While this is a grossly oversimplified statement, you are correct in the basic concept that incorporation protects the personal assets of the small businessperson. When I started my own technology services company, the first thing I did was to incorporate to limit my personal liability, even though I was only a one-man shop.
However, I think that misses the larger point under discussion here. While incorporation may protect you personally from loss due to litigation for patent infringement, the corporate entity (the company) must still bear the burden of such potential lawsuits. The question was, can a one-man software shop still succeed in this patent-crazy market?
If I were an independent developer who spent months or years developing a ground-breaking application, founded a company to market my product and invested sweat equity to get the business rolling, and then found myself the victim of patent litigation brought by an IP holding company - I would not consider it a "success" to merely walk away with my personal assets unscathed.
I use Airport Express with my Powerbook. However, one quickly runs out of space on a simple 60GB drive.
I actually don't store my music, video files, or photos on my PowerBook either, because it wouldn't hold a fraction of my library. I have an iMac G4 that acts as a fileserver on my home network, with a LaCie 1TB external drive attached. The external drive holds all of my digital media files, and the EyeHome server software is installed on this machine to stream media to the EyeHome in my living room.
I have network shares setup that I mount from my PowerBook and the other iMac that serves as my workstation, so that I can access my music, videos, and photos from any machine on the network. This works fine for both iTunes and iPhoto, and I can stream music from any machine to the Airport Express in my den.
Since you mentioned getting files from your PowerBook, I'll offer two good Mac-centric solutions:
1) Audio only. Simple. Use an Airport Express. Setup is easy, it acts as a Wi-Fi access point, and you can stream music from iTunes to the built-in audio out port. Run an RCA stereo adapter cable from the Airport Express to your stereo's inputs and bang - streaming music solution. Price $130.
2) Audio and video. Also simple. Get an EyeHome from Elgato, install the server software on your Mac, and then stream your MP3's, AAC's, DivX movies, MPEG2 movies, etc. to your TV or home theater receiver. Price $200.
I own both of these products, and both are very solid, and great at bridging the media gap between the computer and the TV/stereo.
Even movies that are flat out bad can be watched in such a state of mind that one can find fun in them (without chemical influences of course).
Not at $6.50 a ticket they can't (and that's for a matinee!). There's only one state my mind gets to after I shell out good money to watch a crappy movie, and that state could best be described as psychotic rage.
Well, half right. It breaks down at the home desktop level. Desktop software for large businesses will dominate.
That's really what I meant by desktop software. Consumer desktop software.
But wait! That's true for commercial 'business' software as well. Not to as great an extent, perhaps, but the desktop software market is dominated by what vendors think big businesses need.
Yes, but there is a fairly large market for commercial consumer desktop applications, both boxed and shareware. And an independent developer can come up with a great idea for a consumer application, implement it, market it, and make money. The bar to entry is much lower in the consumer space.
There's no reason you can't run commercial software on Linux.
There is if you can't find commercial software for Linux to suit your needs. There are relatively few commercial Linux-native applications at the business desktop level (and even less at the home desktop level), and I've yet to see any which could be called "successful". I think this is due in no small part to the predominant attitude throughout the Linux user base that "software should be free". There is a reluctance to pay for any software, regardless of quality, because of religious preconceptions.
I was a Linux user for around 7 years, and in that time I spent a good bit of cash on several commercial software packages because they presented a significant value over the free options available at the time. I don't think any of those products are still being sold today. And all of those packages were business-oriented. I've yet to see any consumer-oriented commercial software for Linux, successful or otherwise.
So unless the Open Source community only wants Linux and other FOSS to be run on business computers, I would perceive that to be a problem. My point regarding Linux on the desktop was aimed at the consumer desktop, not the business desktop.
If the Open Source community creates an environment that is hostile to commercial software, especially consumer-oriented software, we will likely never see the evolution of Linux in the consumer desktop space (for good or bad) where consumer-level applications are necessary to lure users to the platform.
Of course if you want a good commercial operating system based on Open Source UNIX. Apple's got a great one for you.:)
I know. As I said, "I was a Linux user...". Apple is a shining example of how Free and commercial software can co-exist. With MacOS X, you really do get the best of everything.
There is no money to be made in selling commodity software to individual consumers.
Really? Is that why the shelves at retail computer stores are stocked with consumer software? Any software can make money through sales if you are producing a quality product for which there is demand, and charging a price for that software that the market will yield.
You could even make money selling a web browser (the archetypal "commodity software") if your web browser offers features or an interface that people want and no free (as in beer) browser offers, and you are charging a fee that people feel is worth paying to get those additional features.
The more software is available at no cost to consumers the better.
But at the end of the day, someone has to pay for that software development. Either the developer donates his spare time (in which case the developer is funding the development), or a financial backer pays the developer to create the software and give it away. But software does not spring from a vacuum. It has to be written, and this requires man hours. And every man hour has an associated cost.
Let the corporations and specialists feed the commercial software developers.
And the corporations will be feeding those developers to create software that is useful to the corporations. How does this benefit the consumers, who have very different software needs?
I've seen that idea recited for years now. Make Free Software, give it away, and make money by selling support. Well, this sounds great if you are developing software for the corporate enterprise, which is the predominant purchaser of support services. Most corporate IT groups won't even consider a particular software package UNLESS they can buy a support contract for it.
But what if you are a developer of desktop software, designed for home users or small business? By and large, those users don't buy support services. More importantly, if you are developing desktop software such as an organizer or an email program, it should be designed well enough that it doesn't require support.
How many home users would use a particular program that was free to download, but required paid support services because it was such a bitch to use and maintain?
The "Free Software, Paid Support" model simply breaks down at the desktop level. And as long as there is no profit incentive for developing Free desktop software, you will see that software continue to be developed by hobbyists in their spare time. And this certainly won't further the cause of Desktop Linux.
"The first four bases were built on the surface and gradually got covered with snow and ultimately got so deep they became crushed by the weight of ice and had to be replaced"
They went all the way to the South Pole and nobody thought to bring a snow shovel? Shovel you nerdy bastards and your home won't be crushed by snow!
Ian: "Ay, Nigel. That snow onna roof's getting a might thick, eh? Maybe we should shove it or sumfing?"
Nigel: "Ian old mate, I didn't go to university for 15 years to shovel snow. Bugger the bloody roof. Let the Queen buy us a new one. 'Ere now. What's that crushing sound anyway...? And is it getting a bit close in here?"
I have been told that I had to take my phone to an authorized service center (not my local phone store) to enter the IP address for data services. They would not give me the address to enter myself.
Then you either didn't ask the right person, or you did ask the right question. I'm a Cingular customer, and I purchased my phone from a third party to get an unlocked phone of the make/model I wanted (because Cingular didn't sell that phone online or in its retail stores).
When I needed to setup Internet access on my phone, I called the regular Cingular customer service number, and then immediately asked to be transferred to technical support (customer support != technical support). Once I got the technical support person, I immediately asked to be transferred to someone in the "engineering group" (level 3 support). Once I got there, I explained what I wanted to do.
Not only did they give me the IP address, they emailed me a copy of an internal technical document with all of the Internet access settings with the menu trees for every phone they support. Quite handy, actually, since I used it to setup my wife's new phone a couple of months later, and it took about three minutes using the document as a reference.
So far, I've found Cingular's support to be quite good! You just have to figure out how their system works, and use it to your advantage.
and they are turning away potential business because of it.
I just went to their Starz! Ticket site to check it out, and was informed by Real, "sorry, but you can subscribe to our service, you don't have a minimum of 600k of bandwidth". Then it shows me a box that says I have 300k of bandwidth.
Problem is, I've got a 3000k leased connection, so it looks like they are making a math error somewhere. Their scripting errors are going to cost them just the sort of customers they are trying to attract: people with fat net pipes and disposable income.
What a galacticly stupid idea, putting a hokey bandwidth meter on your website to sort out your ideal customers from the unwashed masses. How typically Real.
Wow. That seems like a long time unless you have hundreds of contacts and calendar items or something. I also have a PBG4 running 10.3.4, and I iSync with.Mac, my iPod, and my Z600 all in under two minutes, with a decent number of bookmarks, contacts and calendar entries. My wife said that her experience syncing with her T616 is comparable to mine (she has the same notebook/OS). I wonder if you might just have a defective BT chipset in your phone (or your PB)?
Oh, sorry. I just assumed you meant Internet access. I use my SE Z600 for GPRS connectivity, and I also sync my address book, calendar, etc to it. I guess I just notice the GPRS speed more than the sync speed, because it never would have occured to me that it would be slow enough to complain. In fact, I think my Z600 syncs pretty fast. Before I had it, I used iSync to sync my stuff to my iPod. When I added the phone to the sync scheme, I only noticed an extra couple of seconds to complete the sync.
My wife has an SE T616, she's never complained about it being slow to sync. I'll have to ask her about it.
What kind of sync times are you seeing, and what OS/app are you using to sync?
With my Sony Ericsson T616 speeds are laughable and slow and maybe now Bluetooth will finally be able to maximize its potential...
I doubt your speed issue is a result of the speed of the Bluetooth connection between your laptop and your phone, but rather the 9600-14.4kbps GPRS connection between your phone and your provider's network. I don't think EDR Bluetooth is going to help any with your cellular Internet connection. At least not until 3G becomes ubiquitous.
Instead of tracking hikers on trails with sensors (and how do you know it's a hiker anyway, and not a bear/deer/extraterrestrial?), offer hikers the ability to check-out an emergency transponder that they can turn on if they need assistance. Hell, you could even offer it as a service that people might be willing to pay for, and that would offset your equipment costs.
It's real simple. iTMS just had a record sales week with 3.3M songs sold. They are averaging something like 2.5M songs per week. Let the RIAA hike the price. Let's watch the numbers.
If consumers don't have a problem with the price hike, sales will be unaffected. If consumers don't like it, sales will drop. If sales drop by more than 26%, the RIAA starts loosing money. If that happens, they'll be forced to restore the $0.99 pricing.
You can't blame them for hiking their prices, if the market will yield a profit by doing so. As buyers of music, we all get to vote on whether the price increase is reasonable. If we collectively say we won't pay $1.25/song, they will be forced to either drop prices or lose money.
Man, I hope this catches on in the U.S. with cable stations like Comedy Central and the Sci-Fi Channel. Those two and a handful of others are the only reason I still subscribe to cable. And it pisses me off to no end that I have to pay $40/month for a "standard package" which includes 60 or so channels I DON'T watch.
Individual cable broadcast companies taking this initiative will bring about the same effect as the a la carte cable service many Americans have been asking for. Anyone with broadband Internet access will have access to only the shows they want, on demand, and priced individually.
I'm not dismissing them as useless. I'm taking them down off the Pedestal of Infallibility Mac zealots have put them on.
I just went back over this whole thread, and I fail to see where either the OP or myself claimed that Apple's security was "infallible". And I haven't seen any display of "zealotry" in this thread either, unless zealotry means saying, "hey, here's a good idea..."
All that was said about MacOS X, was that it presented an extra security buffer between the user and root-level access while still providing access for administrative functions, and that the Linux security model could learn from that approach. Now, this extra layer doesn't provide a foolproof countermeasure to malware, but I dare say a system that uses this approach has at least a little more security than a system that doesn't.
Unless users have a basic grasp of how to tell when something is suspect, these issues will arise. No operating system can plug the security hole between the chair and the keyboard. Only training can do that.
So you're saying that the problem of security is not a systemic one, but a problem of user-level training. And that no matter what security features you put into a system, dumb users will still break the system.
That sounds like a cop-out to me. "There's no point in trying to build in additional security, because dumb users will always screw things up. No operating system can fix that problem. We just need users to become more educated. Our system isn't broken, it's fine the way it is."
I'm suddenly reminded of why I walked away from Linux and the Linux community.
I've got news for you. YOU'LL NEVER FIX THE PROBLEM OF DUMB USERS. You can't train every computer user to be a sysadmin, because the vast majority have no interest in learning. So that leaves you with only two options:
1) Start requiring a license to own a computer, or
2) Harden the system as much as possible.
If you're waiting for the day when computer users are all educated and informed, and security abounds because nobody is stupid enough to be fooled by script kiddies, get yourself a coat and a chair. Hell will freeze over first, and you may get tired from standing.
But again, even if the root user *was* disabled, and only Administrators could do root-level things, the script would ask for that password. It could still do a lot of damage, installing software, setting up relays, etc. Asking for a password every time a root-level function needs to be executed, as OSX does, is not that great for security when the user is uninformed.
I think you're still overlooking an important point: in MacOS X, administrator-level and root-level are NOT the same thing. Administrator-level functions are a subset of root-level functions. There are things an administrator is NOT permitted to do (and deleting System files is one). If the root user is disabled (as it is by default), those files simply can't be deleted, no matter how clever the script kiddie is.
I think that was the point of this thread, wasn't it? MacOS X was held up as an example of the way an operating system can be both usable and secure at the same time. In MacOS X, you can do any admin-level tasks as a non-root administrator, EXCEPT destroy the system.
And you're right; that directory structure is from my own install of Gentoo. But the example was not intended to address a specific problem.
No, but it illustrates that while you are clearly not familiar with the technical workings of MacOS X's security features, you are quick to dismiss them as useless. My point was that you should take some time to understand MacOS X security before you just shoot it down. I was a Linux user and admin from 1995 to 2002, and I've been a FreeBSD user and admin since 2000. I've installed and managed AIX, SCO, and Solaris systems, as well. I'm very familiar with Unix/Linux security, and I find Apple's solution to be an excellent mechanism for padding in the average user, while allowing the pro/admin to get into the guts of the system. In my opinion, "user-oriented" Linux distros should take note of Apple's methodology in that area, because they could learn a thing or two.
One nice trick Apple discovered is to have the users be non-root, yet still administrative.
Ahh, that's a fantastic idea. Foolproof.
Downloading email attachment to/home/joeblow/attachments.....done.
[~/attachments]$ ls -l
-rwxr--r-- 1 joeblow joeblow 124 Apr 11 16:30 virus_scan.sh
[~/attachments]$./virus_scan.sh
This utility requires a root password to run.
Password: *********** <snip deleting files>
Except that it doesn't work like that. You see, under OS X, the root user is disabled by default. "Administrators" in OS X parlance, are users authorized to do sudo-permitted functions as root. In order for an admin to gain true root-level permissions, they need to enable the root user in NetInfo, and then su to root. If they enable the root user, they are circumventing the protective measures Apple put in place. But Apple *did* put them there, and they *do* work if left alone.
By the way, it's obvious that you are a Linux user, and have never seen the guts of OS X. The following directory structures don't even exist under OS X:
/boot /home /lib /mnt /opt /proc /root
You're just like the Windows Admin talking about Linux security. Ironic, eh?
I actually drank over 100 cups of coffee inside of a 24-hour period once (long convoluted reason omitted). I was high to the rafters, got a splitting headache, and crashed for two days after I did it, but needless to say, I survived the incident.
As a FreeBSD user, I build almost everything from source using ports. I never install from packages. My reasons for this are many and varied, but basically, I prefer to build software myself, with the precise options I need. When you use packages, you are at the mercy of the packager and their preference for options and optimizations. Several years ago when I used Linux, I often encountered problems of pre-built packages lacking a particular build option, and sometimes installing to odd places, or other strangeness.
And once you've started using packages and package management, it gets harder to introduce source-built software into the same environment without screwing up your dependency databases, or worse - breaking things. So if a package lacks a required option, you really have to build your own package with the option included in order to keep things orderly. That's a lot more work than just installing from source.
I'm not a Linux user anymore (several reasons) but if I were I to go back to Linux, I would use Gentoo, specifically for its Portage system.
So, in my opinion, building from source may be a little more time and CPU consuming, but it is the better option for a controlled, tailored environment.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't imagine what i would do if suddenly i was 16,000 feet high in a freaking LAWN CHAIR
Yell "I'm a birdie!" and shit on passing cars?
Just a thought...
step one Incorporate.
step two pay yourself a salary
step three you are safe.
While this is a grossly oversimplified statement, you are correct in the basic concept that incorporation protects the personal assets of the small businessperson. When I started my own technology services company, the first thing I did was to incorporate to limit my personal liability, even though I was only a one-man shop.
However, I think that misses the larger point under discussion here. While incorporation may protect you personally from loss due to litigation for patent infringement, the corporate entity (the company) must still bear the burden of such potential lawsuits. The question was, can a one-man software shop still succeed in this patent-crazy market?
If I were an independent developer who spent months or years developing a ground-breaking application, founded a company to market my product and invested sweat equity to get the business rolling, and then found myself the victim of patent litigation brought by an IP holding company - I would not consider it a "success" to merely walk away with my personal assets unscathed.
I use Airport Express with my Powerbook. However, one quickly runs out of space on a simple 60GB drive.
I actually don't store my music, video files, or photos on my PowerBook either, because it wouldn't hold a fraction of my library. I have an iMac G4 that acts as a fileserver on my home network, with a LaCie 1TB external drive attached. The external drive holds all of my digital media files, and the EyeHome server software is installed on this machine to stream media to the EyeHome in my living room.
I have network shares setup that I mount from my PowerBook and the other iMac that serves as my workstation, so that I can access my music, videos, and photos from any machine on the network. This works fine for both iTunes and iPhoto, and I can stream music from any machine to the Airport Express in my den.
Since you mentioned getting files from your PowerBook, I'll offer two good Mac-centric solutions:
1) Audio only. Simple. Use an Airport Express. Setup is easy, it acts as a Wi-Fi access point, and you can stream music from iTunes to the built-in audio out port. Run an RCA stereo adapter cable from the Airport Express to your stereo's inputs and bang - streaming music solution. Price $130.
2) Audio and video. Also simple. Get an EyeHome from Elgato, install the server software on your Mac, and then stream your MP3's, AAC's, DivX movies, MPEG2 movies, etc. to your TV or home theater receiver. Price $200.
I own both of these products, and both are very solid, and great at bridging the media gap between the computer and the TV/stereo.
Even movies that are flat out bad can be watched in such a state of mind that one can find fun in them (without chemical influences of course).
Not at $6.50 a ticket they can't (and that's for a matinee!). There's only one state my mind gets to after I shell out good money to watch a crappy movie, and that state could best be described as psychotic rage.
Well, half right. It breaks down at the home desktop level. Desktop software for large businesses will dominate.
:)
That's really what I meant by desktop software. Consumer desktop software.
But wait! That's true for commercial 'business' software as well. Not to as great an extent, perhaps, but the desktop software market is dominated by what vendors think big businesses need.
Yes, but there is a fairly large market for commercial consumer desktop applications, both boxed and shareware. And an independent developer can come up with a great idea for a consumer application, implement it, market it, and make money. The bar to entry is much lower in the consumer space.
There's no reason you can't run commercial software on Linux.
There is if you can't find commercial software for Linux to suit your needs. There are relatively few commercial Linux-native applications at the business desktop level (and even less at the home desktop level), and I've yet to see any which could be called "successful". I think this is due in no small part to the predominant attitude throughout the Linux user base that "software should be free". There is a reluctance to pay for any software, regardless of quality, because of religious preconceptions.
I was a Linux user for around 7 years, and in that time I spent a good bit of cash on several commercial software packages because they presented a significant value over the free options available at the time. I don't think any of those products are still being sold today. And all of those packages were business-oriented. I've yet to see any consumer-oriented commercial software for Linux, successful or otherwise.
So unless the Open Source community only wants Linux and other FOSS to be run on business computers, I would perceive that to be a problem. My point regarding Linux on the desktop was aimed at the consumer desktop, not the business desktop.
If the Open Source community creates an environment that is hostile to commercial software, especially consumer-oriented software, we will likely never see the evolution of Linux in the consumer desktop space (for good or bad) where consumer-level applications are necessary to lure users to the platform.
Of course if you want a good commercial operating system based on Open Source UNIX. Apple's got a great one for you.
I know. As I said, "I was a Linux user...". Apple is a shining example of how Free and commercial software can co-exist. With MacOS X, you really do get the best of everything.
There is no money to be made in selling commodity software to individual consumers.
Really? Is that why the shelves at retail computer stores are stocked with consumer software? Any software can make money through sales if you are producing a quality product for which there is demand, and charging a price for that software that the market will yield.
You could even make money selling a web browser (the archetypal "commodity software") if your web browser offers features or an interface that people want and no free (as in beer) browser offers, and you are charging a fee that people feel is worth paying to get those additional features.
The more software is available at no cost to consumers the better.
But at the end of the day, someone has to pay for that software development. Either the developer donates his spare time (in which case the developer is funding the development), or a financial backer pays the developer to create the software and give it away. But software does not spring from a vacuum. It has to be written, and this requires man hours. And every man hour has an associated cost.
Let the corporations and specialists feed the commercial software developers.
And the corporations will be feeding those developers to create software that is useful to the corporations. How does this benefit the consumers, who have very different software needs?
I've seen that idea recited for years now. Make Free Software, give it away, and make money by selling support. Well, this sounds great if you are developing software for the corporate enterprise, which is the predominant purchaser of support services. Most corporate IT groups won't even consider a particular software package UNLESS they can buy a support contract for it.
But what if you are a developer of desktop software, designed for home users or small business? By and large, those users don't buy support services. More importantly, if you are developing desktop software such as an organizer or an email program, it should be designed well enough that it doesn't require support.
How many home users would use a particular program that was free to download, but required paid support services because it was such a bitch to use and maintain?
The "Free Software, Paid Support" model simply breaks down at the desktop level. And as long as there is no profit incentive for developing Free desktop software, you will see that software continue to be developed by hobbyists in their spare time. And this certainly won't further the cause of Desktop Linux.
including a report from the BBC of a baiter who managed to get $80 and a birthday card by courier!
That Mike sure is a master baiter.
"The first four bases were built on the surface and gradually got covered with snow and ultimately got so deep they became crushed by the weight of ice and had to be replaced"
They went all the way to the South Pole and nobody thought to bring a snow shovel? Shovel you nerdy bastards and your home won't be crushed by snow!
Ian: "Ay, Nigel. That snow onna roof's getting a might thick, eh? Maybe we should shove it or sumfing?"
Nigel: "Ian old mate, I didn't go to university for 15 years to shovel snow. Bugger the bloody roof. Let the Queen buy us a new one. 'Ere now. What's that crushing sound anyway...? And is it getting a bit close in here?"
I have been told that I had to take my phone to an authorized service center (not my local phone store) to enter the IP address for data services. They would not give me the address to enter myself.
Then you either didn't ask the right person, or you did ask the right question. I'm a Cingular customer, and I purchased my phone from a third party to get an unlocked phone of the make/model I wanted (because Cingular didn't sell that phone online or in its retail stores).
When I needed to setup Internet access on my phone, I called the regular Cingular customer service number, and then immediately asked to be transferred to technical support (customer support != technical support). Once I got the technical support person, I immediately asked to be transferred to someone in the "engineering group" (level 3 support). Once I got there, I explained what I wanted to do.
Not only did they give me the IP address, they emailed me a copy of an internal technical document with all of the Internet access settings with the menu trees for every phone they support. Quite handy, actually, since I used it to setup my wife's new phone a couple of months later, and it took about three minutes using the document as a reference.
So far, I've found Cingular's support to be quite good! You just have to figure out how their system works, and use it to your advantage.
and they are turning away potential business because of it.
I just went to their Starz! Ticket site to check it out, and was informed by Real, "sorry, but you can subscribe to our service, you don't have a minimum of 600k of bandwidth". Then it shows me a box that says I have 300k of bandwidth.
Problem is, I've got a 3000k leased connection, so it looks like they are making a math error somewhere. Their scripting errors are going to cost them just the sort of customers they are trying to attract: people with fat net pipes and disposable income.
What a galacticly stupid idea, putting a hokey bandwidth meter on your website to sort out your ideal customers from the unwashed masses. How typically Real.
Wow. That seems like a long time unless you have hundreds of contacts and calendar items or something. I also have a PBG4 running 10.3.4, and I iSync with .Mac, my iPod, and my Z600 all in under two minutes, with a decent number of bookmarks, contacts and calendar entries. My wife said that her experience syncing with her T616 is comparable to mine (she has the same notebook/OS). I wonder if you might just have a defective BT chipset in your phone (or your PB)?
Oh, sorry. I just assumed you meant Internet access. I use my SE Z600 for GPRS connectivity, and I also sync my address book, calendar, etc to it. I guess I just notice the GPRS speed more than the sync speed, because it never would have occured to me that it would be slow enough to complain. In fact, I think my Z600 syncs pretty fast. Before I had it, I used iSync to sync my stuff to my iPod. When I added the phone to the sync scheme, I only noticed an extra couple of seconds to complete the sync.
My wife has an SE T616, she's never complained about it being slow to sync. I'll have to ask her about it.
What kind of sync times are you seeing, and what OS/app are you using to sync?
With my Sony Ericsson T616 speeds are laughable and slow and maybe now Bluetooth will finally be able to maximize its potential...
I doubt your speed issue is a result of the speed of the Bluetooth connection between your laptop and your phone, but rather the 9600-14.4kbps GPRS connection between your phone and your provider's network. I don't think EDR Bluetooth is going to help any with your cellular Internet connection. At least not until 3G becomes ubiquitous.
Instead of tracking hikers on trails with sensors (and how do you know it's a hiker anyway, and not a bear/deer/extraterrestrial?), offer hikers the ability to check-out an emergency transponder that they can turn on if they need assistance. Hell, you could even offer it as a service that people might be willing to pay for, and that would offset your equipment costs.
RIAA wants to hike prices? Fine. Let them.
It's real simple. iTMS just had a record sales week with 3.3M songs sold. They are averaging something like 2.5M songs per week. Let the RIAA hike the price. Let's watch the numbers.
If consumers don't have a problem with the price hike, sales will be unaffected. If consumers don't like it, sales will drop. If sales drop by more than 26%, the RIAA starts loosing money. If that happens, they'll be forced to restore the $0.99 pricing.
You can't blame them for hiking their prices, if the market will yield a profit by doing so. As buyers of music, we all get to vote on whether the price increase is reasonable. If we collectively say we won't pay $1.25/song, they will be forced to either drop prices or lose money.
Man, I hope this catches on in the U.S. with cable stations like Comedy Central and the Sci-Fi Channel. Those two and a handful of others are the only reason I still subscribe to cable. And it pisses me off to no end that I have to pay $40/month for a "standard package" which includes 60 or so channels I DON'T watch.
Individual cable broadcast companies taking this initiative will bring about the same effect as the a la carte cable service many Americans have been asking for. Anyone with broadband Internet access will have access to only the shows they want, on demand, and priced individually.
I'm not dismissing them as useless. I'm taking them down off the Pedestal of Infallibility Mac zealots have put them on.
I just went back over this whole thread, and I fail to see where either the OP or myself claimed that Apple's security was "infallible". And I haven't seen any display of "zealotry" in this thread either, unless zealotry means saying, "hey, here's a good idea..."
All that was said about MacOS X, was that it presented an extra security buffer between the user and root-level access while still providing access for administrative functions, and that the Linux security model could learn from that approach. Now, this extra layer doesn't provide a foolproof countermeasure to malware, but I dare say a system that uses this approach has at least a little more security than a system that doesn't.
Unless users have a basic grasp of how to tell when something is suspect, these issues will arise. No operating system can plug the security hole between the chair and the keyboard. Only training can do that.
So you're saying that the problem of security is not a systemic one, but a problem of user-level training. And that no matter what security features you put into a system, dumb users will still break the system.
That sounds like a cop-out to me. "There's no point in trying to build in additional security, because dumb users will always screw things up. No operating system can fix that problem. We just need users to become more educated. Our system isn't broken, it's fine the way it is."
I'm suddenly reminded of why I walked away from Linux and the Linux community.
I've got news for you. YOU'LL NEVER FIX THE PROBLEM OF DUMB USERS. You can't train every computer user to be a sysadmin, because the vast majority have no interest in learning. So that leaves you with only two options:
1) Start requiring a license to own a computer, or
2) Harden the system as much as possible.
If you're waiting for the day when computer users are all educated and informed, and security abounds because nobody is stupid enough to be fooled by script kiddies, get yourself a coat and a chair. Hell will freeze over first, and you may get tired from standing.
But again, even if the root user *was* disabled, and only Administrators could do root-level things, the script would ask for that password. It could still do a lot of damage, installing software, setting up relays, etc. Asking for a password every time a root-level function needs to be executed, as OSX does, is not that great for security when the user is uninformed.
I think you're still overlooking an important point: in MacOS X, administrator-level and root-level are NOT the same thing. Administrator-level functions are a subset of root-level functions. There are things an administrator is NOT permitted to do (and deleting System files is one). If the root user is disabled (as it is by default), those files simply can't be deleted, no matter how clever the script kiddie is.
I think that was the point of this thread, wasn't it? MacOS X was held up as an example of the way an operating system can be both usable and secure at the same time. In MacOS X, you can do any admin-level tasks as a non-root administrator, EXCEPT destroy the system.
And you're right; that directory structure is from my own install of Gentoo. But the example was not intended to address a specific problem.
No, but it illustrates that while you are clearly not familiar with the technical workings of MacOS X's security features, you are quick to dismiss them as useless. My point was that you should take some time to understand MacOS X security before you just shoot it down. I was a Linux user and admin from 1995 to 2002, and I've been a FreeBSD user and admin since 2000. I've installed and managed AIX, SCO, and Solaris systems, as well. I'm very familiar with Unix/Linux security, and I find Apple's solution to be an excellent mechanism for padding in the average user, while allowing the pro/admin to get into the guts of the system. In my opinion, "user-oriented" Linux distros should take note of Apple's methodology in that area, because they could learn a thing or two.
One nice trick Apple discovered is to have the users be non-root, yet still administrative.
/home/joeblow/attachments .....done. ./virus_scan.sh
/boot
/home
/lib
/mnt
/opt
/proc
/root
Ahh, that's a fantastic idea. Foolproof.
Downloading email attachment to
[~/attachments]$ ls -l
-rwxr--r-- 1 joeblow joeblow 124 Apr 11 16:30 virus_scan.sh
[~/attachments]$
This utility requires a root password to run. Password: ***********
<snip deleting files>
Except that it doesn't work like that. You see, under OS X, the root user is disabled by default. "Administrators" in OS X parlance, are users authorized to do sudo-permitted functions as root. In order for an admin to gain true root-level permissions, they need to enable the root user in NetInfo, and then su to root. If they enable the root user, they are circumventing the protective measures Apple put in place. But Apple *did* put them there, and they *do* work if left alone.
By the way, it's obvious that you are a Linux user, and have never seen the guts of OS X. The following directory structures don't even exist under OS X:
You're just like the Windows Admin talking about Linux security. Ironic, eh?
How do you pronounce Suse? I've never seen it anywhere...
Soo-SEH.
I actually drank over 100 cups of coffee inside of a 24-hour period once (long convoluted reason omitted). I was high to the rafters, got a splitting headache, and crashed for two days after I did it, but needless to say, I survived the incident.
So, no. It won't kill you.
As a FreeBSD user, I build almost everything from source using ports. I never install from packages. My reasons for this are many and varied, but basically, I prefer to build software myself, with the precise options I need. When you use packages, you are at the mercy of the packager and their preference for options and optimizations. Several years ago when I used Linux, I often encountered problems of pre-built packages lacking a particular build option, and sometimes installing to odd places, or other strangeness.
And once you've started using packages and package management, it gets harder to introduce source-built software into the same environment without screwing up your dependency databases, or worse - breaking things. So if a package lacks a required option, you really have to build your own package with the option included in order to keep things orderly. That's a lot more work than just installing from source.
I'm not a Linux user anymore (several reasons) but if I were I to go back to Linux, I would use Gentoo, specifically for its Portage system.
So, in my opinion, building from source may be a little more time and CPU consuming, but it is the better option for a controlled, tailored environment.
You've never seen males buying cellphones, laptops or PDA's have you?
Yes I have, and I've never seen a woman with a 17" PowerBook.