**Can you describe what you can do with Windows client management that you can't do with OS X?
Sure... When I force bitlocker on portable computers, how do I get OS X to encrypt its volumes using my universal key?
When I set the administration key for FS encryption so employees can not lock Domain Administrators out of encrypted content, how do you get OS X to accept the key and ensure this policy is met?
When I set roaming profiles, so that all Applications and Files and Settings instantly follow a user no matter what system they sign into in an organization of 100 or 1000 computers spread around the world (or even a large building), how do you get OS X to seamless offer the same Applications, Settings, and User files?
(This last one is stuff we were doing before today's AD even, with NT 4.0 back in 1997, and mult-location installtions with the first generation BreezeCom 802.11 wireless shoving the data between locations. And it used local server application installation pools, and displayed user files even though the data wasn't pulled unless the user opened or access the file. Yet it is still freaking impossible with an OS X client, without elaborate scripts and custom software, or just using it like a dumb RDP terminal.)
There are so many things that can be centrrally managed and automated that are not even possible on OS X, that no matter how much of the AD Apple tries to adhere to, OS X fails, as it cannot provide the same base level of functionality as Windows.
AD is not just an authentication system, and file and printer shares. It is a complete set of technologies that fully integrate with the Windows Client providing everything from security and settings policies to managing users in complex environments where they are local, on a laptop at home, using a desktop around the world, or and when using a VPN from home. Sure OS X can VPN into the network, but can I lock the functionality of specific features of OS X when using the VPN, no. Can I have OS X Sync file and folders according to the corporate AD policies, from anywhere, and still remain encrypted to even the user with the AD authenication on OS X, no.
Heck even keeping the AD connection active for OS X clients is and has been an on going problem for years now, and it is not on the Windows AD Server side, as it depends on the OS X version as to the connectivity consistency.
I kind of feel sorry for people that manage a lot of desktop without AD. Once you realize what is possible with AD, it is a nightmare to go back and try to replicate even a 1/100th of the features in scripts in another environment. It is the same with trying to get OS X to work on AD, as you have to script out all the OS X stuff by hand if you want any real security or integration into the infrastructure, and still you are missing 90% of the features.
I don't hate OS X, I hate that Apple is clueless when it comes to what corporate environments with AD and Windows are doing that looks like Star Trek compared to a well designed OS X networked environment.
Well I agree that it is not wise, I think Apple with try to do it.
As for the argument that you can shoehone a "one size fits all", you are missing the concepts; however, when applied to certain OS models is spot on.
Regarding OS X as a whole, it is not designed to be, nor is it a modular OS, and this is why I agree with your base arguments.
OS X has inherent issues that Apple mangled when it put OS X together from XNU, that is a massive spaghetti bowl, with a lot of duct tape and super glue to keep up with the technology. iOS is a better design, but even it has many of the OS X problems and limitations that are fundamental problems with the kernel architecture/model.
Linux also fails the full modular needs of one fits all, even though many people try to make it fit this due to the OSS nature and some base coding that tries to keep it portable. However the monolithic kernel is what fails Linux to be fully modular, and the inherent dependencies that are also a side effect of the unix OS model.
For example, if you look at the Linux kernel used on Android, it doesn't fit, just like you state. Android has to bypass key functions of the Linux kernel and handle them itself using only simplistic calls to the kernel. A good example is Android implementing its own scheduling and memory manager, which is crap. If Android were to use the Linux memory manager and scheduler, it would also have to include a large chunk of other services/functions that would be way too resource intensive/heavy for most phone hardware.
However, modular OS models do exist, and they can handle the one size fits all better than expected.
This is where people need to go old school in thinking and pick back up where the world dropped out in the early 90s. As some of the best OS theories and conceputal designs were abandoned when everyone went back to Linux and OpenBSD when running from Microsoft and the horrible Win3.x/9x/Me generation of OSes. (Which made a lot of sense at the time, as these OSes were crap, but sadly needed for the hardware generation they were designed into.)
So if we go back to where the unix model was failing, in the late 80s, and pick up the best OS model concepts from the time, we can pick out some essential things that are key to a modular/portable/extensible OS model and set of technologies.
This is around the time I was in University, and we spent a lot of time on OS theory and engineering concepts of the time, which is why today it is freaking amazing that the 'crap' we were trying to get away from is still considered to be 'awesome' by a large portion of the OSS world and especially the younger generation.
So taking this in mind, lets pick out a few things that are necessary: -Object Based Model (Back then was overhead and seen as bad, today the overhead is tiny, and offset by the inherent extensibility.) -Architecture Agnostic (This is beyond portable, as the code doesn't have to change no matter what the underlying hardware is.) -Side Scaled Layering (This is moving beyond just a microkernel and a separate kernel API interface set, the layering should be virtually unlimited, with multiple side layers operating in parallel transparently accessing lower layers and providing access from higher layers.)
These are just a few concepts that I remember were the philosopher's stone of OS theory back then.
Oddly, these concepts were implemented in an OS within a couple of years. And as we expected, the OS was 'heavy' because of the complexity these concepts introduce. However, as time progressed, it started to really hit some 'surprising' strides in terms of capabilities and performance in just a few years.
So ask yourself, when you look around at OS technology today, where do you see these conceptual OS theories actually in use?
The best example, is one that people around here ignore and would never expect to be this advanced... Windows NT (aka Windows 2K/XP/Vista/7)
It fits all these OS 'concepts' that the technology world was tal
Until OS X takes on or even implements active management of clients at even a fraction of the level Windows does, it will not be viable in corporate/enterprise enviornments.
With Active Directory and Windows management capabilties, Microsoft has always focused on enterprise/business customers and an increasingly seamless system. Windows client/server environments self maintain, and offer a vast number of features that it is impossible to even replicate on OS X.
The world is no longer just well-behaved clients that work well with file shares and printers, and hasn't been since the early 90s, when Novel didn't grasp this evolution either. The transition was first to application server technologies, then centralized technologies that allowed computing power to stay local and offer a lot of features to the users/client and yet behave with the ease of agnostic terminal computing.
Plus as Google has acquired VP8 and WebM, the concept of them being 'open' is a bit misleading. Sure the code may be released, but any changes to the code will be irrelevant, as Google will decide and define all aspects of what is their 'standard'.
Thus any innovation and future compatibilty will be all what Google wants.
Sadly, if people do move to VP8 and WebM, Google will have a lot of power, and when they put in tracking and monitoring of video and data collection that goes directly back to them, there is no way anyone will be able to stop them.
As for Microsoft and the H.264 support in Chrome and Firefox, it is a result of the Microsoft philosophy that the OS should just handle certain higher level functionality, which they increased with Windows7 adding in not only more codec features, but licensing and including the codecs for the developers and end users so that they don't ever have to worry about it.
Due to the licensing restrictions in some of the OSS codecs, Microsoft can't include everything. However, Microsoft is doing a decent job of trying to cover most of the codecs especially ones that they can bite the licensing fees for the users and developers with Windows7 and WP7, which gives both OSes an edge for developers and helps consumers. (With my developer hat on, it is very attractive to be able to just use and play various audio and video content on WP7 in contrast to Android that has support for only a couple of semi-crap formats, and all other codecs shove the responsibility onto the backs of the Apps.)
So by adding codecs as a upper level OS feature, Microsoft is making Windows more attractive and helping consumers in the long run, which is how they can put out the H.264 plugins since Windows7 already covers the licensing. -Also it is just a few lines of code because of Windows7's inherent ability to play the format.
(If Microsoft had some self serving goal, they would be making VC1 plugins, and shoving VC1 content for HTML5, as it is their WMV format. And they are not.)
Additionally, the crapware/bloatware debate is a main reason that moved Microsoft to open Retail Stores, as they could as a 'retailer' make demands of the computers being sold, that as a software supplier they no longer could.
This allowed them to showcase Windows as they wanted the world to see it, and also put pressure back on OEMs that weren't meeting the requirements to be featured in the Microsoft stores.
I was at the heart of this mess, as our corporation owned two separate OEMs during this timeframe.
We specifically chose not to do what Dell and Gateway were doing, and instead took the cost hit as it was a better business model for us.
Sure it was easier to just support one OS and build for one OS, but we didn't limit our product line nor our customers based on it being easier and cheaper - outside of the OEM pricing.
As for Microsoft's exclusive pricing model, it was something that had been in the computer industry since the early 80s when independant software was first emerging from the base computer systems.
All companies, from IBM to DEC used similar contracts for both OS level software and higher level application software to clone OEM manufacturers.
What Microsoft offered was NO different than what had been around in the industry for many years, and it was an incentive for both parties.
These same exclusive contracts STILL exist and is why you see 'crapware' loaded on EVERY system sold as they are required in the exclusive contracts. So even if you have the option to select for the crapware to not be installed, it is still shipped with the computer, even if not installed.
Microsoft did nothing different, and is not any different than what is still happening in the OEM markets with the exclusive deals on pricing discounts for Wordperfect Office or the kickbacks for loading a trial version of Symantec crapware.
Trying to isolate Microsoft in this as doing something different or putting pressure on OEMs is pure hyperbole.
The only angle that had any bite on this issue was the dominance of Windows and this was customer demand, even if you think the consumer market was under-educated and making a bad choice, it was their choice that created this dominance, not some sly moves on Microsoft's part.
If it was top down as you suggest influence, they Microsoft would be using this 'brilliance' to own the mp3,phone and other markets that the 'cosnumers' are demanding Apple products. Think about it, Microsoft is a horrible company at marketing or even properly showcasing the technologies that are good.
Windows unified a fragmented hardware market for developers which made a lot of great software available to users. This is why Windows did well. PERIOD.
Smart OEMs paid the extra $5 for OEM copies of Windows and didn't have to bundle Windows with each computer sold.)
The smart ones.... you mean the ones that are no longer in business cause they couldn't compete price wise... those OEMs? Not sure how smart they were really.
Well of course, cause that $5 cost could never have been adjusted into pricing or compensated for and would have broke any OEM.
Seriously?
The large OEMs are still around, and even some of the small ones, and the $5 for Windows had nothing to do with their success, in fact a couple of larger companies that could customized and ship Linux or OS/2 during this timre period were more successful because they didn't have to give a copy of Windows with every sale.
However, for some OEMs it was a win-win, as they got a cheaper price, and could blame Microsoft for not being able to just sell you a computer or a computer with Linux. And this was great for them, as they DID NOT have to support an OS-less computer or deal with non-Windows technical support.
Microsoft got conned in the deal far more than the OEMs, as the OEMs got a better price, an excuse for not having to hardware test and build systems for any other OS, or support another OS. It also left them ability to cry foul and run to testify against Microsoft for forcing Windows on them.
However, in the 10 years since, how many systems do you see at Dell or HP offering Linux or any other OS? Very few if ANY, and they have their own internal policies now of INCLUDING Windows and ONLY supporting the computer with Windows on it as it was shipped. So the OEMs are doing the same crap, except they can't blame Microsoft for it now.
Microsoft tried this over ten years ago... Do people have no sense of history when it comes to computers?
Go look up the monopoly case against Microsoft, a large portion of the case was Microsoft's restrictions on OEMs on what modifications could be made to the OS. Microsoft supported bootup customizations (logos, support info, etc.) but the line was drawn in the sand when Microsoft started requesting 3rd party applications to be something that the OEM did not load and instead the user could optionally install them.
OEMs didn't want to lose this gravy the installed application money they received, and is why there was no lawsuit against Corel/Wordperfect for having the same contract that required the OEM to put Wordpefect Office on all systems sold, yet there was a lawsuit against Microsoft for the same contracts for both Windows and Microsoft Office.
(OEMs only got a better deal of about $5 per copy off of Windows if they included Windows with every system sold, and the greedy OEMs that went along with this, were also the ones that later on were in court testifying against Microsoft for offering them 'cheaper' deal that they willingly took. Smart OEMs paid the extra $5 for OEM copies of Windows and didn't have to bundle Windows with each computer sold.)
Anyway, this won't happen soon, as the money the OEMs make far out weighs the poor image of the crap that gets loaded on their computers creates about their computers.
Microsoft is stilly trying to get OEMs to reduce or make the 'optional' software a user initiated installation, and has even created an installation platform for OEMs and 3rd party software to use so that people get a true Windows experience on first boot, and can add all the crap they want that the OEM gets a kick back for by installing or using the software which initiates the install. (Microsoft's own software even uses this with Office and even Live Essentials which was formerly OS applications are optional installs for users.)
However, getting OEMs to stop taking 'bribe' money for loading crap, dream on... And with the Monopoly ruling against Microsoft, Microsoft no longer has any authority or say in how Windows is deployed. (Go read up on the lawsuit, why it really was a scam, and even people like the former CEO of Netscape later admitted it was a bad ruling, that he had previously testified and supported until he got to see the money and intent behind the ruling that came from the USA and the EU out of it.)
Google owns both WebM and VP8 - their only licensing obligation is to keep some of the source viewable. Google now defines how VP8 encoded and decoding works and the quality, etc. Google defines what specific features and version of WebM and VP8 that Chrome will support.
No matter how 'open' WebM and VP8 are now, what Google says and what Google supports is now the 'standard' and will be the single controlling voice for all video on the web.
This is more power than any other company has tried to obtain.
What prevents Google from changing WebM so that in two years, it breaks compatibility with previous versions, rendering hardware absolete? What prevents Google from defining the quality of the codecs used for their own purposes? What prevents Google from getting this accepted by the world, and then adding in advertising data and decoders that report information back to Google?
I understand that WebM and VP8 are 'open', but if Google only supports what they want, they are the sole voice in the format and standard, as anything outside their 'supported' guidelines will fail to work in Chrome/Android/etc.
Right now, this looks like another Google project that uses the work of others and then takes control and sells it at a good thing because it was based in open software.
Even Microsoft with WMV turned it over to a standards body to oversee the format that ensures compatibility and consistency - something I don't see Google doing, and WMV is a closed format 'standard' aka VC1. At least we are assured that a VC1 encoded BluRay Disc will always play, as Microsoft can't monkey with VC1 and destroy compatibility or mess up quality, etc.
I am seriously looking for some good answers, as this has me a bit scared to the level of control Google is getting if people blindly accept this.
1) Far less expose to malware when they start going online for games. 2) More controls and monitoring and filters that makes it family friendly is built in. 3) Faster if the netbook has 1gb of RAM.
This way you can approve online children gaming sites without much worry and without keeping them offline.
This is a television device that is bypassing local network stations.
This hurts your local stations.
This is also why you see the same companies NOT blocking some Cable content channels, like CNBC, as the local affliates don't only broadcast NBC, not CNBC.
There are also legal issues with this, just like Directv and satelittle providers have had to deal with.
There are also the local Cable companies that have a stake in the advertising revenue that they miss out on as well.
-- What needs to happen are some regulations that create standards for Internet access to broadcast content, that still allows your local stations and cable companies to insert their advertising, instead of only getting national advertising revenue.
If your local ABC could get their local adversting spots inserted in the 'ad' stops, this would be far less of an issue legally and financially.
Google knows better, and could have been a key player in getting some standards and regulations for local cable/broadcast companies into the game with national content. Instead they thought they could get away with shoving this on a TV because they are Google?
Yes, I fully index file contents, and even have the Image Text Recognition turned on (Turn Windows features on or off, Windows TIFF IFilter), in addition to the Office and Adobe and various other application document searching IFilters installed with various software.
I had to manually turn on the 'file contents' of some of the text development file types that I have used over the years, so they are also getting fully indexed.
On my laptop (currently typing this), I only have a subset of my entire data collection (as when I am networked to my main data PC, it returns the results it maintains); however, even on this laptop there is about 200GB of data indexed, and 2,500,000 items indexed.
Results are instant, and very comprhensive, even returning OneNote meetings where someone 'said' something I am searching for.
Neither computer in my example is even above average, as this is a Core2 Duo laptop, so is the desktop data PC, except the data PC has several TBs of drive space available.
In contrast to Google Desktop Search, there is quite a jump in features that W7's Search offers, from the SQL access methods and inter-applicaiton access tools to even the network handing off of indexed locations to the managing PC/Server.
Also with Google Desktop Search, anything over about 1,200,000 items fully indexed would not only make the results slow, but make the system chug in keeping track of things.
W7's Search utilizes features in NTFS for a better and lighter job of tracking data that Google's Search doesn't seem to use or use as efficiently.
Which leads me to my final thought. Most of the time when there have been uses with people getting sub-par performance out of indexed locations, they are stored on FAT32 instead of NTFS partitions.
It is very important to make sure all the data you are storing and wanting to index is on NTFS partitions, as this is what W7 Search uses to make performance and the cost of indexing the locations effortless. (Storing large amounts of data on FAT32 is also dangerous, as there isn't even a fraction of the integrity that you get with NTFS.)
1) Microsoft OneNote - best note gathering tool, also online coordination/sync if you want/trust. (Thus viewable on my phone as well)
2) Smartphone - Android
3) Windows7 and the built in Search indexing system, it keeps track of everything I have done for the past 20 years. With selective online Syncing of current documents and projects available to any PC I sign into with Live Essentials, or via a browser. (Millions and Millions of documents, notes, meeting recordings, ink drawings, development projects, etc. - all available instantly, something that made OS X choke when trying to index even a small portion of the TBs of data.) Add in 'previous versions' and the backup system and you have a very mature system of tracking the data of your life, and even seeing it at various time points.
OneNote and Vista/Win7's Search features are something that has keep me off of Linux as a primary desktop for a few years now. Gone are the days of 'find' and cobbled indexing solutions.
It is just too handy to type a partial line of code and get the project, or a few words from an email back in 1992 and have it at my finger tips.
For someone to have EVER considered the Mac an open platform on any level is freaking disturbing. From hardware to software, it is the most closed platform in the world.
Just because they ripped of XNU and it uses UNIX underpinnings as a model does not make it open in any sense of the imagination. If this is the standard of 'open' then Windows NT is also an open platform, as it has a full BSD subsystem.
Professor Plum run, we are now playing a game of 'Clueless'...
I have no problem with anyone using a cli, even I like more than the majority of the population.
I do have a problem with the assertion that a base cli is needed for an os and other operations should be structured from the cli or a cli model. In unix this seems more of a accepted idea and this is because of the definition of the unix model and it textual nature and file generic principles.
Powershell on nt is great too, but, because it brings a cli interface that natively works with nt's object model, a first for a cli to deal with objects inherently, that was needed to deal with an object based os.
*back to swype for next post, hate physical droid keyboard... typos will not be fixed:)
With the advances in GUI design and beyond GUI design technology, a CLI should be obsolete, even if it is not obsolete in practice on the specific examples.
There is no reason a written script should be necessary, when an object constructed visual script could also be generated that is just as specific and functional. Again, just because the tools and technology are not common does not mean it is the standard and will always be a truth.
There was a time that writing software required 'writing code' as well, and today we have technologies that let graphic designers put together robust applications without writing a single line of code. (MS Blend for a simple example of XAML based GUI development.)
By nature Unix based OS models are CLI dependent(textual pipes and generic I/O constructs); however, this is not true of all OS models(NT is an object based OS, where a CLI is counter intuitive which makes PowerShell a brilliant CLI model that came years after the OS, and uses the object nature of the OS design).
Even with some imagination this isn't a 'truth' in a UNIX OS model either. There is no reason that all constructs have to derive or remain at a CLI level with a GUI strapping onto the CLI. Replace the CLI constructs with GUI based interactions and instead of textual pipes, object and graphical piping could be the model that replaces the CLI nature of UNIX.
This line of thinking is a failure of imagination and factually incorrect when viewed from an object based OS design like NT where the CLI(PowerShell) was an achievement to harness objects at a regressed CLI level.
I don't get the sad Flash UI implemented for viewing the art. Why not just use DeepZoom or a variation to seamlessly zoom and pan the images. (Deepzoom is a MS technology, but it can be used with Silverlight or even generic HTML and is exactly what this company is trying to do.)
Love the high resolution images and availability; however, using the page UI and how freaking slow the UI is doesn't make a good impression.
The point isn't that NT Scales to 256 cores, the point is how efficient it is when scaling to this many processors. The NT Kernel in Win7 was adjusted so that systems with 64 or 256 CPUs have a very low overhead handling the extra processors.
Linux in theory (just like NT in theory) can support several thousand processors, but there is a level that this becomes inefficient as the overhead of managing the additional processors saturates a single system. (Hence other multi-SMP models are often used instead of a single 'system')
Just simply Google/Bing: windows7 256 Mark Russinovich
You can find nice articles and even videos of Mark talking about this in everyday terms to make it easy to understand.
the trade-off between the cost of managing firewalls on all the workstations in an enterprise, versus their inevitable half-assed-ness and tendency to get in the way, thereby consuming support hours. But, where I work, we have a standard config that gets pushed out to all the systems,
Although this is a good thing to make people 'think', it is insane that today we still have IT people that are not using structured and centralized management. There is no reason any desktop should have a 'different/messed-up' configuration with either good distribution/scripting or simplistic tools like gropup policies on Windows.
IT people need to either retrain or learn to use the tools they have and stop micro-managing desktop, no matter if they are dealing with 5 or 500 systems.
A Desktop firewall should not be relied on to protect a computer, ever
You are missing something really big.
If the server/network firewall fails or is compromised, then the desktop solution will mitigate the damage or even protect the unit from other affected desktops behind the firewall.
When you have group policies and global controls there is no reason not to use a dual system of protection, especially considering how light the processing cost is per desktop.
We all like to believe that the main firewall is god-like and will protect everyone, but even with strict employee policies, you have people (often management) hooking in their iPhones/Androids and other crap that are risks.
Kernel has XFS for some, ReiserFS for others, ext4 for the rest of us, and then some: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems. You would score a point if you cited ZFS as a FS with "some fairly advanced features", but NTFS just isn't that advanced among the rest.
Ya, nice chart we have all read 1000 times. It doesn't even fully detail the features of every FS, and mainly compares the features that are heavily favored in the OSS world, and sometimes worthless in the real world.
Look at the table headings: Posix file permissions, Last archive time stamp, Checksum/ECC. Some of these things are meaningless as NTFS is used, and some of them are features in NTFS, but because they are implemented differently or have a different name, they are not counted - for example: Block Journaling
NTFS is the kitchen sink of FS technology, is built on some old, but solid designs that work well with the object based nature of NT, so that handling generic file streaming is not something that it has to be used for since the NT OS understands more than pipes and files, and can actually use Object properties and data properties and the metadata in ways not even possible on a *nix.
I wonder if anyone here has a clue why Microsoft designed an Object Based kernel model for NT instead of using a generic pipe/file textual model like UNIX? It certainly wasn't for the performance back in 1990 when referencing object properties ate CPU cycles that were so precious back then. (Hint: This is the same reason NT continues to easily extend like modifying the entire video subsystem structure, driver model structure in NT4/Win2k, and it also gives it modern tricks of getting more performance and access to kernel and OS operations because they are not all generic I/O.)
When you don't have to pick between several FS to get the features you want, or kill your FS performance by strapping on augmentations to the FS to add the featutes and can still pull of NTFS performance and reliability numbers, then lets talk. So far, ZFS was the closest thing to getting there, and it even fell short in features.
(Journaling that doesn't destroy performance, encryption, copy on write, compression, etc. - you know, the simple stuff that WindowsNT does everyday and users actually assume all OSes offer.)
Oh, and why doesn't everyone bring out the NTFS 'fragments' boogey man argument. I love it considering the table access method NTFS uses is very efficient even at fragmented file access, and it brings up the point that because of 'copy on write', NTFS by nature will always fragment more, just like ZFS did, and just like any FS you cite would if they implemented a more advanced feature like this.
Yes they did, it is magical and called NTFS and still is the FS that outperforms most *nix FS technology and offers 10x the features, and is considered the holy grail of non-MS OS FS technology that all *nix users get excited when a FS gets close to NTFS, like when ZFS was to be the next generation for *nix, and it even fell short of NTFS on features.
Thanks for playing, "Not only a Troll, but a Dumb Troll."
Slashdot Mirror
**Can you describe what you can do with Windows client management that you can't do with OS X?
Sure...
When I force bitlocker on portable computers, how do I get OS X to encrypt its volumes using my universal key?
When I set the administration key for FS encryption so employees can not lock Domain Administrators out of encrypted content, how do you get OS X to accept the key and ensure this policy is met?
When I set roaming profiles, so that all Applications and Files and Settings instantly follow a user no matter what system they sign into in an organization of 100 or 1000 computers spread around the world (or even a large building), how do you get OS X to seamless offer the same Applications, Settings, and User files?
(This last one is stuff we were doing before today's AD even, with NT 4.0 back in 1997, and mult-location installtions with the first generation BreezeCom 802.11 wireless shoving the data between locations. And it used local server application installation pools, and displayed user files even though the data wasn't pulled unless the user opened or access the file. Yet it is still freaking impossible with an OS X client, without elaborate scripts and custom software, or just using it like a dumb RDP terminal.)
There are so many things that can be centrrally managed and automated that are not even possible on OS X, that no matter how much of the AD Apple tries to adhere to, OS X fails, as it cannot provide the same base level of functionality as Windows.
AD is not just an authentication system, and file and printer shares. It is a complete set of technologies that fully integrate with the Windows Client providing everything from security and settings policies to managing users in complex environments where they are local, on a laptop at home, using a desktop around the world, or and when using a VPN from home. Sure OS X can VPN into the network, but can I lock the functionality of specific features of OS X when using the VPN, no. Can I have OS X Sync file and folders according to the corporate AD policies, from anywhere, and still remain encrypted to even the user with the AD authenication on OS X, no.
Heck even keeping the AD connection active for OS X clients is and has been an on going problem for years now, and it is not on the Windows AD Server side, as it depends on the OS X version as to the connectivity consistency.
I kind of feel sorry for people that manage a lot of desktop without AD. Once you realize what is possible with AD, it is a nightmare to go back and try to replicate even a 1/100th of the features in scripts in another environment. It is the same with trying to get OS X to work on AD, as you have to script out all the OS X stuff by hand if you want any real security or integration into the infrastructure, and still you are missing 90% of the features.
I don't hate OS X, I hate that Apple is clueless when it comes to what corporate environments with AD and Windows are doing that looks like Star Trek compared to a well designed OS X networked environment.
Well I agree that it is not wise, I think Apple with try to do it.
As for the argument that you can shoehone a "one size fits all", you are missing the concepts; however, when applied to certain OS models is spot on.
Regarding OS X as a whole, it is not designed to be, nor is it a modular OS, and this is why I agree with your base arguments.
OS X has inherent issues that Apple mangled when it put OS X together from XNU, that is a massive spaghetti bowl, with a lot of duct tape and super glue to keep up with the technology. iOS is a better design, but even it has many of the OS X problems and limitations that are fundamental problems with the kernel architecture/model.
Linux also fails the full modular needs of one fits all, even though many people try to make it fit this due to the OSS nature and some base coding that tries to keep it portable. However the monolithic kernel is what fails Linux to be fully modular, and the inherent dependencies that are also a side effect of the unix OS model.
For example, if you look at the Linux kernel used on Android, it doesn't fit, just like you state. Android has to bypass key functions of the Linux kernel and handle them itself using only simplistic calls to the kernel. A good example is Android implementing its own scheduling and memory manager, which is crap. If Android were to use the Linux memory manager and scheduler, it would also have to include a large chunk of other services/functions that would be way too resource intensive/heavy for most phone hardware.
However, modular OS models do exist, and they can handle the one size fits all better than expected.
This is where people need to go old school in thinking and pick back up where the world dropped out in the early 90s. As some of the best OS theories and conceputal designs were abandoned when everyone went back to Linux and OpenBSD when running from Microsoft and the horrible Win3.x/9x/Me generation of OSes. (Which made a lot of sense at the time, as these OSes were crap, but sadly needed for the hardware generation they were designed into.)
So if we go back to where the unix model was failing, in the late 80s, and pick up the best OS model concepts from the time, we can pick out some essential things that are key to a modular/portable/extensible OS model and set of technologies.
This is around the time I was in University, and we spent a lot of time on OS theory and engineering concepts of the time, which is why today it is freaking amazing that the 'crap' we were trying to get away from is still considered to be 'awesome' by a large portion of the OSS world and especially the younger generation.
So taking this in mind, lets pick out a few things that are necessary:
-Object Based Model (Back then was overhead and seen as bad, today the overhead is tiny, and offset by the inherent extensibility.)
-Architecture Agnostic (This is beyond portable, as the code doesn't have to change no matter what the underlying hardware is.)
-Side Scaled Layering (This is moving beyond just a microkernel and a separate kernel API interface set, the layering should be virtually unlimited, with multiple side layers operating in parallel transparently accessing lower layers and providing access from higher layers.)
These are just a few concepts that I remember were the philosopher's stone of OS theory back then.
Oddly, these concepts were implemented in an OS within a couple of years. And as we expected, the OS was 'heavy' because of the complexity these concepts introduce. However, as time progressed, it started to really hit some 'surprising' strides in terms of capabilities and performance in just a few years.
So ask yourself, when you look around at OS technology today, where do you see these conceptual OS theories actually in use?
The best example, is one that people around here ignore and would never expect to be this advanced...
Windows NT (aka Windows 2K/XP/Vista/7)
It fits all these OS 'concepts' that the technology world was tal
Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client
Until OS X takes on or even implements active management of clients at even a fraction of the level Windows does, it will not be viable in corporate/enterprise enviornments.
With Active Directory and Windows management capabilties, Microsoft has always focused on enterprise/business customers and an increasingly seamless system. Windows client/server environments self maintain, and offer a vast number of features that it is impossible to even replicate on OS X.
The world is no longer just well-behaved clients that work well with file shares and printers, and hasn't been since the early 90s, when Novel didn't grasp this evolution either. The transition was first to application server technologies, then centralized technologies that allowed computing power to stay local and offer a lot of features to the users/client and yet behave with the ease of agnostic terminal computing.
Plus as Google has acquired VP8 and WebM, the concept of them being 'open' is a bit misleading. Sure the code may be released, but any changes to the code will be irrelevant, as Google will decide and define all aspects of what is their 'standard'.
Thus any innovation and future compatibilty will be all what Google wants.
Sadly, if people do move to VP8 and WebM, Google will have a lot of power, and when they put in tracking and monitoring of video and data collection that goes directly back to them, there is no way anyone will be able to stop them.
As for Microsoft and the H.264 support in Chrome and Firefox, it is a result of the Microsoft philosophy that the OS should just handle certain higher level functionality, which they increased with Windows7 adding in not only more codec features, but licensing and including the codecs for the developers and end users so that they don't ever have to worry about it.
Due to the licensing restrictions in some of the OSS codecs, Microsoft can't include everything. However, Microsoft is doing a decent job of trying to cover most of the codecs especially ones that they can bite the licensing fees for the users and developers with Windows7 and WP7, which gives both OSes an edge for developers and helps consumers. (With my developer hat on, it is very attractive to be able to just use and play various audio and video content on WP7 in contrast to Android that has support for only a couple of semi-crap formats, and all other codecs shove the responsibility onto the backs of the Apps.)
So by adding codecs as a upper level OS feature, Microsoft is making Windows more attractive and helping consumers in the long run, which is how they can put out the H.264 plugins since Windows7 already covers the licensing. -Also it is just a few lines of code because of Windows7's inherent ability to play the format.
(If Microsoft had some self serving goal, they would be making VC1 plugins, and shoving VC1 content for HTML5, as it is their WMV format. And they are not.)
Additionally, the crapware/bloatware debate is a main reason that moved Microsoft to open Retail Stores, as they could as a 'retailer' make demands of the computers being sold, that as a software supplier they no longer could.
This allowed them to showcase Windows as they wanted the world to see it, and also put pressure back on OEMs that weren't meeting the requirements to be featured in the Microsoft stores.
Bascially, you have no clue, sadly.
I was at the heart of this mess, as our corporation owned two separate OEMs during this timeframe.
We specifically chose not to do what Dell and Gateway were doing, and instead took the cost hit as it was a better business model for us.
Sure it was easier to just support one OS and build for one OS, but we didn't limit our product line nor our customers based on it being easier and cheaper - outside of the OEM pricing.
As for Microsoft's exclusive pricing model, it was something that had been in the computer industry since the early 80s when independant software was first emerging from the base computer systems.
All companies, from IBM to DEC used similar contracts for both OS level software and higher level application software to clone OEM manufacturers.
What Microsoft offered was NO different than what had been around in the industry for many years, and it was an incentive for both parties.
These same exclusive contracts STILL exist and is why you see 'crapware' loaded on EVERY system sold as they are required in the exclusive contracts. So even if you have the option to select for the crapware to not be installed, it is still shipped with the computer, even if not installed.
Microsoft did nothing different, and is not any different than what is still happening in the OEM markets with the exclusive deals on pricing discounts for Wordperfect Office or the kickbacks for loading a trial version of Symantec crapware.
Trying to isolate Microsoft in this as doing something different or putting pressure on OEMs is pure hyperbole.
The only angle that had any bite on this issue was the dominance of Windows and this was customer demand, even if you think the consumer market was under-educated and making a bad choice, it was their choice that created this dominance, not some sly moves on Microsoft's part.
If it was top down as you suggest influence, they Microsoft would be using this 'brilliance' to own the mp3,phone and other markets that the 'cosnumers' are demanding Apple products. Think about it, Microsoft is a horrible company at marketing or even properly showcasing the technologies that are good.
Windows unified a fragmented hardware market for developers which made a lot of great software available to users. This is why Windows did well. PERIOD.
The smart ones .... you mean the ones that are no longer in business cause they couldn't compete price wise ... those OEMs? Not sure how smart they were really.
Well of course, cause that $5 cost could never have been adjusted into pricing or compensated for and would have broke any OEM.
Seriously?
The large OEMs are still around, and even some of the small ones, and the $5 for Windows had nothing to do with their success, in fact a couple of larger companies that could customized and ship Linux or OS/2 during this timre period were more successful because they didn't have to give a copy of Windows with every sale.
However, for some OEMs it was a win-win, as they got a cheaper price, and could blame Microsoft for not being able to just sell you a computer or a computer with Linux. And this was great for them, as they DID NOT have to support an OS-less computer or deal with non-Windows technical support.
Microsoft got conned in the deal far more than the OEMs, as the OEMs got a better price, an excuse for not having to hardware test and build systems for any other OS, or support another OS. It also left them ability to cry foul and run to testify against Microsoft for forcing Windows on them.
However, in the 10 years since, how many systems do you see at Dell or HP offering Linux or any other OS? Very few if ANY, and they have their own internal policies now of INCLUDING Windows and ONLY supporting the computer with Windows on it as it was shipped. So the OEMs are doing the same crap, except they can't blame Microsoft for it now.
Microsoft tried this over ten years ago... Do people have no sense of history when it comes to computers?
Go look up the monopoly case against Microsoft, a large portion of the case was Microsoft's restrictions on OEMs on what modifications could be made to the OS. Microsoft supported bootup customizations (logos, support info, etc.) but the line was drawn in the sand when Microsoft started requesting 3rd party applications to be something that the OEM did not load and instead the user could optionally install them.
OEMs didn't want to lose this gravy the installed application money they received, and is why there was no lawsuit against Corel/Wordperfect for having the same contract that required the OEM to put Wordpefect Office on all systems sold, yet there was a lawsuit against Microsoft for the same contracts for both Windows and Microsoft Office.
(OEMs only got a better deal of about $5 per copy off of Windows if they included Windows with every system sold, and the greedy OEMs that went along with this, were also the ones that later on were in court testifying against Microsoft for offering them 'cheaper' deal that they willingly took. Smart OEMs paid the extra $5 for OEM copies of Windows and didn't have to bundle Windows with each computer sold.)
Anyway, this won't happen soon, as the money the OEMs make far out weighs the poor image of the crap that gets loaded on their computers creates about their computers.
Microsoft is stilly trying to get OEMs to reduce or make the 'optional' software a user initiated installation, and has even created an installation platform for OEMs and 3rd party software to use so that people get a true Windows experience on first boot, and can add all the crap they want that the OEM gets a kick back for by installing or using the software which initiates the install. (Microsoft's own software even uses this with Office and even Live Essentials which was formerly OS applications are optional installs for users.)
However, getting OEMs to stop taking 'bribe' money for loading crap, dream on... And with the Monopoly ruling against Microsoft, Microsoft no longer has any authority or say in how Windows is deployed. (Go read up on the lawsuit, why it really was a scam, and even people like the former CEO of Netscape later admitted it was a bad ruling, that he had previously testified and supported until he got to see the money and intent behind the ruling that came from the USA and the EU out of it.)
What stops Google from total control?
This is a serious question.
Google owns both WebM and VP8 - their only licensing obligation is to keep some of the source viewable.
Google now defines how VP8 encoded and decoding works and the quality, etc.
Google defines what specific features and version of WebM and VP8 that Chrome will support.
No matter how 'open' WebM and VP8 are now, what Google says and what Google supports is now the 'standard' and will be the single controlling voice for all video on the web.
This is more power than any other company has tried to obtain.
What prevents Google from changing WebM so that in two years, it breaks compatibility with previous versions, rendering hardware absolete?
What prevents Google from defining the quality of the codecs used for their own purposes?
What prevents Google from getting this accepted by the world, and then adding in advertising data and decoders that report information back to Google?
I understand that WebM and VP8 are 'open', but if Google only supports what they want, they are the sole voice in the format and standard, as anything outside their 'supported' guidelines will fail to work in Chrome/Android/etc.
Right now, this looks like another Google project that uses the work of others and then takes control and sells it at a good thing because it was based in open software.
Even Microsoft with WMV turned it over to a standards body to oversee the format that ensures compatibility and consistency - something I don't see Google doing, and WMV is a closed format 'standard' aka VC1. At least we are assured that a VC1 encoded BluRay Disc will always play, as Microsoft can't monkey with VC1 and destroy compatibility or mess up quality, etc.
I am seriously looking for some good answers, as this has me a bit scared to the level of control Google is getting if people blindly accept this.
You are not understanding how languages work inherently different.
All the C++ libraries in the world will not change how C++ fundamentally works.
1) Far less expose to malware when they start going online for games.
2) More controls and monitoring and filters that makes it family friendly is built in.
3) Faster if the netbook has 1gb of RAM.
This way you can approve online children gaming sites without much worry and without keeping them offline.
This is a television device that is bypassing local network stations.
This hurts your local stations.
This is also why you see the same companies NOT blocking some Cable content channels, like CNBC, as the local affliates don't only broadcast NBC, not CNBC.
There are also legal issues with this, just like Directv and satelittle providers have had to deal with.
There are also the local Cable companies that have a stake in the advertising revenue that they miss out on as well.
--
What needs to happen are some regulations that create standards for Internet access to broadcast content, that still allows your local stations and cable companies to insert their advertising, instead of only getting national advertising revenue.
If your local ABC could get their local adversting spots inserted in the 'ad' stops, this would be far less of an issue legally and financially.
Google knows better, and could have been a key player in getting some standards and regulations for local cable/broadcast companies into the game with national content. Instead they thought they could get away with shoving this on a TV because they are Google?
Yes, I fully index file contents, and even have the Image Text Recognition turned on (Turn Windows features on or off, Windows TIFF IFilter), in addition to the Office and Adobe and various other application document searching IFilters installed with various software.
I had to manually turn on the 'file contents' of some of the text development file types that I have used over the years, so they are also getting fully indexed.
On my laptop (currently typing this), I only have a subset of my entire data collection (as when I am networked to my main data PC, it returns the results it maintains); however, even on this laptop there is about 200GB of data indexed, and 2,500,000 items indexed.
Results are instant, and very comprhensive, even returning OneNote meetings where someone 'said' something I am searching for.
Neither computer in my example is even above average, as this is a Core2 Duo laptop, so is the desktop data PC, except the data PC has several TBs of drive space available.
In contrast to Google Desktop Search, there is quite a jump in features that W7's Search offers, from the SQL access methods and inter-applicaiton access tools to even the network handing off of indexed locations to the managing PC/Server.
Also with Google Desktop Search, anything over about 1,200,000 items fully indexed would not only make the results slow, but make the system chug in keeping track of things.
W7's Search utilizes features in NTFS for a better and lighter job of tracking data that Google's Search doesn't seem to use or use as efficiently.
Which leads me to my final thought. Most of the time when there have been uses with people getting sub-par performance out of indexed locations, they are stored on FAT32 instead of NTFS partitions.
It is very important to make sure all the data you are storing and wanting to index is on NTFS partitions, as this is what W7 Search uses to make performance and the cost of indexing the locations effortless. (Storing large amounts of data on FAT32 is also dangerous, as there isn't even a fraction of the integrity that you get with NTFS.)
Good Luck
Althought this won't sit well on Slashdot...
1) Microsoft OneNote - best note gathering tool, also online coordination/sync if you want/trust. (Thus viewable on my phone as well)
2) Smartphone - Android
3) Windows7 and the built in Search indexing system, it keeps track of everything I have done for the past 20 years. With selective online Syncing of current documents and projects available to any PC I sign into with Live Essentials, or via a browser. (Millions and Millions of documents, notes, meeting recordings, ink drawings, development projects, etc. - all available instantly, something that made OS X choke when trying to index even a small portion of the TBs of data.) Add in 'previous versions' and the backup system and you have a very mature system of tracking the data of your life, and even seeing it at various time points.
OneNote and Vista/Win7's Search features are something that has keep me off of Linux as a primary desktop for a few years now. Gone are the days of 'find' and cobbled indexing solutions.
It is just too handy to type a partial line of code and get the project, or a few words from an email back in 1992 and have it at my finger tips.
Is this the end of the Mac as an open platform?'
For someone to have EVER considered the Mac an open platform on any level is freaking disturbing. From hardware to software, it is the most closed platform in the world.
Just because they ripped of XNU and it uses UNIX underpinnings as a model does not make it open in any sense of the imagination. If this is the standard of 'open' then Windows NT is also an open platform, as it has a full BSD subsystem.
Professor Plum run, we are now playing a game of 'Clueless'...
I have no problem with anyone using a cli, even I like more than the majority of the population.
I do have a problem with the assertion that a base cli is needed for an os and other operations should be structured from the cli or a cli model. In unix this seems more of a accepted idea and this is because of the definition of the unix model and it textual nature and file generic principles.
Powershell on nt is great too, but, because it brings a cli interface that natively works with nt's object model, a first for a cli to deal with objects inherently, that was needed to deal with an object based os.
*back to swype for next post, hate physical droid keyboard... typos will not be fixed :)
Sadly you don't even understand how silly your response is.
NT and piping are opposites in how the OS is designed. NT deals with objects and object passing and referencing, not generic I/o and piping.
Nt is specifically not designed like unix, which was my point and what you do not understand.
An OS that deals with an object model instead of generic I/o has no need for textual passing or piping.
More slashdot peeps truly should take a minute to learn why makes NT different and unique from standard unix OS models.
*posted from my droid...
Wow, I can't believe that this is just accepted.
With the advances in GUI design and beyond GUI design technology, a CLI should be obsolete, even if it is not obsolete in practice on the specific examples.
There is no reason a written script should be necessary, when an object constructed visual script could also be generated that is just as specific and functional. Again, just because the tools and technology are not common does not mean it is the standard and will always be a truth.
There was a time that writing software required 'writing code' as well, and today we have technologies that let graphic designers put together robust applications without writing a single line of code. (MS Blend for a simple example of XAML based GUI development.)
By nature Unix based OS models are CLI dependent(textual pipes and generic I/O constructs); however, this is not true of all OS models(NT is an object based OS, where a CLI is counter intuitive which makes PowerShell a brilliant CLI model that came years after the OS, and uses the object nature of the OS design).
Even with some imagination this isn't a 'truth' in a UNIX OS model either. There is no reason that all constructs have to derive or remain at a CLI level with a GUI strapping onto the CLI. Replace the CLI constructs with GUI based interactions and instead of textual pipes, object and graphical piping could be the model that replaces the CLI nature of UNIX.
This line of thinking is a failure of imagination and factually incorrect when viewed from an object based OS design like NT where the CLI(PowerShell) was an achievement to harness objects at a regressed CLI level.
Deepzoom doesn't require silverlight....
I don't get the sad Flash UI implemented for viewing the art. Why not just use DeepZoom or a variation to seamlessly zoom and pan the images. (Deepzoom is a MS technology, but it can be used with Silverlight or even generic HTML and is exactly what this company is trying to do.)
Love the high resolution images and availability; however, using the page UI and how freaking slow the UI is doesn't make a good impression.
The point isn't that NT Scales to 256 cores, the point is how efficient it is when scaling to this many processors. The NT Kernel in Win7 was adjusted so that systems with 64 or 256 CPUs have a very low overhead handling the extra processors.
Linux in theory (just like NT in theory) can support several thousand processors, but there is a level that this becomes inefficient as the overhead of managing the additional processors saturates a single system. (Hence other multi-SMP models are often used instead of a single 'system')
Just simply Google/Bing: windows7 256 Mark Russinovich
You can find nice articles and even videos of Mark talking about this in everyday terms to make it easy to understand.
the trade-off between the cost of managing firewalls on all the workstations in an enterprise, versus their inevitable half-assed-ness and tendency to get in the way, thereby consuming support hours.
But, where I work, we have a standard config that gets pushed out to all the systems,
Although this is a good thing to make people 'think', it is insane that today we still have IT people that are not using structured and centralized management. There is no reason any desktop should have a 'different/messed-up' configuration with either good distribution/scripting or simplistic tools like gropup policies on Windows.
IT people need to either retrain or learn to use the tools they have and stop micro-managing desktop, no matter if they are dealing with 5 or 500 systems.
A Desktop firewall should not be relied on to protect a computer, ever
You are missing something really big.
If the server/network firewall fails or is compromised, then the desktop solution will mitigate the damage or even protect the unit from other affected desktops behind the firewall.
When you have group policies and global controls there is no reason not to use a dual system of protection, especially considering how light the processing cost is per desktop.
We all like to believe that the main firewall is god-like and will protect everyone, but even with strict employee policies, you have people (often management) hooking in their iPhones/Androids and other crap that are risks.
Kernel has XFS for some, ReiserFS for others, ext4 for the rest of us, and then some: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems. You would score a point if you cited ZFS as a FS with "some fairly advanced features", but NTFS just isn't that advanced among the rest.
Ya, nice chart we have all read 1000 times. It doesn't even fully detail the features of every FS, and mainly compares the features that are heavily favored in the OSS world, and sometimes worthless in the real world.
Look at the table headings: Posix file permissions, Last archive time stamp, Checksum/ECC. Some of these things are meaningless as NTFS is used, and some of them are features in NTFS, but because they are implemented differently or have a different name, they are not counted - for example: Block Journaling
NTFS is the kitchen sink of FS technology, is built on some old, but solid designs that work well with the object based nature of NT, so that handling generic file streaming is not something that it has to be used for since the NT OS understands more than pipes and files, and can actually use Object properties and data properties and the metadata in ways not even possible on a *nix.
I wonder if anyone here has a clue why Microsoft designed an Object Based kernel model for NT instead of using a generic pipe/file textual model like UNIX? It certainly wasn't for the performance back in 1990 when referencing object properties ate CPU cycles that were so precious back then. (Hint: This is the same reason NT continues to easily extend like modifying the entire video subsystem structure, driver model structure in NT4/Win2k, and it also gives it modern tricks of getting more performance and access to kernel and OS operations because they are not all generic I/O.)
When you don't have to pick between several FS to get the features you want, or kill your FS performance by strapping on augmentations to the FS to add the featutes and can still pull of NTFS performance and reliability numbers, then lets talk. So far, ZFS was the closest thing to getting there, and it even fell short in features.
(Journaling that doesn't destroy performance, encryption, copy on write, compression, etc. - you know, the simple stuff that WindowsNT does everyday and users actually assume all OSes offer.)
Oh, and why doesn't everyone bring out the NTFS 'fragments' boogey man argument. I love it considering the table access method NTFS uses is very efficient even at fragmented file access, and it brings up the point that because of 'copy on write', NTFS by nature will always fragment more, just like ZFS did, and just like any FS you cite would if they implemented a more advanced feature like this.
Have they got a modern filesystem yet
Yes they did, it is magical and called NTFS and still is the FS that outperforms most *nix FS technology and offers 10x the features, and is considered the holy grail of non-MS OS FS technology that all *nix users get excited when a FS gets close to NTFS, like when ZFS was to be the next generation for *nix, and it even fell short of NTFS on features.
Thanks for playing, "Not only a Troll, but a Dumb Troll."