You benefit automatically because two programs, not just the program and the OS, can run/simultaneously/, something that is not true normally.
For instance (this is a greatly simplified example), if I have one processor and 3 processes that want it:
Process1 runs for awhile, context switch occures (lets say it requests I/O, so it goes to blocked)
The OS Runs.
Process2 runs for awhile, then gets preempted by Process3 (requiring the OS to run for awhile).
Later, when Process1 gets the necessary I/O, it can get switched back in.
Now we can run Process1 and Process2 SIMULTANEOUSLY, rather than CONCURENTLY.
The speedup from that can actually be quite dramatic.
What Counterpane is predominantly discussing is the concept of being able to sign things with, say, PGP. This is a Bad Idea(tm) for the reasons mentioned in the article: nonetheleast of which involves automation.
What Germany is discussing requires both a smart card and a PIN. Automating that is difficult at best and limits the damage one individual to do and the frequency with which they can do it.
This, of course, is dependant on a variety of protocols and equipment that they use, but it is not exactly related to what Scheiner is talking about.
The reasons that they "won" against all of those things (I'd argue (c) and (b), but someone has already done so for me) dealt largely with that they through features (i.e., "products") at them and locked into into an exclusively Windows OS.
As the now famous quote goes: "Security is a process, not a product"
This is a new field for Microsoft--MSIE was still attempting to provide a product that could outmanuver anything else on the Windows platform. This is a great deal simpler than it sounds, particularly when you are an established monopoly.
It took them months just to get a buffer overflow patched. I somehow doubt their claims now are anything more than PR.
Modern (and relatively clueless) Objectivists aside, I suspect that if Ayn Rand studied Microsoft she would have relaized that they are a case in point of the kind of monopoly she didn't like.
You speak as someone who has never used a Mac in an attempt to become even vaguely good with one. There are several basic assumptions in your post that indicate to me that you are trying to apply PC flaws into the Mac interface: they simply do not exist.
For instance, I use a trackball that has 2 buttons regularly, I have also used single button mice all the way up to mice with 6 buttons on them. I use Linux and Windows regularly.
In all of that, I've found that having more than one button on the Mac simply isn't necessary! The design doesn't require it: contextual menus can be activated, the system can be navigated, and everything that you would want the second button for is trivial to do without the contextual menu.
Slashdot Mirror
In order for this to happen something crucial MUST occure that will NEVER occure.
Apple has to license their operating system to be sold ON a computer and then must start to support those boxes.
Apple is never going to do this, so a clone market can never spring up.
Sorry, not quite correct.
/simultaneously/, something that is not true normally.
You benefit automatically because two programs, not just the program and the OS, can run
For instance (this is a greatly simplified example), if I have one processor and 3 processes that want it:
Process1 runs for awhile, context switch occures (lets say it requests I/O, so it goes to blocked)
The OS Runs.
Process2 runs for awhile, then gets preempted by Process3 (requiring the OS to run for awhile).
Later, when Process1 gets the necessary I/O, it can get switched back in.
Now we can run Process1 and Process2 SIMULTANEOUSLY, rather than CONCURENTLY.
The speedup from that can actually be quite dramatic.
What Counterpane is predominantly discussing is the concept of being able to sign things with, say, PGP. This is a Bad Idea(tm) for the reasons mentioned in the article: nonetheleast of which involves automation.
What Germany is discussing requires both a smart card and a PIN. Automating that is difficult at best and limits the damage one individual to do and the frequency with which they can do it.
This, of course, is dependant on a variety of protocols and equipment that they use, but it is not exactly related to what Scheiner is talking about.
Yes.
The reasons that they "won" against all of those things (I'd argue (c) and (b), but someone has already done so for me) dealt largely with that they through features (i.e., "products") at them and locked into into an exclusively Windows OS.
As the now famous quote goes: "Security is a process, not a product"
This is a new field for Microsoft--MSIE was still attempting to provide a product that could outmanuver anything else on the Windows platform. This is a great deal simpler than it sounds, particularly when you are an established monopoly.
It took them months just to get a buffer overflow patched. I somehow doubt their claims now are anything more than PR.
"There was no reason to believe that Windows XP actually was designed to be secure."
Hmmmmmmm. So you are saying it is a feature, not a bug?
Modern (and relatively clueless) Objectivists aside, I suspect that if Ayn Rand studied Microsoft she would have relaized that they are a case in point of the kind of monopoly she didn't like.
The Government Created kind.
You speak as someone who has never used a Mac in an attempt to become even vaguely good with one. There are several basic assumptions in your post that indicate to me that you are trying to apply PC flaws into the Mac interface: they simply do not exist.
For instance, I use a trackball that has 2 buttons regularly, I have also used single button mice all the way up to mice with 6 buttons on them. I use Linux and Windows regularly.
In all of that, I've found that having more than one button on the Mac simply isn't necessary! The design doesn't require it: contextual menus can be activated, the system can be navigated, and everything that you would want the second button for is trivial to do without the contextual menu.
That is just one example.
Look up double standard. This is not one.
A double standard is holding two different groups to two different standards for the same thing.
We hold them to the same standard: RedHat passes, Microsoft fails.
Simple, no?