haven't tried that. probably will work. i just figured that there'd be drm in the audio files. man if it's that easy, then, what's the point of even having the drm in the first place.
apple has a fairly liberal usage/rights policy with their music. but, there is an easy way to overcome this. after downloading an album, burn the album to cd, but choose to burn an audio cd. next, you'll need cdda2wav and bladeenc (or lame, not playing favorites here) easily obtainable at fink, or on any linux box. after you burn the cd, pop it in the computer. from a terminal, simply run cdda2wav dev=/dev/cdrom etc. then when it's done, run bladeenc on each file. (make a perl, bash, applescript, etc, to automate. i'm thinking of writing a cocoa wrapper for it.) you're left with 128kbit mp3's. sounds fine. so, you can use your mp3's wherever you'd like. is it something granny can do. no. is it 37337? hardly. i gotta figure that apple knows this. they can't be that stupid.
i don't know if you can do this with any other service. this alone makes iTMS a great choice. i know with any windows media format you're gonna have lots of restrictions.
if windows really was as bad as you say it is, it wouldnt' be in NINETY PERCENT of all desktops.
okay AC, there is a plethora of reasons that windows is on 90% of all desktops.
apple screwed the pooch by being overly proprietary back in the early 80's. they were just too damn expensive for mass penetration.
compaq cloned the PC, got its bios to boot, etc...
lotus 1-2-3 (any one remember when your spreadsheet program fit on a floppy!!) this program alone accounted for the mass igration to the PC architecture.
ibm being dipshits about ms-dos. they could have had the rights for chump change.
os/2 was the defacto desktop. ibm wanted a shitload of money (something like $200+ in the early 80's) microsoft came in with windows for 1/10 the price.
microsoft did thing like give faulty errors with dr-dos when you tried to run windows on top of it. (keep in mind, windows ran on top of dos as late as ME) this has been long since documented.
microsoft played the bundling game, gave away its office suite for next to nothing compared to others. remember when wordperfect and lotus were the standards? (remember, in word97, you can map every keystroke in wordperfect AND lotus123.)
monoplistic practices...covered a time or two
piracy. i, and probably everyone i kow got a "free" copy of office. don't think for a second that microsoft really cared that joe and jane homeowner were somehow "pirating" (giggle, giggle) office. well, if business knew you could get it at home "free", they knew they HAD TO pay for it, so, well, if you use office at work, you can bet employees can get it at home, and that eliminates any others from competition
technological merit does not always, or even often, win out. there are numerous reasons. hell, in 1949, we had a state fo the art bomber, the YB-49. it could fly farther, faster, stealthier, etc. and, check this out, it was a flying wing. based on a design from the horten bros. in germany. discovered after the war, and developed by jack northrup. but, stu symington (sec of defense) was buddy buddy with convair guys, and we ended up with B-36. then the B-47, then the B-52. 36 was a piece of shit, 47 almost as bad, and the 52 is a workhorse. long story short, when B-2 rolls out, who is there to receive a LONG overdue praise. jack northrup. oh yeah, the VHS vs. Beta thing too.
i remember, oh, about 5 years ago, when i first met perl. it was the first language that i could actually do something in. even though i was using only a subset, mostly cgi stuff, and yet, i had POWER. i had several web sites up and running, data driven, mostly flat file stuff, but especially my school site, with 100 teachers, they could post homework, news, etc., we had a whole content driven site. all from perl with no database. i use java and python, as well as obj-c and cocoa, but damn, for me, there is still nothing like my first real love. perl.
of course the gpl is not the only open source license. i was simply pointing out that the license doesn't meet OSI standards. not that that should matter. agreed. source analysis is a huge part of security. i have written some web apps (lamp stuff) and some java stuff, for people, and specifially licensed it gpl. i argued that it would not affect their data or how they use it. in fact, i sold them on the lack of restrictions of use. i compared it to the EULA of a major commercial OS, and told them that if they wanted to alter it they could, they could even move it another web site, host, etc., have someone work on it should i cease to be, etc., they thought it was a good thing.
first of all, we're talking music. holy crap. it's not like something that matters. yeah, yeah, i know how important" music is, but geez, get real. besides, this is waht is called a disruptive technology. linux is the same. has linux destroy the software industry? hardly. in fact it is invigorating industries from movies to embedded micro devices. where old industries fail, new ones will emerge. hope and pray that we will still live in a free, capitalist economy, where innovation and entrepreneurialism is encouraged. your model is happening in europe, due to excessive gov't intervention in the economy, and nationalization of almost everything. upoon further reading i see the humor in your post. but really, you can't make everything electric. how you gonna send a new car over an internet connection?
if you'd have taken a few minutes (or seconds w/broadband) to get the source and look at the code, you'd see this:
By using this source code, you agree to the
following terms:
1) You may use the source code, resource
files for educational purposes only.
2) You MAY NOT redistribute this source code
without written permission. Failure to do
so is a violation of copyright laws.
3) The author of this code may have retained
certain "additional copyright rights".
If so, this is indicated in the author's
description.
since i doubt there'd be anything educational about IE source code...and by the way, i don't think this qualifies as an open source license.
and the incremental cost would be almost irrelevant.
i would hardly consider the upgrade license fees irrelevant. if they are running Office97, or even Office2K, their next upgrade will be most likely to Office2K3, which will mean OS upgrades and probably hardware upgrades as well. that will cost them a shitload of money. it could be alinux play in the future, as most people haven't a clue about the OS, they simply know apps. and windows has been the platfom for their apps. by using OO.org, they will be able to make a seamless transition, sure, but, they are probably trying to squeeze as much life out of their clients as possible. and OO.org is platform, as well as upgrade, agnostic.
i installed YDL on an old bondi blue 233 imac w/160MB ram. you'd be amazed how fast it ran, especially when compared to jaguar on the same box. now don't get me wrong, i love jaguar, and now panther on my g4 ibook. and jaguar/panther run well on my g3 700mhz ibook. the only thing stopping me seriously from running linux on both ibooks is i need a good JDK and there really isn't a good linux-ppc JDK. i know i can run os x under MOL, and use the os x jdk.
actually, if you would take a few minutes to look at david kay's report, you'd see that he had extensive programs in development. whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs, did not allow inspections, did not follow UN resolutions after gulf war, did not meet his obligations under 1441, and now, heh heh, does not have to worry anymore. if you really think they are really a figment of someone's imagination i suggest you ask the kurds. to postulate, even for a moment, that he never had them, or they never existed, puts you at the extreme fringe of people. on credible source ever said this. in fact, what scared the french before the war, and terrifies them now, is the extensive relations between chirac and husesein. if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?
whether we find them or not, is actually irrelevant. if we do, you, or dean, or martin sheen, tim sarandon, the dixie chicks etc., gonna say the war was justified? i doubt it. he was a real threat. you refuse to accept it. he ahd time to get rid of them due to the spinal flexibility of the UN.
china hasn't the surface naval force to support an invasion. period. they do have a sizable sub force, mostly based on russian technology. but we've been able to track (and kill if ever necessary) russian subs for years. we are way ahead of them. the real threat comes from their anti-ship missles. and the US is shaky right now? don't think so. even with traitorous bastards in the press and defeatists in the democratic party trying their damnedest to undermnine our efforts in iraq, we are hardly shaky. i don't kow how china could contribute to the drug problem, and what exactly they've been doing abotu us-israeli relations. sounds like dean-esque conjecture about advanced warnings from the saudis.
if i remember correctly, half of the maneuvers were cancelled due to bad weather. now if they can't oerate in bad weather...
second, the copmparison with normandy is valid. truth is, if you look back a the normandy operation, only omaha was heavily fortified, and the 1st and 29th went through bloody hell. but, the 4th suffered light casualties, the canadians and the brits had a realitvely easy time of the landing. once inland is where it got tough. if i'm not mistaken, taiwan is quite mountainous once inland. that is where the problem begins. the chinese ops in 96 were hardly a proof of concept. they were a message meant to scare the taiwanese and test us. ( because they were aware of the (as sadly we learned bin laden was) clinton admin's wavering and fear of blood) and it isn't forces on the beach, the turks proved at galipoli and the japanese proved at tarawa (and the marines at wake) that relatively few troops can hold a large invasion force at bay. and no, the chinese don't have the air force to suport the landing force. and no, saddam didn't hide tanks from us. during the sand storm, when the baghdad/ny times was reporting we were bogged down, turns out the tanks were on the move, and we ripped the shit out of them.
it's not that bombing three gorges wouldn't be ugly. but china is so dependent upon it for power, etc., that they can't afford to lose it. plus, we don't need them as much as they need us. they send us trinkets, we send them dollars. now, we could live without the trinkets while we ship jobs to timbuktunesia. sure, we'd be actually buying $2 shirts instead of $0.50 shirts. it would hurt our economy. yes. it would destroy theirs. don't overlook the internal power struggle. deng is near death, and there is a group of young party members who are not so enamored with leninist/marxist/maoist thought. ( i forgot their name right now) this regime is on its last legs. there is a rising business class in china, and they are not going to support official party doctorine fi that includes socialism.
there wil not be a war between china and taiwan for several reasons. now you need to understand some military history (which fortunately is my vocation, geekdom being my avocation).
first, china simply can't go to war with taiwan. (oh sure, they can fire some missles, but then see down the list.) see, to cross 70 miles of the strait of formosa (taiwan strait) would be an undertaking that would make normandy and okinawa be minor ops. they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover, 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to protect the invasion from being observed from satelites, which would give us and taiwan advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and maintain a beachhead once there. it doesn't matter if you have one million, or 10 million, troops in an invasion. if you can't support them, they're targets.
second, china built the three gorges dam. they have so much capital (even in communist china!!) tied up in it, it generates such a large portionof power. and, it is impssible to defend from air ro missile attack. we could take it out in about 10 minutes. and they're fscking toast.
third, china is so dependent upon the US trade for an in flux of capital and hard currency. anything more than sabre rattling, and we shut that off, they take a shit. they are fscked.
i could go on further. the cuyrrent regime is on its last legs. this is an in ternal power struggle between the old commies and the younger reformers. nothing else.
several years ago, before even/., guess that would be 1994, you know, the dark clintonista years, i was able to purchase many (though i had no money to do so!!!) large cap mags for my mini-14 and sig 228 before the ban. most are still in their original wrap with oil. i have a good friend who owns nothing but glocks. he loves them. now, i have too many kids. but i still have the guns!!
my wife, who does portrait photography on the side (and she's really good, not just syaing that), says she will never go digital. film photography is semi-religious for photograhpers. and in fact, their is an art to film photography. it is art. i sometimes wonder about digital. yes, alot of photography can be done digitally. but film will never be replaced. especailly medium format and up.
AFAIK, Joe Blow can write to / on a new 10.2 install. This is madness.
then, apparently, you don't know jack. you absolutely cannot write to / unless you (and follow this carefully):
1) open up a terminal
2) type sudo
3) then type say: cat/etc/hosts >>/hosts.txt
4) type password
you my friend, are full of shit. now, if like me, you create another user, which i always run at, then i have to open the term, su to an admin user, then sudo. osx turns off root by default. to enable it, you have to go into net info, and specifically enable root, THEN, you have to change it's terminal from/dev/null to/bin/bash (or whatever). apparently somebody at apple actually thought about security BEFORE they shipped the product. evn if yo install any application, the best you can do is install it into ~/Applications. if you want to install it into/Applications, then it asks for a admin user AND a password. make shit up in chat rooms. not/.
first of all, if you wnat, you can STILL downlaod 5.x, 6.x etc iso's. yes, go to ibiblio.org. they're there. hell, even rh1.x is still there. the point is, with OSS, whether RH or anyone else, a newer version usually includes newer versions of the same software. of course, many times newer versions are compiled against different glibc/gcc versions. by not supporting, they aren't saying you can't get. and they sure as hell aren't saying you can't look at the source, modify, etc. now, is someone gonna take say, samba 2.0.x or 2.2.x etc, and try to upgarde it, you are more than welcome to. what RH is saying is that they'll support you with the latest versions of FREE software. why the hell should they go back and support older code bases.
the biggest difference is this: when you "upgrade" windows, you have to redo a shitload of things. you can go from apache 1.3 to 2.0 and pretty much keep the same httpd.conf file. what pisses me off most (of course, bill and the boys could give a shit!!) is that they force you to upgarde to keep their money coming in (which is fine) but they do so by making it damn near impossible to maintain heterogenous environments. they do it on purpose. the actual analogy is that Ford makes cars that don't run on current unleaded gasoline. rather, you need to use newer gasoline. and gee, guess what, the gas comes from ford.
well, i guess it depends on what world view one takes. the hobbesian or the lockean, no doubt. i think history would reveal that european monopolies evolved from royal fiat, and later class protectionism. (land ownership rules in europe is what prohibited so many from advancing) in the US, they didn't develop until the government (senate) got into selling chunks of land to their buddies to build the railroads, for instance. capitalism fials when market forces are altered, by government or institutions. where they are allowed to work, they actaully do. again, think OSS.
Slashdot Mirror
haven't tried that. probably will work. i just figured that there'd be drm in the audio files. man if it's that easy, then, what's the point of even having the drm in the first place.
apple has a fairly liberal usage/rights policy with their music. but, there is an easy way to overcome this. after downloading an album, burn the album to cd, but choose to burn an audio cd. next, you'll need cdda2wav and bladeenc (or lame, not playing favorites here) easily obtainable at fink, or on any linux box. after you burn the cd, pop it in the computer. from a terminal, simply run cdda2wav dev=/dev/cdrom etc. then when it's done, run bladeenc on each file. (make a perl, bash, applescript, etc, to automate. i'm thinking of writing a cocoa wrapper for it.) you're left with 128kbit mp3's. sounds fine. so, you can use your mp3's wherever you'd like. is it something granny can do. no. is it 37337? hardly. i gotta figure that apple knows this. they can't be that stupid.
i don't know if you can do this with any other service. this alone makes iTMS a great choice. i know with any windows media format you're gonna have lots of restrictions.
okay AC, there is a plethora of reasons that windows is on 90% of all desktops.
- apple screwed the pooch by being overly proprietary back in the early 80's. they were just too damn expensive for mass penetration.
- compaq cloned the PC, got its bios to boot, etc...
- lotus 1-2-3 (any one remember when your spreadsheet program fit on a floppy!!) this program alone accounted for the mass igration to the PC architecture.
- ibm being dipshits about ms-dos. they could have had the rights for chump change.
- os/2 was the defacto desktop. ibm wanted a shitload of money (something like $200+ in the early 80's) microsoft came in with windows for 1/10 the price.
- microsoft did thing like give faulty errors with dr-dos when you tried to run windows on top of it. (keep in mind, windows ran on top of dos as late as ME) this has been long since documented.
- microsoft played the bundling game, gave away its office suite for next to nothing compared to others. remember when wordperfect and lotus were the standards? (remember, in word97, you can map every keystroke in wordperfect AND lotus123.)
- monoplistic practices...covered a time or two
- piracy. i, and probably everyone i kow got a "free" copy of office. don't think for a second that microsoft really cared that joe and jane homeowner were somehow "pirating" (giggle, giggle) office. well, if business knew you could get it at home "free", they knew they HAD TO pay for it, so, well, if you use office at work, you can bet employees can get it at home, and that eliminates any others from competition
technological merit does not always, or even often, win out. there are numerous reasons. hell, in 1949, we had a state fo the art bomber, the YB-49. it could fly farther, faster, stealthier, etc. and, check this out, it was a flying wing. based on a design from the horten bros. in germany. discovered after the war, and developed by jack northrup. but, stu symington (sec of defense) was buddy buddy with convair guys, and we ended up with B-36. then the B-47, then the B-52. 36 was a piece of shit, 47 almost as bad, and the 52 is a workhorse. long story short, when B-2 rolls out, who is there to receive a LONG overdue praise. jack northrup. oh yeah, the VHS vs. Beta thing too.why?
i remember, oh, about 5 years ago, when i first met perl. it was the first language that i could actually do something in. even though i was using only a subset, mostly cgi stuff, and yet, i had POWER. i had several web sites up and running, data driven, mostly flat file stuff, but especially my school site, with 100 teachers, they could post homework, news, etc., we had a whole content driven site. all from perl with no database. i use java and python, as well as obj-c and cocoa, but damn, for me, there is still nothing like my first real love. perl.
of course the gpl is not the only open source license. i was simply pointing out that the license doesn't meet OSI standards. not that that should matter. agreed. source analysis is a huge part of security. i have written some web apps (lamp stuff) and some java stuff, for people, and specifially licensed it gpl. i argued that it would not affect their data or how they use it. in fact, i sold them on the lack of restrictions of use. i compared it to the EULA of a major commercial OS, and told them that if they wanted to alter it they could, they could even move it another web site, host, etc., have someone work on it should i cease to be, etc., they thought it was a good thing.
first of all, we're talking music. holy crap. it's not like something that matters. yeah, yeah, i know how important" music is, but geez, get real. besides, this is waht is called a disruptive technology. linux is the same. has linux destroy the software industry? hardly. in fact it is invigorating industries from movies to embedded micro devices. where old industries fail, new ones will emerge. hope and pray that we will still live in a free, capitalist economy, where innovation and entrepreneurialism is encouraged. your model is happening in europe, due to excessive gov't intervention in the economy, and nationalization of almost everything. upoon further reading i see the humor in your post. but really, you can't make everything electric. how you gonna send a new car over an internet connection?
if you'd have taken a few minutes (or seconds w/broadband) to get the source and look at the code, you'd see this:
By using this source code, you agree to the following terms: 1) You may use the source code, resource files for educational purposes only. 2) You MAY NOT redistribute this source code without written permission. Failure to do so is a violation of copyright laws. 3) The author of this code may have retained certain "additional copyright rights". If so, this is indicated in the author's description.
since i doubt there'd be anything educational about IE source code...and by the way, i don't think this qualifies as an open source license.
when i see windows.sourceforge.net i'll believe it!!
and the incremental cost would be almost irrelevant.
i would hardly consider the upgrade license fees irrelevant. if they are running Office97, or even Office2K, their next upgrade will be most likely to Office2K3, which will mean OS upgrades and probably hardware upgrades as well. that will cost them a shitload of money. it could be alinux play in the future, as most people haven't a clue about the OS, they simply know apps. and windows has been the platfom for their apps. by using OO.org, they will be able to make a seamless transition, sure, but, they are probably trying to squeeze as much life out of their clients as possible. and OO.org is platform, as well as upgrade, agnostic.
i installed YDL on an old bondi blue 233 imac w/160MB ram. you'd be amazed how fast it ran, especially when compared to jaguar on the same box. now don't get me wrong, i love jaguar, and now panther on my g4 ibook. and jaguar/panther run well on my g3 700mhz ibook. the only thing stopping me seriously from running linux on both ibooks is i need a good JDK and there really isn't a good linux-ppc JDK. i know i can run os x under MOL, and use the os x jdk.
holy crap. what's a guy gotta do, surround my comments with ahumor tag?
MP3s -- the defacto standard for recreational digital music use
um, what about WIndows Media Format.
sincerely,
Bill G.
actually, if you would take a few minutes to look at david kay's report, you'd see that he had extensive programs in development. whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs, did not allow inspections, did not follow UN resolutions after gulf war, did not meet his obligations under 1441, and now, heh heh, does not have to worry anymore. if you really think they are really a figment of someone's imagination i suggest you ask the kurds. to postulate, even for a moment, that he never had them, or they never existed, puts you at the extreme fringe of people. on credible source ever said this. in fact, what scared the french before the war, and terrifies them now, is the extensive relations between chirac and husesein. if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?
whether we find them or not, is actually irrelevant. if we do, you, or dean, or martin sheen, tim sarandon, the dixie chicks etc., gonna say the war was justified? i doubt it. he was a real threat. you refuse to accept it. he ahd time to get rid of them due to the spinal flexibility of the UN.
china hasn't the surface naval force to support an invasion. period. they do have a sizable sub force, mostly based on russian technology. but we've been able to track (and kill if ever necessary) russian subs for years. we are way ahead of them. the real threat comes from their anti-ship missles. and the US is shaky right now? don't think so. even with traitorous bastards in the press and defeatists in the democratic party trying their damnedest to undermnine our efforts in iraq, we are hardly shaky. i don't kow how china could contribute to the drug problem, and what exactly they've been doing abotu us-israeli relations. sounds like dean-esque conjecture about advanced warnings from the saudis.
if i remember correctly, half of the maneuvers were cancelled due to bad weather. now if they can't oerate in bad weather...
second, the copmparison with normandy is valid. truth is, if you look back a the normandy operation, only omaha was heavily fortified, and the 1st and 29th went through bloody hell. but, the 4th suffered light casualties, the canadians and the brits had a realitvely easy time of the landing. once inland is where it got tough. if i'm not mistaken, taiwan is quite mountainous once inland. that is where the problem begins. the chinese ops in 96 were hardly a proof of concept. they were a message meant to scare the taiwanese and test us. ( because they were aware of the (as sadly we learned bin laden was) clinton admin's wavering and fear of blood) and it isn't forces on the beach, the turks proved at galipoli and the japanese proved at tarawa (and the marines at wake) that relatively few troops can hold a large invasion force at bay. and no, the chinese don't have the air force to suport the landing force. and no, saddam didn't hide tanks from us. during the sand storm, when the baghdad/ny times was reporting we were bogged down, turns out the tanks were on the move, and we ripped the shit out of them.
it's not that bombing three gorges wouldn't be ugly. but china is so dependent upon it for power, etc., that they can't afford to lose it. plus, we don't need them as much as they need us. they send us trinkets, we send them dollars. now, we could live without the trinkets while we ship jobs to timbuktunesia. sure, we'd be actually buying $2 shirts instead of $0.50 shirts. it would hurt our economy. yes. it would destroy theirs. don't overlook the internal power struggle. deng is near death, and there is a group of young party members who are not so enamored with leninist/marxist/maoist thought. ( i forgot their name right now) this regime is on its last legs. there is a rising business class in china, and they are not going to support official party doctorine fi that includes socialism.
there wil not be a war between china and taiwan for several reasons. now you need to understand some military history (which fortunately is my vocation, geekdom being my avocation).
first, china simply can't go to war with taiwan. (oh sure, they can fire some missles, but then see down the list.) see, to cross 70 miles of the strait of formosa (taiwan strait) would be an undertaking that would make normandy and okinawa be minor ops. they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover, 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to protect the invasion from being observed from satelites, which would give us and taiwan advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and maintain a beachhead once there. it doesn't matter if you have one million, or 10 million, troops in an invasion. if you can't support them, they're targets.
second, china built the three gorges dam. they have so much capital (even in communist china!!) tied up in it, it generates such a large portionof power. and, it is impssible to defend from air ro missile attack. we could take it out in about 10 minutes. and they're fscking toast.
third, china is so dependent upon the US trade for an in flux of capital and hard currency. anything more than sabre rattling, and we shut that off, they take a shit. they are fscked.
i could go on further. the cuyrrent regime is on its last legs. this is an in ternal power struggle between the old commies and the younger reformers. nothing else.
several years ago, before even /., guess that would be 1994, you know, the dark clintonista years, i was able to purchase many (though i had no money to do so!!!) large cap mags for my mini-14 and sig 228 before the ban. most are still in their original wrap with oil. i have a good friend who owns nothing but glocks. he loves them. now, i have too many kids. but i still have the guns!!
subject to moderator approval of course.
it is slightly one sided around here, huh?
smebody flames a guy with a UID of glock27. somebody is really fscking stupid. personally, i like a 1911a1, but hey, that's just me.
or is it:
NSStanford *s = [[NSStanford alloc] init];
my wife, who does portrait photography on the side (and she's really good, not just syaing that), says she will never go digital. film photography is semi-religious for photograhpers. and in fact, their is an art to film photography. it is art. i sometimes wonder about digital. yes, alot of photography can be done digitally. but film will never be replaced. especailly medium format and up.
AFAIK, Joe Blow can write to / on a new 10.2 install. This is madness.
/etc/hosts >> /hosts.txt
/dev/null to /bin/bash (or whatever). apparently somebody at apple actually thought about security BEFORE they shipped the product. evn if yo install any application, the best you can do is install it into ~/Applications. if you want to install it into /Applications, then it asks for a admin user AND a password. make shit up in chat rooms. not /.
then, apparently, you don't know jack. you absolutely cannot write to / unless you (and follow this carefully):
1) open up a terminal
2) type sudo
3) then type say: cat
4) type password
you my friend, are full of shit. now, if like me, you create another user, which i always run at, then i have to open the term, su to an admin user, then sudo. osx turns off root by default. to enable it, you have to go into net info, and specifically enable root, THEN, you have to change it's terminal from
The attacker must:
.357
Be on your local network
Already have control of your DHCP server
then security starts with a
first of all, if you wnat, you can STILL downlaod 5.x, 6.x etc iso's. yes, go to ibiblio.org. they're there. hell, even rh1.x is still there. the point is, with OSS, whether RH or anyone else, a newer version usually includes newer versions of the same software. of course, many times newer versions are compiled against different glibc/gcc versions. by not supporting, they aren't saying you can't get. and they sure as hell aren't saying you can't look at the source, modify, etc. now, is someone gonna take say, samba 2.0.x or 2.2.x etc, and try to upgarde it, you are more than welcome to. what RH is saying is that they'll support you with the latest versions of FREE software. why the hell should they go back and support older code bases.
the biggest difference is this: when you "upgrade" windows, you have to redo a shitload of things. you can go from apache 1.3 to 2.0 and pretty much keep the same httpd.conf file. what pisses me off most (of course, bill and the boys could give a shit!!) is that they force you to upgarde to keep their money coming in (which is fine) but they do so by making it damn near impossible to maintain heterogenous environments. they do it on purpose. the actual analogy is that Ford makes cars that don't run on current unleaded gasoline. rather, you need to use newer gasoline. and gee, guess what, the gas comes from ford.
well, i guess it depends on what world view one takes. the hobbesian or the lockean, no doubt. i think history would reveal that european monopolies evolved from royal fiat, and later class protectionism. (land ownership rules in europe is what prohibited so many from advancing) in the US, they didn't develop until the government (senate) got into selling chunks of land to their buddies to build the railroads, for instance. capitalism fials when market forces are altered, by government or institutions. where they are allowed to work, they actaully do. again, think OSS.