Root and Admin are not the same. The root user isn't even active under the client version of OS X. That is the misconception that I think is causing most of this "run as a regular user" stuff for OS X. In Window and most any *nix the initial user is root or equivalent, this is not the case in OS X.
Can someone who KNOWS (please no opinions) answer a simple question.
Is there actually a difference between an Admin and regular user on OS X? I have been running as a regular user as a test for several weeks now and I can see no difference at all. I get asked for authentication in all the same places as when I'm running as an Admin. The only difference I can see is that, of course, the login and password of the regular user account cannot be used for authentication in Admin level actions.
While this is good in a multi-user environment where the Admin pass is not openly known, it would seem to me that running as a regular user serves no security purpose when the Admin pass is openly known as even a regular user can just use it at an authentication prompt.
So there's the question, in OS X is there any difference between an Admin and regular user other than what the password can allow?
I'm so tired of this attitude that websites must be accessable to all web-enabled devices and to all those with any disablility. Stupidity is just as much a disability as blindness but I'm not going to stop using words above a 3rd grade level to allow them to understand my content. If making your content "accessible" is important to a target market or because of organizational policy, then that is what you do. If appealing to that segment is not important to you then nothing should make you feel like you should or force you into doing it.
Design for the lowest common denominator is a bad thing.
You don't try to drive up Pike's Peak http://www.ppihc.com/ with a tricycle. Don't try to view websites with a phone. Web design is standardizing at 1024x768 now. If you don't have the right equipment, don't bother coming to the party.
That's the problem. There is nothing that forces a company to be ruthless to survive, they have to be ruthless to buy their 10th ivory backscratcher.
Companies can still make tons of money and play nice, treat their employees with respect and not destroy the lives of people in other business by crushing them. The problem is when the execs aren't happy with X amount of money, they want 2X, 3X...100X and they will sodomize their own grandfathers to get it.
It has nothing to do with success or survival, it has everything to do with rampant greed.
Yet, are there things that are more important than money?
You are right but you forget one thing. If it's not illegal or against the companies rules or ability to actually do the work, then the company would be breaking the law if it turned down the contract with China.
As has been stated many times before, a standard incorporated company has one goal above all else, make money for the shareholders. This is not just greed, this is the law. The executives of a company can have their asses handed to them if they pass up any viable money making oppertunity.
We may not like what Cisco and other companies are doing but until we change the laws that govern how companies are run Cisco has no choice but to assist China in its ultimate goal of subjugation and repression.
...Passover Seder, which has to begin after nightfall,...
So does this mean that anyone who lives in the many places where day, or night, can last for days and even months cannot be a Jew?
Religions are so much fun when they have requirements that are or can be technically impossible. But if you don't follow "The word of God" then you're evil and will go to Hell.
I mostly agree with you on all points but I think you're failing to mention the GC's major failing....games.
Ya, there's a couple really good games for the GC but that's it. I had GC and got really tired of finishing a game and then having to wait months for the next big release to have anything to play. I got so excited when I heard that FF was coming to GC and then look what we get, Crystal Crapicles. It's like being a huge EA fan, hearing they're coming to Nintendo and then having them release "Mini Golf Challenge".
I replaced the GC for a PS2 and have never looked back. The graphics my not be as good and load times suck but my biggest problem when I finish a game is trying to decide which one of the huge number of great games I want to play next.
I do agree with you up to a point. If you invent something that ends up making the company huge sums of money, you should be compensated well above and beyond your normal salary.
There is a very simple answer to this, IE on Windows does NOT support transparent PNGs!!!
Please do not give me any lines about installing 3rd party software that enables this, if it is not pre-installed then it is usless to 99.9% of the population.
Even if IE starts support it will still be close to 5 years before using transparent PGNs will be viable as we wait for all the old versions to go out of use. As a web designer, not being able to use PNGs to their full potential greatly restricts the designs i can implement.
There is one thing that nobody has mentioned yet and it is the one reason why PNGs suck.
In an attempt to have PNGs look "correct" gamma wise on any computer (images tend to look darker on PCs than on Macs) the creators of PNG came up with a system so that the effective display gamma of the image will change depending on who views it. There is one MAJOR problem though, they did not include the ability for a PNG to store the gamma of the machine it was created on!!!!
Try this, create a PNG image that is of some hex color and place it on a web page next to a JPEG or background color of the exact same hex color and then look at it. Chances are the two will look like the exact same color. But, now try viewing that page in different browsers and even better yet a different operating system and what you will discover is that since no base gamma info is stored the viewing program has to guess what the gamma was when the PNG was created and that will cause the "color" of the image to shift.
I thought PNG was going to revolutionize the way I create web sites but because of this critical failure it has become near usless.
Until the ultimate fix for spam is created why can't mail servers just limit the amount of mail that is sent by any user?
Is it possible to setup sendmail and such to limit the number of emails sent to a quantity over time? If there was a limit of say 1 email every 5 minutes for generic users (obvoiusly, some algorithym that would allow for small bursts would make sense), that would effectively stop someone from spamming from a regular account. If a person wants to setup a mass mailiing account they will have to pay for it.
If this was implemented then even the hijacking of a server would be pointless as the server would normally run in restricted mode. If spammers were to hack or create a false unrestricted account then they would be opening themselves up for far more than just spamming violations, creditcard fraud would make spamming a much larger risk.
Why do so many people keep looking for the next answer before they use the tools they already have?
When it comes to products like Photoshop I really belive that Adobe and others should adopt personal use licenses. They already have education licenses which is a great idea but I think they need to also have a discounted price for those who will not be making money off of their use of the program.
It just does not seem fair that I have to pay the same amount of money for Photoshop as a company that will be making 10's if not 100's of thousands of dollars off of their purchase.
Many developers have adopted this type of license. I know it can't be fully enforced, no license can, but if someone just wants to play with Photoshop or make their own personal artwork that they will never profit from, they should be able to pay a significantly discounted price compared to a business.
Slashdot Mirror
Root and Admin are not the same. The root user isn't even active under the client version of OS X. That is the misconception that I think is causing most of this "run as a regular user" stuff for OS X. In Window and most any *nix the initial user is root or equivalent, this is not the case in OS X.
Can someone who KNOWS (please no opinions) answer a simple question.
Is there actually a difference between an Admin and regular user on OS X? I have been running as a regular user as a test for several weeks now and I can see no difference at all. I get asked for authentication in all the same places as when I'm running as an Admin. The only difference I can see is that, of course, the login and password of the regular user account cannot be used for authentication in Admin level actions.
While this is good in a multi-user environment where the Admin pass is not openly known, it would seem to me that running as a regular user serves no security purpose when the Admin pass is openly known as even a regular user can just use it at an authentication prompt.
So there's the question, in OS X is there any difference between an Admin and regular user other than what the password can allow?
I'm so tired of this attitude that websites must be accessable to all web-enabled devices and to all those with any disablility. Stupidity is just as much a disability as blindness but I'm not going to stop using words above a 3rd grade level to allow them to understand my content. If making your content "accessible" is important to a target market or because of organizational policy, then that is what you do. If appealing to that segment is not important to you then nothing should make you feel like you should or force you into doing it.
Design for the lowest common denominator is a bad thing.
You don't try to drive up Pike's Peak http://www.ppihc.com/ with a tricycle. Don't try to view websites with a phone. Web design is standardizing at 1024x768 now. If you don't have the right equipment, don't bother coming to the party.
Your subject says it all.
That's the problem. There is nothing that forces a company to be ruthless to survive, they have to be ruthless to buy their 10th ivory backscratcher.
Companies can still make tons of money and play nice, treat their employees with respect and not destroy the lives of people in other business by crushing them. The problem is when the execs aren't happy with X amount of money, they want 2X, 3X...100X and they will sodomize their own grandfathers to get it.
It has nothing to do with success or survival, it has everything to do with rampant greed.
I know what you're saying about the door thing but I also find that about 50% of the time the unused door is locked.
One of these days I am going to call the Fire Marshal and try to get them fined.
Yet, are there things that are more important than money?
You are right but you forget one thing. If it's not illegal or against the companies rules or ability to actually do the work, then the company would be breaking the law if it turned down the contract with China.
As has been stated many times before, a standard incorporated company has one goal above all else, make money for the shareholders. This is not just greed, this is the law. The executives of a company can have their asses handed to them if they pass up any viable money making oppertunity.
We may not like what Cisco and other companies are doing but until we change the laws that govern how companies are run Cisco has no choice but to assist China in its ultimate goal of subjugation and repression.
So does this mean that anyone who lives in the many places where day, or night, can last for days and even months cannot be a Jew?
Religions are so much fun when they have requirements that are or can be technically impossible. But if you don't follow "The word of God" then you're evil and will go to Hell.
Go back to watching your sitcoms Jesus-Land boy and leave reality to those who have opinions that aren't dictated by what they see on CNN.
I mostly agree with you on all points but I think you're failing to mention the GC's major failing....games.
Ya, there's a couple really good games for the GC but that's it. I had GC and got really tired of finishing a game and then having to wait months for the next big release to have anything to play. I got so excited when I heard that FF was coming to GC and then look what we get, Crystal Crapicles. It's like being a huge EA fan, hearing they're coming to Nintendo and then having them release "Mini Golf Challenge".
I replaced the GC for a PS2 and have never looked back. The graphics my not be as good and load times suck but my biggest problem when I finish a game is trying to decide which one of the huge number of great games I want to play next.
TIFF may be compressed but it is completely lossless and quality has nothing to do with the argument.
The whole point of RAW is that the image is captured in a much more "raw" format and this allows for more power in the manipulation of the image.
I do agree with you up to a point. If you invent something that ends up making the company huge sums of money, you should be compensated well above and beyond your normal salary.
There is a very simple answer to this, IE on Windows does NOT support transparent PNGs!!!
Please do not give me any lines about installing 3rd party software that enables this, if it is not pre-installed then it is usless to 99.9% of the population.
Even if IE starts support it will still be close to 5 years before using transparent PGNs will be viable as we wait for all the old versions to go out of use. As a web designer, not being able to use PNGs to their full potential greatly restricts the designs i can implement.
There is one thing that nobody has mentioned yet and it is the one reason why PNGs suck.
In an attempt to have PNGs look "correct" gamma wise on any computer (images tend to look darker on PCs than on Macs) the creators of PNG came up with a system so that the effective display gamma of the image will change depending on who views it. There is one MAJOR problem though, they did not include the ability for a PNG to store the gamma of the machine it was created on!!!!
Try this, create a PNG image that is of some hex color and place it on a web page next to a JPEG or background color of the exact same hex color and then look at it. Chances are the two will look like the exact same color. But, now try viewing that page in different browsers and even better yet a different operating system and what you will discover is that since no base gamma info is stored the viewing program has to guess what the gamma was when the PNG was created and that will cause the "color" of the image to shift.
I thought PNG was going to revolutionize the way I create web sites but because of this critical failure it has become near usless.
Until the ultimate fix for spam is created why can't mail servers just limit the amount of mail that is sent by any user?
Is it possible to setup sendmail and such to limit the number of emails sent to a quantity over time? If there was a limit of say 1 email every 5 minutes for generic users (obvoiusly, some algorithym that would allow for small bursts would make sense), that would effectively stop someone from spamming from a regular account. If a person wants to setup a mass mailiing account they will have to pay for it.
If this was implemented then even the hijacking of a server would be pointless as the server would normally run in restricted mode. If spammers were to hack or create a false unrestricted account then they would be opening themselves up for far more than just spamming violations, creditcard fraud would make spamming a much larger risk.
Why do so many people keep looking for the next answer before they use the tools they already have?
When it comes to products like Photoshop I really belive that Adobe and others should adopt personal use licenses. They already have education licenses which is a great idea but I think they need to also have a discounted price for those who will not be making money off of their use of the program.
It just does not seem fair that I have to pay the same amount of money for Photoshop as a company that will be making 10's if not 100's of thousands of dollars off of their purchase.
Many developers have adopted this type of license. I know it can't be fully enforced, no license can, but if someone just wants to play with Photoshop or make their own personal artwork that they will never profit from, they should be able to pay a significantly discounted price compared to a business.