How much does lowering CPU power usage help? How much of a computer's power usage comes from the CPU, instead of the GPU, the screen, the LEDs, the disks, etc?
That is exactly the problem that Phusion Passenger solves. It is a Node.js application server, built on Nginx, and not only provides world-class HTTP management but also things like auto-scaling processes, supervisoring, load balancing, resource management, etc.
I can make my Makefile just as simple by targeting Linux + gcc.
Want to make it work on Clang? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger. Want to make it work on BSD? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger. Want to make it work on Solaris? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger. Want to make it work on Windows? Oh my Makefile needs to be huge.
Unfortunately - on platforms where Qt isn't the native UI already - Qt just emulates (draws) the native UI, it doesn't actually use the native UI controls.
On Windows, Qt does a very good job of emulating the native UI. But then again I'd argue that Windows has few truly native UIs. You always notice small differences in how controls behave between different apps. I guess all the different versions of MFC, WPF, VCL, WinForms and whatever implement controls slightly differently from what the Win32 API offers and even between different versions of itself. But users are used to these inconsistencies, so no big deal.
On OS X, the situation is unfortunately a lot worse, probably because Cocoa is so different from everything else that it's hard to emulate properly using primitives from other toolkits. For example you can notice that Qt draws the focus border around buttons differently than Cocoa does. The biggest difference being that Qt buttons are focusable but Cocoa buttons are not. Toolbars also look different: in Cocoa they blend in with the window title bar. Qt doesn't do this - the toolbars look very much Windows-like. The border spacings and alignment are also off. Developers often don't take time to align and space all the controls properly to give them a Cocoa look.
That is one, and probably the most common, attack vector. There are other ways to introduce attack vectors as well, documented under the "Other exploitable scenarios" section. Even if you believe you are not vulnerable you should upgrade.
Using self-signed certs for these sorts of things is more secure.. theoretically. In practice, I'm not so sure, the grandparent has a good point. By using self-signed certs you rule out MITM, but that's only when the following assumptions are also true:
* The device has the self-signed cert installed. * The device recognized the aforementioned certificate as the *only* valid certificate for a given website.
In practice, many (most?) phones do not support installing arbitrary certificates. I've never encountered even a desktop browser that allows me to configure a cert as being the only valid certificate for a given website. For these reasons, using self-signed certificates actually trains your user to always click 'Yes' when they see a certificate warning, and they were already clueless about security to begin with. Even if the device supports installing self-signed certificates, without enforcement one can hack into a CA, create a false certificate, poison the user's DNS and redirect traffic to his MITM website.
You can easily have that many images loaded if you have many tabs open. The modern web is full of images. Or just browse a few photo galleries in different tabs.
> There is no excuse for a web browser process to hit the GB mark, none.
So if all the images that are open in your web browsers all add up to 2 GB of uncompressed pixel data then the browser still shouldn't use hit the GB mark? I want my computer to be magical too.
No, it's about the cost of the bugs vs the cost of fixing the bugs. Suppose that a smartphone costs $400 in its current state. It has a few bugs here and there, not always noticeable, and when they show up they're annoying, but in general the device works fine. Now suppose that fixing those bugs and preventing new bugs from occurring costs the company $700 million in additional developer expenses (training, hiring ever better developers, improving Q&A) etc which causes the price of the device to jump to $1400. Would you buy the $400 device and take the bugs for granted, or would you buy the $1400?
Uh, yeah, so? My point is that the filesystem installed on the device is what the OS sees and your post says nothing to refute that assertion. Your flash device is not going to emulate an FAT filesystem when there is in fact an ext2 filesystem on it.
He isn't. He's complaining about people's apparent false sense of entitlement. Avoiding GPL is perfectly acceptable. Avoiding GPL *and complaining that GPL has harmed you* displays a false sense of entitlement.
I believe his point was that BSD'ed code promotes standards by allowing anybody to easily incorporate the code. Suppose that the original TCP/IP stack was GPL'ed. Others could still have written their own TCP/IP stack, but would they have bothered to do that or would they just have invented their own proprietary standards instead of bothering with TCP/IP at all? BSD'ing the code makes TCP/IP the path of least resistance.
I don't necessarily agree with this point of view but I can see the reasoning.
Your web browser speaks HTTP. However an operating system reading the contents of a mobile device involves treating it as a block device. There is no commonly-used high-level file access protocol over USB. Unless the device can emulate an FAT filesystem over a block device interface (is this even possible without huge amounts of resources?) the device's filesystem has to be formatted as FAT.
The alternative is to create your own file access protocol and force the user to install a custom application that speaks this protocol, e.g. how iTunes interfaces with the iPad/iPhone. This really, really sucks, you now have to install iTunes everywhere.
I agree that Chrome is more responsive that Firefox. (Note that I didn't say "faster"...) But to say that it uses less resources is bollocks. Chrome consumes vastly more memory than Firefox and I have less than 10 tabs open. Go ahead, browse for a day and measure it; the total memory usage of Chrome tops Firefox by quite a bit. The UI responsiveness is the only reason why I use Chrome over Firefox.
I used to sell a software product for $11. Customers got lifetime free upgrades and lifetime free email support. Licensing terms were very relaxed and it was allowed to install the software on multiple computers and even to share it with family members. People still pirated it.
Slashdot Mirror
So anything that can be used to cause adverse effects to other people, can be considered malware? That's a pretty broad definition.
How much does lowering CPU power usage help? How much of a computer's power usage comes from the CPU, instead of the GPU, the screen, the LEDs, the disks, etc?
That is exactly the problem that Phusion Passenger solves. It is a Node.js application server, built on Nginx, and not only provides world-class HTTP management but also things like auto-scaling processes, supervisoring, load balancing, resource management, etc.
I'd like to see you try.
Oh yeah, BSD doesn't have GNU make installed by default. Good luck.
I can make my Makefile just as simple by targeting Linux + gcc.
Want to make it work on Clang? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger.
Want to make it work on BSD? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger.
Want to make it work on Solaris? Oh my Makefile needs to be bigger.
Want to make it work on Windows? Oh my Makefile needs to be huge.
Autotools exist for a reason.
Unfortunately - on platforms where Qt isn't the native UI already - Qt just emulates (draws) the native UI, it doesn't actually use the native UI controls.
On Windows, Qt does a very good job of emulating the native UI. But then again I'd argue that Windows has few truly native UIs. You always notice small differences in how controls behave between different apps. I guess all the different versions of MFC, WPF, VCL, WinForms and whatever implement controls slightly differently from what the Win32 API offers and even between different versions of itself. But users are used to these inconsistencies, so no big deal.
On OS X, the situation is unfortunately a lot worse, probably because Cocoa is so different from everything else that it's hard to emulate properly using primitives from other toolkits. For example you can notice that Qt draws the focus border around buttons differently than Cocoa does. The biggest difference being that Qt buttons are focusable but Cocoa buttons are not. Toolbars also look different: in Cocoa they blend in with the window title bar. Qt doesn't do this - the toolbars look very much Windows-like. The border spacings and alignment are also off. Developers often don't take time to align and space all the controls properly to give them a Cocoa look.
That is one, and probably the most common, attack vector. There are other ways to introduce attack vectors as well, documented under the "Other exploitable scenarios" section. Even if you believe you are not vulnerable you should upgrade.
This article explains what the vulnerability is, how it is triggered, how severe it is and what the facts are.
They do that because the users with 300 tabs open and users who are on Pentium II with 512 MB RAM complain about memory usage.
Using self-signed certs for these sorts of things is more secure.. theoretically. In practice, I'm not so sure, the grandparent has a good point. By using self-signed certs you rule out MITM, but that's only when the following assumptions are also true:
* The device has the self-signed cert installed.
* The device recognized the aforementioned certificate as the *only* valid certificate for a given website.
In practice, many (most?) phones do not support installing arbitrary certificates. I've never encountered even a desktop browser that allows me to configure a cert as being the only valid certificate for a given website. For these reasons, using self-signed certificates actually trains your user to always click 'Yes' when they see a certificate warning, and they were already clueless about security to begin with. Even if the device supports installing self-signed certificates, without enforcement one can hack into a CA, create a false certificate, poison the user's DNS and redirect traffic to his MITM website.
You can easily have that many images loaded if you have many tabs open. The modern web is full of images. Or just browse a few photo galleries in different tabs.
> There is no excuse for a web browser process to hit the GB mark, none.
So if all the images that are open in your web browsers all add up to 2 GB of uncompressed pixel data then the browser still shouldn't use hit the GB mark? I want my computer to be magical too.
No, it's about the cost of the bugs vs the cost of fixing the bugs. Suppose that a smartphone costs $400 in its current state. It has a few bugs here and there, not always noticeable, and when they show up they're annoying, but in general the device works fine. Now suppose that fixing those bugs and preventing new bugs from occurring costs the company $700 million in additional developer expenses (training, hiring ever better developers, improving Q&A) etc which causes the price of the device to jump to $1400. Would you buy the $400 device and take the bugs for granted, or would you buy the $1400?
It's faster than 3.6.
Uh, yeah, so? My point is that the filesystem installed on the device is what the OS sees and your post says nothing to refute that assertion. Your flash device is not going to emulate an FAT filesystem when there is in fact an ext2 filesystem on it.
He isn't. He's complaining about people's apparent false sense of entitlement. Avoiding GPL is perfectly acceptable. Avoiding GPL *and complaining that GPL has harmed you* displays a false sense of entitlement.
I believe his point was that BSD'ed code promotes standards by allowing anybody to easily incorporate the code. Suppose that the original TCP/IP stack was GPL'ed. Others could still have written their own TCP/IP stack, but would they have bothered to do that or would they just have invented their own proprietary standards instead of bothering with TCP/IP at all? BSD'ing the code makes TCP/IP the path of least resistance.
I don't necessarily agree with this point of view but I can see the reasoning.
Heck, "mission critical" is overrated. Some ATMs run Windows!
Your web browser speaks HTTP. However an operating system reading the contents of a mobile device involves treating it as a block device. There is no commonly-used high-level file access protocol over USB. Unless the device can emulate an FAT filesystem over a block device interface (is this even possible without huge amounts of resources?) the device's filesystem has to be formatted as FAT.
The alternative is to create your own file access protocol and force the user to install a custom application that speaks this protocol, e.g. how iTunes interfaces with the iPad/iPhone. This really, really sucks, you now have to install iTunes everywhere.
I agree that Chrome is more responsive that Firefox. (Note that I didn't say "faster"...) But to say that it uses less resources is bollocks. Chrome consumes vastly more memory than Firefox and I have less than 10 tabs open. Go ahead, browse for a day and measure it; the total memory usage of Chrome tops Firefox by quite a bit. The UI responsiveness is the only reason why I use Chrome over Firefox.
What are you talking about? Works fine on my Mac.
What if a woman gets raped by a man carrying HIV? What if you get in contact with an HIV-infected needle by accident?
Did you even read the article? It talks about things like broken hard drives.
Maybe a semi-automated attack in search of more zombie machines for sending spam.
I used to sell a software product for $11. Customers got lifetime free upgrades and lifetime free email support. Licensing terms were very relaxed and it was allowed to install the software on multiple computers and even to share it with family members. People still pirated it.