Now that's a sound when dog sadly barks when you took him his bone (or when you take a little child a lollipop).
Oh, you poor people, now you're paying 2.78$ for a gallon? I just calculated how much do I pay in my coutry: 4.20$, and guess who is the supplier and where the oil really originates?
It would be much cheaper for EU to buy oil directly and using EUR (not loosing money everytime money exchange changes $ values), without US interfering, but US somehow took care of that problem.
For example Apple. When Apple supplies to EU it just takes 1$=1EUR and then starts accounting the same margin of profit as in US. Last time I checked 1EUR was 1,23$. That means having 23% starting proffit margin. On the other hand US is almost prepared to attack if values are not converted against money exchange value when they buy something. Now talk about resonable.
He has asked that we take them out of the hands of nutcases who will use them as a first line of attack rather than a last resort
??? I seriously hope that you try to make this a sarcastic joke. If not then it is time for a mothly lobotomy session.
Shouldn't Bush be the first in line here? He is a nutcase, he has access to WMD and he is prepared to use them as a first line. Most of the non-US world thinks so.
The request itself, unlike the mechanism put in place to do it, seems reasonable enough
You know that there are two sides of this, don't you? To make a request and to be asked a request. If such request has been asked by somebody who honors it, then ok, else...???? I (and most of the world, that is if you follow politics outside US and see the tension against US that is building) wouldn't categorize US into this group, and so I wouldn't take their request as resonable, I would take it more like they are seeking reason for invasion.
In Europe their Software patents have fallen out too,... but somehow I feel that US companies are on it again and that this law is nothing but another form of already rejected SoftPatent proposal. It would make no difference for them if they would be allowed to enforce their US patents or if they have to patent overseas, in fact it would be even cheaper.
They could at least wait a year or two.
Personally, I'm developing reflex against US citizens (non-intentionaly against people, I know it should be politics only), there's more and more medling to other coutry affairs and last years it is evolving from noticeable to annoying.
While the previous was object typed, your parents example used generics. If you don't know what gerics are think like this:
While original was always typecasting object to string during runtime. C# 2.0 defined generics which provide the same conversion at compile time and optimized addressing of the variable.
But then again, problem of.Net is not language specs or being without some features. Problem lies in sloppy memory handling. And this is the problem that hasn't been addressed with this spec either. I mostly code software that has to run 365/24/7. All of my tests to apply.Net (and I tried it because language it self is beatiful) were doomod from the start. After heavy used app with a lot of data was running for a day or two every single bit of memory was consumed and all system started crawling. There was no option but to restart. Well, that's something I can't afford so I ditched.Net and went to older more proven ways. But somehow I still hope that there would exist just as beatiful language as C# without sloppy memory handling.
In the last year or more Intel is the worst player in that department. And Intels quality (compared to the quality others provide) is dropping like stone without the wings.
Yep, exactly as I said. You are just as 100% correct, as you are 100% wrong. Result depends on starting viewpoint.
Question here is if default user (usualy users don't create more separate accounts) is admin:) and if "sudo rm" is possible by default.
Maybe you didn't get it, but joker (as you described parent poster) was aiming at the same sentence (and the same flaw, default user being admin by default, I'm not saying you can't restrict this account) as I did:) Transcribed from original/. article Stephen de Vries writes "Mac OS X is one of the most secure default installations of any OS. MOST SECURE DEFAULT INSTALLATIONS???
I hope you get the (joke??? default security flaw???) problem.
In any other *X "rm -rf/" would delete some files just as on OSX, difference is that "sudo rm" is OSX only. Any other *X would delete all user files, not disk. Main difference is how you handle things. If you use filesystem that does not delete files, but just stores a copy then not even "sudo rm -rf/" can't do any damage. This is off course problem laid on admin that takes care of the computer. In all my years being involved in security, I can say you only one thing. "There are two kinds of security parameters, default setup and admin" which takes you to this conclusions. 1.If default setup is good, then some lazy or incompetent admin can make a fairly secure installation. 2.If default setup is bad thenall responsability lies on admin. (default OSX can be defined in this group, and since most of the OSX users are not guru admins, well here is your answer) 3.If admin is competent (:and not lazy:) then talking about which OS is more secure is more or less impossible
Now, why this book was written by incompetent person?
Personaly, if you ask me how secure is default linux (which is preffered server installation in my case), pretty much about almost fairly secure (for servers I install CentOS) for users, not even thinkable for servers. Why? As long as you use any kind of widely distributed services you are prone to be hacked. Few basic lessons: 1.Obfuscate service names, for example defining apache version in httpd.conf is just a first step to the real approach. Asking server who he is is not the only way to get its version. Any portscanner will report you correct result 2.Use as much of chrooted and user based services as possible 3.Use different than default services
Why OSX lags in security and why it is not a good solution to be used on servers? 1.No role based security (for example selinux) 2.No container based security (Solaris or xen)
Perfect server install would contain not one OS but service based OS instances that correspond to master kernel and are controlled by master role based parameters (this is already possible with xen and selinux, and it will be as default setup on linux from very soon). (Solaris doesn't need xen as much as linux, because it already has containers, but containers are still one step behind xen OS instances).
Now to users (remember, I'm talknig about DEFAULT) Basic OSX is just as secure as Windows 98. I can make you (in about 5 minutes) a little script that destroys your computer in a state where it is unusable (and to a state you've never seen Windows behave so badly). Almost every OS has its flaws, but I still can't do that as easy (as on OSX) on either Linux or WindowsXP (well I can do that on XP but it will at least need reboot to take effect, nothing easier if default user is admin. Just name some system files to be removed on reboot. It is a typical registry option needed by setup to replace system or used files at reboot because they were locked in the active session. Practicaly you don't do anything illegal, you just use the fact that user is admin and merge a little registry nodes, if user is not admin you can still affect it by the fact that IE service runs with admin privileges, but it is not as simple as it should be. By default user wou
But, what if normal user can do it due to the lack of security? Like on OSX.
Although your comment was correct in every aspect, it also failed in every other viewpoint.
It is not the question of security if files are gone or not (if this would be the question then your comment is 100% correct), real question here is "Can they dissapear (even temporarily) due to lack of security and couse loss or downtime?"
Re:You should also run Apple's bundled secure scri
on
Securing Mac OS X Tiger
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah, right. At what cost? Count downtime and all service costs.
Windows has the same feature, so what? On Linux you can install libtrash or any other kind of protection, which is much nicer than any filesystem default, so what? On VAX all the versions were collected, so what??
It is downtime and service needed that counts not someone with EnCase. Problem is that you can do rm / by default and not what it does and not wheter Mac is holy or not.
Yeah, 41 pages long. If you ever read "basic secure your Linux box", well, that's it. I'm dissapointed that a real Mac problem was not addressed. It allows you world writable Applications directory, and.app folder copied by user can be tainted anytime by anyone modifying one single file from terminal.
It contains: Setting password, Displaying warning, locking your firmware (well, this one is the only deviation from "Lock your box for real world dummies"), enabling ACLs, changing user home directories from 022 to 027, tcp_wrappers, xinetd, and other services, file vault, encrypted disk images...
Basicaly the only positive thing I got from reading it, was how insecure default OSX (talking about DEFAULT here, not what is possible. Mac line was always "Just works") really is. It is more or less as secure as Windows 98 with few bugs taken out and few new entred.
Completely, bridge computer had two network cards, with no routing between networks. And one only active port open and 40 non-active (where client registers and gets a real port where his communication will proceed).
You don't want leaks from the "vital" to the "non-vital" network because they would endanger confidentiality, but you also don't want leaks the other way because they could contain malware, or perhaps layer-8 attacks such as virux hoaxes.
As I said "vital" and "non-vital" can't connect. All they can do is send or download from bridge computer.
We just took some OSS FTP server (yes, license allows modifications without any need to publish them), modified it so that all communication between client was processed trough internal encryption, based on user, ip, client machine data and current time, so even network sniffing would not enable reconnecting, every key is valid only once. Now, whenever they add new machine to network, machine has to be registred. Run registration software on client computer, select possible users, copy that file to bridge internals (that machine has USB key and restricted access to the room) and that's it. And yes, there's also in-house ntp server, nothing but report time and drop. Any access to modified FTP server without proper encryption is just dropped. So if your next question would be if it is possible to flood? maybe. Although ip without proper connection gets banned on iptables after few bad reconnections (after few bad, every reconnect gets ban) for next minute and since key is different for every minute, well no point in guessing.
Well, first thing a high-security company should do is localize machines with internet access and separate them from the rest that need to be secure. It worked out for me when I recieved a job that demanded this task.
We just separated vital and non-vital computers in two groups with one computer serving as bridge when data needed to be transfered from one network to another. This was one and only node in network visible to all with minimized and highly tracked in-house services for transfering the data.
Second thing on the secure part is absolute disabling of any kind of install and taking out every removable device.
But,... there is no better security than being unplugged. So, best answer to your question "which browser?" is NO BROWSER
Yeah, but even after I went to your page I don't have a clue who you are. Just another company man? But obviously a lot in MS circles. So, nobody cares if you (or I) get the offer or not.
ESR is a bit more famous than you. And then again, MS even trolling about such thing. Well, it is just the same as if Jewish people would try to recruit Hitler to their underground movement during WW2.
And while you getting the offer goes with the wind (tommorow I will probably already forget I was reading your page today), I still consider original article a good joke.
The scanning & displaying speed. I thought this was self-explaining in my post. well, I was mistaken.
Well, not on my G5. Even my P4M1.7 is faster, not to say Opteron
It is irrelevant if it is the scanning that is so slow, or the sorting, the filetype enumeration etc. Fact is that from opening to the final display the thing takes too much time.
As for the extension stuff: yes, that is an inherent flaw in Explorer. But its not better with most Unix file managers, actually. Most use "file" for finding out the filetype. Without it, they have to resort to the extensions. OK, there are inodes, but how many programs actually use them? Also, the filetype is pointless when I CANNOT BROWSE because the browser seems to be in a catatonic state.
Oh god, you say irrelevant and bug about the same feature? Scaning the content is time expensive and without scanning the bug appears, it is related. Based on your comment it is not filemanager that is catatonic, the one causing these problems is your brain
The rest of your bullshit, where you don't agree even with your self
Well, yes... Your brain is definitely in catatonic state
It could be valid for some people, but for me....?
As long as I can buy PS3 with Linux preinstalled (disk kit) and Sony provides drivers, I don't care.
I never played cracked game on PS2, why would I do that on PS3?
All that I need from PS3 is the game and Linux part. After that I can get rid of a lot of trash in my house (computer, monitor, tv, ps2) and replace it with a 37"HD-LCD and PS3. Personally, I wouldn't even mind paying up to $1000 for this favor. But as I calculated, I will even save about $700 in this transition if I sell older components.
But then again you have to admit that this would be step up in coolness. For now he's been called "Dance Monkey Boy" by the masses (that started after his monkey jumping and dancing on Windows promotion, http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html ).
Yep, and you what has TCP_XXX to do with threads (one of tests too)? TCP_XXX would account for minority here.
Main flaw would be MACH kernel infrastructure and not TCP. Why is microkernel slower than monolithic, I think there enough explanations on the net, so I don't need to explain?
Apple's just another OS vendor, shipping just another set of unusual bugs around, just like the FreeBSD it's built on.
And bugs aren't unusual. It is the cost you pay when you use microkernel.
Solaris???
Nah, too bad HW support and Suns ability to change their mind over night.
In the other news, Solaris on the right machine is great, but still not reason enough to go to .
How many people try to run enormous traffic sites on OSX Server?
Almost all (poor stupid people) that bought XServe. Believing stupid commercials saying that it is the fastest combination of hardware and software.
It seemed that the authors were trying to make a point about the G5 vs. X86, and why Apple switched
YDL is faster than Intel in some cases, and there's a drawback diff for YDL tests. YDL was running on 2.5GHz dual, while Darwin was running on 2.7GHz dual. Tests were won by Opteron and dual 2.5GHz G5 almost outperformed dual Xeons? Where did you get this idea about reasoning Intel switch?
but unless I missed it, there isn't any discussion of OSX Server on X86, or the opportunities that brings. It only seems to discuss OSXS vs. YDL on G5's
You missed it. (on the second page) Scope and Focus Again, we are focusing on workstation and server applications, especially the open source ones (MySQL, Apache) as Apple is touting heavily the importance of their move to an "open source foundation". The 64 bit Apple Machines were running OS X Server 10.4.1 (Tiger) and Yellow Dog 4.0 Linux version 2.6.10-1.ydl.1g5-smp. The reason we chose Yellow dog is that Terrasoft, the company behind this Linux version, optimises only for the G5. So, Yellow dog is by far the most PowerPC optimized Linux distribution out there.
OK, Linux is faster. So? I don't get it.
What is here not to get??? Linux is faster. Hell, even Windows are much much closer to Linux than OSX. Look at the same tests between Win2003Srv and Linux. Meaning on the same hardware Apple doesn't stand a chance against Windows in performance.
NT is POSIX compliant too, you know:) You did mean to say *NIX, didn't you?
I'm avid Linux user, but I couldn't say that safety is the problem here. Install application as normal user in userland and this application is virus prone.
Same goes for OSX. Almost all applications are d'n'd-ed to Application folder. Only installable applications are installed wit higher user. You can simply modify.app/Contents/Info.plist (or something like that, in my usual reality I hate OSX), put a bash script
Off course it does work. Just as sometimes works by hitting (that's hitting, not smashing) HDD with rubber hammer (in case if you hear that spinning doesn't start as it should).
If you have a bad plate on HDD that has problems with overheating (usualy that's just one part on the board that causes problems). Had about 4 of disks like that so far. Putting it in freezer or directly under the cooling system just lowers temp for few degrees which is more than everytime enough to at least back up data on a new drive and if not, you just wait for HDD to cool down and repeat.
On the other hand, I ask my self: "Where is the funny part in those 10?"
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but a cca. 100%???
Now that's a sound when dog sadly barks when you took him his bone (or when you take a little child a lollipop).
Oh, you poor people, now you're paying 2.78$ for a gallon? I just calculated how much do I pay in my coutry: 4.20$, and guess who is the supplier and where the oil really originates?
It would be much cheaper for EU to buy oil directly and using EUR (not loosing money everytime money exchange changes $ values), without US interfering, but US somehow took care of that problem.
For example Apple. When Apple supplies to EU it just takes 1$=1EUR and then starts accounting the same margin of profit as in US. Last time I checked 1EUR was 1,23$. That means having 23% starting proffit margin. On the other hand US is almost prepared to attack if values are not converted against money exchange value when they buy something. Now talk about resonable.
So name one. I thought so. You can't name any
And the reason for that is that they either create or find a political loophole for avoiding it.
He has asked that we take them out of the hands of nutcases who will use them as a first line of attack rather than a last resort
...???? I (and most of the world, that is if you follow politics outside US and see the tension against US that is building) wouldn't categorize US into this group, and so I wouldn't take their request as resonable, I would take it more like they are seeking reason for invasion.
??? I seriously hope that you try to make this a sarcastic joke. If not then it is time for a mothly lobotomy session.
Shouldn't Bush be the first in line here? He is a nutcase, he has access to WMD and he is prepared to use them as a first line. Most of the non-US world thinks so.
The request itself, unlike the mechanism put in place to do it, seems reasonable enough
You know that there are two sides of this, don't you? To make a request and to be asked a request. If such request has been asked by somebody who honors it, then ok, else
That's just what I was thinking. SG-1 was good until Season5 after that it only went downhill.
In Europe their Software patents have fallen out too, ... but somehow I feel that US companies are on it again and that this law is nothing but another form of already rejected SoftPatent proposal. It would make no difference for them if they would be allowed to enforce their US patents or if they have to patent overseas, in fact it would be even cheaper.
They could at least wait a year or two.
Personally, I'm developing reflex against US citizens (non-intentionaly against people, I know it should be politics only), there's more and more medling to other coutry affairs and last years it is evolving from noticeable to annoying.
Actually it does. Over 500% of speed.
.Net is not language specs or being without some features. Problem lies in sloppy memory handling. And this is the problem that hasn't been addressed with this spec either. I mostly code software that has to run 365/24/7. All of my tests to apply .Net (and I tried it because language it self is beatiful) were doomod from the start. After heavy used app with a lot of data was running for a day or two every single bit of memory was consumed and all system started crawling. There was no option but to restart. Well, that's something I can't afford so I ditched .Net and went to older more proven ways. But somehow I still hope that there would exist just as beatiful language as C# without sloppy memory handling.
While the previous was object typed, your parents example used generics. If you don't know what gerics are think like this:
While original was always typecasting object to string during runtime.
C# 2.0 defined generics which provide the same conversion at compile time and optimized addressing of the variable.
But then again, problem of
Why choose Intel over anybody?
In the last year or more Intel is the worst player in that department. And Intels quality (compared to the quality others provide) is dropping like stone without the wings.
Yep, exactly as I said. You are just as 100% correct, as you are 100% wrong. Result depends on starting viewpoint.
/. article
/" would delete some files just as on OSX, difference is that "sudo rm" is OSX only. Any other *X would delete all user files, not disk. Main difference is how you handle things. If you use filesystem that does not delete files, but just stores a copy then not even "sudo rm -rf /" can't do any damage. This is off course problem laid on admin that takes care of the computer. In all my years being involved in security, I can say you only one thing. "There are two kinds of security parameters, default setup and admin" which takes you to this conclusions.
Question here is if default user (usualy users don't create more separate accounts) is admin:) and if "sudo rm" is possible by default.
Maybe you didn't get it, but joker (as you described parent poster) was aiming at the same sentence (and the same flaw, default user being admin by default, I'm not saying you can't restrict this account) as I did:)
Transcribed from original
Stephen de Vries writes "Mac OS X is one of the most secure default installations of any OS.
MOST SECURE DEFAULT INSTALLATIONS???
I hope you get the (joke??? default security flaw???) problem.
In any other *X "rm -rf
1.If default setup is good, then some lazy or incompetent admin can make a fairly secure installation.
2.If default setup is bad thenall responsability lies on admin. (default OSX can be defined in this group, and since most of the OSX users are not guru admins, well here is your answer)
3.If admin is competent (:and not lazy:) then talking about which OS is more secure is more or less impossible
Now, why this book was written by incompetent person?
Personaly, if you ask me how secure is default linux (which is preffered server installation in my case), pretty much about almost fairly secure (for servers I install CentOS) for users, not even thinkable for servers. Why? As long as you use any kind of widely distributed services you are prone to be hacked. Few basic lessons:
1.Obfuscate service names, for example defining apache version in httpd.conf is just a first step to the real approach. Asking server who he is is not the only way to get its version. Any portscanner will report you correct result
2.Use as much of chrooted and user based services as possible
3.Use different than default services
Why OSX lags in security and why it is not a good solution to be used on servers?
1.No role based security (for example selinux)
2.No container based security (Solaris or xen)
Perfect server install would contain not one OS but service based OS instances that correspond to master kernel and are controlled by master role based parameters (this is already possible with xen and selinux, and it will be as default setup on linux from very soon). (Solaris doesn't need xen as much as linux, because it already has containers, but containers are still one step behind xen OS instances).
Now to users (remember, I'm talknig about DEFAULT)
Basic OSX is just as secure as Windows 98. I can make you (in about 5 minutes) a little script that destroys your computer in a state where it is unusable (and to a state you've never seen Windows behave so badly). Almost every OS has its flaws, but I still can't do that as easy (as on OSX) on either Linux or WindowsXP (well I can do that on XP but it will at least need reboot to take effect, nothing easier if default user is admin. Just name some system files to be removed on reboot. It is a typical registry option needed by setup to replace system or used files at reboot because they were locked in the active session. Practicaly you don't do anything illegal, you just use the fact that user is admin and merge a little registry nodes, if user is not admin you can still affect it by the fact that IE service runs with admin privileges, but it is not as simple as it should be. By default user wou
But, what if normal user can do it due to the lack of security? Like on OSX.
Although your comment was correct in every aspect, it also failed in every other viewpoint.
It is not the question of security if files are gone or not (if this would be the question then your comment is 100% correct), real question here is "Can they dissapear (even temporarily) due to lack of security and couse loss or downtime?"
Yeah, right. At what cost? Count downtime and all service costs.
Windows has the same feature, so what?
On Linux you can install libtrash or any other kind of protection, which is much nicer than any filesystem default, so what?
On VAX all the versions were collected, so what??
It is downtime and service needed that counts not someone with EnCase. Problem is that you can do rm / by default and not what it does and not wheter Mac is holy or not.
Believe me, you haven't missed anything.
.app folder copied by user can be tainted anytime by anyone modifying one single file from terminal.
Yeah, 41 pages long. If you ever read "basic secure your Linux box", well, that's it. I'm dissapointed that a real Mac problem was not addressed. It allows you world writable Applications directory, and
It contains:
Setting password, Displaying warning, locking your firmware (well, this one is the only deviation from "Lock your box for real world dummies"), enabling ACLs, changing user home directories from 022 to 027, tcp_wrappers, xinetd, and other services, file vault, encrypted disk images...
Basicaly the only positive thing I got from reading it, was how insecure default OSX (talking about DEFAULT here, not what is possible. Mac line was always "Just works") really is. It is more or less as secure as Windows 98 with few bugs taken out and few new entred.
Did you restrict traffic in both directions?
Completely, bridge computer had two network cards, with no routing between networks. And one only active port open and 40 non-active (where client registers and gets a real port where his communication will proceed).
You don't want leaks from the "vital" to the "non-vital" network because they would endanger confidentiality, but you also don't want leaks the other way because they could contain malware, or perhaps layer-8 attacks such as virux hoaxes.
As I said "vital" and "non-vital" can't connect. All they can do is send or download from bridge computer.
We just took some OSS FTP server (yes, license allows modifications without any need to publish them), modified it so that all communication between client was processed trough internal encryption, based on user, ip, client machine data and current time, so even network sniffing would not enable reconnecting, every key is valid only once. Now, whenever they add new machine to network, machine has to be registred. Run registration software on client computer, select possible users, copy that file to bridge internals (that machine has USB key and restricted access to the room) and that's it. And yes, there's also in-house ntp server, nothing but report time and drop. Any access to modified FTP server without proper encryption is just dropped. So if your next question would be if it is possible to flood? maybe. Although ip without proper connection gets banned on iptables after few bad reconnections (after few bad, every reconnect gets ban) for next minute and since key is different for every minute, well no point in guessing.
Well, first thing a high-security company should do is localize machines with internet access and separate them from the rest that need to be secure. It worked out for me when I recieved a job that demanded this task.
We just separated vital and non-vital computers in two groups with one computer serving as bridge when data needed to be transfered from one network to another. This was one and only node in network visible to all with minimized and highly tracked in-house services for transfering the data.
Second thing on the secure part is absolute disabling of any kind of install and taking out every removable device.
But,... there is no better security than being unplugged. So, best answer to your question "which browser?" is NO BROWSER
Yeah, but even after I went to your page I don't have a clue who you are. Just another company man? But obviously a lot in MS circles. So, nobody cares if you (or I) get the offer or not.
ESR is a bit more famous than you. And then again, MS even trolling about such thing. Well, it is just the same as if Jewish people would try to recruit Hitler to their underground movement during WW2.
And while you getting the offer goes with the wind (tommorow I will probably already forget I was reading your page today), I still consider original article a good joke.
The scanning & displaying speed. I thought this was self-explaining in my post. well, I was mistaken.
Well, not on my G5. Even my P4M1.7 is faster, not to say Opteron
It is irrelevant if it is the scanning that is so slow, or the sorting, the filetype enumeration etc. Fact is that from opening to the final display the thing takes too much time.
As for the extension stuff: yes, that is an inherent flaw in Explorer. But its not better with most Unix file managers, actually. Most use "file" for finding out the filetype. Without it, they have to resort to the extensions. OK, there are inodes, but how many programs actually use them?
Also, the filetype is pointless when I CANNOT BROWSE because the browser seems to be in a catatonic state.
Oh god, you say irrelevant and bug about the same feature? Scaning the content is time expensive and without scanning the bug appears, it is related. Based on your comment it is not filemanager that is catatonic, the one causing these problems is your brain
The rest of your bullshit, where you don't agree even with your self
Well, yes... Your brain is definitely in catatonic state
It could be valid for some people, but for me....?
As long as I can buy PS3 with Linux preinstalled (disk kit) and Sony provides drivers, I don't care.
I never played cracked game on PS2, why would I do that on PS3?
All that I need from PS3 is the game and Linux part. After that I can get rid of a lot of trash in my house (computer, monitor, tv, ps2) and replace it with a 37"HD-LCD and PS3. Personally, I wouldn't even mind paying up to $1000 for this favor. But as I calculated, I will even save about $700 in this transition if I sell older components.
???? Well, guess I'll put tomatoes and other sticky vegetables back to storage then.
And to think I almost bought a plane ticket to attend this target practice.
But then again you have to admit that this would be step up in coolness. For now he's been called "Dance Monkey Boy" by the masses (that started after his monkey jumping and dancing on Windows promotion, http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html ).
Yep, and you what has TCP_XXX to do with threads (one of tests too)? TCP_XXX would account for minority here.
Main flaw would be MACH kernel infrastructure and not TCP. Why is microkernel slower than monolithic, I think there enough explanations on the net, so I don't need to explain?
Apple's just another OS vendor, shipping just another set of unusual bugs around, just like the FreeBSD it's built on.
And bugs aren't unusual. It is the cost you pay when you use microkernel.
Solaris???
Nah, too bad HW support and Suns ability to change their mind over night.
In the other news, Solaris on the right machine is great, but still not reason enough to go to .
And after Apple says: "Just works!", there comes a genius blaiming TCP_CORK.
Apache and MySQL come preinstalled in OSX Server. Why would you build it again? I don't do it on Linux either.
How many people try to run enormous traffic sites on OSX Server?
Almost all (poor stupid people) that bought XServe. Believing stupid commercials saying that it is the fastest combination of hardware and software.
It seemed that the authors were trying to make a point about the G5 vs. X86, and why Apple switched
YDL is faster than Intel in some cases, and there's a drawback diff for YDL tests. YDL was running on 2.5GHz dual, while Darwin was running on 2.7GHz dual.
Tests were won by Opteron and dual 2.5GHz G5 almost outperformed dual Xeons? Where did you get this idea about reasoning Intel switch?
but unless I missed it, there isn't any discussion of OSX Server on X86, or the opportunities that brings. It only seems to discuss OSXS vs. YDL on G5's
You missed it. (on the second page)
Scope and Focus
Again, we are focusing on workstation and server applications, especially the open source ones (MySQL, Apache) as Apple is touting heavily the importance of their move to an "open source foundation".
The 64 bit Apple Machines were running OS X Server 10.4.1 (Tiger) and Yellow Dog 4.0 Linux version 2.6.10-1.ydl.1g5-smp. The reason we chose Yellow dog is that Terrasoft, the company behind this Linux version, optimises only for the G5. So, Yellow dog is by far the most PowerPC optimized Linux distribution out there.
OK, Linux is faster. So? I don't get it.
What is here not to get??? Linux is faster. Hell, even Windows are much much closer to Linux than OSX. Look at the same tests between Win2003Srv and Linux. Meaning on the same hardware Apple doesn't stand a chance against Windows in performance.
IBM cited one reason behind Windows higher TCO: medical bills incurred from employees banging their head on their desk.
Except that it seems report doesn't cover this topic in its full extension. They forgot to calculate desk damage
NT is POSIX compliant too, you know:)
.app/Contents/Info.plist (or something like that, in my usual reality I hate OSX), put a bash script
You did mean to say *NIX, didn't you?
I'm avid Linux user, but I couldn't say that safety is the problem here. Install application as normal user in userland and this application is virus prone.
Same goes for OSX. Almost all applications are d'n'd-ed to Application folder. Only installable applications are installed wit higher user. You can simply modify
#!/bin/sh
rm -y /
application
then say how secure it is.
Off course it does work. Just as sometimes works by hitting (that's hitting, not smashing) HDD with rubber hammer (in case if you hear that spinning doesn't start as it should).
If you have a bad plate on HDD that has problems with overheating (usualy that's just one part on the board that causes problems). Had about 4 of disks like that so far. Putting it in freezer or directly under the cooling system just lowers temp for few degrees which is more than everytime enough to at least back up data on a new drive and if not, you just wait for HDD to cool down and repeat.
On the other hand, I ask my self: "Where is the funny part in those 10?"