Wasn't there a slashdot reference to an article in the last week where Microsoft "was considering" removing admin access from their employees? That doesn't sound like "eating their own dogfood". As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.
I thought the idea was to see if the system was usable without admin privileges. Haven't some people argued that it's too much pain to run as a non-privileged user? that people are almost forced to run in admin mode which generally makes the system more vulnerable?
So may be dog food is "non-admin mode is usable". And it will help identify the tasks the actually require privilege escalation. And help reduce those tasks or ease the process in some way.
One of the things I like about Slashdot is that it respects my freedom to choose the font I prefer to read. Will Slashdot no longer do that?
What's with this desire to inflict sans-serif fonts on readers? It's popular, but terribly bland. Users get to choose the font they prefer. Why must web sites override that? Sans-serif is fine for section headings and, in fact, the sans-serif headings stand out nicely in contrast with serif paragraphs. It's also frequently useful to use sans-serif for navigation menus.
But please don't inflict these bland, less readable fonts on the discussions. If you want 'em, use your browser preferences.
I don't see why you want reduce the size of the text fonts either. If the default paragraph text size looks too small relative to your headers, then your headers are too small. Enlarge the headers. Don't shrink the paragraphs.
It is my belief that if Apple finally brought out a two button + scroll wheel mouse,
You're free to use an USB mouse. I use a Logitech 2-button plus scroll-whell mouse on my Mac.
The best reason for standardizing on a one-button mouse: ensure software designers make their interfaces simple. If you are going to sell software to the Mac community, you have to consider people with a one-button mouse.
It is my fear that, if Apple brought out a two button + scroll whell mouse, designers would create varied inconsistent uses for the buttons, conflicting with the "style of Apple" you laud.
Likewise, with desktop "themes". Themes are for novels, film, art, not for desktops. "Where's your Trash?" "You see that death ray in the corner,.." "'Death ray'?" "Yeah, that yellow and red spinning thing..." "Forget it. I'll just leave it on the Desktop with the rest of this crap."
--
Thou shalt make thy program's purpose and structure clear to thy fellow man by using the One True Brace Style, even if thou likest it not, for thy creativity is better used in solving problems than in creating beautiful new impediments to understanding.
-- Henry Spencer, "The Ten Commandments for C Programmers"
Just another reason why everyone should have an iMac. Of course.
I suspect that Mac mini owners would know what to take. And, now that'd the boss has freed her of that Wintel system, all she needs now is a new flat panel monitor... So losing that CRT would be a good thing.
I find it difficult to believe that someone can "reverse engineer"...
I find it difficult to believe that you know more about clean-room development of software compatible with proprietary software than does tridge at Samba.org.:-)
Because Linux is mainstream and it wouldn't have gotten where it is today without the GPL.
That's just speculation. There are many other influences. GNU/Linux had a more hobbyist--and more populist--culture, relative to BSD.
GNU/Linux had more vocal positive advocates than BSD (e.g. Maddog, ESR, RMS). An anti-Microsoft culture rallies under a "Linux" banner; the BSD people just think M$ software sucks, but they aren't at war with Microsoft. (These anti-M$ people are more likely to neglect the GNU in GNU/Linux. Even your pro-GPL message neglects the GNU in GNU/Linux.) Still, and again, GNU/Linux gets more advocates than BSD. Then there's the lawsuit that slowed the adoption of BSDs in institutions.
What harms Open Source is Microsoft embedding the BSD TCP/IP stack but how many end users ever heard of BSD?
More speculation. One could speculate that, had Microsoft written its own code, it might be compatible only with its MSN and not with the Internet.
And Apple half-assing their cooperation with Open Source to make OS X.
You've got the wrong beastie. It's not half-assed, though it might seem half-GNUed. To expect Apple to contribute more code to the free software community is a GNU mindset, but not a BSD one.
Apple is using code freely given. It's fine if they don't distribute their own source code. But, in fact, they do: in Darwin and in Safari. Apple code like the I/O Kit is open source and code is being shared with the other BSDs and with the Konqueror project.
Everyone knows that NuBus cards work better when they're covered in human blood.
The whole system would run faster if you painted a
pentagram
in your blood inside the cover of the system before you closed it up.
This is the little known bloodrage technique for overclocking.
stay up and happy between software updates (and those don't always need a reboot);
find prompt security updates for vulnerabilities, in part, a benefit from much open source activity;
run Perl/Python/Apache/...., pretty much as it runs on my Unix and Unix-like servers;
connect to my brother's wireless network within seconds when a friendly dialog pops up to offer the SSID and ask for the password/key;
keep me from spending time playing most of the latest greatest games (except, damn you Blizzard!:-);
build native apps with an excellent IDE freely provided by the OS vendor; and, of course,
allow you to continue using email while the rest of the office is in yet another virus meltdown.
The article claims the last point may not be true,..., well may not be true some time in the may-be-not-too-distant future. It's just speculation about a trend, with no existing sample, other than proof-of-concept, after all.
By "Linux", I assume you mean Mozilla/(Gnome|KDE)/GNU/(Linux|BSD). But that's not comparable to MacOS X.
You've got to add (1) apps to compare with iTunes, iChat A/V, iPhoto, iDVD, etc.; (2) framworks integrated across the applications (e.g. like AddressBook with Mail, iChat, and FAX printing); and (3) hardware that just plugs in and work (e.g. 'None of your trusted networks could be found. Would you like to connect "your-friend's-wifi"?')
MacOS X is the only reasonable desktop Unix system. It didn't have to be that way; others could have killed X11 years ago and built a better environment... (Next did) and made it free or, at least, open source. (Next didn't).
... and it's got to run WoW, which will be just about smooth with 512 megabytes of RAM.:-) Though probably not for Battlefields.:-(
The tutorial suggests that you can replace 2 1/4 screenfuls of readable C++ with 3 1/4 screenfuls of pretty unreadable XML template that will generate the C++ code. I'm not likely to move to a development tool that requires much more and much more tedious typing in a less readable presentation that will likely confuse programmers as they attempt to make changes.
I accept that developers of XML-based applications/tools must look at the XML to debug their work. But I, as a user, should not be forced to see the XML and I certainly shouldn't be editing XML, as I don't have to look at assembly language or machine code to write C or C++. Give me a nice NextSTEP/Cocoa WYSIWYG editor that hides the XML unless I want to look at it, possibly with another XML tool that does not force me see all the tags.
Someone asked what happened to Knuth's Literate Programming movement. Well, specifically for the Web language: a program really wasn't literate until it was weaved, typeset, and printed.
As a developer, I'm going to spend 9 to 90 times as much time looking at the source and I didn't want to wait for "weave prog; tex prog; dvipage prog" to generate something friendlier to the eyes.
And the most visible examples, TeX and METAFONT, were not modular; it was, for example, too hard to rip out TeX memory management and replace it with system dynamic memory allocation.
Like Literal Programming, XML-based programming is simply impractical. Frankly, I don't think I'd ever want to work in a programming language designed by anyone who thinks that XML is good way to express anything. It may usefully represent some things, but that's different. I want you to hate XML, even if you recognize what a valuable form it is for storage and distribution.
First, Apple provides the faulty default Apache configuration that doesn't secure against this attack. No web admin should have to know intricate details of the operating system's file system to think up every single possible exploit that could come about due to idiosyncrasies in that particular system.
Two, they put in that nonstandard behavior in the first place.
All true.
Still, there's more blame to spread. "allow all, but these that we explicitly deny" is a standard Apache config. Shouldn't it allow only ".html", ".", and, perhaps, ".txt" by default?
BTW, how does the case-insensitive FS fall out with, for example, "file.PHP"?
The sales numbers that have been published for that week are as follows:
1. GBASP 35,280
2. PS2 22,470
3. Nintendo DS
4. PS2 Redesign
5. GC 4,368
6. GBA 633
7. Xbox 173
Now you can get even better windowing with X-free UNIX: MacOS X. Huh!?
--
Some years ago, I convinced a friend to get toe-clips for his bike. A week later I was raving about my new clipless pedals. He felt betrayed.:-)
While the provincial Professional Engineering acts do not restrict the use of "Engineering", Canadian copyright law does.
"CCPE maintains official marks on the terms engineer, engineering, professional engineer,...
That would be trademark law and it looks like the registered trademark has been abandoned: engineer software. It wasn't actually registered by CCPE or APEGN. I don't think that CCPE have tried to defend "engineer"..., certainly not successfully.
Well, the NF body APEGN did take issue with MUN. They did holdout on its consent on the accrediation process MUN's Engineering programme. I haven't heard much since the October 1999: `The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland have discontinued their lawsuit regarding the use of the term "software engineering" against Memorial University.' MUN Gazette.
Software Engineering is still offered by the Computer Science within the Faculty of Science (and not the Faculty of Engineering). I believe the view here at MUN is that APEGN lost this one.
In Canada, each province has its own "Engineering Act". Alberta's is much the same as Newoundland's; maybe the acts are pretty similar across Canada. Neither the Alberta nor the Newfoundland Act restricts the use of "engineer". It restricts the use of the term "professional engineer" and it restricts who may engage in the "practice of engineering" as defined be the applicable Act.
One may not call oneself a "profession engineer" or use its abbreviation "P. Eng." and one may not falsely misrepresent oneself as "profeesional engineer". In Alberta and Newfoundland, the "practice of engineering" involves "discovery, development, or utilization of matter, materials, or energy. See The Engineering Act of Alberta.
Since the term "Software Engineering" predates Brook's "Mythical Man-month" and is commonly understood within the industry not to be "professional engineering", there isn't enough evidence to support a claim that putting "Software Engineer" on stationary or business cards violates the Engineering Act.
Since software cannot reasonably be believed included in "matter, materials, or energy", the practice of software engineering does not violate the Act either.
Frankly, I don't much care for the term "software engineer", but it is established now, so I live with it.
It's not so much an issue of using the term "engineer" but of misrepresenting yourself as a wearer of the iron ring.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the idea was to see if the system was usable without admin privileges. Haven't some people argued that it's too much pain to run as a non-privileged user? that people are almost forced to run in admin mode which generally makes the system more vulnerable?
So may be dog food is "non-admin mode is usable". And it will help identify the tasks the actually require privilege escalation. And help reduce those tasks or ease the process in some way.
No, you wouldn't. And you'd agree with me, if you were me. Think about it.
One of the things I like about Slashdot is that it respects my freedom to choose the font I prefer to read. Will Slashdot no longer do that?
What's with this desire to inflict sans-serif fonts on readers? It's popular, but terribly bland. Users get to choose the font they prefer. Why must web sites override that? Sans-serif is fine for section headings and, in fact, the sans-serif headings stand out nicely in contrast with serif paragraphs. It's also frequently useful to use sans-serif for navigation menus.
But please don't inflict these bland, less readable fonts on the discussions. If you want 'em, use your browser preferences.
I don't see why you want reduce the size of the text fonts either. If the default paragraph text size looks too small relative to your headers, then your headers are too small. Enlarge the headers. Don't shrink the paragraphs.
Does he have a controllable Urge?
--
It's got style. It's got class.
So strong, I can't let it pass.
You're free to use an USB mouse. I use a Logitech 2-button plus scroll-whell mouse on my Mac.
The best reason for standardizing on a one-button mouse: ensure software designers make their interfaces simple. If you are going to sell software to the Mac community, you have to consider people with a one-button mouse. It is my fear that, if Apple brought out a two button + scroll whell mouse, designers would create varied inconsistent uses for the buttons, conflicting with the "style of Apple" you laud.
Likewise, with desktop "themes". Themes are for novels, film, art, not for desktops. "Where's your Trash?" "You see that death ray in the corner, .." "'Death ray'?" "Yeah, that yellow and red spinning thing..." "Forget it. I'll just leave it on the Desktop with the rest of this crap."
--
Thou shalt make thy program's purpose and structure clear to thy fellow man by using the One True Brace Style, even if thou likest it not, for thy creativity is better used in solving problems than in creating beautiful new impediments to understanding.
-- Henry Spencer, "The Ten Commandments for C Programmers"
"And if you fill a 3000 seat hall at $800 a ticket, you gross $2,400,000. And this is what I'm shooting for.
-- Steve Martin
Separating correct spelling from reasoned expression will hurt the argument as a whole. :-)
mnemonic: separate and several (compare and contrast)
Of course, it assumes you know how to spell several correctly.
--Does anyone have a good mnemonic for correctly spelling mnemonic?
Just another reason why everyone should have an iMac. Of course.
I suspect that Mac mini owners would know what to take. And, now that'd the boss has freed her of that Wintel system, all she needs now is a new flat panel monitor... So losing that CRT would be a good thing.
You can say that again.
I find it difficult to believe that you know more about clean-room development of software compatible with proprietary software than does tridge at Samba.org. :-)
That's just speculation. There are many other influences. GNU/Linux had a more hobbyist--and more populist--culture, relative to BSD. GNU/Linux had more vocal positive advocates than BSD (e.g. Maddog, ESR, RMS). An anti-Microsoft culture rallies under a "Linux" banner; the BSD people just think M$ software sucks, but they aren't at war with Microsoft. (These anti-M$ people are more likely to neglect the GNU in GNU/Linux. Even your pro-GPL message neglects the GNU in GNU/Linux.) Still, and again, GNU/Linux gets more advocates than BSD. Then there's the lawsuit that slowed the adoption of BSDs in institutions.
More speculation. One could speculate that, had Microsoft written its own code, it might be compatible only with its MSN and not with the Internet.
You've got the wrong beastie. It's not half-assed, though it might seem half-GNUed. To expect Apple to contribute more code to the free software community is a GNU mindset, but not a BSD one. Apple is using code freely given. It's fine if they don't distribute their own source code. But, in fact, they do: in Darwin and in Safari. Apple code like the I/O Kit is open source and code is being shared with the other BSDs and with the Konqueror project.
The whole system would run faster if you painted a pentagram in your blood inside the cover of the system before you closed it up. This is the little known bloodrage technique for overclocking.
For starters, it can:
The article claims the last point may not be true, ..., well may not be true some time in the may-be-not-too-distant future. It's just speculation about a trend, with no existing sample, other than proof-of-concept, after all.
Maybe Google is just getting dumber as the semi-literate become computer literate. "Garbage in, garbage out."
"Think different."
By "Linux", I assume you mean Mozilla/(Gnome|KDE)/GNU/(Linux|BSD). But that's not comparable to MacOS X.
You've got to add (1) apps to compare with iTunes, iChat A/V, iPhoto, iDVD, etc.; (2) framworks integrated across the applications (e.g. like AddressBook with Mail, iChat, and FAX printing); and (3) hardware that just plugs in and work (e.g. 'None of your trusted networks could be found. Would you like to connect "your-friend's-wifi"?')
MacOS X is the only reasonable desktop Unix system. It didn't have to be that way; others could have killed X11 years ago and built a better environment... (Next did) and made it free or, at least, open source. (Next didn't).
The tutorial suggests that you can replace 2 1/4 screenfuls of readable C++ with 3 1/4 screenfuls of pretty unreadable XML template that will generate the C++ code. I'm not likely to move to a development tool that requires much more and much more tedious typing in a less readable presentation that will likely confuse programmers as they attempt to make changes.
I accept that developers of XML-based applications/tools must look at the XML to debug their work. But I, as a user, should not be forced to see the XML and I certainly shouldn't be editing XML, as I don't have to look at assembly language or machine code to write C or C++. Give me a nice NextSTEP/Cocoa WYSIWYG editor that hides the XML unless I want to look at it, possibly with another XML tool that does not force me see all the tags.
Someone asked what happened to Knuth's Literate Programming movement. Well, specifically for the Web language: a program really wasn't literate until it was weaved, typeset, and printed. As a developer, I'm going to spend 9 to 90 times as much time looking at the source and I didn't want to wait for "weave prog; tex prog; dvipage prog" to generate something friendlier to the eyes.
And the most visible examples, TeX and METAFONT, were not modular; it was, for example, too hard to rip out TeX memory management and replace it with system dynamic memory allocation.
Like Literal Programming, XML-based programming is simply impractical. Frankly, I don't think I'd ever want to work in a programming language designed by anyone who thinks that XML is good way to express anything. It may usefully represent some things, but that's different. I want you to hate XML, even if you recognize what a valuable form it is for storage and distribution.
All true.
Still, there's more blame to spread. "allow all, but these that we explicitly deny" is a standard Apache config. Shouldn't it allow only ".html", ".", and, perhaps, ".txt" by default?
BTW, how does the case-insensitive FS fall out with, for example, "file.PHP"?
(PS2 + PStwo)/Xbox > (22,470+4,369)/173 ~ 155
so PS2 is outselling GC 6 to 1 and Xbox 155 to 1!!!
and PStwo is outselling GC on it's own
Now you can get even better windowing with X-free UNIX: MacOS X. Huh!? -- Some years ago, I convinced a friend to get toe-clips for his bike. A week later I was raving about my new clipless pedals. He felt betrayed. :-)
That would be trademark law and it looks like the registered trademark has been abandoned: engineer software. It wasn't actually registered by CCPE or APEGN. I don't think that CCPE have tried to defend "engineer"..., certainly not successfully.
Well, the NF body APEGN did take issue with MUN. They did holdout on its consent on the accrediation process MUN's Engineering programme. I haven't heard much since the October 1999: `The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland have discontinued their lawsuit regarding the use of the term "software engineering" against Memorial University.' MUN Gazette.
Software Engineering is still offered by the Computer Science within the Faculty of Science (and not the Faculty of Engineering). I believe the view here at MUN is that APEGN lost this one.
In Canada, each province has its own "Engineering Act". Alberta's is much the same as Newoundland's; maybe the acts are pretty similar across Canada. Neither the Alberta nor the Newfoundland Act restricts the use of "engineer". It restricts the use of the term "professional engineer" and it restricts who may engage in the "practice of engineering" as defined be the applicable Act.
One may not call oneself a "profession engineer" or use its abbreviation "P. Eng." and one may not falsely misrepresent oneself as "profeesional engineer". In Alberta and Newfoundland, the "practice of engineering" involves "discovery, development, or utilization of matter, materials, or energy. See The Engineering Act of Alberta.
Since the term "Software Engineering" predates Brook's "Mythical Man-month" and is commonly understood within the industry not to be "professional engineering", there isn't enough evidence to support a claim that putting "Software Engineer" on stationary or business cards violates the Engineering Act.
Since software cannot reasonably be believed included in "matter, materials, or energy", the practice of software engineering does not violate the Act either.
Frankly, I don't much care for the term "software engineer", but it is established now, so I live with it.
It's not so much an issue of using the term "engineer" but of misrepresenting yourself as a wearer of the iron ring.