Well Redhat is a commercial OS, as is Novel/SuSE, and Mandrake, and etc...
I is true that "Just because you can't use it in Linux or other GNU software doesn't mean it is useless." However, this limits its usefulness. I'm coming from an open science point of view. Imagine if you were trying to solve a word problem, and your teacher marked you off for mixing analytic geometry and trig in your solution because the license on the use of the two weren't compatible. That doesn't mean either is less valueable within it's sphere, just that the gestalt of the two is declared illegal.
Personally, I'd like to see what did result from the mixing and matching between the Linux codebases, BSD codebases, and the Solaris codebase. That just sounds exciting, and full of potential.
Of course on Linux one can develop/use GNUstep (Cocoa) on top of X11, underneath WindowMaker (or Gnome or KDE or etc...). Seem like the best of both worlds?
The API is a nightmare if you code straight to it, but most people are a few abstraction layers away (think: GDK/GTK/Gnome). The Mac user-friendly wizard comment seems like really good advice. Linux is coming along, but this route involves controversy. GUIs don't have to exclude commandline tools and small apps piped together, they can rather be an interface on top of them. Many *nix geeks seem to worry that GUIs/wizzards would replace rather than augment the command line.
What about the patent situation? Does linking to a CDDL file then provide access to the 1600 patents that are only available to CDDL code? Or would the entire application have to be CDDL? 'cause w/o that patent protection the use of those files is dangerous.
bonch: please notice that I put Cocoa in bold. I am aware of NeXTStep, OpenStep, and GNUstep. I was trying to illustrate both how what you said was true ( OS X is essentially OpenStep 5 or 6 with a Mac-alike interface ) along one path in the stack, while showing that other stack paths exsist. I was trying to moderate between your point and people who flamed you. I would suggest that the best part of OS X (in terms of elagance, for sure) involves Cocoa. Carbon does exist, though. Also there are layers underneath Carbon/Cocoa/Java before hitting BSD code. That's all...:-)
I just tried, and the first 5 pages are about LaTeX, then on the 6th page I see "Latex Allergy" (not a porn site). This is just obviously not an issue.
As well as ActiveX,
consider:
1. Windows has only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model
2. Windows is monolithic, not modular, by design (think: IE integrated tightly, as is the graphics renderer)
3. Windows depends too heavily on an RPC model (think: Slammer worm)
4. Windows focuses on its familiar graphical desktop interface
It was number 2 and 3 that we addressed in three of my classes (OS, SysAdmin, and also Security & Info Assurance)
Think of an ideally designed operating system as being comprised of three spheres, one in the center, another larger sphere that envelops the first, and a third sphere that envelope the inner two. The end-user only sees the outermost sphere. This is the layer where you run applications, like word processors. The word processors make use of commonly needed features provided by the second sphere, such as the ability to render graphical images or format text. This second sphere (usually referred to as "userland" by technical geeks) cannot access vulnerable parts of the system directly. It must request permission from the innermost sphere in order to do its work. The innermost sphere has the most important job, and therefore has the most direct access to all the vulnerable parts of your system. It controls your computer's disks, memory, and everything else. This sphere is called the "kernel"., and is the heart of the operating system.
In the above architecture, a flaw in the graphics rendering routines cannot do global damage to your computer because the rendering functions do not have direct access to the most vulnerable system areas. So even if you can convince a user to load an image with an embedded virus into the word processor, the virus cannot damage anything except the user's own files, because the graphical rendering feature lies outside the innermost sphere, and does not have permission to access any of the critical system areas.
The problem with Windows is that it does not follow sensible design practices in separating out its features into the appropriate layers represented by the spheres described above. Windows puts far too many features into the core, central sphere, where the most damage can be done. For example, if one integrates the graphics rendering features into the innermost sphere (the kernel), it gives the graphical rendering feature the ability to damage the entire system. Thus, when someone finds a flaw in a graphics-rendering scheme, the overly integrated architecture of Windows makes it easy to exploit that flaw to take complete control of the system, or destroy the entire system.
"Since SP2 the firewall is enabled by default". It isn't bullshit if you read what I wrote. Buy a new box. Begin applying updates. get rooted in 15 minutes finally apply SP2 to the rooted system
It would only be bullshit if new systems where sold with SP2 all ready rolled in...which hasn't happened.
You assume that all software has the same inherent vulnerabilites, and thus, the more users, the more crackers. This ignores architectural differences. The fact is that not all OS are created equal. This faulty line of reasoning was shot down in my Operating Systems class, as well as in Systems Admin class, as well as in Security. Get over the idea that popularity implies security. Or at least, try not to be surprised when you read the textbooks.
Well consider that average time to being rooted under Linux is now 3 months, whereas under Windows it is still 15 minutes. That means that if you buy a new box with windows preinstalled, expect (in the strong sense of expectation value) to be rooted before you can apply the patches.
There's an important difference between exploitable design flaws and exploitable implementation flaws. When implementation flaws are exploited, those flaws can usually be fixed without removing essential functionality upon which legitimate users may have come to depend. When design flaws are exploited, the design must be changed to correct those flaws, and to do this, is often necessary to frustrate the legitimate expectations of real customers.
People seem to have trouble getting this difference. It isn't just that so many people are trying to root windows because so many people use windows. It is that the architecture has holes that exsist in the foundation. "A security hole is a security hole" is pure uninformed bullshit.
"directing traffic" is close...but it is more passive than active
"helping people carry it away" is just imaginative fiction; might as well say "help them carry it away, kill the owner, desecrate the remains, then make soup from the carcas", 'cause if you are going to fabricate a strawman, might as well *really* fabricate.
You don't care what OS is underneath it all, which has to mean you don't know what an OS does. Imagine a world where you can only use 8 characters for a file name. Would you care if you could only use 5? or 3? Stupid example to make a point, it *does* matter.
"I don't care what engine my car has as long as the interior is comfortable"...until you try to get on the freeway with 50cc pushing a minivan. It really does matter.
"that will not violate CDDL as long as they make their changes to the CDDL code available to others" AND place it too under the CDDL. CDDL code is exactly as "viral" as GPL, except that (to some) the "viral" nature of the GPL is seen as an inoculation.
"Clunkier"? Let me know when anything else becomes network transparent. Aqua is a very sexy, fast sports car. X is a cargo helicopter. Different dimensions of functionality. But if you never leave the ground, Aqua *is* fast and sexy.
People don't seem to be able to believe what "network transparancy" means. They call X "clunky" or "old-fashioned", and then can't understand what it does that is so much more advanced than anything else written today.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you seriously suggesting that Quicken users should switch not only application but OS?
Yes.
Well Redhat is a commercial OS, as is Novel/SuSE, and Mandrake, and etc...
I is true that "Just because you can't use it in Linux or other GNU software doesn't mean it is useless." However, this limits its usefulness. I'm coming from an open science point of view. Imagine if you were trying to solve a word problem, and your teacher marked you off for mixing analytic geometry and trig in your solution because the license on the use of the two weren't compatible. That doesn't mean either is less valueable within it's sphere, just that the gestalt of the two is declared illegal.
Personally, I'd like to see what did result from the mixing and matching between the Linux codebases, BSD codebases, and the Solaris codebase. That just sounds exciting, and full of potential.
Of course on Linux one can develop/use GNUstep (Cocoa) on top of X11, underneath WindowMaker (or Gnome or KDE or etc...). Seem like the best of both worlds?
"Adobe killed display postscript." I'd be interested in more discussion, here. Isn't GNUstep using display PS? Are there problems there?
The API is a nightmare if you code straight to it, but most people are a few abstraction layers away (think: GDK/GTK/Gnome). The Mac user-friendly wizard comment seems like really good advice. Linux is coming along, but this route involves controversy. GUIs don't have to exclude commandline tools and small apps piped together, they can rather be an interface on top of them. Many *nix geeks seem to worry that GUIs/wizzards would replace rather than augment the command line.
What about the patent situation? Does linking to a CDDL file then provide access to the 1600 patents that are only available to CDDL code? Or would the entire application have to be CDDL? 'cause w/o that patent protection the use of those files is dangerous.
bonch: please notice that I put Cocoa in bold. I am aware of NeXTStep, OpenStep, and GNUstep. I was trying to illustrate both how what you said was true ( OS X is essentially OpenStep 5 or 6 with a Mac-alike interface ) along one path in the stack, while showing that other stack paths exsist. I was trying to moderate between your point and people who flamed you. I would suggest that the best part of OS X (in terms of elagance, for sure) involves Cocoa. Carbon does exist, though. Also there are layers underneath Carbon/Cocoa/Java before hitting BSD code. That's all...:-)
Insightful? Its just not true...come on moderators!
"Now do the same thing in word. Word has to catch up and reload the images and reformat sections of the text to view the same document."
Wow, thanks. That has been a hassle for me. It seriously disrupts by concentration and thus disturbs my workflow.
I just tried, and the first 5 pages are about LaTeX, then on the 6th page I see "Latex Allergy" (not a porn site). This is just obviously not an issue.
1. Windows has only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model
2. Windows is monolithic, not modular, by design (think: IE integrated tightly, as is the graphics renderer)
3. Windows depends too heavily on an RPC model (think: Slammer worm)
4. Windows focuses on its familiar graphical desktop interface
It was number 2 and 3 that we addressed in three of my classes (OS, SysAdmin, and also Security & Info Assurance)
"Since SP2 the firewall is enabled by default". It isn't bullshit if you read what I wrote.
Buy a new box.
Begin applying updates.
get rooted in 15 minutes
finally apply SP2 to the rooted system
It would only be bullshit if new systems where sold with SP2 all ready rolled in...which hasn't happened.
Aqua
on top of
Carbon | Cocoa | Java
on top of
Quartz | OpenGL | QuickTime
on top of
Darwin
You assume that all software has the same inherent vulnerabilites, and thus, the more users, the more crackers. This ignores architectural differences. The fact is that not all OS are created equal. This faulty line of reasoning was shot down in my Operating Systems class, as well as in Systems Admin class, as well as in Security. Get over the idea that popularity implies security. Or at least, try not to be surprised when you read the textbooks.
Well consider that average time to being rooted under Linux is now 3 months, whereas under Windows it is still 15 minutes. That means that if you buy a new box with windows preinstalled, expect (in the strong sense of expectation value) to be rooted before you can apply the patches.
People seem to have trouble getting this difference. It isn't just that so many people are trying to root windows because so many people use windows. It is that the architecture has holes that exsist in the foundation. "A security hole is a security hole" is pure uninformed bullshit.
Why does ssh attempted login scans mean Linux boxes? More likely compromised windows boxes running ssh.
Actually in parts of the US prostitution is leagal. Catch up.
"directing traffic" is close...but it is more passive than active
"helping people carry it away" is just imaginative fiction; might as well say "help them carry it away, kill the owner, desecrate the remains, then make soup from the carcas", 'cause if you are going to fabricate a strawman, might as well *really* fabricate.
" A direct hyperlink to a music file is a lot more than directing them..."
Nope, it is *exactly* the same. The URL is just that, directions. And it isn't like URLs are dependable.
You don't care what OS is underneath it all, which has to mean you don't know what an OS does. Imagine a world where you can only use 8 characters for a file name. Would you care if you could only use 5? or 3? Stupid example to make a point, it *does* matter.
"I don't care what engine my car has as long as the interior is comfortable"...until you try to get on the freeway with 50cc pushing a minivan. It really does matter.
"that will not violate CDDL as long as they make their changes to the CDDL code available to others" AND place it too under the CDDL. CDDL code is exactly as "viral" as GPL, except that (to some) the "viral" nature of the GPL is seen as an inoculation.
You can't create a "mixed" CDDL/GPL, so its not a problem, exactly because the gotchas *do* exsist.
"Clunkier"? Let me know when anything else becomes network transparent. Aqua is a very sexy, fast sports car. X is a cargo helicopter. Different dimensions of functionality. But if you never leave the ground, Aqua *is* fast and sexy.
People don't seem to be able to believe what "network transparancy" means. They call X "clunky" or "old-fashioned", and then can't understand what it does that is so much more advanced than anything else written today.