It is *BAD CODE* which allows security violations and problems to occur.
BAD CODE can be either A) Open, or B) Closed.
With A), you have the laws of redundancy also on your side. The fact that so many eyeballs can see the code, means that its public, and that bugs are going to be publically known...
All the gov't needs to do, in order to protect itself from bad code, is: NOT RUN BAD CODE.
How can they tell if the code is bad, if they don't have access to the source? 4,000,000 pairs of eyeballs looking at the same bug is gonna mean that bug is fixed, pretty fast...
Just -HAVING- the patent is using the patent offensively.
It means that I now have to seriously consider the use of XML in my product... invest in this technology now, perhaps suffer down the line and have to pay 'license fees' to some Mega Corporation, or ignore this technology and move on to greener fields that haven't yet been hit with the Patent Plow.
The best part about the way OSX does this is that it is a completely 'UNIX'-y solution. OSX Apps are unix apps wrapped in a fancy, -standardized- directory structure, with their own text files for config descriptions, binary payload directory layouts, etc.
"OSX Apps", the pretty ones with icons that bounce, live in a subdirectory with a ".app" at the end of it. Finder (and not much else) knows that any time a user clicks on a file with ".app" in it, this whole subdirectory contains the full suite of resources needed to run that app...
So, you can easily make a cmd-line, unix-style app, no sweat. Good old POSIX! Put it in its own.app dir, bone up on a few XML'ish files that need to be included (hey, its a text file for config, thats UNIX right?!), and there's your package. gzip it and deliver.
Okay, so your wonder-app needs access to 'standard libs', and has 'dependencies'... no sweat. Either -include everything you need- (really, there's no problems with doing this) in the.app dir, which means all the libs you think the user isn't going to have on their OSX box, or just put symbolic links (as in the file kind) in your.app's Library folder to wherever you've found the libs you need on their system...
End of story. No 'registry key' to be configured (well, okay, maybe ldconfig is 'registry'-ish these days, eh?), no 'special program to edit registry entries' (just text editor), etc.
And since its all in a single.app package, theres no need for App vendors to -usually- touch any of the/System tree stuff...
These are for people that need the newest and greatest gadgets and have gads of disposable income.
I dunno about that. I can see, in a few short months, that I won't need to spend $500 on a PC for my aging Mother to use to e-mail me and browse the web... instead I could spend $300 and give her something small enough for her to take to the front porch so she can read my e-mails while the sun goes down...
I don't think this is a 'rich persons' toy, at all. PDA's are getting cheaper, and cheaper, and cheaper to make... it won't be very long until you can buy them from vending machines in the streets of Tokyo, if you can't already...
In my opinion there is no question whatsoever that Linux is the dominant operating system in the realm of embedded to small-functional computer systems.
PC's, yes, the kind you have to be able to plug thins into, no question that Microsoft has that realm. Same for business.
But, cheap, small, ubiquitous computing is happening. Linux runs on more architectures than almost any other operating system. Thats a vmlinuz for tons of cpu options, and once you've got that, you've got a mad universe of playthings to put into your small, cheap, affordable device.
Linux is what is going to remind us all that computer systems design and application, are utterly arbitrary activities. We can put linux in anything now, at this point, openly and creatively, in ways which definitely do not imply a desktop computing metaphor.
The desktop war has been won, but a new one is being waged, and it is The Device.
In any war, dominate the entirety of the playing field, and you have won it.
Its cool though, 'hacker chique' is happening, people are realizing that its a good thing to think a little more about the software they're using and which has been given to them...
Why? Because, simply, Windows is a generic term for an object on a display driven by a computer. There is a 'window' into the data.
Red Hat aren't "embracing and extending" the language like Microsoft do. Microsoft overtly choose their product names in a fashion which is intended to cause confusion to their competitors. Why should they be allowed to do this with a common English word such as "window"?
When any corporation can just co-opt the English language and 'protect' it/'use' it as they see fit, society drags even further away from egalitarianism and leaps in fits and starts towards the direction of a feudalistic utopia in which very few people are actually able to be free. To express themselves. Language is the one crop we must all sow, reap, and harvest together, or it simply doesn't work. Our societies break down.
Champion the rights of a corporation all you like, but in fact in doing so you doom the individual.
As a programmer, I find it utterly ludicrous that I cannot call a contained 'square object' on my system a 'window' and not have to pay homage to a corporate entity every time I choose to do so... especially since I do not program for any Microsoft operating system, yet do program for plenty others where a "window" is a window, an "icon" is an "icon", a "mouse" is a mouse, and a "pointer" is a pointer...
Are we gonna pay Logitech every time we say 'mouse', or does there have to be some sorta Comcast/Disney/Logitech/Xerox escrow into which I can put the thousands of new-dollar$$ I'm gonna get fined for being in violation of the new language morality clauses every 15 seconds... ?
Typical human reaction, bow to the abyss of the infinite whenever something comes along your way that you don't agree with, find 'right', or have an alternative use for...... of course there are an infinite number of arguments that its not this way. Just as there are an infinite number of arguments for using Linux...
The point is not whether or not there are alternative arguments, the point is that an Energy Company (in whom one ought to have at least a modicum of respect, given the parameters of their environment) saying it, not some market-droid, not some 'independent' research firm, not some half-assed marketdroid with a room full of monkeys.
You 'refuting' this 'refutation' with the 'statement' that this 'refutation' can be 'refuted' an 'infinite number of ways' says more about your ideals than it does about this article, actually...
Re:Get some Virus loops for Garageband ..
on
GarageBand Roundup
·
· Score: 1
... yeah, i know... but its just that it wasn't clear that these are loops of the Virus Synthesizer referred in the text, nor exactly what it is we (Access) are offering...
Get some Virus loops for Garageband ..
on
GarageBand Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Informative
yeah... i played it when they had that setup in the embarcadero center, way back when.
in my opinion, all this VR crap is 'why' the 'bubble burst' - people doing totally gay things without having any idea how productive/anti-productive such gayity can wreak...
I personally think it would be super, super danagerous for a society to deploy these sorts of 'mind-fuck' technologies on its populace.
So you go to an event to protest, and all over town you start hearing voices in your head telling you that "dictator X is a nice guy"...
Sheesh. We're on thin ice. Give these tools to the neo-cons who have no problem with using brainwashing techniques to justify their mission, and we're all fucked...
Well, the only problem with my dream job (it really is the job I've been dreaming of since I was a child) is that a) its too dream-like, and b) people get soooo jealous, very easily, and the 'hes got a good life' prejudice kicks in super fast... really, thats the only part of my job that sucks.
Still, its not forever, I know that. Nothing lasts forever...
Sure, the idea of it being exclusively about the survival instinct had its appeal in an arcade game.
With video games, you can measure 'survival instinct' factor in one metric: # of quarters deposited by one person, concurrently over time.
In 'home' video games, you can't really measure this metric as easily... unless you do TIVO-like things, of course.
It seems to me that video games have had a central design tenet - rape the player of all their quarters - which, in the beginning of the video game era, kind of made things more 'fun'. But, as time went by and people started realizing that they'd spent $100 in one afternoon on a product from which they will walk away with nothing, this strategy obviously became a little unworkable, and Video Game Arcades have had to resort to other tactics (DDR dates?) in order to attract customers.
But this "One Quarter = Extra Survival" design constraint seemed to produce some very, very fun games. It is as if this metric was a sufficient quantum in the 'game equation' to motivate truly innovative design decisions...
"Valkyrie is about to die... Valkyrie needs food badly..."
Slashdot Mirror
Hell yeah, my thoughts exactly!!!
;)
We will go to Mars. We will inhabit Olympus Mons...
Sounds like a song, don't it?
... it doesn't change the problem.
...
It is *BAD CODE* which allows security violations and problems to occur.
BAD CODE can be either A) Open, or B) Closed.
With A), you have the laws of redundancy also on your side. The fact that so many eyeballs can see the code, means that its public, and that bugs are going to be publically known...
All the gov't needs to do, in order to protect itself from bad code, is: NOT RUN BAD CODE.
How can they tell if the code is bad, if they don't have access to the source? 4,000,000 pairs of eyeballs looking at the same bug is gonna mean that bug is fixed, pretty fast
Rubbish. Absolutely rubbish.
... invest in this technology now, perhaps suffer down the line and have to pay 'license fees' to some Mega Corporation, or ignore this technology and move on to greener fields that haven't yet been hit with the Patent Plow.
...
Just -HAVING- the patent is using the patent offensively.
It means that I now have to seriously consider the use of XML in my product
Nice 'counter' though. You almost had us
The best part about the way OSX does this is that it is a completely 'UNIX'-y solution. OSX Apps are unix apps wrapped in a fancy, -standardized- directory structure, with their own text files for config descriptions, binary payload directory layouts, etc.
...
.app dir, bone up on a few XML'ish files that need to be included (hey, its a text file for config, thats UNIX right?!), and there's your package. gzip it and deliver.
... no sweat. Either -include everything you need- (really, there's no problems with doing this) in the .app dir, which means all the libs you think the user isn't going to have on their OSX box, or just put symbolic links (as in the file kind) in your .app's Library folder to wherever you've found the libs you need on their system...
.app package, theres no need for App vendors to -usually- touch any of the /System tree stuff ...
"OSX Apps", the pretty ones with icons that bounce, live in a subdirectory with a ".app" at the end of it. Finder (and not much else) knows that any time a user clicks on a file with ".app" in it, this whole subdirectory contains the full suite of resources needed to run that app
So, you can easily make a cmd-line, unix-style app, no sweat. Good old POSIX! Put it in its own
Okay, so your wonder-app needs access to 'standard libs', and has 'dependencies'
End of story. No 'registry key' to be configured (well, okay, maybe ldconfig is 'registry'-ish these days, eh?), no 'special program to edit registry entries' (just text editor), etc.
And since its all in a single
She'll love you for introducing her to OSX.
...)
(Put Konfabulator on there first, and set up a few nice widgets for her
I moved from LA to Germany, and I can say pretty much that Cleveland sounds a lot like Germany.
Man, what a horrid bubble LA was.
I might be tempted to sell you mine, or maybe swap for the wife and one of the kiddies ... ;)
These are for people that need the newest and greatest gadgets and have gads of disposable income.
... instead I could spend $300 and give her something small enough for her to take to the front porch so she can read my e-mails while the sun goes down ...
... it won't be very long until you can buy them from vending machines in the streets of Tokyo, if you can't already ...
I dunno about that. I can see, in a few short months, that I won't need to spend $500 on a PC for my aging Mother to use to e-mail me and browse the web
I don't think this is a 'rich persons' toy, at all. PDA's are getting cheaper, and cheaper, and cheaper to make
v. tr.
tr.v. required, requiring, requires
godamn it, now that virus has infected my sid and is now getting me to post a follow up to your thread
Very scummy, very scummy indeed.
In my opinion there is no question whatsoever that Linux is the dominant operating system in the realm of embedded to small-functional computer systems.
PC's, yes, the kind you have to be able to plug thins into, no question that Microsoft has that realm. Same for business.
But, cheap, small, ubiquitous computing is happening. Linux runs on more architectures than almost any other operating system. Thats a vmlinuz for tons of cpu options, and once you've got that, you've got a mad universe of playthings to put into your small, cheap, affordable device.
Linux is what is going to remind us all that computer systems design and application, are utterly arbitrary activities. We can put linux in anything now, at this point, openly and creatively, in ways which definitely do not imply a desktop computing metaphor.
The desktop war has been won, but a new one is being waged, and it is The Device.
In any war, dominate the entirety of the playing field, and you have won it.
...
Its cool though, 'hacker chique' is happening, people are realizing that its a good thing to think a little more about the software they're using and which has been given to them
Why? Because, simply, Windows is a generic term for an object on a display driven by a computer. There is a 'window' into the data.
... especially since I do not program for any Microsoft operating system, yet do program for plenty others where a "window" is a window, an "icon" is an "icon", a "mouse" is a mouse, and a "pointer" is a pointer ...
... ?
Red Hat aren't "embracing and extending" the language like Microsoft do. Microsoft overtly choose their product names in a fashion which is intended to cause confusion to their competitors. Why should they be allowed to do this with a common English word such as "window"?
When any corporation can just co-opt the English language and 'protect' it/'use' it as they see fit, society drags even further away from egalitarianism and leaps in fits and starts towards the direction of a feudalistic utopia in which very few people are actually able to be free. To express themselves. Language is the one crop we must all sow, reap, and harvest together, or it simply doesn't work. Our societies break down.
Champion the rights of a corporation all you like, but in fact in doing so you doom the individual.
As a programmer, I find it utterly ludicrous that I cannot call a contained 'square object' on my system a 'window' and not have to pay homage to a corporate entity every time I choose to do so
Are we gonna pay Logitech every time we say 'mouse', or does there have to be some sorta Comcast/Disney/Logitech/Xerox escrow into which I can put the thousands of new-dollar$$ I'm gonna get fined for being in violation of the new language morality clauses every 15 seconds
Its one thing to talk about government knowingly, its another thing to have a good command of the English language:
The federal government is legally not allowed to do that."
Should be:
The Federal Government is legally required not to do that.
There is a huge difference between 'not allowed' and 'required not to'.
excuse me, its not just for trance...
Typical human reaction, bow to the abyss of the infinite whenever something comes along your way that you don't agree with, find 'right', or have an alternative use for
The point is not whether or not there are alternative arguments, the point is that an Energy Company (in whom one ought to have at least a modicum of respect, given the parameters of their environment) saying it, not some market-droid, not some 'independent' research firm, not some half-assed marketdroid with a room full of monkeys.
You 'refuting' this 'refutation' with the 'statement' that this 'refutation' can be 'refuted' an 'infinite number of ways' says more about your ideals than it does about this article, actually
... yeah, i know ... but its just that it wasn't clear that these are loops of the Virus Synthesizer referred in the text, nor exactly what it is we (Access) are offering ...
... here:
...)
http://virus.info/
(That's Virus as in the hot synthesizer not the Microsoft kind
yeah ... i played it when they had that setup in the embarcadero center, way back when.
...
in my opinion, all this VR crap is 'why' the 'bubble burst' - people doing totally gay things without having any idea how productive/anti-productive such gayity can wreak
I personally think it would be super, super danagerous for a society to deploy these sorts of 'mind-fuck' technologies on its populace.
...
So you go to an event to protest, and all over town you start hearing voices in your head telling you that "dictator X is a nice guy"
Sheesh. We're on thin ice. Give these tools to the neo-cons who have no problem with using brainwashing techniques to justify their mission, and we're all fucked...
This thing is dangerous technology just ripe for the sort of application which brings about massive disparity in the way people perceive technology.
Hang on tight everyone. The next 10 years are going to get rough.
I have a dream job. I make Viruses ...
... really, thats the only part of my job that sucks.
...
Heh heh, the synthesizer kind, of course.
Well, the only problem with my dream job (it really is the job I've been dreaming of since I was a child) is that a) its too dream-like, and b) people get soooo jealous, very easily, and the 'hes got a good life' prejudice kicks in super fast
Still, its not forever, I know that. Nothing lasts forever
Sure, the idea of it being exclusively about the survival instinct had its appeal in an arcade game.
... unless you do TIVO-like things, of course.
... Valkyrie needs food badly ..."
With video games, you can measure 'survival instinct' factor in one metric: # of quarters deposited by one person, concurrently over time.
In 'home' video games, you can't really measure this metric as easily
It seems to me that video games have had a central design tenet - rape the player of all their quarters - which, in the beginning of the video game era, kind of made things more 'fun'. But, as time went by and people started realizing that they'd spent $100 in one afternoon on a product from which they will walk away with nothing, this strategy obviously became a little unworkable, and Video Game Arcades have had to resort to other tactics (DDR dates?) in order to attract customers.
But this "One Quarter = Extra Survival" design constraint seemed to produce some very, very fun games. It is as if this metric was a sufficient quantum in the 'game equation' to motivate truly innovative design decisions...
"Valkyrie is about to die
The human condition is the need to explore.
No, the human condition is the need to eat. All else is secondary.
Babylon 5
Created and rendered on the PC version of Lightwave, actually, with a farm of PentiumPro's for rendering...