Maybe I am confused, but uhh.. yeah, I'm misunderstanding your statement. Can you explain more about this, or find a link to details? I wasn't aware that the Exchange server rendered HTML e-mail at all, just passed it on to the MUA (usually Microsoft Outlook), and it was Outlook that rendered the HTML code, including loading ActiveX controls. My understanding was, Outlook would do this when loading the e-mail to be displayed in the preview pane, or possibly due to a bug, when the mail was received even if it wasn't being displayed (and yes, I'm sure this was fixed years ago). Either way, the execution happens in Outlook, not Exchange.
1. Set up a milter that calls HTML::Strip to strip out all HTML from email. I don't want my webpages on port 25, just like I don't want my email on port 80. Users don't know or care anyway, set it up at the MTA side and they'll get clean emails.
Right, mangling other people's e-mail is the perfect solution, and they're too stupid to notice. Some of us happen to like being able to receive HTML e-mail, and communicate with people and organizations who use it properly.
2. Use a real MUA, like pine, mutt or other that allows you to see the actual content of the message, not its abstracted "rendered" equivalent. I simply hit 'h' in pine, and can see the resulting link that the phisher is trying to send me to... if it doesn't match the anchor tag, it gets deleted (and forwarded to spam-$USER, see dspam below).
Or let me see...
In Outlook Express for Windows, press Ctrl-F3. In Mail for Mac OS X, press Cmd-Opt-U. In Thunderbird, press Cmd-U (Mac) or Ctrl-U (other platforms). In Eudora, right-click in the message body and click View Source (not sure if there's a keyboard equivalent as I don't actually have Eudora installed myself).
3. Don't run Windows. Nothing need more be said here. When the same ActiveX control is used by Exchange to "render" email into your mailbox as MSIE to "render" maliscious HTML to your browser, you should be concerned.
I don't run Windows, but if I did, of course I'd make sure my mail client wasn't permitting malicious e-mails to run ActiveX. And apparently you don't either, or you'd know that Exchange is an MTA, not an MUA (or if it is, nobody uses it as an MUA).
And, of course, the people torturing your grandmother weren't the ones who got the bomb dropped on them.
Not the point - dropping the bomb led to Japan's surrender, which is why (presumably) the people torturing his grandmother stopped doing so, and released her. Otherwise, the torture would have continued.
WMP for Mac very rarely actually works, since it seems to support VERY few codecs, but every once in awhile I'll get an asf file that MPlayer and VLC can't play, but WMP can. It's far more common to find a file that MPlayer can play fine, but that WMP doesn't recognize.
And they're paying for the development of that by what? Printing their own money?
They sell server software, which is used to stream multimedia content that Windows Media Player can play. If they didn't give away WMP for free, they couldn't sell their server software.
There is nothing about that or the universal binary notes themselves implying or inferring that the documentation applies only to development machines. And that's a good thing, because the documentation would be competely, 100%, useless if that were the case.
Agreed... which is why, even if Apple does choose to use Open Firmware in the final shipping systems, it makes sense that their current documentation wouldn't suggest that. I don't believe the final decision has been made yet, but they want developers to be prepared for OF not being there, so Apple remains free to switch to EFI or whatever, or to keep OF, and not worry about apps that rely on OF.
You and the grandparent can't get away with "No, Apple will make something completely non-standard, but Microsoft will port Windows to it" and then say "No, Microsoft will, because it will be standard enough."
I suppose the distinction between "completely non-standard" and "standard enough" is where we're fuzzy. MOST of the hardware is standard in current Macs (PCI, USB, SATA, etc.). I believe that even if Apple chooses to continue using Open Firmware, and uses their own motherboard design, it will be pretty easy for Microsoft to make Windows run on it, even if it doesn't just automatically work out of the box. I believe it will be easy enough that, if modifications are needed, Microsoft will decide that making the necessary modifications will be easy enough that it will be worth the effort.
Indeed. One of the ONLY advantages of VHS over DVD is that you can take out a tape, watch something else, put the tape back in and watch immediately from exactly where you were. Can't do that with DVD.
Uhh.. you can't?
I use the DVD-ROM drive in my iBook, connected to an external CRT and speakers. When I re-insert a DVD, it asks me if I want to continue where I left off or start over at the beginning.
I guess it would be pretty annoying to not be able to do that.
Well, yeah, it's possibly true, but they do make a big deal of the fact Open Firmware et al will not be available, so it's highly unlikely they're considering keeping it.
I'm sure they meant it "will not be available" in the developer test systems. Jobs specifically emphasized that these "are not products" and will not be shipping to consumers - developers must return them to Apple.
Of course, they COULD decide to ship Macs with a BIOS or with Intel's EFI or whatever, and not Open Firmware. But nothing they've said so far means that that's what will happen.
I'd expect language along the lines of "Don't expect this to be available" if it was still an option on the table.
A fair point.
I do think anyone seriously thinking Open Firmware will make a showing is pretty much lining themselves up for disappointment. The comments I've read from Apple pretty much suggest the decision has already been made.
I've heard otherwise, but they're probably leaning toward EFI.
If it's in favour of Open Firmware, then there's no reason for them to deprecate that firmware.
Of course there is! There is no such thing as an Intel-based Mac with Open Firmware! Therefore, developers must design their apps to not rely on Open Firmware, because otherwise they'd have nothing to test on!
Apple's PowerMacs, especially those from the late nineties, generally are "close enough" in terms of PREP/CHRP compatability for the PowerPC version of Windows NT 4.0 to work. I've certainly heard of people who installed it.
I haven't heard this, but modern Mac hardware is MUCH closer to standard PC hardware than it was in the mid 90s.
I think Microsoft would avoid touching the Mac unless it has a significant amount of momentum if the Mac was a significantly non-standard architecture.
Whatever hardware Apple chooses to use, I don't think it will be difficult at all for Microsoft to get it working with Windows. The vast majority of the hardware will be pretty standard.
If they wanted to produce a non-standard machine that just happened to have an Intel CPU in it, they wouldn't be making a lot of the decisions they're making. There'd be no reason to abandon Open Firmware. There'd be no reason to change the disk partition format.
I disagree.
Apple has been building OSX on generic off-the-shelf PCs, because custom-engineered Intel-based Macs do not exist, and they have to run it on something. Obviously, generic off-the-shelf PCs don't run OpenFirmware, and without OF, they probably can't boot from a drive that uses the Mac partition format (I don't know that much about the differences, but I do know Mac drives have about half a dozen little hidden partitions, and fdisk can't understand any of it). OSX for x86 probably needs a boot loader in the MBR or somewhere, and that probably just doesn't work with Mac partitions.
So, Apple is shipping generic PCs to developers. Of course they don't have OF; Apple hasn't designed a Mac/Intel motherboard yet - and that means, OF isn't available to developers, so Apple has to document that. This doesn't mean that final shipping Intel-based Macs won't use OF and Mac partitions, it just means they don't right now, for obvious reasons.
There'd be comments from Apple to the effect Windows is unlikely to run.
If Apple designs a motherboard that is very similar to current Macs, uses OpenFirmware, has a proprietary chipset that doesn't use a northbridge and southbridge, etc. etc.... what's to stop Microsoft from getting Windows to run on it? After all, Linux will be able to run on it just fine, right? Why don't you think Microsoft could do the same, if they wanted to? And, since Microsoft wants to sell as many copies of Windows as possible, why wouldn't they want to?
You've apparently forgotten that it used to be impossible to buy USB peripherals that weren't made of translucent fruit-colored plastic. The first USB printer ever made was translucent blue. USB cables used to come in iMac colors. It was so trendy, other things started coming in translucent iMac-colored plastic just so they could match (yes, I saw a translucent blue vacuum cleaner back in 1999).
Apple doesn't want their Macs to run Windows; that would be insane. Yes, the dev kits do; they're just standard off-the-shelf PCs (with very specific parts that Apple has drivers for). Hopefully the final shipping Macs will be MUCH different - custom-built motherboard, OpenFirmware (I'm hoping they don't switch to EFI just yet, but who knows), Apple's own sound chipset, etc.
But I see no reason why Microsoft wouldn't want to make sure Windows XP and Longhorn run beautifully on Apple's new Intel-based Macs. After all, Microsoft is a software company, and they want to sell as many copies of Windows as possible.
(By the way, although Apple is a hardware company and Macs running Windows is better than Dell PCs running Windows, Windows running on Macs really wouldn't be in Apple's best interest - it will encourage developers to say "just reboot into Windows to run our app! We don't need to port it to OSX." It will be interesting to see how this works out.)
Nope, Apple wouldn't need to be in the loop. Want to know how many songs Sony Music sold? Ask Sony Music. Apple reports sales stats back to the labels.
Uhhhh, sure, Apple reports how many, but Apple doesn't report which users have bought which tracks, which is the issue being discussed here. Microsoft wants to make WMA versions of iTMS songs available for free to iTMS customers who have already bought those songs, without making them available (for free) to anyone else.
If the Mathmatica CEO can get called on Wednesday night the week before, asked to bring the source code to Apple, and turn around a native Intel program in two hours of changes, then your developers don't need a year advanced warning. Right?
Wrong.
Developers who have built NEW applications on Mac OS X (possibly ported from Windows, but not ported from Mac OS 9) within the last five years are using Cocoa in XCode. They should be able to get something working in a few hours.
Developers who have recently migrated their existing Carbon code base (ported from Mac OS 9) to XCode should be able to get something working in a few weeks. Of course, then they have to test all their new changes on both platforms, and if something's broken, figure out if it's a bug in their code or a bug in Apple's pre-release development tools and hardware.
Developers of legacy applications are in for a world of hurt. There are a LOT of these, and they'll have a lot of work to do. Jobs said step one is to migrate to XCode. Not being an application developer myself, I have no idea how hard this will be; I expect that if you start with a clean well-maintained code base, it shouldn't be THAT bad, but there are a lot of 15-year-old apps out there that have been patched and patched and patched....
The downside is that several people I've been talking into making the switch are now holding off another year until the Intel macs come out.
I would advise them to ABSOLUTELY NOT wait for an Intel-based Mac, and if they choose to wait that much time, to ABSOLUTELY NOT buy one as soon as they become available. Unless you're absolutely sure you know what you're doing, I would stick with PowerPC as long as Apple continues to sell them (end of 2007); they'll be more reliable and have better application support. Remember that application developers are not dropping the PowerPC, they're only ADDING support for x86 as well, and releasing universal binaries that will run natively on both platforms.
My guess, Steve Jobs will announce an Intel laptop this year.
Nope, I don't expect Apple to announce ANY Intel-based Macs available to consumers until Spring or so, or MWSF at the very earliest. Of course, I didn't expect them to switch to x86 at all, so we'll see.:-P
This is exactly right: PRETEND to have confidence. Learn how to ACT as if you were self-confident, even though you're not. Spend time with self-confident people, watch how they act, watch what they say (but don't be creepy about it). Put on an act, pretending to be self-confident, and practice on strangers you'll never see again. You can even work on this on IRC, where nobody will know that you're actually shy.
Just keep up the act, until you get good enough at it that it comes naturally, and nobody knows the difference. Don't lie about your accomplishments or whatever, just about your attitude.
In case anyone decides to take this idea seriously...
Samba is an open-source project, various pieces of which are copyrighted by many different individuals, each of which has licensed their bit of code under the GPL. The GPL does not permit the sort of restrictions you're thinking of (you can charge for distribution, but not for the software itself, which must remain under the GPL and thus freely copyable by anyone whether they've paid for it or not).
In order to release Samba under a different non-GPL-compatible license, you would need to obtain permission from each and every copyright holder individually; otherwise, you're infringing on their copyright, which is just as illegal (and arguably much more immoral) as violating Microsoft's patent license.
We don't have a G5 Powerbook because we hear about the massive heat issues. Hell, just recently, I am having to take back my recently aquired G4 Powerbook because they are catching on bloody fire.
Uhh, defective batteries made by LG Electronics (who has taken full responsibility and is paying for the recall) have nothing to do with hot processors.
Slashdot Mirror
if your internet connection is anything less than fiber, which is about 99.9% of all connections?
The other 0.1%, obviously.
Maybe I am confused, but uhh.. yeah, I'm misunderstanding your statement. Can you explain more about this, or find a link to details? I wasn't aware that the Exchange server rendered HTML e-mail at all, just passed it on to the MUA (usually Microsoft Outlook), and it was Outlook that rendered the HTML code, including loading ActiveX controls. My understanding was, Outlook would do this when loading the e-mail to be displayed in the preview pane, or possibly due to a bug, when the mail was received even if it wasn't being displayed (and yes, I'm sure this was fixed years ago). Either way, the execution happens in Outlook, not Exchange.
If I'm mistaken, find me a link.
Are you sure it wasn't something like...
https://www.paypal.com/
1. Set up a milter that calls HTML::Strip to strip out all HTML from email. I don't want my webpages on port 25, just like I don't want my email on port 80. Users don't know or care anyway, set it up at the MTA side and they'll get clean emails.
Right, mangling other people's e-mail is the perfect solution, and they're too stupid to notice. Some of us happen to like being able to receive HTML e-mail, and communicate with people and organizations who use it properly.
2. Use a real MUA, like pine, mutt or other that allows you to see the actual content of the message, not its abstracted "rendered" equivalent. I simply hit 'h' in pine, and can see the resulting link that the phisher is trying to send me to... if it doesn't match the anchor tag, it gets deleted (and forwarded to spam-$USER, see dspam below).
Or let me see...
In Outlook Express for Windows, press Ctrl-F3.
In Mail for Mac OS X, press Cmd-Opt-U.
In Thunderbird, press Cmd-U (Mac) or Ctrl-U (other platforms).
In Eudora, right-click in the message body and click View Source (not sure if there's a keyboard equivalent as I don't actually have Eudora installed myself).
3. Don't run Windows. Nothing need more be said here. When the same ActiveX control is used by Exchange to "render" email into your mailbox as MSIE to "render" maliscious HTML to your browser, you should be concerned.
I don't run Windows, but if I did, of course I'd make sure my mail client wasn't permitting malicious e-mails to run ActiveX. And apparently you don't either, or you'd know that Exchange is an MTA, not an MUA (or if it is, nobody uses it as an MUA).
Please don't spread FUD.
Because copyright is based on the date of publication, not the date of creation.
I don't believe this is currently true in the United States. Can you cite a reference?
And, of course, the people torturing your grandmother weren't the ones who got the bomb dropped on them.
Not the point - dropping the bomb led to Japan's surrender, which is why (presumably) the people torturing his grandmother stopped doing so, and released her. Otherwise, the torture would have continued.
Hmm, who do you suppose might be interested in that?
I'm not aware that DRM even works in WMP for Mac. Like I said, it hardly plays anything.
WMP for Mac
WMP for Mac very rarely actually works, since it seems to support VERY few codecs, but every once in awhile I'll get an asf file that MPlayer and VLC can't play, but WMP can. It's far more common to find a file that MPlayer can play fine, but that WMP doesn't recognize.
And they're paying for the development of that by what? Printing their own money?
They sell server software, which is used to stream multimedia content that Windows Media Player can play. If they didn't give away WMP for free, they couldn't sell their server software.
There is nothing about that or the universal binary notes themselves implying or inferring that the documentation applies only to development machines. And that's a good thing, because the documentation would be competely, 100%, useless if that were the case.
Agreed... which is why, even if Apple does choose to use Open Firmware in the final shipping systems, it makes sense that their current documentation wouldn't suggest that. I don't believe the final decision has been made yet, but they want developers to be prepared for OF not being there, so Apple remains free to switch to EFI or whatever, or to keep OF, and not worry about apps that rely on OF.
You and the grandparent can't get away with "No, Apple will make something completely non-standard, but Microsoft will port Windows to it" and then say "No, Microsoft will, because it will be standard enough."
I suppose the distinction between "completely non-standard" and "standard enough" is where we're fuzzy. MOST of the hardware is standard in current Macs (PCI, USB, SATA, etc.). I believe that even if Apple chooses to continue using Open Firmware, and uses their own motherboard design, it will be pretty easy for Microsoft to make Windows run on it, even if it doesn't just automatically work out of the box. I believe it will be easy enough that, if modifications are needed, Microsoft will decide that making the necessary modifications will be easy enough that it will be worth the effort.
Does that make any sense?
Indeed. One of the ONLY advantages of VHS over DVD is that you can take out a tape, watch something else, put the tape back in and watch immediately from exactly where you were. Can't do that with DVD.
Uhh.. you can't?
I use the DVD-ROM drive in my iBook, connected to an external CRT and speakers. When I re-insert a DVD, it asks me if I want to continue where I left off or start over at the beginning.
I guess it would be pretty annoying to not be able to do that.
Well, yeah, it's possibly true, but they do make a big deal of the fact Open Firmware et al will not be available, so it's highly unlikely they're considering keeping it.
I'm sure they meant it "will not be available" in the developer test systems. Jobs specifically emphasized that these "are not products" and will not be shipping to consumers - developers must return them to Apple.
Of course, they COULD decide to ship Macs with a BIOS or with Intel's EFI or whatever, and not Open Firmware. But nothing they've said so far means that that's what will happen.
I'd expect language along the lines of "Don't expect this to be available" if it was still an option on the table.
A fair point.
I do think anyone seriously thinking Open Firmware will make a showing is pretty much lining themselves up for disappointment. The comments I've read from Apple pretty much suggest the decision has already been made.
I've heard otherwise, but they're probably leaning toward EFI.
If it's in favour of Open Firmware, then there's no reason for them to deprecate that firmware.
Of course there is! There is no such thing as an Intel-based Mac with Open Firmware! Therefore, developers must design their apps to not rely on Open Firmware, because otherwise they'd have nothing to test on!
Apple's PowerMacs, especially those from the late nineties, generally are "close enough" in terms of PREP/CHRP compatability for the PowerPC version of Windows NT 4.0 to work. I've certainly heard of people who installed it.
I haven't heard this, but modern Mac hardware is MUCH closer to standard PC hardware than it was in the mid 90s.
I think Microsoft would avoid touching the Mac unless it has a significant amount of momentum if the Mac was a significantly non-standard architecture.
Whatever hardware Apple chooses to use, I don't think it will be difficult at all for Microsoft to get it working with Windows. The vast majority of the hardware will be pretty standard.
If they wanted to produce a non-standard machine that just happened to have an Intel CPU in it, they wouldn't be making a lot of the decisions they're making. There'd be no reason to abandon Open Firmware. There'd be no reason to change the disk partition format.
I disagree.
Apple has been building OSX on generic off-the-shelf PCs, because custom-engineered Intel-based Macs do not exist, and they have to run it on something. Obviously, generic off-the-shelf PCs don't run OpenFirmware, and without OF, they probably can't boot from a drive that uses the Mac partition format (I don't know that much about the differences, but I do know Mac drives have about half a dozen little hidden partitions, and fdisk can't understand any of it). OSX for x86 probably needs a boot loader in the MBR or somewhere, and that probably just doesn't work with Mac partitions.
So, Apple is shipping generic PCs to developers. Of course they don't have OF; Apple hasn't designed a Mac/Intel motherboard yet - and that means, OF isn't available to developers, so Apple has to document that. This doesn't mean that final shipping Intel-based Macs won't use OF and Mac partitions, it just means they don't right now, for obvious reasons.
There'd be comments from Apple to the effect Windows is unlikely to run.
If Apple designs a motherboard that is very similar to current Macs, uses OpenFirmware, has a proprietary chipset that doesn't use a northbridge and southbridge, etc. etc.... what's to stop Microsoft from getting Windows to run on it? After all, Linux will be able to run on it just fine, right? Why don't you think Microsoft could do the same, if they wanted to? And, since Microsoft wants to sell as many copies of Windows as possible, why wouldn't they want to?
You've apparently forgotten that it used to be impossible to buy USB peripherals that weren't made of translucent fruit-colored plastic. The first USB printer ever made was translucent blue. USB cables used to come in iMac colors. It was so trendy, other things started coming in translucent iMac-colored plastic just so they could match (yes, I saw a translucent blue vacuum cleaner back in 1999).
Apple doesn't want their Macs to run Windows; that would be insane. Yes, the dev kits do; they're just standard off-the-shelf PCs (with very specific parts that Apple has drivers for). Hopefully the final shipping Macs will be MUCH different - custom-built motherboard, OpenFirmware (I'm hoping they don't switch to EFI just yet, but who knows), Apple's own sound chipset, etc.
But I see no reason why Microsoft wouldn't want to make sure Windows XP and Longhorn run beautifully on Apple's new Intel-based Macs. After all, Microsoft is a software company, and they want to sell as many copies of Windows as possible.
(By the way, although Apple is a hardware company and Macs running Windows is better than Dell PCs running Windows, Windows running on Macs really wouldn't be in Apple's best interest - it will encourage developers to say "just reboot into Windows to run our app! We don't need to port it to OSX." It will be interesting to see how this works out.)
A frood who really knows where his towel is.
Nope, Apple wouldn't need to be in the loop. Want to know how many songs Sony Music sold? Ask Sony Music. Apple reports sales stats back to the labels.
Uhhhh, sure, Apple reports how many, but Apple doesn't report which users have bought which tracks, which is the issue being discussed here. Microsoft wants to make WMA versions of iTMS songs available for free to iTMS customers who have already bought those songs, without making them available (for free) to anyone else.
If the Mathmatica CEO can get called on Wednesday night the week before, asked to bring the source code to Apple, and turn around a native Intel program in two hours of changes, then your developers don't need a year advanced warning. Right?
:-P
Wrong.
Developers who have built NEW applications on Mac OS X (possibly ported from Windows, but not ported from Mac OS 9) within the last five years are using Cocoa in XCode. They should be able to get something working in a few hours.
Developers who have recently migrated their existing Carbon code base (ported from Mac OS 9) to XCode should be able to get something working in a few weeks. Of course, then they have to test all their new changes on both platforms, and if something's broken, figure out if it's a bug in their code or a bug in Apple's pre-release development tools and hardware.
Developers of legacy applications are in for a world of hurt. There are a LOT of these, and they'll have a lot of work to do. Jobs said step one is to migrate to XCode. Not being an application developer myself, I have no idea how hard this will be; I expect that if you start with a clean well-maintained code base, it shouldn't be THAT bad, but there are a lot of 15-year-old apps out there that have been patched and patched and patched....
The downside is that several people I've been talking into making the switch are now holding off another year until the Intel macs come out.
I would advise them to ABSOLUTELY NOT wait for an Intel-based Mac, and if they choose to wait that much time, to ABSOLUTELY NOT buy one as soon as they become available. Unless you're absolutely sure you know what you're doing, I would stick with PowerPC as long as Apple continues to sell them (end of 2007); they'll be more reliable and have better application support. Remember that application developers are not dropping the PowerPC, they're only ADDING support for x86 as well, and releasing universal binaries that will run natively on both platforms.
My guess, Steve Jobs will announce an Intel laptop this year.
Nope, I don't expect Apple to announce ANY Intel-based Macs available to consumers until Spring or so, or MWSF at the very earliest. Of course, I didn't expect them to switch to x86 at all, so we'll see.
This is exactly right: PRETEND to have confidence. Learn how to ACT as if you were self-confident, even though you're not. Spend time with self-confident people, watch how they act, watch what they say (but don't be creepy about it). Put on an act, pretending to be self-confident, and practice on strangers you'll never see again. You can even work on this on IRC, where nobody will know that you're actually shy.
Just keep up the act, until you get good enough at it that it comes naturally, and nobody knows the difference. Don't lie about your accomplishments or whatever, just about your attitude.
In case anyone decides to take this idea seriously...
Samba is an open-source project, various pieces of which are copyrighted by many different individuals, each of which has licensed their bit of code under the GPL. The GPL does not permit the sort of restrictions you're thinking of (you can charge for distribution, but not for the software itself, which must remain under the GPL and thus freely copyable by anyone whether they've paid for it or not).
In order to release Samba under a different non-GPL-compatible license, you would need to obtain permission from each and every copyright holder individually; otherwise, you're infringing on their copyright, which is just as illegal (and arguably much more immoral) as violating Microsoft's patent license.
We don't have a G5 Powerbook because we hear about the massive heat issues. Hell, just recently, I am having to take back my recently aquired G4 Powerbook because they are catching on bloody fire.
Uhh, defective batteries made by LG Electronics (who has taken full responsibility and is paying for the recall) have nothing to do with hot processors.
Well, it still survives as OS X, but the company that built boxes around it, using 680x0 is gone.
Au contraire - the company survives as well, as an integrated part of Apple.
On the other hand, this could be exactly what Apple's marketing needs.
How long has it been since they actually seriously marketed their software to the general public?
When pressed for what makes macs so great, 'it's the hardware, the pcc chip'
You've been asking the wrong users. The hardware is nice, but what makes Macs GREAT is the operating system and the applications.