Having personally paid for two FTP clients over the past 4 years (SmartFTP on Windows and something I forget the name of on Mac), and having not paid anything for a web browser, ever, I would say that there are *more* people buying FTP clients than browsers...
You do realise that what OpenBSD audits is very small in comparison to what you have to install for a usable desktop - thats why OpenBSD can use the measures they do.
The problem is, the *only* one out of your collection of 'solutions' that would be likely to have any long term effect is the user education, and even then it wouldn't solve it.
In a day and age where an email borne trojan, locked away in a password protected zip file, purporting to be an urgent fix for your computer can get a not insubstantial install base shows that your points 1 - 3 would be nothing more than short term fixes, if that.
Trojans, viruses and worms can more than happily run in whatever security context you yourself are running as - even if MS came out with a 100% proof security model, the problem would not go away, it would simply adapt.
I've been using the beta for several weeks now, and its certainly no complete rewrite, but it has had stuff rewritten - its an OS I would more than be happy to use, and that's including any comparison with XP as well as Vista.
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue? Because its not something you can ever completely solve through OS security alone, when your users still need to do stuff...
I did very well. Mac PPC means Macintosh PowerPC. You know, not everyone switched to Intel and MS left out PPC users on release of Silverlight 2.0 without any kind of explanation.
PPC on the desktop is a small market getting smaller by the day. Sorry, but thats the way it is.
Build the brick structure, and then inflate the living area inside it. You now have a living area that is protected from the elements by the brick structure, and is airtight due to the inflatable liner.
Once again the tool is blamed for the usage - there is nothing wrong with spreadsheets per se, its the user that needs to have the boundaries clearly defined.
Weird, I'm running the x64 version on an Intel system, and with Lightroom and a few other things installed the entire system takes up less than 7GB, and thats with several days worth of Volume Shadow Copy restore points archived.
You appear to be missing a major reason this is a key problem in the case of a potential Air Force One. Air Force One is actually going to pretty regularly fly to various airports all around the world, only a few of which are actually likely to see A380 scheduled service.
I'm not ignoring that at all - my point is is that the reason it is not done in *commercial* service is because of uneconomical wear and tear. The usage of AF1 would never, ever see this as an issue, because its nowhere near the frequency that it would be in commercial service.
The problem is not the individual pound per square inch exerted per wheel which the A380 does effectively deal with, but the TOTAL weight and the strain it potentially puts on the tunnel structure. A tunnel can potentially take the pounds per square inch just fine, but collapse due to the substantially greater total weight placed by the A380. If you read the article I linked to, LAX didn't upgrade underground structures specifically to accommodate the A380 for the heck of it, they did so because they calculated it was necessary to do so due to the greater weight of the plane involved. (The 777-300ER has been flying into Los Angeles International Airport for awhile.)
The problem *is* the individual pound per square inch, not the overall weight on the structure - LAX updated their tunnels because they also removed the 'do not stop' restrictions on the taxiways above the tunnels for all aircraft, which allows them to stack more aircraft on taxiways and thus increase capacity.
If it can take the 777-300ER, it can take the A380-800.
I don't know if the taxing on inner engines is really viable, but there are other problems at some airports. (The odd thing is enlarging taxiways appears to have been treated as mandatory for all airports getting the A380, and you think some would just resort to the alternative you suggested if it was really safe and perfectly viable without problems.)
It is completely correct - the reason why widening the taxiway is preferred is because always taxiing on the inner engines would place extra wear and tear on those engines, which is uneconomical in the long term but would be perfectly acceptable in a diversion.
However there are additional issues at some US airports for instance...
Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles.
Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane.
Basically reinforcing the tunnels to handle the A380s weight is something which certainly won't get done unless an airport is seeing regular A380 service. Similar situations exist at a variety of airports in which runways go over roads. However not being able to use various airports is a serious limitation for Air Force One which will regularly get used wherever the US President wants to fly somewhere. It also is a potential issue in that it limits the number of locations the aircraft can ultimately choose to land in an emergency situation.
Randall Walker needs to look at his data - Las Vegas already takes 777-300ER aircraft and that aircraft has a higher weight footprint than the A380 does. If the tunnels can take the 777-300ER, then they can take the A380.
The president of the United States, the leader of the free world and the person whos gonna give your company billions in contracts asks you for a 747-400ER your gonna say no?
BTW: The passenger ones are not in production, the freighter ones are...the chairman of boeing can very easily do a special order.
Not even for POTUS - there is no way Congress is going to pass the funding it would cost for Boeing to reestablish the supply chain for the 747-400 in order to deliver two or three new aircraft. Boeing did not continue all their supplier relationships with the 747-8, so its not a simple case of asking the current suppliers to produce -400 parts - and long lead items such as keel beams or major structural load items stopped production a few years back, and those jigs were either converted to -8 standard or scrapped (depending on what happened to the supplier contract).
And there is no way Boeing is going to eat the cost to do all that either.
As for your comment regarding the freighter still being in production - no it isnt, the final one is undergoing final assembly at the moment, but thats a far cry from the type still being in production, because there is no way in hell you are going to get the parts for another one, and the final assembly line is being converted to -8 standard as each position becomes free. The line is, in Boeing terminology, closed. There are no more planes of that type entering production on that line.
So I stand by my previous comment - you cannot order a 747-400 new from Boeing. Nada. Nope. Can't be done.
Each time you pressurize the cabin, that subjects the aluminum skin to one cycle. Enough cycles and the aluminumwillfail. Modern passenger aircraft are typically designed to last several tens of thousands of such pressurization cycles. Once they reach the design limit, the airframes are retired and chopped up to discourage anyone who might get the not-so-bright idea of returning one of these airframes into service.
Just to expand on this - you can extend the number of cycles an airframe is allowed, but the process essentially strips the aircraft down completely and rebuilds it, so its very expensive.
I think, what would do it for me is if they had some support to manage my software and files (ie version control for documents and a software repos) that was native to the system.
You probably want to look closely at the Libraries concept then - its basically a psuedo folder which you can configure to amalgamate content from other folders across multiple hard disks.
For example, you store your photographs across 3 hard disks, because your storage has grown organically with your usage. So you now have three places to go to access your pictures. If you set all three locations as import points for a Library, you get a consolidated view of all the locations as one. Very cool, and a nice new way to look at content.
Windows 7 has Volume Shadow Copy turned on by default, so its taking snapshots of your entire system at regular intervals which you can then revert to. This isnt as good as per change version control, but its getting there.
It works fine on Firefox if you have the Microsoft Download Manager installed - which you have to install via IE. I do a lot of downloading from MSDN, so I have it installed already.
An about equal mix of Chrome, Safari (on both OSX and Windows), and IE (for Sharepoint admin among other things), with a smaller mix of Firefox in there for compatibility reasons.
I had zero issues downloading the beta with Firefox - both from the public beta site and their MSDN subscription sites. Worked 100% fine for me in Firefox.
And from my experiences over the past 24 hours - it is better than Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Having personally paid for two FTP clients over the past 4 years (SmartFTP on Windows and something I forget the name of on Mac), and having not paid anything for a web browser, ever, I would say that there are *more* people buying FTP clients than browsers...
You do realise that what OpenBSD audits is very small in comparison to what you have to install for a usable desktop - thats why OpenBSD can use the measures they do.
Ahhh nice to see that overblown sense of entitlement is still alive.
The problem is, the *only* one out of your collection of 'solutions' that would be likely to have any long term effect is the user education, and even then it wouldn't solve it.
In a day and age where an email borne trojan, locked away in a password protected zip file, purporting to be an urgent fix for your computer can get a not insubstantial install base shows that your points 1 - 3 would be nothing more than short term fixes, if that.
I think you will find a lot of comparison between XP and Windows 7 is going on, you are simply assuming your view is correct.
I prefer Windows 7, even at this beta stage, over XP - direct comparison.
Trojans, viruses and worms can more than happily run in whatever security context you yourself are running as - even if MS came out with a 100% proof security model, the problem would not go away, it would simply adapt.
I've been using the beta for several weeks now, and its certainly no complete rewrite, but it has had stuff rewritten - its an OS I would more than be happy to use, and that's including any comparison with XP as well as Vista.
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue? Because its not something you can ever completely solve through OS security alone, when your users still need to do stuff...
I did very well. Mac PPC means Macintosh PowerPC. You know, not everyone switched to Intel and MS left out PPC users on release of Silverlight 2.0 without any kind of explanation.
PPC on the desktop is a small market getting smaller by the day. Sorry, but thats the way it is.
The law requires their archival - if they are not being archived correctly, then the law has been broken and punishment should be due.
Bumps and bangs, dust, smaller meteorites, heat from the sun etc
Build the brick structure, and then inflate the living area inside it. You now have a living area that is protected from the elements by the brick structure, and is airtight due to the inflatable liner.
And why are either of those two things inherently 'bad'? Because they get misused?
Just say no to spreadsheets.
Once again the tool is blamed for the usage - there is nothing wrong with spreadsheets per se, its the user that needs to have the boundaries clearly defined.
Weird, I'm running the x64 version on an Intel system, and with Lightroom and a few other things installed the entire system takes up less than 7GB, and thats with several days worth of Volume Shadow Copy restore points archived.
Yup, totally agree - the US government cant cover up a blow job, or keep a plain old burglary quiet, but they can fake the moon landings. Ok then...
You appear to be missing a major reason this is a key problem in the case of a potential Air Force One. Air Force One is actually going to pretty regularly fly to various airports all around the world, only a few of which are actually likely to see A380 scheduled service.
I'm not ignoring that at all - my point is is that the reason it is not done in *commercial* service is because of uneconomical wear and tear. The usage of AF1 would never, ever see this as an issue, because its nowhere near the frequency that it would be in commercial service.
The problem is not the individual pound per square inch exerted per wheel which the A380 does effectively deal with, but the TOTAL weight and the strain it potentially puts on the tunnel structure. A tunnel can potentially take the pounds per square inch just fine, but collapse due to the substantially greater total weight placed by the A380. If you read the article I linked to, LAX didn't upgrade underground structures specifically to accommodate the A380 for the heck of it, they did so because they calculated it was necessary to do so due to the greater weight of the plane involved. (The 777-300ER has been flying into Los Angeles International Airport for awhile.)
The problem *is* the individual pound per square inch, not the overall weight on the structure - LAX updated their tunnels because they also removed the 'do not stop' restrictions on the taxiways above the tunnels for all aircraft, which allows them to stack more aircraft on taxiways and thus increase capacity.
If it can take the 777-300ER, it can take the A380-800.
Yes, I am heavily involved in the aviation scene.
This is incorrect.
I don't know if the taxing on inner engines is really viable, but there are other problems at some airports. (The odd thing is enlarging taxiways appears to have been treated as mandatory for all airports getting the A380, and you think some would just resort to the alternative you suggested if it was really safe and perfectly viable without problems.)
It is completely correct - the reason why widening the taxiway is preferred is because always taxiing on the inner engines would place extra wear and tear on those engines, which is uneconomical in the long term but would be perfectly acceptable in a diversion.
However there are additional issues at some US airports for instance...
Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles.
Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050215/ai_n11501106/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1/
Basically reinforcing the tunnels to handle the A380s weight is something which certainly won't get done unless an airport is seeing regular A380 service. Similar situations exist at a variety of airports in which runways go over roads. However not being able to use various airports is a serious limitation for Air Force One which will regularly get used wherever the US President wants to fly somewhere. It also is a potential issue in that it limits the number of locations the aircraft can ultimately choose to land in an emergency situation.
Randall Walker needs to look at his data - Las Vegas already takes 777-300ER aircraft and that aircraft has a higher weight footprint than the A380 does. If the tunnels can take the 777-300ER, then they can take the A380.
Not for Anyone?
The president of the United States, the leader of the free world and the person whos gonna give your company billions in contracts asks you for a 747-400ER your gonna say no?
BTW: The passenger ones are not in production, the freighter ones are...the chairman of boeing can very easily do a special order.
Not even for POTUS - there is no way Congress is going to pass the funding it would cost for Boeing to reestablish the supply chain for the 747-400 in order to deliver two or three new aircraft. Boeing did not continue all their supplier relationships with the 747-8, so its not a simple case of asking the current suppliers to produce -400 parts - and long lead items such as keel beams or major structural load items stopped production a few years back, and those jigs were either converted to -8 standard or scrapped (depending on what happened to the supplier contract).
And there is no way Boeing is going to eat the cost to do all that either.
As for your comment regarding the freighter still being in production - no it isnt, the final one is undergoing final assembly at the moment, but thats a far cry from the type still being in production, because there is no way in hell you are going to get the parts for another one, and the final assembly line is being converted to -8 standard as each position becomes free. The line is, in Boeing terminology, closed. There are no more planes of that type entering production on that line.
So I stand by my previous comment - you cannot order a 747-400 new from Boeing. Nada. Nope. Can't be done.
Each time you pressurize the cabin, that subjects the aluminum skin to one cycle. Enough cycles and the aluminum will fail. Modern passenger aircraft are typically designed to last several tens of thousands of such pressurization cycles. Once they reach the design limit, the airframes are retired and chopped up to discourage anyone who might get the not-so-bright idea of returning one of these airframes into service.
Just to expand on this - you can extend the number of cycles an airframe is allowed, but the process essentially strips the aircraft down completely and rebuilds it, so its very expensive.
I think, what would do it for me is if they had some support to manage my software and files (ie version control for documents and a software repos) that was native to the system.
You probably want to look closely at the Libraries concept then - its basically a psuedo folder which you can configure to amalgamate content from other folders across multiple hard disks.
For example, you store your photographs across 3 hard disks, because your storage has grown organically with your usage. So you now have three places to go to access your pictures. If you set all three locations as import points for a Library, you get a consolidated view of all the locations as one. Very cool, and a nice new way to look at content.
Windows 7 has Volume Shadow Copy turned on by default, so its taking snapshots of your entire system at regular intervals which you can then revert to. This isnt as good as per change version control, but its getting there.
Good question, I'm not at all sure - I shall have to test!
It works fine on Firefox if you have the Microsoft Download Manager installed - which you have to install via IE. I do a lot of downloading from MSDN, so I have it installed already.
Visual Studio 2008 seems to work perfectly - everyone of my projects (C#, .net 3.5) compile and run fine.
An about equal mix of Chrome, Safari (on both OSX and Windows), and IE (for Sharepoint admin among other things), with a smaller mix of Firefox in there for compatibility reasons.
I had zero issues downloading the beta with Firefox - both from the public beta site and their MSDN subscription sites. Worked 100% fine for me in Firefox.
And from my experiences over the past 24 hours - it is better than Vista.