The reason I say this is I've watched Novell lose out at our University for NO reason other than it's not MS. Novell can do more than the AD system they're trying to roll out, but they're going with AD anyway because it's the MS system.
When we asked the decision makers why, it was because we're already paying for the MS software, so we might as well use it.
It's sad. I'm not happy to see Novell going away, it offer tools that MS's AD doesn't, but it's gone, and gone because of marketing.
Novell sees themselves as dead. Because that's where they are. They won the war on the technical front and got handed their asses on the marketing front. At the end of the day the marketing front is (usually) more powerful. That means game over for Novell.
Well, in a way it has. But the control in OSX aren't nearly as customizable as what Vista will offer. To be able to lock down computers based on time of day is worth way more to me than full bore program restrictions.
Like I said though, I don't have kids, so I'm looking at this from a lab administration aspect, where restricting based off of times would be great.
1. Security. Most of the features mentioned OSX already has in place. It will be nice to have it rolled into Windows, but not a massive change to OSX users.
2. And I quote: "Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover, complete with tabbed pages and better privacy management." Yay! Windows users get Firefox. Again. Which they already had anyway. IE7 is a yawn. Welcome to the internet of 3 years ago.
3. Righteous eye candy: Wow. It's like a Stevenote timewarp listening to the writeup on this feature. Again, welcome to three years ago.
4. Desktop search: Already available in OSX, and Google and Yahoo are already there for Windows. Again this is playing catchup to the market.
5. Better updates: Central (non browser) source of updates. Ooh. Stale.
6. More media: This should basically be titled. "Windows Media Player, now with more iTunes!"
7. Parental controls: That could be very nice, and is unique. As I'm not a parent it's not as important to me, but could be nice for locking down labs etc. to standard hours. This is actually cool.
8 and 9 are both cool options.
10. This is actually a little lackluster for me until I see it in practice. Could be nice but as it isn't working yet, I'll hold off.
So of the 9 updates actually IN the product reviewed, 6 are YEARS old, three are new.
I actually read though the list, and other than the last three options. (backups, install times, live shared docs) the other 7 were options I've been using for years on Macs.
Granted, not that I'm not happy that Windows is catching up, but I thought it was funny that to me at least, the only new features were the last three listed. All of which sounded very interesting.
Nothing that is except a small population of Ravens that learned that if you flip the toads over, the bellys have no poison. As soon as one figured this out, others started to copy the behavior. Now ravens are disembowling these toads all over the place.
The question is, what can that extra money buy you? Do you think you'll be happier working a job that's fun, or having more money to spend when your eight hours are up. (or ten as the case may be).
Personally, I work at a Univeristy. It's less money than working in the private sector. However, it's a really mixed enviornment. I see a little bit of everything, from a huge range of applications of computers and their versitility.
At the end of the day, if you spend eight hours a day wishing you were doing anything else, dying to go somewhere else, you should probably leave. Odds are the difference in price wouldn't be able to make you happy an extra eight hours per day five days a week.
Actually that raises an interesting problem. There are people who are very averse to pain. How many of these people are going to sign up for this study? Few if any. What you're doing is selecting for a group of people who for whatever reason don't mind pain. Odds are they're going to give selective test results as well.
Securing Open Source Code
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To be honest, when you look at the incentive for securing OSS vs Closed Source code, neither one is all that enticing.
As of now, there's really no penalty with selling code that isn't secure. It's accepted (for some reason) that computer code will have holes, and you really, really have to have a horrible program before anyone will think of ditching it. Even then if it's mission critical (all the more reason to be secure) it seems people are loathe to switch to something else.
So as a coder for a Closed Source app., my motivations would be:
1. Make the boss happy. Get code done. 2. Once program A is done, start work on next money making program. 3. Patch when boss says it's necessary to patch.
For Open Source it's not that much better. The only real motivation to write good code is so that it's either accepted into the project in the first place, and then once accepted everyone doesn't poke holes in your crappy code.
The difference is that people coding OSS are doing it because they want to, so hopefully have a little more motivation to look at the other code in their project. It's interesting to them, so they're a bit more likely IMO to look at it. The person getting paid has no incentive to look at the code (at least while on work time) unless the boss tells them to. Since rehashing old code doesn't usually make money, the only time to look at old code is when a patch is a necessity.
Actually, you're wrong. The limiting factor on Macs isn't the GPU performance, it's the CPU. Whether that's a difference in DirectX vs. OpenGL or just the way the chips are designed/programs written I don't know. However, on a Mac the limiting factor is the CPU.
They (people in the ratings group) had been stalked by the documentary maker and had called the police on several occasions. The movie (which contains parts of him following them around) can be used as evidence. It's legal to make copies under those conditions.
Sorry, still haven't had enough coffee today, not explaing myself fully.
Since the movie had parts in it about the employees it was copied and given to, there's a good chance it was legal. The DMCA is another matter, but who's going to prosecute them?
Oh, that doesn't run on an Xbox or playstation. How about I bust out my old copy of Master or Orion.... Hmm, nope not that either. Ok, I'll play some CSS. Crap, no again.
Sorry, I could do that all day but the majority of games I want to play don't exist on consoles, and either don't run, or run like ass under OSX.
Dual booting would be a god send to me. Instead of buying the low level laptop (work needs) I'd be a lot more likely to spring for the top of the line laptop so I can game on it as well. I'm not going to buy a laptop exclusively for gaming, or a desktop for that matter. However, I'd be more than happy to drop an extra $200 - $500 on a machine that will do my work AND play games well.
Apple decided years ago that laptops were going to be the future, and the age of giant towers was coming to a close, and odds are that's true.
Small, lower power chips that put out decent numbers are worth more to most people that large, power hungry chips that put out phenominal numbers. It's funny, the story below talks about AMD chips outselling Intel chips in the desktop. At the end of the day though, I fear AMD is taking over a market segment as it's being abandoned, nothing more.
All we deal with at my University it Corn and Soybeans. Soybeans can work as a legitimate biofuel if you want to look at it from a straight energy in/energy out standpoint.
Something about how it takes less refining to get a usable fuel, so you don't end up losing energy overall.
What bothers me is that most people don't want to look at Ethonal having possible enviornmental problems just like fossel fuels. People think that because it's corn, it must be ok. That's not necessarily true. However, any research that intends to take a (possibly) critical look at the usage of Ethonal won't get funding by the EPA. Right now the Ethonal lobby is king, and we're all getting screwed for it.
While ethonal does reduce CO2 emissions by burning fuel more completely, (reducing air pollution) it also significantly lowers over fuel economy (upwards of 10% to 20% on most vehicles).
No one in the ethonal lobby ever wants to talk about the nitrogen/oxygen (NO2?) by-products that are increased, which are much worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 ever has or will be. (stays in the atmosphere much longer, and holds in magnitudes more heat than CO2. Coupled with the fact that it's very hard to extract from the atmosphere, unlike CO2)
Then there's the increased pesticide use, the fact that it takes more fuel to produce ethonal than you get back, and it's a giant pipe dream.
When you start mixing politics and science you get shitty science.
I think the only thing that MIGHT actually get the laws changed would be as one person suggested in the article. Turn the tables on those passing the laws. Find key political figures and start saving all the video footage of where they go. I'm sure with tens of hours of video footable between dozens of people you're bound to come across a wide variety of embarassing moments.
Put those up on the web and away you go. Might actually get something changed then.
Really, rather than talking about how horrid it is, why not be busy working on software and hardware solutions that will bring old document types up to today's standards, and devices that will pull data off of old drives?
I'm sure a universal data conversion tool would be worth a pile of money.
If the #1 (by far) player uses a specific format to play DRM'ed songs, then wouldn't it be the music stores who don't use that format who are holding back sales? I don't see how everyone jumping on board the MS bandwagon (which doesn't work with iPods) is Apple holding back the music industry.
Fact is people buy iPods.
Fact is iPods won't play MS based DRM'ed music.
Fact is if you want to sell songs that play on iPods, it's open formats or AAC.
Unless you're dealing with #3 in a constructive manner, you're the ones holding back music sales.
Slashdot Mirror
How is one closed/propriatary DRM scheme "more standard" than any other?
The reason I say this is I've watched Novell lose out at our University for NO reason other than it's not MS. Novell can do more than the AD system they're trying to roll out, but they're going with AD anyway because it's the MS system.
When we asked the decision makers why, it was because we're already paying for the MS software, so we might as well use it.
It's sad. I'm not happy to see Novell going away, it offer tools that MS's AD doesn't, but it's gone, and gone because of marketing.
Novell sees themselves as dead. Because that's where they are. They won the war on the technical front and got handed their asses on the marketing front. At the end of the day the marketing front is (usually) more powerful. That means game over for Novell.
Because you think Thinkpads are cheap? What world do you live in?
Every reporter that misclassifies trojans and viruses as worms needs to be beaten over the head with a herring.
Worms are very different than viruses. Don't mix them up! It's not that hard!
Well, in a way it has. But the control in OSX aren't nearly as customizable as what Vista will offer. To be able to lock down computers based on time of day is worth way more to me than full bore program restrictions.
Like I said though, I don't have kids, so I'm looking at this from a lab administration aspect, where restricting based off of times would be great.
Let's see. Starting from #1
1. Security. Most of the features mentioned OSX already has in place. It will be nice to have it rolled into Windows, but not a massive change to OSX users.
2. And I quote: "Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover, complete with tabbed pages and better privacy management." Yay! Windows users get Firefox. Again. Which they already had anyway. IE7 is a yawn. Welcome to the internet of 3 years ago.
3. Righteous eye candy: Wow. It's like a Stevenote timewarp listening to the writeup on this feature. Again, welcome to three years ago.
4. Desktop search: Already available in OSX, and Google and Yahoo are already there for Windows. Again this is playing catchup to the market.
5. Better updates: Central (non browser) source of updates. Ooh. Stale.
6. More media: This should basically be titled. "Windows Media Player, now with more iTunes!"
7. Parental controls: That could be very nice, and is unique. As I'm not a parent it's not as important to me, but could be nice for locking down labs etc. to standard hours. This is actually cool.
8 and 9 are both cool options.
10. This is actually a little lackluster for me until I see it in practice. Could be nice but as it isn't working yet, I'll hold off.
So of the 9 updates actually IN the product reviewed, 6 are YEARS old, three are new.
I actually read though the list, and other than the last three options. (backups, install times, live shared docs) the other 7 were options I've been using for years on Macs.
Granted, not that I'm not happy that Windows is catching up, but I thought it was funny that to me at least, the only new features were the last three listed. All of which sounded very interesting.
Cupertino, start your copiers!
Last I'd heard nothing was eating these toads.
Nothing that is except a small population of Ravens that learned that if you flip the toads over, the bellys have no poison. As soon as one figured this out, others started to copy the behavior. Now ravens are disembowling these toads all over the place.
Now that is cool.
The question is, what can that extra money buy you? Do you think you'll be happier working a job that's fun, or having more money to spend when your eight hours are up. (or ten as the case may be).
Personally, I work at a Univeristy. It's less money than working in the private sector. However, it's a really mixed enviornment. I see a little bit of everything, from a huge range of applications of computers and their versitility.
At the end of the day, if you spend eight hours a day wishing you were doing anything else, dying to go somewhere else, you should probably leave. Odds are the difference in price wouldn't be able to make you happy an extra eight hours per day five days a week.
Of course they couldn't calculate his taxes, unless they had a machine that could use the evil bit.
Actually that raises an interesting problem. There are people who are very averse to pain. How many of these people are going to sign up for this study? Few if any. What you're doing is selecting for a group of people who for whatever reason don't mind pain. Odds are they're going to give selective test results as well.
To be honest, when you look at the incentive for securing OSS vs Closed Source code, neither one is all that enticing.
As of now, there's really no penalty with selling code that isn't secure. It's accepted (for some reason) that computer code will have holes, and you really, really have to have a horrible program before anyone will think of ditching it. Even then if it's mission critical (all the more reason to be secure) it seems people are loathe to switch to something else.
So as a coder for a Closed Source app., my motivations would be:
1. Make the boss happy. Get code done.
2. Once program A is done, start work on next money making program.
3. Patch when boss says it's necessary to patch.
For Open Source it's not that much better. The only real motivation to write good code is so that it's either accepted into the project in the first place, and then once accepted everyone doesn't poke holes in your crappy code.
The difference is that people coding OSS are doing it because they want to, so hopefully have a little more motivation to look at the other code in their project. It's interesting to them, so they're a bit more likely IMO to look at it. The person getting paid has no incentive to look at the code (at least while on work time) unless the boss tells them to. Since rehashing old code doesn't usually make money, the only time to look at old code is when a patch is a necessity.
Actually, you're wrong. The limiting factor on Macs isn't the GPU performance, it's the CPU. Whether that's a difference in DirectX vs. OpenGL or just the way the chips are designed/programs written I don't know. However, on a Mac the limiting factor is the CPU.
They (people in the ratings group) had been stalked by the documentary maker and had called the police on several occasions. The movie (which contains parts of him following them around) can be used as evidence. It's legal to make copies under those conditions.
Sorry, still haven't had enough coffee today, not explaing myself fully.
Since the movie had parts in it about the employees it was copied and given to, there's a good chance it was legal. The DMCA is another matter, but who's going to prosecute them?
Ok, let me load up WoW.....
Oh, that doesn't run on an Xbox or playstation. How about I bust out my old copy of Master or Orion.... Hmm, nope not that either. Ok, I'll play some CSS. Crap, no again.
Sorry, I could do that all day but the majority of games I want to play don't exist on consoles, and either don't run, or run like ass under OSX.
Dual booting would be a god send to me. Instead of buying the low level laptop (work needs) I'd be a lot more likely to spring for the top of the line laptop so I can game on it as well. I'm not going to buy a laptop exclusively for gaming, or a desktop for that matter. However, I'd be more than happy to drop an extra $200 - $500 on a machine that will do my work AND play games well.
Maybe they want to play games on occasion, but want the OSX experience the rest of the time. I know a LOT of people in that boat.
Apple decided years ago that laptops were going to be the future, and the age of giant towers was coming to a close, and odds are that's true.
Small, lower power chips that put out decent numbers are worth more to most people that large, power hungry chips that put out phenominal numbers. It's funny, the story below talks about AMD chips outselling Intel chips in the desktop. At the end of the day though, I fear AMD is taking over a market segment as it's being abandoned, nothing more.
All we deal with at my University it Corn and Soybeans. Soybeans can work as a legitimate biofuel if you want to look at it from a straight energy in/energy out standpoint.
Something about how it takes less refining to get a usable fuel, so you don't end up losing energy overall.
What bothers me is that most people don't want to look at Ethonal having possible enviornmental problems just like fossel fuels. People think that because it's corn, it must be ok. That's not necessarily true. However, any research that intends to take a (possibly) critical look at the usage of Ethonal won't get funding by the EPA. Right now the Ethonal lobby is king, and we're all getting screwed for it.
While ethonal does reduce CO2 emissions by burning fuel more completely, (reducing air pollution) it also significantly lowers over fuel economy (upwards of 10% to 20% on most vehicles).
No one in the ethonal lobby ever wants to talk about the nitrogen/oxygen (NO2?) by-products that are increased, which are much worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 ever has or will be. (stays in the atmosphere much longer, and holds in magnitudes more heat than CO2. Coupled with the fact that it's very hard to extract from the atmosphere, unlike CO2)
Then there's the increased pesticide use, the fact that it takes more fuel to produce ethonal than you get back, and it's a giant pipe dream.
When you start mixing politics and science you get shitty science.
I've had the same contempt for the French my entire life that I have now. Iraq II had nothing to do with it thank you very much.
I think the only thing that MIGHT actually get the laws changed would be as one person suggested in the article. Turn the tables on those passing the laws. Find key political figures and start saving all the video footage of where they go. I'm sure with tens of hours of video footable between dozens of people you're bound to come across a wide variety of embarassing moments.
Put those up on the web and away you go. Might actually get something changed then.
Really, rather than talking about how horrid it is, why not be busy working on software and hardware solutions that will bring old document types up to today's standards, and devices that will pull data off of old drives?
I'm sure a universal data conversion tool would be worth a pile of money.
If the #1 (by far) player uses a specific format to play DRM'ed songs, then wouldn't it be the music stores who don't use that format who are holding back sales? I don't see how everyone jumping on board the MS bandwagon (which doesn't work with iPods) is Apple holding back the music industry.
Fact is people buy iPods.
Fact is iPods won't play MS based DRM'ed music.
Fact is if you want to sell songs that play on iPods, it's open formats or AAC.
Unless you're dealing with #3 in a constructive manner, you're the ones holding back music sales.