"Carriers will need to work together."
Yeah, like that is going to happen. It took an act of Congress in the US to get our phone numbers portable. Do people really think that this sort of cooperation just magically happens?
Chances are, however, if you dissembled your car, figured a way to mass-produce the components, and started selling them or giving them away you'd run afoul of patent laws.
The Federal govt. and most states also have restrictions on what kinds of modifications you can make to a vehicle. If you remove the tail-lights, seat-belts, (and especially) emissions equipment, your car is no longer legal to drive on public roads.
You would also not be allowed to paint the vehicle in a way that would cause someone to mistake it for a Police, Fire, etc. vehicle. You wouldn't be able to attach flashing blue lights, for example.
Certainly, as long as your car never left your private land, you could do as you please with the vehicle. (Except maybe burn it since most counties would frown upon that too). You probably can't legally dump its fluids into the ground either.
Consider also building codes, CC&R's, zoning laws, etc. with regard to land use.
You see? Gov't can impose all kinds of restrictions on your private property rights.
Here's where I disagree: WinSock1 was based on BSD sockets. You can still see the copyright notice giving credit to UC Berkeley. Then they added a bunch of proprietary stuff to start moving away from the BSD API. With WinSock2, if you wanted to keep your app fast, you were required to starting using the WSA_ routines instead of the BSD-like routines.
This is just their standard operating procedures: Take someone else's standard, start modifying it in proprietary ways with each rev. of the OS. until it's too much of a burden for programmers to support two different APIs. Then the MSFT lackeys can justify using Win32-only APIs by using the same old tired "95%" market saw.
It would be a lot easier if MSFT quit deliberately making Windows so damn incompatible with everything else!
Try doing any sockets programming on Windows.
Try writing a multi-threaded app on Windows.
Try doing any graphics programming on Windows.
WinSock does not align with BSD sockets. Windows threads do not align with pthreads. DirectX does not align with OpenGL.
They deliberately isolate themselves onto a little island for no purpose than to hang on to their monopoly. If it weren't for their Windows monopoly, they'd be forced to play nicer with other APIs.
This is a dumb question. Do you really think that on a system with more than 4GB of memory that memory would be at such a premium that an additional four bytes per pointer would even be noticeable? Surely you jest!
You seem to be confusing (or confounding) file-system permissions with the security API and sudo.
Sudo is a relative newcomer to the unix toolbox that provides a path to root access without needing a root password. It's configuration is controlled by the sudoers file. Sudo accomplishes its function by being a set-uid-root program. The sudoers file has no influence beyond sudo.
Apple's security API is another path to root access that allows one to perform root functions without a root password. If the security API does not grant you access, security is still enforced.
The kernel is the guy responsible for enforcing security at all times and nothing in userland can bypass the kernel security. The two systems above grant access by setting your effective user ID to zero, which tells the kernel that that process is allowed to do (nearly) anything.
When you say Apple's Security API doesn't recognize file system permissions, I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about, because it's the kernel's responsibility to enforce security, and it does. Apple's security IS Unix security. What you described in your "bug-report" isn't a bug, but rather a misunderstanding on your part of how Unix security works.
I believe the Pentium 4 has a serial number as well. There was much hue and cry over it when it was announced. I suppose they could use that. But you're probably right -- most users would only have one enet card and the Ethernet address would do pretty well. Maybe Win2K and WinXP have unique ID's that Apple is using? You know that MS uses something like that to track XP...
Could be your serial number. To see that, choose "About this Mac" from the Apple menu. Below the "Mac OS X" you'll see the version string. Click this. It will cycle between the version, the build number, and your serial number.
Another interesting thing is what you can see in the System Profiler. In the Hardware Overview section, you can see your Customer Serial Number, as well as your Sales Order Number. I believe those are written into non-volatile RAM at the time of purchase. This, of course, is if you buy directly from Apple. If you purchase from a reseller, these fields may not be filled in.
There is another field that was at one time in the NVRAM, and that is the number of hours of operation since factory reset. I don't know if they still have that field available in the PRAM/NVRAM or not. I thought it was kinda cool at the time.
Sure it is. The definition of conspiracy does not contain the concept of secrecy:
conspiracy
n. pl. conspiracies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Feel free to download the source code to the OS. They have an x86 version available as well.
Or, you can download a forked project at OpenDarwin.
By the way, OS X is based on FreeBSD and the Mach microkernel from Carnegie Mellon University, not Linux. Unix was open-source long before Torvalds learned how not to crap his diapers. Indeed, IBMs mainframe source code was open to their customers as well.
Indeed, Microsoft wouldn't be around today if it weren't for Apple: AppleSoft Basic for the Apple IIe (1977), Word for the Mac (1983), MacBasic (1984), MultiPlan (1984), MultiChart (1984).
Apple kept Microsoft alive during the '70s and '80s.
Damn. I wish I had some mod points for you. You hit the nail on the head.
Considering how hostile the linux community tends to be towards interface designers...
This is a huge insight that I'm sure will be lost to most Linux programmers. Why do you think this is? Why are most Linux programmers so antagonistic towards good interface design?
One of my worst experiences with OSS is with Open Office. The interface is horrible and for anyone accustomed to productivity software, its user interface is wrong for just about any platform it runs on.
Not true. There are many open-source projects funded by companies with full-time employees. IBM has contributed quite a bit to Linux. Does IBM not pay their employees during their Linux development time?
Get real.
Open Source is not at all merely about spare-time hobbyists but rather people and companies contributing software engineering and development effort in a non-proprietary way.
I agree with the rest of your post that its existence is important as an alternative to the monoculture of Microsoft's monopoly. But, do not minimize the amount of energy devoted to OSS development as "hobbyists in their spare time."
Though it is true that Intel published the USB standard. It was Apple who first shipped an OS and computer that supported it (iMac, 1998). It wasn't until Windows 98 (August) and later that MS finally got something stable with USB. There were some early USB patches for Win95, but they didn't work with all devices and were very unstable. MS's USB support was completely rewritten for Win98.
It was Apple who drove USB with the printer and other peripheral vendors. MS had little to do with USB. USB was mostly an Intel creation.
While you're at it, list 3.5" floppies, CD-ROMs, multiple-monitor support, ADB (a precursor to USB), the GeoPort (cloned by MS vis-a-vis the WinModem), TrueType (invented by Apple, licensed by MS), integrated email, digital signatures, encrypted networking (all under the AOCE project in 1992), TCP/IP (way before MS). And, don't forget A/UX!
Indeed, Apple is The Innovator of the computer industry. Rarely do they get credit for being so.
The problem is an app needs to use the host OS in order to be useful. Things like the clipboard or drag-and-drop are best done by the host OS.
The other problem with providing your own UI system is that it looks totally wrong on a given host. The current Windows-ish fugly look of OO is a real show stopper for me.
There are also certain widget behaviors that are required by a given host. For instance, closing a window should not shut down an app unless it's a single-window app that has no function without the window. In OO, closing the preview window shuts down the app! That is so wrong.
Consistency in UI is paramount. You can't have most apps act one way, and one app be totally different. Indeed, the biggest complaint I have of both Windows or Gnome or KDE are the inconsistencies among all the different apps. Dialog boxes, keyboard shortcuts, gestures -- all need to be consistent across all apps or the user gets jolted.
I don't think so. At 128kbps, you get about 1M/minute of decent-sounding music. I had a Rio with 32M and could only get about 1/2 hour out of it. The only way you'd get 6 hours out of 64M is to compress the Hell out of it. Maybe down to 32 kbps. Even then I don't think you could get six hours.
If you read both ads carefully, you'll see they say the battery gives six hours of music and nine hours of spoken content, which is probably true. But you'd have to play your 1/2 hour of music in a loop.
Most of the web developers I know don't even know the w3 exists. Few have looked at O'Reilly's HTML book. Most just copy and paste sections from someone else's web site. These just keep rearranging tags until they get something look right in IE 5 and then post it. I think most web developers are just 9 to 5'ers who don't give a crap about the quality of work they do. They certainly don't even understand the purpose of any of the tags they choose.
Slashdot Mirror
You can also use renegotiation to derive new keys after X amount of data has passed. This would be for long running connections.
"Carriers will need to work together." Yeah, like that is going to happen. It took an act of Congress in the US to get our phone numbers portable. Do people really think that this sort of cooperation just magically happens?
Chances are, however, if you dissembled your car, figured a way to mass-produce the components, and started selling them or giving them away you'd run afoul of patent laws.
The Federal govt. and most states also have restrictions on what kinds of modifications you can make to a vehicle. If you remove the tail-lights, seat-belts, (and especially) emissions equipment, your car is no longer legal to drive on public roads.
You would also not be allowed to paint the vehicle in a way that would cause someone to mistake it for a Police, Fire, etc. vehicle. You wouldn't be able to attach flashing blue lights, for example.
Certainly, as long as your car never left your private land, you could do as you please with the vehicle. (Except maybe burn it since most counties would frown upon that too). You probably can't legally dump its fluids into the ground either.
Consider also building codes, CC&R's, zoning laws, etc. with regard to land use.
You see? Gov't can impose all kinds of restrictions on your private property rights.
Here's where I disagree: WinSock1 was based on BSD sockets. You can still see the copyright notice giving credit to UC Berkeley. Then they added a bunch of proprietary stuff to start moving away from the BSD API. With WinSock2, if you wanted to keep your app fast, you were required to starting using the WSA_ routines instead of the BSD-like routines.
This is just their standard operating procedures: Take someone else's standard, start modifying it in proprietary ways with each rev. of the OS. until it's too much of a burden for programmers to support two different APIs. Then the MSFT lackeys can justify using Win32-only APIs by using the same old tired "95%" market saw.
It would be a lot easier if MSFT quit deliberately making Windows so damn incompatible with everything else!
WinSock does not align with BSD sockets. Windows threads do not align with pthreads. DirectX does not align with OpenGL.
They deliberately isolate themselves onto a little island for no purpose than to hang on to their monopoly. If it weren't for their Windows monopoly, they'd be forced to play nicer with other APIs.
So I slap you and call you what? Susan?
Ever heard of "swap"?
Unix has been providing more address space than usable memory for a long time.
This is a dumb question. Do you really think that on a system with more than 4GB of memory that memory would be at such a premium that an additional four bytes per pointer would even be noticeable? Surely you jest!
I'm a sysadmin and I'm not confused.
You seem to be confusing (or confounding) file-system permissions with the security API and sudo.
Sudo is a relative newcomer to the unix toolbox that provides a path to root access without needing a root password. It's configuration is controlled by the sudoers file. Sudo accomplishes its function by being a set-uid-root program. The sudoers file has no influence beyond sudo.
Apple's security API is another path to root access that allows one to perform root functions without a root password. If the security API does not grant you access, security is still enforced.
The kernel is the guy responsible for enforcing security at all times and nothing in userland can bypass the kernel security. The two systems above grant access by setting your effective user ID to zero, which tells the kernel that that process is allowed to do (nearly) anything.
When you say Apple's Security API doesn't recognize file system permissions, I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about, because it's the kernel's responsibility to enforce security, and it does. Apple's security IS Unix security. What you described in your "bug-report" isn't a bug, but rather a misunderstanding on your part of how Unix security works.
Because the security API doesn't use sudo.
Read their documentation here: Authorization Services.
Dunno. VB programmers are a dime-a-dozen these days. Any IT manager paying lots for a VB programmer is wasting money.
I believe the Pentium 4 has a serial number as well. There was much hue and cry over it when it was announced. I suppose they could use that. But you're probably right -- most users would only have one enet card and the Ethernet address would do pretty well. Maybe Win2K and WinXP have unique ID's that Apple is using? You know that MS uses something like that to track XP...
Could be your serial number. To see that, choose "About this Mac" from the Apple menu. Below the "Mac OS X" you'll see the version string. Click this. It will cycle between the version, the build number, and your serial number.
Another interesting thing is what you can see in the System Profiler. In the Hardware Overview section, you can see your Customer Serial Number, as well as your Sales Order Number. I believe those are written into non-volatile RAM at the time of purchase. This, of course, is if you buy directly from Apple. If you purchase from a reseller, these fields may not be filled in.
There is another field that was at one time in the NVRAM, and that is the number of hours of operation since factory reset. I don't know if they still have that field available in the PRAM/NVRAM or not. I thought it was kinda cool at the time.
Sure it is. The definition of conspiracy does not contain the concept of secrecy:
conspiracy
n. pl. conspiracies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Good points.
If anyone has boosted anything from the OSS community it is Microsoft:
Really?
Open Source Projects at Apple.
Feel free to download the source code to the OS. They have an x86 version available as well.
Or, you can download a forked project at OpenDarwin.
By the way, OS X is based on FreeBSD and the Mach microkernel from Carnegie Mellon University, not Linux. Unix was open-source long before Torvalds learned how not to crap his diapers. Indeed, IBMs mainframe source code was open to their customers as well.
Closed-source is a Microsoft invention.
Indeed, Microsoft wouldn't be around today if it weren't for Apple: AppleSoft Basic for the Apple IIe (1977), Word for the Mac (1983), MacBasic (1984), MultiPlan (1984), MultiChart (1984).
Apple kept Microsoft alive during the '70s and '80s.
Damn. I wish I had some mod points for you. You hit the nail on the head.
This is a huge insight that I'm sure will be lost to most Linux programmers. Why do you think this is? Why are most Linux programmers so antagonistic towards good interface design?
One of my worst experiences with OSS is with Open Office. The interface is horrible and for anyone accustomed to productivity software, its user interface is wrong for just about any platform it runs on.
Not true. There are many open-source projects funded by companies with full-time employees. IBM has contributed quite a bit to Linux. Does IBM not pay their employees during their Linux development time?
Get real.
Open Source is not at all merely about spare-time hobbyists but rather people and companies contributing software engineering and development effort in a non-proprietary way.
I agree with the rest of your post that its existence is important as an alternative to the monoculture of Microsoft's monopoly. But, do not minimize the amount of energy devoted to OSS development as "hobbyists in their spare time."
Though it is true that Intel published the USB standard. It was Apple who first shipped an OS and computer that supported it (iMac, 1998). It wasn't until Windows 98 (August) and later that MS finally got something stable with USB. There were some early USB patches for Win95, but they didn't work with all devices and were very unstable. MS's USB support was completely rewritten for Win98.
It was Apple who drove USB with the printer and other peripheral vendors. MS had little to do with USB. USB was mostly an Intel creation.
Indeed, Apple is The Innovator of the computer industry. Rarely do they get credit for being so.
Huh? Visual C++ and IIS are Microsoft's. Did you smoke some really bad crack or something?
The problem is an app needs to use the host OS in order to be useful. Things like the clipboard or drag-and-drop are best done by the host OS.
The other problem with providing your own UI system is that it looks totally wrong on a given host. The current Windows-ish fugly look of OO is a real show stopper for me.
There are also certain widget behaviors that are required by a given host. For instance, closing a window should not shut down an app unless it's a single-window app that has no function without the window. In OO, closing the preview window shuts down the app! That is so wrong.
Consistency in UI is paramount. You can't have most apps act one way, and one app be totally different. Indeed, the biggest complaint I have of both Windows or Gnome or KDE are the inconsistencies among all the different apps. Dialog boxes, keyboard shortcuts, gestures -- all need to be consistent across all apps or the user gets jolted.
I don't think so. At 128kbps, you get about 1M/minute of decent-sounding music. I had a Rio with 32M and could only get about 1/2 hour out of it. The only way you'd get 6 hours out of 64M is to compress the Hell out of it. Maybe down to 32 kbps. Even then I don't think you could get six hours.
If you read both ads carefully, you'll see they say the battery gives six hours of music and nine hours of spoken content, which is probably true. But you'd have to play your 1/2 hour of music in a loop.
Most of the web developers I know don't even know the w3 exists. Few have looked at O'Reilly's HTML book. Most just copy and paste sections from someone else's web site. These just keep rearranging tags until they get something look right in IE 5 and then post it. I think most web developers are just 9 to 5'ers who don't give a crap about the quality of work they do. They certainly don't even understand the purpose of any of the tags they choose.