Everyone seems to be forgetting that what really makes Microsoft wrong in this instance is that they had a hand in making the MPEG4 licensing terms what they are. So it could be effectively argued that they held out on agreeing to its licensing terms until it was at a sufficiently high enough price to marginalize its effectiveness as an open standard. After which they then put in the final nail so to speak with this action.
And even though MS's software may not always be the most robust, they are always one step ahead on legalese.
First of all though you may not like 9 it was much more powerful and its VM system was much better than Windows up until it reached 2000.
Secondly That is not a security flaw, it is a feature. On a single user machine with no guest or other users why should a user ever be prompted to login? To install anyything system level, yes, but to login? You may not see the usefullness of such a thing being that you are used to an OS that no matter which distro was designed as a server OS to be used in workgroup environments. Mac OS X was not it was designed to be in the home.
Software Update is without flaw, every update is crytographically sealed for the exact reason of a possible security flaw or a spoofed apple server, and it only allows updates from the Apple servers. Read the arstechnica article on Software Update for further information on how the new Software Update works. Software Update is much more secure than say apt-get.
Lastly Apple has never had a security flaw and thoroughly checks thier code before it ever gets released. Apple is spends a huge amount of time code auditing, and why you seem to think that you or someone else could do better to find flaws in things you neither wrote nor know how are supposed to work is overly pompous. This isn't the land of linux and windows where buffer overflows run amok. You would be hard pressed to find an example of a product written by Apple that had a security flaw.
Yeah, because if your vendor made it then it must be secure.....
Unlike MS, Apple doesn't make inferior products that have new security holes to be discovered every week. So I really have no reason not to trust Apple's stuff.
As to the source of Mac OS X: Why do you need it? Thier source being open will in no way help Mac OS X, perhaps it may help other *nix distros but not Apple's since they are heavily optimized regularly and provide a layer of operability higher than those of say systrace.
Replace my kernel?, but I like my kernel
on
Systrace for Mac OS X
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
My only qualm is where is this kernel coming from and why is there no other way to run this then with a specially built kernel. Im sorry to say, but I can't just trust anything that replaces my kernel, no matter who it comes from when that person isn't my OS vendor.
Is it impossible to get teh same thing done with a kernel extension?
This is a load of crap. First Navigator is based on Mozilla. I use Mozilla and Chimera as my browsers on OS X, and on Windows I use IE and Mozilla.
They never said Chimera wasn't using Gecko as a matter of fact they made sure to mention the Gecko rendering engine, they merely didn't mention that Navigator uses Gecko explicitly. I thought the idea was inferred.
you can change the clock in Open Firmware, the only problem is that finding documentation on the commands is near impossible and the help while in the openfirmware screen is so obtuse, it might as well had been in another language.
This is true, but X would refuse to boot for the fact that it doesn't run on non recognized hardware. the BootX loader would get the machine profile and the serial number, or rather try and would then fail.
Maybe you can trick 9 since it is a file after all, but I don't think it'll work that way for X since the Firmware loads up X's Firmware in the BootX file and that actually checks what machine your running on.
The reason I say this, is because I have seen the screen I speak of on a 7600 when I tried to install X on it.
Mac OS X can work. The normal boot is that the OpenFirmware boots Mac OS X's firmware extensions in the BootX file. Since I don't know exactly how MOL does its thing I can't specualte whether or not it will work, but if it tricks the computer into thinking its doing a regular boot it sould work, except Mac OS X will refuse to run because of unsupported hardware. It will check your machine's serial number and see there is none and no machine profile and stop and say it has no idea what to do. It whould get no further than the firmware screen.
It shouldn't be tenchinally possible since the Mac OS has always required the Mac ROM to be present in order to run. Unless MOL comes with one it shouldn't be possible. Furthermore if MOL does come with one, Apple would have sued them long ago, so what is the story on how come they can run the Mac OS?
You won't be. The only reason Mac-On-Linux works is because the macs they are being run on actually have the Mac ROM chip that enables 9 and X to work. AFAIK without that ROM neither system will boot.
So It isn't technically possible to run Mac OS anything on these without having an Apple Mac ROM, and we all know if you have that sans a real Mac, Apple will come to beat you down with thier big legal sticks. So they should be happy they can't run the Mac OS.
P.S. Even the old style iMacs which you can still purchase, outperform these machines.
Actually the terms were that Appl ecould could its name if it never sounded a single note. So when they added system alerts, teh first one was a single note and called sosumi (pronounced So Sue Me).
I have no idea why people never realize this, but the "SuperDrive" is merely the Pioneer DVR-AO3 currently and prior to that was the DVD-A02, so basically any Pioneer branded DVD player should be accepted as a legitimate SuperDrive by iDVD and other Apple Software that asks.
I don't know where your getting that, but every Power Mac since the introduction of the ADC conencter has had a VGA port, even prior to the ADC connecter they had two ports, VGA included. As I try to recall, how far back is it that these problems existed. It may be a nomenclature problem in that all Power Macs have video connecters, but the 7200 IS NOT A POWER MAC it is a Power PC, yes, but then again all macs with IBM chips are.
Also the Disc Utility that replaced HArd Drve Setup supports all HDs, I know this since I have used it many times on many new drives, so you guys really need to stop with this bashing for the purpose of bashing.
I could also go through the weak ass hardware, but it'll be a pointless argument. BTW back in the time of teh 7200 Apple was so far ahead of PC hardware you can't even try to say that PC hardware could compare.
ACtually everyone has a copy of iDVD, and DVD Player and all the Apple apps. The only thing is that the Mac OS X installer first checks if you have the hardware that justifies the installation of said software. IF not it doesn't. But thru use of third party installers liek Pacifist you can easily choose to install the iDVD package and any other apps Apple has deemed inappropriate in your machine's case.
As long as I'm going total Comic-book guy on this, does it bother anyone else that Harry Potter is supposed to be this great and powerful wizard, but his friends at Hogwarts always seem to be saving his ass?
That is the entire idea, he is SUPPOSED TO BE a great and powerful wizard cept he lacks both training and the knowledge to be that.
Currently he may be more powerful, but you could never prove it with Hermione knowing ALOT more spells and incantations than he does. To his credit he is a fast learner, but nowhere near the reuptation that precedes him.
You should read the books then when you get to the fourth you understand that yes, he is powerful but his power lies not in his magic, but his resourcefulness and most importantly his friends.
We must not be watching the same films. For all intents and purrposes Harry POtter and the Sorceror's Stone is a much better film. At many points in LOTR i was screaming "This movie is way too long" and during HP I never even noticed how quickly the film flew by even though they are approximately the same length.
If anything the staying more true to the book is to blame for its turning out as a much better film. Too bad they dropped out little tidbits and details.
I don't think so. The wizards in Harry Potter are so much more powerful than the Sorcerors in LOTR its no even funny. I was soo let down by the pathetic battle between Gandalf and Soramon. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. HP on the other hand uses so much more control of elements, magics forces, smmoning of creatures, and just general defiance of the elements that it makes the Sorcerors in LOTR seem like budding amateurs.
YOu are so wrong, you have no idea. THe first movie left out so may details and tidbits that seem unimportant when you first read it but as you reach the third and fourth installments you see the huge buildup that started way back in teh first book. Some of the same type of details were left out in the second movie. Well no need to worry about storytellers, things like the cat lady that Harry is usually left with when his Aunt and Uncle go away. THe fact she is merely mentioned in the first book then expanded upon in the third book. And the only reason for that is to introduce the ieda fo a secret keeper.
Trust that what you think you followed in the first is your apparent mental glue that fill in the gaps that everyone else saw were apparent.
P.S. They even took out the dragon. I hope they release a later DVD with what they took out.
File I/O and other low level operatoins need no optimizing, wanna know why? Because that is BSD's thing they have optimized the hell out of it. Use the Darwin core by itself then try and say file I/O is slow, you'll see just how ridiculous your claim is.
As to the iApps, you really don't seem to realize just how valuable those apps are, they are consumer oriented and make the most complex of tasks as simple as point and click.
The Finder's drawing of large folders is comparable to that of other OSes, better in most places, I have lots of folders of MP3s with a flat architeecutre each with hundreds of files in em, I open the folder and it instantly shows up, So what your trying to point out is lost on me.
As to the VM, Apple didn't write it, and as I recall all VMs work about the same way only difference is normally on UNICES they are on another partition so thier growing is inconsequential since they are bound by the partition size.
It mus tbe your machine because there are many benchmarks that show that PS 7 in X is faster than all previous version in 9. The only time PS is faster than it is in X, is PS7 in 9.
"To be honest, even though I am one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system..."/A.
Gotta love that.
The reason those machines were slow is becasue they were during the 68040->PPC conversion everything was a fat binary that ran slower on native 68040 machines and slower then PPC compiled apps on PPC machines.
That being said the only reason people think X is slow is because unlike the majority of the mac populace thier primary measure of speed/performance is web browsing and window resizing. Personally I use chimera on my 466 G4 and it has been able to whip many windows machines using IE to render pages.
Window resizing is another matter, it truly is sluggish, btu gues what, I have resized windoes on my machine all of 5 times and those were all on the first day I got the machine. Its just a mismeasure of performance.
Almost forget the all important switching from app to app, Switching is INSTANTANEOUS, oddly enough the only time it isnt is when you use the command-Tab command to switch then it seems to take a noticable longer time to switch. Fo rwaht rason I have no idea, but the switchin is instantaneous if you watch its the shadows that you wait for to be redrawn, and if oyu have a Quartz extreme capable machine you don't even see it. So just click into the app you want and notice the HUGE difference in speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone seems to be forgetting that what really makes Microsoft wrong in this instance is that they had a hand in making the MPEG4 licensing terms what they are. So it could be effectively argued that they held out on agreeing to its licensing terms until it was at a sufficiently high enough price to marginalize its effectiveness as an open standard. After which they then put in the final nail so to speak with this action.
And even though MS's software may not always be the most robust, they are always one step ahead on legalese.
First of all though you may not like 9 it was much more powerful and its VM system was much better than Windows up until it reached 2000.
Secondly That is not a security flaw, it is a feature. On a single user machine with no guest or other users why should a user ever be prompted to login? To install anyything system level, yes, but to login? You may not see the usefullness of such a thing being that you are used to an OS that no matter which distro was designed as a server OS to be used in workgroup environments. Mac OS X was not it was designed to be in the home.
Software Update is without flaw, every update is crytographically sealed for the exact reason of a possible security flaw or a spoofed apple server, and it only allows updates from the Apple servers. Read the arstechnica article on Software Update for further information on how the new Software Update works. Software Update is much more secure than say apt-get.
Lastly Apple has never had a security flaw and thoroughly checks thier code before it ever gets released. Apple is spends a huge amount of time code auditing, and why you seem to think that you or someone else could do better to find flaws in things you neither wrote nor know how are supposed to work is overly pompous. This isn't the land of linux and windows where buffer overflows run amok. You would be hard pressed to find an example of a product written by Apple that had a security flaw.
Yeah, because if your vendor made it then it must be secure.....
Unlike MS, Apple doesn't make inferior products that have new security holes to be discovered every week. So I really have no reason not to trust Apple's stuff.
As to the source of Mac OS X: Why do you need it? Thier source being open will in no way help Mac OS X, perhaps it may help other *nix distros but not Apple's since they are heavily optimized regularly and provide a layer of operability higher than those of say systrace.
My only qualm is where is this kernel coming from and why is there no other way to run this then with a specially built kernel. Im sorry to say, but I can't just trust anything that replaces my kernel, no matter who it comes from when that person isn't my OS vendor.
Is it impossible to get teh same thing done with a kernel extension?
This is a load of crap. First Navigator is based on Mozilla. I use Mozilla and Chimera as my browsers on OS X, and on Windows I use IE and Mozilla.
They never said Chimera wasn't using Gecko as a matter of fact they made sure to mention the Gecko rendering engine, they merely didn't mention that Navigator uses Gecko explicitly. I thought the idea was inferred.
The only difference is that Sherlock is a much better app since it does it the way it's supposed to.
you can change the clock in Open Firmware, the only problem is that finding documentation on the commands is near impossible and the help while in the openfirmware screen is so obtuse, it might as well had been in another language.
This is true, but X would refuse to boot for the fact that it doesn't run on non recognized hardware. the BootX loader would get the machine profile and the serial number, or rather try and would then fail.
Maybe you can trick 9 since it is a file after all, but I don't think it'll work that way for X since the Firmware loads up X's Firmware in the BootX file and that actually checks what machine your running on.
The reason I say this, is because I have seen the screen I speak of on a 7600 when I tried to install X on it.
Mac OS X can work. The normal boot is that the OpenFirmware boots Mac OS X's firmware extensions in the BootX file. Since I don't know exactly how MOL does its thing I can't specualte whether or not it will work, but if it tricks the computer into thinking its doing a regular boot it sould work, except Mac OS X will refuse to run because of unsupported hardware. It will check your machine's serial number and see there is none and no machine profile and stop and say it has no idea what to do. It whould get no further than the firmware screen.
It shouldn't be tenchinally possible since the Mac OS has always required the Mac ROM to be present in order to run. Unless MOL comes with one it shouldn't be possible. Furthermore if MOL does come with one, Apple would have sued them long ago, so what is the story on how come they can run the Mac OS?
You won't be. The only reason Mac-On-Linux works is because the macs they are being run on actually have the Mac ROM chip that enables 9 and X to work. AFAIK without that ROM neither system will boot.
So It isn't technically possible to run Mac OS anything on these without having an Apple Mac ROM, and we all know if you have that sans a real Mac, Apple will come to beat you down with thier big legal sticks. So they should be happy they can't run the Mac OS.
P.S. Even the old style iMacs which you can still purchase, outperform these machines.
Actually the terms were that Appl ecould could its name if it never sounded a single note. So when they added system alerts, teh first one was a single note and called sosumi (pronounced So Sue Me).
How do you like them Apples?
I have no idea why people never realize this, but the "SuperDrive" is merely the Pioneer DVR-AO3 currently and prior to that was the DVD-A02, so basically any Pioneer branded DVD player should be accepted as a legitimate SuperDrive by iDVD and other Apple Software that asks.
no VGA connectors on their Powermacs...
I don't know where your getting that, but every Power Mac since the introduction of the ADC conencter has had a VGA port, even prior to the ADC connecter they had two ports, VGA included. As I try to recall, how far back is it that these problems existed. It may be a nomenclature problem in that all Power Macs have video connecters, but the 7200 IS NOT A POWER MAC it is a Power PC, yes, but then again all macs with IBM chips are.
Also the Disc Utility that replaced HArd Drve Setup supports all HDs, I know this since I have used it many times on many new drives, so you guys really need to stop with this bashing for the purpose of bashing.
I could also go through the weak ass hardware, but it'll be a pointless argument. BTW back in the time of teh 7200 Apple was so far ahead of PC hardware you can't even try to say that PC hardware could compare.
ACtually everyone has a copy of iDVD, and DVD Player and all the Apple apps. The only thing is that the Mac OS X installer first checks if you have the hardware that justifies the installation of said software. IF not it doesn't. But thru use of third party installers liek Pacifist you can easily choose to install the iDVD package and any other apps Apple has deemed inappropriate in your machine's case.
As long as I'm going total Comic-book guy on this, does it bother anyone else that Harry Potter is supposed to be this great and powerful wizard, but his friends at Hogwarts always seem to be saving his ass?
That is the entire idea, he is SUPPOSED TO BE a great and powerful wizard cept he lacks both training and the knowledge to be that.
Currently he may be more powerful, but you could never prove it with Hermione knowing ALOT more spells and incantations than he does. To his credit he is a fast learner, but nowhere near the reuptation that precedes him.
You should read the books then when you get to the fourth you understand that yes, he is powerful but his power lies not in his magic, but his resourcefulness and most importantly his friends.
Im tempted to reread the Book again myself.
We must not be watching the same films. For all intents and purrposes Harry POtter and the Sorceror's Stone is a much better film. At many points in LOTR i was screaming "This movie is way too long" and during HP I never even noticed how quickly the film flew by even though they are approximately the same length.
If anything the staying more true to the book is to blame for its turning out as a much better film. Too bad they dropped out little tidbits and details.
I don't think so. The wizards in Harry Potter are so much more powerful than the Sorcerors in LOTR its no even funny. I was soo let down by the pathetic battle between Gandalf and Soramon. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. HP on the other hand uses so much more control of elements, magics forces, smmoning of creatures, and just general defiance of the elements that it makes the Sorcerors in LOTR seem like budding amateurs.
YOu are so wrong, you have no idea. THe first movie left out so may details and tidbits that seem unimportant when you first read it but as you reach the third and fourth installments you see the huge buildup that started way back in teh first book. Some of the same type of details were left out in the second movie. Well no need to worry about storytellers, things like the cat lady that Harry is usually left with when his Aunt and Uncle go away. THe fact she is merely mentioned in the first book then expanded upon in the third book. And the only reason for that is to introduce the ieda fo a secret keeper.
Trust that what you think you followed in the first is your apparent mental glue that fill in the gaps that everyone else saw were apparent.
P.S. They even took out the dragon. I hope they release a later DVD with what they took out.
File I/O and other low level operatoins need no optimizing, wanna know why? Because that is BSD's thing they have optimized the hell out of it. Use the Darwin core by itself then try and say file I/O is slow, you'll see just how ridiculous your claim is.
As to the iApps, you really don't seem to realize just how valuable those apps are, they are consumer oriented and make the most complex of tasks as simple as point and click.
The Finder's drawing of large folders is comparable to that of other OSes, better in most places, I have lots of folders of MP3s with a flat architeecutre each with hundreds of files in em, I open the folder and it instantly shows up, So what your trying to point out is lost on me.
As to the VM, Apple didn't write it, and as I recall all VMs work about the same way only difference is normally on UNICES they are on another partition so thier growing is inconsequential since they are bound by the partition size.
Moxilla owes that oh so lovely UI speed to its Java roots. Try Pheonix and well see just how slow you think Mozilla is.
It mus tbe your machine because there are many benchmarks that show that PS 7 in X is faster than all previous version in 9. The only time PS is faster than it is in X, is PS7 in 9.
"To be honest, even though I am one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system..."/A. Gotta love that.
Regardless of hardware, regardless of Operating Sytem, regardless of software, Java is ALWAYS slow.
The reason those machines were slow is becasue they were during the 68040->PPC conversion everything was a fat binary that ran slower on native 68040 machines and slower then PPC compiled apps on PPC machines. That being said the only reason people think X is slow is because unlike the majority of the mac populace thier primary measure of speed/performance is web browsing and window resizing. Personally I use chimera on my 466 G4 and it has been able to whip many windows machines using IE to render pages. Window resizing is another matter, it truly is sluggish, btu gues what, I have resized windoes on my machine all of 5 times and those were all on the first day I got the machine. Its just a mismeasure of performance. Almost forget the all important switching from app to app, Switching is INSTANTANEOUS, oddly enough the only time it isnt is when you use the command-Tab command to switch then it seems to take a noticable longer time to switch. Fo rwaht rason I have no idea, but the switchin is instantaneous if you watch its the shadows that you wait for to be redrawn, and if oyu have a Quartz extreme capable machine you don't even see it. So just click into the app you want and notice the HUGE difference in speed.