As cools as the G5 Desktops can be, you have to admit they are a bit on the pricy side. You can usually build an $1,500 AMD or Intel system that can easily butt heads with Apple's entry level $2,999 system.
The justification has always been that the PowerPC architecture is just that much more advanced that it justifies the hefty price tag.
How will the justification work when their machines are running the Pentium chips? Or will they start lowering their prices to match the competitive environment of x86 hardware?
Also, given the statements Job's made about Intel's superiority to the PowerPC, how can they justify the pricing on their current crop of machines?
But will this be true of the next gen consoles? What's to say they won't have a keyboard/mouse attachment? Since next-gen consoles will have hard drives, have an online presence, and be just as powerful as a PC (if not more, for a time), I don't see the distinction being so clear.
This will truly be the first generation of consoles that are more powerful than their PC counterparts.
Even by December, when the XBOX360 comes out, the CPU power of the desktops won't come close to XBOX's 3 3.2Ghz G5 chips, or Sony's similar Cell architecture.
There will always be those $700 video cards that are better than the cards on the consoles. But now consoles are almost indistiguishable from PCs functionality wise (at least the xbox has online, usb peripherals, chat, etc..., sony promises the same), there's just not enough of a reson to spend as much.
It is not an oxymoron. The feature would be turned off by default. You are confusing the point you are trying to make, which is that this remote admin feature would be a good target for exploits. It is a valid comment.
But common sense would dictate that the web admin tool would not be turned on to connections from the general internet. Instead, it would be limited to the intranet. If it is turned on to the general internet, then they better be sure there aren't any exploits around. But the same is true of any outward facing service, isn't it? IIS v5 was a travesty in security, but IIS6 has had very little problems where vulnerabilities are concerned (check out http://secunia.com/product/1438/). One would hope IIS7 would be even better, given the draconian protocol we have to follow now within Microsoft when it comes to security in code.
Remote GUI administration is already available, by the way. Run IIS manager, choose 'connect' and point it to a remote IIS server with the service turned on, and you'll be able to admin it just as you do your local IIS server.
I would think this is a good thing for OSS enthusiasts. It means that if a corporation absolutely insists on running IIS, then all the other support servers could be Linux/OSX and you could admin the machine through the web interface. Now you still need MS machines running for support, so you can either Remote Desktop to the IIS box, or use IIS Manager.
They aren't contradictory. I'm assuming remote web administration will not be turned on by default, thereby following the creed established in the first sentence. Remote administration is already possible, anyway, if the feature is turned on. Run IIS manager and point it at a remote server with the service enabled.
I would think this would be a good thing for Open Source enthusiasts. It means that if a company wants IIS, you can keep those servers at a bare minimum, and maintain them from linux/unix/osx servers through the web interface.
I'm not a huge fanboy, but I'd point out that Palpatine was a sith lord before Maul, so was the person who trained Palpatine, the guy who could revive people and control midichlorians. This means Palpatine and the other guy were around during the millenia that the Jedi thought there were no Sith. One has to assume that there's a possibility that the Sith were never fully extinct.
I would hope they would attempt a story after ROTJ. I'm tired of watching movies where I already know who will live and who will die, and where the story is generally going. In the prequel they talk about here, we'd know that Yoda survives, we'd know that the Jedi win, we'd know Darth Plagueis survives (since he'd have to train Darth Sidious), etc... Yes fights would be huge and explosive, but there'd be no tension. Part of the enchantment of the original trilogy was that all these characters were new, and the environment they inhabited was unkown. The recent prequels were too constrained by the story line we already knew.
I should say that my mom and little sister are now also limited user on their respective desktops. No problems there (except for the occasional pissy game that insists on saving it's data in program files), and more importantly no spyware.
Maybe his daughter should stop executing what she downloads from the porn and warez sites she frequents...
Seriously, I have yet to get a spyware infection. How? My desktop account is a Limited user. Even if I accidentally execute a file, it doesn't have access to modify my system.
Show me what OS stops the root account from being able to trash their system...
1. Most people wouldn't give out a credit card number randomly over the phone
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think a phone call would have even more weight than an official looking e-mail, and naive people would happily supply their account information. Especially if you work off of the phone book, you could call and say "mr. So and So, we show we have an account with you, at XXX address. As the first step in our verification, please verify your account number. (proceeds to ask for the number)"
You seem to be confusing insecurity in the OS with the problem of people running their desktop as Administrator. Show me where exactly linux protects me if I run my desktop and all my supporting applications as root. It doesn't. By definition root (or Administrator) has full access to the system. I could write a simple bash script to hose your machine. But linux is secure, without question. In effect this is what most spyware writers are doing now a days. They are not taking advantage of any explicit security holes or escalating their priviledge -- they work with the assumption that they can freely modify the machine's settings.
Remove your account from the Administrators group in Windows, and you'll be quite surprised at how extensive and robust the permission system is within win2k/XP/2k3. I've been running this way since win2k and I haven't had any spyware issues (and I don't need AdAware or MSAS running in the background).
The problem is not one of engineering but one of Marketing -- the marketing folks decided that it would be best to keep everyone admin so as not to confuse them. This set a horrible precedent, but we engineers are winning out and MS is now recommending people run as limited user (even though the install default is still admin) and in LH it's all about not running as Administrator.
Unless, of course, you know of some specific limitations with the OS that I'm not familiar with. I'm a developer on Longhorn so I consider myself fairly knowledgeable when it comes to the OS internals of XP/2k3/LH.
XP runs fine on a 300mhz machine right now (granted you need at least 256mb of ram), so I can't imagine it would be too difficult to trim it back to run on a 133mhz.
Actually, Google Desktop Search is the one guilty of this. It indexes the whole system, including every user's folders. With Google Desktop, user A can search for a term and through the result preview peer into the contents of user B's folder, even if A is a limited user and is normally denied access to the folder.
Space is a valuable commodity within the home entertainment system. Not everybody wants (or can have)a PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360, and Gamecube all taking up real estate near the television. This is especially true in Japan, and it contributed to the original xbox not catching on in Japan -- it is a monster (size wise), and gamers could gets two consoles for the price of one with the PS2.
Somehow I get the feeling that the new system doesn't have backwards compatibility built in as of yet, but they are banking on the fact that it would be easy enough to build an emulator for a 700mhz system on the three 3.2 Ghz CPUs.
Certainly, but this is an issue in any OS, isn't it? Anything spawned from the user process by definition has access to the user's files. I could e-mail a bash script that executes 'rm -Rf ~/*' and there's nothing much unix/linux/bsd could do.
This is where the active protection and constant backups are still a necessity.
Slashdot Mirror
It could also mean that this works, and WinFS doesn't. :)
As cools as the G5 Desktops can be, you have to admit they are a bit on the pricy side. You can usually build an $1,500 AMD or Intel system that can easily butt heads with Apple's entry level $2,999 system.
The justification has always been that the PowerPC architecture is just that much more advanced that it justifies the hefty price tag.
How will the justification work when their machines are running the Pentium chips? Or will they start lowering their prices to match the competitive environment of x86 hardware?
Also, given the statements Job's made about Intel's superiority to the PowerPC, how can they justify the pricing on their current crop of machines?
Intel would be foolish to risk the Wintel platform over the Mac platform. We're talking 90% of the market versus, what, 8%?
But will this be true of the next gen consoles? What's to say they won't have a keyboard/mouse attachment? Since next-gen consoles will have hard drives, have an online presence, and be just as powerful as a PC (if not more, for a time), I don't see the distinction being so clear.
This will truly be the first generation of consoles that are more powerful than their PC counterparts.
Even by December, when the XBOX360 comes out, the CPU power of the desktops won't come close to XBOX's 3 3.2Ghz G5 chips, or Sony's similar Cell architecture.
There will always be those $700 video cards that are better than the cards on the consoles. But now consoles are almost indistiguishable from PCs functionality wise (at least the xbox has online, usb peripherals, chat, etc..., sony promises the same), there's just not enough of a reson to spend as much.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/
:)
Try not to sign any rouge NDAs while you browse the free MSDN library.
First, we have the ability to .... uhm ... well, second we can't forget that we can ... uhm ... screw it, is Episode 3 on the network yet??
Sorry for the double post, a preview seems to have been posted. Here's the full post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151133&cid=126 76095
It is not an oxymoron. The feature would be turned off by default. You are confusing the point you are trying to make, which is that this remote admin feature would be a good target for exploits. It is a valid comment.
But common sense would dictate that the web admin tool would not be turned on to connections from the general internet. Instead, it would be limited to the intranet. If it is turned on to the general internet, then they better be sure there aren't any exploits around. But the same is true of any outward facing service, isn't it? IIS v5 was a travesty in security, but IIS6 has had very little problems where vulnerabilities are concerned (check out http://secunia.com/product/1438/). One would hope IIS7 would be even better, given the draconian protocol we have to follow now within Microsoft when it comes to security in code.
Remote GUI administration is already available, by the way. Run IIS manager, choose 'connect' and point it to a remote IIS server with the service turned on, and you'll be able to admin it just as you do your local IIS server.
I would think this is a good thing for OSS enthusiasts. It means that if a corporation absolutely insists on running IIS, then all the other support servers could be Linux/OSX and you could admin the machine through the web interface. Now you still need MS machines running for support, so you can either Remote Desktop to the IIS box, or use IIS Manager.
They aren't contradictory. I'm assuming remote web administration will not be turned on by default, thereby following the creed established in the first sentence. Remote administration is already possible, anyway, if the feature is turned on. Run IIS manager and point it at a remote server with the service enabled.
I would think this would be a good thing for Open Source enthusiasts. It means that if a company wants IIS, you can keep those servers at a bare minimum, and maintain them from linux/unix/osx servers through the web interface.
3, 2, 1... :)
Cool! Thanks for the info. Did this come from one of the SW books?
I'm not a huge fanboy, but I'd point out that Palpatine was a sith lord before Maul, so was the person who trained Palpatine, the guy who could revive people and control midichlorians. This means Palpatine and the other guy were around during the millenia that the Jedi thought there were no Sith. One has to assume that there's a possibility that the Sith were never fully extinct.
I would hope they would attempt a story after ROTJ. I'm tired of watching movies where I already know who will live and who will die, and where the story is generally going. In the prequel they talk about here, we'd know that Yoda survives, we'd know that the Jedi win, we'd know Darth Plagueis survives (since he'd have to train Darth Sidious), etc... Yes fights would be huge and explosive, but there'd be no tension. Part of the enchantment of the original trilogy was that all these characters were new, and the environment they inhabited was unkown. The recent prequels were too constrained by the story line we already knew.
No it is not. Please direct me to one priviledge escalation vulnerability. You do not know what you are talking about.
I should say that my mom and little sister are now also limited user on their respective desktops. No problems there (except for the occasional pissy game that insists on saving it's data in program files), and more importantly no spyware.
Maybe his daughter should stop executing what she downloads from the porn and warez sites she frequents...
Seriously, I have yet to get a spyware infection. How? My desktop account is a Limited user. Even if I accidentally execute a file, it doesn't have access to modify my system.
Show me what OS stops the root account from being able to trash their system...
1. Most people wouldn't give out a credit card number randomly over the phone
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think a phone call would have even more weight than an official looking e-mail, and naive people would happily supply their account information. Especially if you work off of the phone book, you could call and say "mr. So and So, we show we have an account with you, at XXX address. As the first step in our verification, please verify your account number. (proceeds to ask for the number)"
You seem to be confusing insecurity in the OS with the problem of people running their desktop as Administrator. Show me where exactly linux protects me if I run my desktop and all my supporting applications as root. It doesn't. By definition root (or Administrator) has full access to the system. I could write a simple bash script to hose your machine. But linux is secure, without question. In effect this is what most spyware writers are doing now a days. They are not taking advantage of any explicit security holes or escalating their priviledge -- they work with the assumption that they can freely modify the machine's settings.
Remove your account from the Administrators group in Windows, and you'll be quite surprised at how extensive and robust the permission system is within win2k/XP/2k3. I've been running this way since win2k and I haven't had any spyware issues (and I don't need AdAware or MSAS running in the background).
The problem is not one of engineering but one of Marketing -- the marketing folks decided that it would be best to keep everyone admin so as not to confuse them. This set a horrible precedent, but we engineers are winning out and MS is now recommending people run as limited user (even though the install default is still admin) and in LH it's all about not running as Administrator.
Unless, of course, you know of some specific limitations with the OS that I'm not familiar with. I'm a developer on Longhorn so I consider myself fairly knowledgeable when it comes to the OS internals of XP/2k3/LH.
XP runs fine on a 300mhz machine right now (granted you need at least 256mb of ram), so I can't imagine it would be too difficult to trim it back to run on a 133mhz.
I noticed that too, but I think the tool they built was the one to migrate from mssql.
expose private data
Actually, Google Desktop Search is the one guilty of this. It indexes the whole system, including every user's folders. With Google Desktop, user A can search for a term and through the result preview peer into the contents of user B's folder, even if A is a limited user and is normally denied access to the folder.
Were you really that excited to write this response that you didn't read a few sentences ahead?
Space is a valuable commodity within the home entertainment system. Not everybody wants (or can have)a PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360, and Gamecube all taking up real estate near the television. This is especially true in Japan, and it contributed to the original xbox not catching on in Japan -- it is a monster (size wise), and gamers could gets two consoles for the price of one with the PS2.
Somehow I get the feeling that the new system doesn't have backwards compatibility built in as of yet, but they are banking on the fact that it would be easy enough to build an emulator for a 700mhz system on the three 3.2 Ghz CPUs.
Certainly, but this is an issue in any OS, isn't it? Anything spawned from the user process by definition has access to the user's files. I could e-mail a bash script that executes 'rm -Rf ~/*' and there's nothing much unix/linux/bsd could do.
This is where the active protection and constant backups are still a necessity.