magic cloak".
I run Anti-Virus on my Mac, I've modified the Firewall settings from Apple's default (stealth mode) and keep Mac updated with Apple's patches. Probably the best bit of advice I'd give is if Mac asks for the admin password: Think, don't just type it as a reflex. Also make sure you're getting your applications from people you can trust. Infections are possible on the Mac even if they need someone to do something "boneheaded" like supply their admin password. This isn't to say that the Mac isn't an excellent platform, and doesn't enjoy a justified reputation for security - it is, it does, but security is something even Mac users need to think about.
Relatedly; Windows Vista will ask users to confirm potentially dangerous actions by typing their admin password, which should improve security for PCs too.
Head over to Novell and follow the Mono links (Mono doesn't care if you run Windows, Linux or Mac OS X - more than can be said for anyone around here!)
Choosing C# doesn't mean choosing Visual Studio. On the other hand there are more Java programmers about (hence more help).
Given a "free choice" of OOP I'd choose Squeak - it too works everywhere, take a look at squeak.org. If you already know C then Objective C would be "learnable" over a couple of days (borrow a Mac over the weekend). If you really love it, but can't quite kick the Linux habit take a look at gnustep.org.
I was restricting my comment to this aspect alone - I don't expect Vista to make EVERYTHING better, my Mac isn't for sale just yet;-) but this would plug a major shortcoming with how Windows works at present. It is good that Microsoft are learning, and prepared to "break things" to move forward (for far too long this hasn't been the case). Of course this will (in the short term) represent a major road block to the adoption of Vista (if my experience trying to run XP like this is any indication YMMV). I won't be converting my Linux boxes to Vista on the day of release (or given their age anytime after that) but I would like to trade in my TabletPC for one that'll run it.
I run XP on a TabletPC mostly for notetaking at clients, and also so I am aware of what's happening in Windows - so I can continue to help them with their problems, I've been using the NT strand on Windows since 3.51 so I know all about the "chain of broken promises" - I'm under no illusions that Vista will be no different, but if it can fix this one thing it'll represent a major step forward.
This is very true - very little Windows software can cope like this, now Windows Vista (aka Longhorn) will work like this by default, so I expect LOTS of software to fail for this reason alone. Hopefully once everything get updated for Vista we can run our XP boxes in this mode too (which will be much better.
Someone was saying that you get so used to typing your admin password on OS X that you just do it as a reflex - that hasn't been my experience. This simple change represents a great improvement over Windows XP.
In the case of the Sony DRM I think it quite likely that Mac OS X users will find the request for their admin password "odd" - and hopefully a significant number would refuse to give it.
Of course some will as we all tend to trust "big names", maybe that's the real lesson here - Sony can be as evil/stupid as anyone else. And if you can't trust Sony, who can you trust?
GNU/Linux is a blend of that with (mostly) the GNU toolset. The fact is that the modular nature of the GNU toolset (copied from the Unix toolset) allows a Unix-like Kernel (Linux) to blend with it to form an "OS" (a hard term to define these days - since we all expect all kinds of toys in our "OS" {browser perhaps?} )
GNU/Linux does have some nice clean divisions in its implementation - which is why we can have different "distributions". Windows isn't like this - try taking out IE as an example.
Everything said about GNU/Linux can equally be said about other OS too (BSD-flavours, Mac OS X for instance)
OK I take the point about the computer being a funky little box. But the rest of it is daft, if that "stupid, noisy, power-sucking box" loses your credit card information (or other personal details) you'll soon find your life pretty badly affected. Keeping your computer free from malware is pretty important, I'd agree the exact speed of your CPU might not be.
Also if your computer spews email and viruses it can make everyone else's life pretty sucky too.
Well I kind of agree that **just** using gcc doesn't make it portable (as perhaps the text suggested) but using gcc is a damn good "first step" to making something portable.
Actually I think a lot of people have missed an interesting dynamic with all this: Apple are doing the opposite replacement to the usual one - LOW END Macs will be the first on Intel - HIGH END the year after, the exact opposite to the usual "filter down" policy.
Personally I think this is because a lot of the "high end" applications lean hard on AltiVec, and the Intel chips have nothing as good - it'll take a while for Intel to have performance that beats the PowerPC970FX in ALL areas...
The Mac "fanboys" had it right that the PPC has better performance in areas that matter to the Mac (mostly as Apple have favoured applications well suited to that chip). I think the biggest problem was that the G5 (as Apple call it) seems no closer to fitting in a PowerBook, and laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales (in all PCs not just Macs). This has been forced on Apple, not chosen by them, and not because the top end Macs are too slow. (though the need for liquid cooling isn't a good sign!)
However I'll admit, I was wrong - I didn't think this would happen (mostly because of Apple using AltiVec so much).
Actually I strongly suspect that Mac OS X is actually leading much more than a "double life" as Steve puts it - I expect there is at least an UltraSPARC version, probably more. Mac OS X (by virtue of the fact that it's largely compiled with gcc) is quite easy to port (sounds like Linux doesn't it?) and Apple know all about needing a new processor.
But back to the point in hand - Apple engineers have plenty of years supporting a Mac OS X-like OS on Intel: OPENSTEP for Mach (aka NEXTSTEP). Mac OS X is a development of THAT OS. OPENSTEP for Mach ran on lots of processors... I would be amazed if there isn't a SUN box in that little building running iLife et al!
Hardware makers are supporting this OS because it is popular (increasingly true - especially on the server).
Open Source Programmers are doing the donkey work of making things work where they can (when the hardware makers release specs usually).
But even on a good day Linux can have problems supporting hardware (especially "unpopular" hardware - unusual stuff) where Windows has support. WindowsNT (and current versions are really updates on NT) had similar problems once.
Apple would be starting at from a very low base here, and probably couldn't break out from the problem. Microsoft just threw money and developer effort at the problem, and steadily overcame it. Linux changed the rules, but I don't think that would work now for another "UNIX like" OS - Linux tapped into a latent demand for a "cheap" UNIX, now we don't need that (we've already got Linux).
Of course, could Apple bend their business model to support x86 OSX? Well it seems unlikely.
I know this is a dumb thing to say - but why not buy a Mac if you want to run OSX? Macs don't command the high price they once did, and Apple make lovely machines.
Hmm... This is an interesting question - I guess if the track is really silent the how can you copyright it (it's like me copyrighting a blank sheet of paper - though I guess I'd have to put the copyright notice on the back... or is that the front? Hmm...)? There is nothing to copyright - so the fault is that this shouldn't have been copyright in the first place.
I don't think the RIAA has much chance with this. Apple on the other hand seem to have a stronger case - you agree not to hack the files they "sell you" when you buy them (a condition of sale) and this is exactly what this guy has then done (he's broken a condition of sale). Now I suppose what Apple do about this is up to their own sense of humour - if they see that this is plainly stupid I guess they let it slide - I'm not convinced Apple have much of a sense of humour (sense of style perhaps).
A serious point, if IBM is really serious about people to port their Windows apps to "Linux on POWER" (which does have a nice ring to it) then why are all IBM's POWER based systems so expensive?!
Now Apple can make a PowerPC based system for £339 (BYODKM as Steve might say) why can't IBM create something similar? Preload it Linux and we'd all be happy little "porters". Now if they really wanted us to do this then a laptop would be really great. But presently IBM will only sell expensive POWER systems.
Now after you've ported your "killer app" to LoP, how the heck do you deploy it? On what? Some mega-expensive POWER Server? Doesn't IBM realise that Windows apps are usually run on the desktop or laptop? I mean they're not suggesting we're using Windows as a server OS are they?;-)
PS. Anyone from IBM reading this - yes I would buy an IBM LoP box if it was sub £500 BYODKM.
It can be VERY useful, I'd like a Mac VM (that ran Mac OS X, not the one that exists that runs Mac OS 9) that ran on the Mac. If you're doing work close to the Kernel (maybe developing Loadable Kernel Servers - this is possibly "old language") this functionality is very helpful.
I think we already know the answer to that (No, they can't).
Of course getting Mac OS X to run in a virtual machine is a lot easier than tuning it to run on PC hardware (it is all those different configurations that are hard to support - it'd be like running WindowsNT 3.5 was back in the day).
Do I think this could help - maybe, Mac OS X is pretty sweet, and for lots of thinking PC users this might be a good way to "test the water".
I guess web designers might also find this helpful for testing.
Are you sure? Apart from the songs bit I think he can do all of those things.
Musical talent is a rare thing, and so this is pretty clearly "supply and demand" in action. Now do I think CDs are over priced? Yep. Do I buy lots of them? Nope. Do I download music over the Internet? Nope. It's pretty clear isn't it? If you feel the value proposition is wrong then don't buy it - but don't think that gives you the right to copy it.
Just because it is bits, doesn't mean it has no value - or should have no value.
Slashdot Mirror
All the flaws described in his examples need the "hacker" to login to the system with an account on that system. Most Macs disallow remote login (default) and you'd need an account and password anyway. Am I saying this isn't a problem? No, I'm not saying that, but these are not problems that "normal" users need to concern themselves with. Macs simply aren't used like "old style Unix" (I still miss the PDP) user don't share a Mac and login together with terminals (TTYs or X-Windows). So to the average home or even business user this isn't an issue.
Should these flaws be there? No, I might well want to share my Mac (especially in an academic setting) and a user gaining control over the root account IS a problem. So these things should be fixed. But I don't think this is quite the huge deal the article is trying to present it as.
Should Mac users been more security aware? Perhaps, keeping your Mac up to date with patches, thinking before installing things (do I trust this?) are to be advised no matter what platform you're using (Windows, Linux or Mac OS X). Anti-Virus is worthwhile so that Mac doesn't become a hiding place for infections (that could affect other platforms reading those files) and will provide the mechanism for protection if/when a Mac OS X virus is released. Clamav seems like a reasonable choice right now.
Err, what about context? Have you never said something that "in context" was fine, looked VERY BAD once the rest of what you said was removed? Now what I'm suggesting is you offer cash and there is more than a temptation to destort what's being said. Context can be more than 1 lecture long by the way, it would be very easy to catch your professor out, even unintentionally (by not waiting for the meaning to becore clear).
Also "radical views" have had a habit of being right, ("the earth is not the center of all creation", as an example) so should we just stop them?
Who is this guy to say what views are "acceptable"? How tolorant is society, when this goes on? How free are we when we feel this is acceptable?
I've heard this argument before (no really). On the face of it, it has something going for it - OK, now why is it wrong?
;-)
Well if the PC isn't connected, it can't download updates to Windows (patches) and its Anti-Virus/Firewall/Anti-Spam etc. So when it is connected it will probably be a poor position security wise. From a practical perspective has anyone tryed to keep a PC "all patched up" over dial-up? Takes forever to download the patches, it isn't actually practical. So no, getting proper security utilities in place (and setting them up correctly) then connecting via ADSL (or similar) will probably improve the security. One tip though - don't get your friend to set it up.
Yeah, I think perhaps even they understand this now. Anyway you can hardly consider a company the size of Sony to actually be "of one mind". I imagine their workmates who make the Sony PCs were probably as dismayed as anyone.
So Sony make nice product? Yes, some - am I going to deny myself that because someone senior in Sony Music was a moron? No. Did I warn everyone I knew not to buy the affected CDs? Hell, Yes!
Sadly the attitude that Sony showed is all too common in companies. Can we really stop buying from all of them?
I made a typing error - I mean "aren't"
Actually if the disks WERE 2-3 times as fast then it'd be much more interesting!
Oops - I miss quoted, and changed the sense of what I was trying to say. He actually made the point that the disk aren't 2-3 times as fast, just the processor (and of course that's debatable).
Otherwise I kind of agree. Steve of course was trying to say that this new iMac was fast (of course, it isn't actually - most of the time it'll be emulating a PPC). Now do I blame him? No, when the apps are "universal" this new iMac will be faster (mostly because it's dual core). Would I buy an iMac G5 today? No, I wouldn't their performance advantage will be very short lived. Would I buy an iMac (Core Duo)? Yeah, I know it'll not be at it's best on day 1, (unless I only want to run iLife and iWork) but that's OK, she's going to get Universal Applications pretty quickly.
Was Steve completely honest in his Stevenote? Well let's just say I think the "reality distortion field" was working, but not turned up to its full intensity!
Actually Steve never said that the system was that fast, he was only talking about the chip. He said "the disks are 2 the 3 times as fast" so I don't see why we find it so amazing that the real world performance is lower than the benchmarks. It is always going depend on the application. So an application that spends most of its time waiting for the disk isn't going to see much of a speed up with a faster processor (it'll see a little because it'll move from wait-state to wait-state faster). For a lot of applications this is the norm (described as "disk bound").
What is probably more important (for home users) is actually something Steve side stepped, these new iMac should generate less heat and therefore run more quietly (because the fans won't need to spin as fast/often) for users in a domestic setting this is important.
I think most people who buy Macs (especially iMacs) are not buying it because they think it's the fastest computer around (amazing as it may sound there are other factors in the purchasing decision).
Actually I was amazed they moved it down - usually companies try and cover up such losses.
But you have to question the whole thing when the FBI basically doesn't believe what they're being told! What was the point of asking? Why didn't they just make the whole damn thing up?
Perhaps they could have approached the problem from the other end - look at the amount spent of IT security and said the loses must be less than that, because otherwise companies are not acting in their share holders interest. (I'm not actually serious about this - while I know this idea is stupid and flawed, I don't think it's more flawed than what they actually did!)
Err, I kind of think this a fair assement, This isn't like the chicken and the egg, we know what came first here; the virus, then came AntiVirus software. Having to buy this stuff actually IS a result of cybercrime.
If there was no trespass or theft, why would I buy locks? (I wouldn't, they'd not exist)
Actually Apple shipped "Mac" Servers that ran NT in Australia. They also shipped rebadged IBM RS/6000s as servers too (here in the UK) it looked kinda Mac like (if you imagine a honking deskside box with "Quadra" looks). This "Mac" was PReP or CHRP (I can't remeber which - sorry), the plan being to make all Macs PReP, then (new plan) CHRP - but both specifications were too expensive for Apple.
Well this shows an important point - it's very easy for a Mac to become a "Typhoid Mary" (carrying infected files while being imune to the infection itself). For users who have Macs and PCs this can be quite a problem, or for users who run Virtual PC. Mac clearly has advantages from a security point of view (less of them, ask for admin password before allow admin task to run) but this is not a "magic cloak".
I run Anti-Virus on my Mac, I've modified the Firewall settings from Apple's default (stealth mode) and keep Mac updated with Apple's patches. Probably the best bit of advice I'd give is if Mac asks for the admin password: Think, don't just type it as a reflex. Also make sure you're getting your applications from people you can trust. Infections are possible on the Mac even if they need someone to do something "boneheaded" like supply their admin password. This isn't to say that the Mac isn't an excellent platform, and doesn't enjoy a justified reputation for security - it is, it does, but security is something even Mac users need to think about.
Relatedly; Windows Vista will ask users to confirm potentially dangerous actions by typing their admin password, which should improve security for PCs too.
Err... Mono?
Head over to Novell and follow the Mono links (Mono doesn't care if you run Windows, Linux or Mac OS X - more than can be said for anyone around here!)
Choosing C# doesn't mean choosing Visual Studio. On the other hand there are more Java programmers about (hence more help).
Given a "free choice" of OOP I'd choose Squeak - it too works everywhere, take a look at squeak.org. If you already know C then Objective C would be "learnable" over a couple of days (borrow a Mac over the weekend). If you really love it, but can't quite kick the Linux habit take a look at gnustep.org.
I was restricting my comment to this aspect alone - I don't expect Vista to make EVERYTHING better, my Mac isn't for sale just yet ;-) but this would plug a major shortcoming with how Windows works at present. It is good that Microsoft are learning, and prepared to "break things" to move forward (for far too long this hasn't been the case). Of course this will (in the short term) represent a major road block to the adoption of Vista (if my experience trying to run XP like this is any indication YMMV). I won't be converting my Linux boxes to Vista on the day of release (or given their age anytime after that) but I would like to trade in my TabletPC for one that'll run it.
I run XP on a TabletPC mostly for notetaking at clients, and also so I am aware of what's happening in Windows - so I can continue to help them with their problems, I've been using the NT strand on Windows since 3.51 so I know all about the "chain of broken promises" - I'm under no illusions that Vista will be no different, but if it can fix this one thing it'll represent a major step forward.
This is very true - very little Windows software can cope like this, now Windows Vista (aka Longhorn) will work like this by default, so I expect LOTS of software to fail for this reason alone. Hopefully once everything get updated for Vista we can run our XP boxes in this mode too (which will be much better.
Someone was saying that you get so used to typing your admin password on OS X that you just do it as a reflex - that hasn't been my experience. This simple change represents a great improvement over Windows XP.
In the case of the Sony DRM I think it quite likely that Mac OS X users will find the request for their admin password "odd" - and hopefully a significant number would refuse to give it.
Of course some will as we all tend to trust "big names", maybe that's the real lesson here - Sony can be as evil/stupid as anyone else. And if you can't trust Sony, who can you trust?
Linux is a Kernel - a "small" part of an OS.
GNU/Linux is a blend of that with (mostly) the GNU toolset. The fact is that the modular nature of the GNU toolset (copied from the Unix toolset) allows a Unix-like Kernel (Linux) to blend with it to form an "OS" (a hard term to define these days - since we all expect all kinds of toys in our "OS" {browser perhaps?} )
GNU/Linux does have some nice clean divisions in its implementation - which is why we can have different "distributions". Windows isn't like this - try taking out IE as an example.
Everything said about GNU/Linux can equally be said about other OS too (BSD-flavours, Mac OS X for instance)
Err... What?!
OK I take the point about the computer being a funky little box. But the rest of it is daft, if that "stupid, noisy, power-sucking box" loses your credit card information (or other personal details) you'll soon find your life pretty badly affected. Keeping your computer free from malware is pretty important, I'd agree the exact speed of your CPU might not be.
Also if your computer spews email and viruses it can make everyone else's life pretty sucky too.
Well I kind of agree that **just** using gcc doesn't make it portable (as perhaps the text suggested) but using gcc is a damn good "first step" to making something portable.
Actually I think a lot of people have missed an interesting dynamic with all this: Apple are doing the opposite replacement to the usual one - LOW END Macs will be the first on Intel - HIGH END the year after, the exact opposite to the usual "filter down" policy.
Personally I think this is because a lot of the "high end" applications lean hard on AltiVec, and the Intel chips have nothing as good - it'll take a while for Intel to have performance that beats the PowerPC970FX in ALL areas...
The Mac "fanboys" had it right that the PPC has better performance in areas that matter to the Mac (mostly as Apple have favoured applications well suited to that chip). I think the biggest problem was that the G5 (as Apple call it) seems no closer to fitting in a PowerBook, and laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales (in all PCs not just Macs). This has been forced on Apple, not chosen by them, and not because the top end Macs are too slow. (though the need for liquid cooling isn't a good sign!)
However I'll admit, I was wrong - I didn't think this would happen (mostly because of Apple using AltiVec so much).
Actually I strongly suspect that Mac OS X is actually leading much more than a "double life" as Steve puts it - I expect there is at least an UltraSPARC version, probably more. Mac OS X (by virtue of the fact that it's largely compiled with gcc) is quite easy to port (sounds like Linux doesn't it?) and Apple know all about needing a new processor.
But back to the point in hand - Apple engineers have plenty of years supporting a Mac OS X-like OS on Intel: OPENSTEP for Mach (aka NEXTSTEP). Mac OS X is a development of THAT OS. OPENSTEP for Mach ran on lots of processors... I would be amazed if there isn't a SUN box in that little building running iLife et al!
Sure Linux does well - mostly because either:
Hardware makers are supporting this OS because it is popular (increasingly true - especially on the server).
Open Source Programmers are doing the donkey work of making things work where they can (when the hardware makers release specs usually).
But even on a good day Linux can have problems supporting hardware (especially "unpopular" hardware - unusual stuff) where Windows has support. WindowsNT (and current versions are really updates on NT) had similar problems once.
Apple would be starting at from a very low base here, and probably couldn't break out from the problem. Microsoft just threw money and developer effort at the problem, and steadily overcame it. Linux changed the rules, but I don't think that would work now for another "UNIX like" OS - Linux tapped into a latent demand for a "cheap" UNIX, now we don't need that (we've already got Linux).
Of course, could Apple bend their business model to support x86 OSX? Well it seems unlikely.
I know this is a dumb thing to say - but why not buy a Mac if you want to run OSX? Macs don't command the high price they once did, and Apple make lovely machines.
Hmm... This is an interesting question - I guess if the track is really silent the how can you copyright it (it's like me copyrighting a blank sheet of paper - though I guess I'd have to put the copyright notice on the back... or is that the front? Hmm...)? There is nothing to copyright - so the fault is that this shouldn't have been copyright in the first place.
I don't think the RIAA has much chance with this. Apple on the other hand seem to have a stronger case - you agree not to hack the files they "sell you" when you buy them (a condition of sale) and this is exactly what this guy has then done (he's broken a condition of sale). Now I suppose what Apple do about this is up to their own sense of humour - if they see that this is plainly stupid I guess they let it slide - I'm not convinced Apple have much of a sense of humour (sense of style perhaps).
A serious point, if IBM is really serious about people to port their Windows apps to "Linux on POWER" (which does have a nice ring to it) then why are all IBM's POWER based systems so expensive?!
;-)
Now Apple can make a PowerPC based system for £339 (BYODKM as Steve might say) why can't IBM create something similar? Preload it Linux and we'd all be happy little "porters". Now if they really wanted us to do this then a laptop would be really great. But presently IBM will only sell expensive POWER systems.
Now after you've ported your "killer app" to LoP, how the heck do you deploy it? On what? Some mega-expensive POWER Server? Doesn't IBM realise that Windows apps are usually run on the desktop or laptop? I mean they're not suggesting we're using Windows as a server OS are they?
PS. Anyone from IBM reading this - yes I would buy an IBM LoP box if it was sub £500 BYODKM.
I think his Centris has too much time on it's hands... (although probably not now)
I think we have to see this as a pointless indulgence, we know it should work, but there is no real point.
I just hope he realises that he's denying some fish a proper home.
It can be VERY useful, I'd like a Mac VM (that ran Mac OS X, not the one that exists that runs Mac OS 9) that ran on the Mac. If you're doing work close to the Kernel (maybe developing Loadable Kernel Servers - this is possibly "old language") this functionality is very helpful.
I think we already know the answer to that (No, they can't).
Of course getting Mac OS X to run in a virtual machine is a lot easier than tuning it to run on PC hardware (it is all those different configurations that are hard to support - it'd be like running WindowsNT 3.5 was back in the day).
Do I think this could help - maybe, Mac OS X is pretty sweet, and for lots of thinking PC users this might be a good way to "test the water".
I guess web designers might also find this helpful for testing.
Are you sure? Apart from the songs bit I think he can do all of those things.
Musical talent is a rare thing, and so this is pretty clearly "supply and demand" in action. Now do I think CDs are over priced? Yep. Do I buy lots of them? Nope. Do I download music over the Internet? Nope. It's pretty clear isn't it? If you feel the value proposition is wrong then don't buy it - but don't think that gives you the right to copy it.
Just because it is bits, doesn't mean it has no value - or should have no value.