Yep, and how many of those Virii on the unprotected win PC had to do with the fact that the people using it open EVERY email they get regardless of how strange it looks, if it's an advertisement.
Oh yeah, by the way, I've had a PC protected only with Norton Antivirus (that automatically updates itself) and running Win2k since just after Win2k's release and have NEVER been infected with a virus. NAV automatically deletes virulent code and attachments from emails and I never get the code to begin with.
In fact, I run an Email server and scan emails that come in on SMTP for viruses and delete the viruses from the emails (before they are even stored on the Email server). My email users have never received viruses in their emails!
Sounds more like people don't see the use in ponying up less than $40 per year to protect themselves from viruses. Worse yet, sounds like admins of email servers (who are using OTHER people's money) don't see the use in finding a way to get email virus scanning at the Email server working.
You choose the version you run, download the latest service pack or update. How else do you keep up with updates? After all, keeping up with those updates is the job of admins amongst other duties. Besides, I'd rather reboot my machine from time to time than leave it vulnerable to known and patched flaws. Rebooting takes a couple of minutes not a couple of days.
Precisely! This attack would not have been very successful if there weren't vulnerabilities in most routers to such attacks and in several of the root DNS servers.
It's easier to place the blame on Microsoft for all the ills, but the failures of the software that actually controls the flow of Internet traffic did not stop it either. So you should ask? Who is to blame, MS machines that propagated the attack, or an assortment of other machines that could not stop it?
I would have to say there is more to blame here than Microsoft.
Also, note, MSDE was installed as part of Visual Studio.NET, what do you think Microsoft's programmers use to write code? I suspect that a large percentage of the problems on Microsoft's network were caused by boxes managed by individual users.
Yep, I read something about that in a news article about the worm attack last week. I think that is most likely the culprit here. The fun thing is that it's also likely that some of those developers are running and developing new versions of windows that may not be up on all the patches yet, as they aren't public yet.
Since they are on Microsoft's network, a few machines with beta OS software could have caused a huge bottleneck. If that was part of the problem, perhaps they should isolate such machines to prevent problems like that from cropping up again.
But the MAJOR factor really is that the computer MANUFACTURERS, DELL, HP, SONY, GATEWAY, won't jump on the Linux bandwagon. They could easily offer a choice of the pre-installed OS, but their competitors don't (at least not on all their machines marketed to the "average" consumer), so why should they? There is no angry mob outside their door demanding Linux pre-installed! (Relatively) No demand equates a waste of money to a corporation's penny pushers.
Besides, those computer manufacturers can't win in the eyes of the people that want Linux pre-installed on consumer PCs at retail stores anyhow. If they put Linux on a box, they will undoubtedly go with only one distro, or even more shockingly, modify their own distro, and not even please 5% of the people that want to purchase a PC from them with Linux pre-installed. Besides, people will just bitch that it was configured wrong, etc., etc. It's easier to please the flock under Windows!
What are they supposed to do? Ship the computer with 5 or 6 different distros on bootable CD's and you pop the one that you like into the PC when you boot up the first time so it installs itself? Imagine the customer service calls... "I turned it on, nothing happened"... "What do you mean (such and such) program is only available for (such and such distros), but I like the packaging for this distro better!"... "but I thought it was called Linux not Red Hat!"... or worse "Thanks, you gave me a distro that's two months old! I'm building my own next time."
According to the Google Cache of the site that is, of course, knocked out, and slashdotted...
"Macromedia has generously donated their collection of CD-ROM's to the Archive's CD-ROM & Software Library. The Collection consists of over 10,000 CD-ROM titles (from the Made-With-Macromedia Program) and we are in the process of making this into an accessible resource for people to use and enjoy.
We welcome all feedback!"
I wonder... these are software titles that were Made-With-Macromedia... I presume they were Made-By-Other-Companies... Is this some requirement of M W M that you send them a copy of what you made. If so, what right do they have to give it away to the entire world now?
I'm sure they're not giving away copies of their Made-By-Macromedia software.. I haven't been able to browse it yet, of course, but I doubt they're giving away copies of older versions of Flash or Dreamweaver.
Interesting that they regard everyone else's creations giveaways! Of course this is purely assumption... in a few hours when the slashdotted meltdown subsides, I'll take a look, but it seems pretty lousy if what I'm guessing is actually the case! After all, I seriously doubt Macromedia even ever made 500 software titles!
It should be reported that the problems were mostly with Win9x and ME. The Linux problems do not seem to have anything to do with the new release... a guy thought he had a problem with Mod_ssl and Apache 2.0.4x, but he actually had a broken public / private certificate pair.
According to Will Rowe, 'The fix will be included in 2.0.45 which won't be far on the heels of 2.0.44' - Source. But, of course, in the meantime, if upgrading to 2.0.44 on 9x / ME, get the patch (above).
Well, the first TWO problems have to do with Win9x / ME... the third problem is common to all Apache releases on Windows and is a bug (potentially could be a security problem with a creative enough exploit, but it doesn't appear to force files to be served instead of executed, for example (CGIs will still run... a file called "search.pl"... you can call it from "search.
"Fix CAN-2002-0017: On Windows platforms Apache could be forced to serve unexpected files by appending illegal characters such as '
This fix is Windows specific for all versions... then, a huge list of bug fixes follows that are common to all platforms. There was talk yesterday of 2.0.45 to fix a bug that came up with the patch for the two Win 9x / ME bugs... they instead released a patch today for that specifically so it seems that 2.0.44 is here to stay for now.
I suppose running Apache on Win9x or ME is probably thought of as stupid, but I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to run on that platform as a production server. I think most of the people using Apache on 9x or ME are doing so instead of IIS or Personal Web Server... mainly for local testing in web development and programming. This could be to save some bandwidth on their web server account or because they have a slow internet connection and prefer to upload when things work properly.
THERE IS SSL Apache 2.0.4x for Windows!!!
on
Apache 2.0.44 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Actually, the issues they have under Windows are legal and nothing else. In fact, it works just great (if you don't believe me, compile Apache with SSL under Windows (you'll need Visual C++ 5 and up)... Apache Software Foundation even gives you detailed instructions on how to do it!)!
Since Apache 2.0.x is the first version of Apache for Windows that is largely considered a Production release they are debating the legal issues of releasing a BINARY version of Apache 2.0.x for Win32 compiled with OpenSSL libraries. This is especially the case since they are not SELLING the software to do it, so they can not really control who would use it. They will figure something out, but in the meantime, do not release it in their binaries.
As a matter of fact, Apache 2.0.4x Win32 can easily be setup to use OpenSSL and ModSSL! This is thoroughly explained at this web site. It even explains to you where to get binary distributions of it (not directly from Apache as discussed above).
In fact, on a single Pentium II or III with Win2k (even workstation) you have plenty of horsepower to use SSL and Apache 2.0.x. I would like to mention a couple of things, I use it in an academic environment and it has been running stable and secure for almost half a year now.
It has a commercial SSL certificate on it. Apache 2.0.x on Win32 is quite a bit tricky to get your private key and public certificate to work if it is PEM encoded. If it is not PEM encoded, it is a snap! That right there is one thing that can save you hours of head banging on wall! Make sure your key and certificate after you've received them are not PEM encoded for less aggravation. You can always run them through (at least the cert) OpenSSL to remove the encoding.
Also, your certificate chain must be put together the right way, but you should get instructions for that from your certificate authority.
I agree, Apache on Win32 is a much better choice than IIS. IIS can be a relatively secure product if administered properly. There are, of course, numerous security holes that have been publicized, and it should be mentioned that most were left open by the administrators who should have known better. They got IIS to work and didn't bother with security! Most of the reasons to NOT use IIS are the fact that you need at least NT Server 4, 5, 6, etc. (the workstation version of IIS is too limited for production usage) and the steep licensing that costs, and the fact that it has much more features than 99.9% of websites will need!
Apache, on the other hand, gives you a relatively secure environment from the get-go that makes you ADD the features you need. After working with Apache it should become apparent that this is clearly the way to go. Intelligent administration of servers can really make almost any modern OS relatively secure. Perhaps if Apache on Win32 catches on it may encite people to port more great open source server software to natively run on Win32 as Apache does (does not use Cygwin... though you CAN of couse, use the Cygwin version of Apache which won't perform as well as the Native Win32 version does). Plus, Apache can run just fine on NT workstation (saving plenty of money on the NT server licenses)!
Interestingly enough, Apache Win32 in our setup outperforms other departments at our institution using IIS on Win32! Perhaps benchmarks in this area should be publicized a bit more!
So how exactly do you benchmark sex appeal? Do you line up 20 dogs and see which notebook they go to hump first? Then average? Please enlighten us all!
Aparently you believe that the Powerbook (1ghz single processor) would smoke the PowerPC G4 Dual 1.25 Ghz with 1GB of ram desktop?!? Because if you read the test results (in seconds, where lower is better), the P4 notebook beat the top of the line Apple desktop. So, by that logic, the 1 GHz PowerBook notebook you describe should smoke the top of the line Apple desktop as well.
I think you should check your math. Otherwise, why would anyone buy the Apple top of the line desktop when they can just buy the 1ghz powerbook from you for more performance.
Of course, they should've compared the Apple desktop to a x-86 desktop for the same (probably better with a full desktop, not mobile GPU) results so that you can feel comfortable that we're comparing desktops to desktops and notebooks to notebooks (with top of the line notebooks for both platforms). Oh well, whatcanyado, benchmarks are tough to swallow when they don't give the results you expect. The fact that a notebook (yep, it can't run on battery for too long) plugged into a wall can roast a top of the line Powermac Desktop must really have you reaching into the bag of mixed up logic today.
No personal offense to you, but your claims are not substantiated. I think the guy who decided to make the test in such a format was begging for these strange arguments to arise. I'm sure he's getting a chuckle out of it as we all should:)
Precisely! I think you have to judge for yourself what "sexy" is... How many times have you been out with a girl that your friends said was "hot"... I want to see the features first, ya know (wink), not the hype. When I see a girl and say "Damn she's sexy" I'll believe it... plus, if she was so sexy, why would they send her my way? Why not keep her to themselves?
It seems Apple is trying to tell you they know a sexy girl. They try to establish style. Sure, many in the X-86 world are fashionably impaired in their peripherals, but your fashionable exterior can get you laid once. If you've got the right equipment inside and can use it right, you can get laid repeatedly (maybe even for a lifetime!)
It's like in cars. What's under the hood matters. I can't tell
you how many times some one has pulled up to the light with a Honda Civic 4-banger
(econo-box 4 cylinder engine for all the uninitiated) with a 1 foot ridiculous
spoiler, ground effects, super-duper rims and tires, and stickers to boot saying
I'm fast. What makes me laugh is how far behind me they are
in my rearview mirror seconds later from the thumping my plain looking
non-souped up stock car administered to them.
I bought my car for what was under the hood (a Beast, that shreds tires baby!!!)
not stickers outside of it claiming it's fast.
The funny thing is that their little 4-banger econoboxes cost more, when all the silly modifications were done, than mine did! I laugh all
the way to the bank on that one. Does that remind anyone of a certain
Beige box vs. Shiny Super-Cool looking Plastic box debate going on. I
take the bigger engine EVERY day of the week on that one!!!
But isn't the Power Mac G4 supposed to be "the ultimate high-end graphics workstation." - Source:?
I suppose comparing it to a notebook computer is embarrasing (especially since the notebook won, albeit with a consumer desktop processor, but with only a mobile gaming GPU). Try comparing it to a Dual Intel Xeon Workstation with a Workstation Graphics card! That's downright humiliating. The issue is Macs are lagging about 2 years in performance to high-end x-86 graphics workstations.
I think they shouldn't have used the Alienware notebook for comparison... that was just silly because all it will draw out is "ten minute battery" stuff. Not to mention, a desktop configured as the notebook would cost half as much as the Apple they used for testing (well over 3 thousand dollars with 1 GB of ram).
Compare the Apples to a comparable (in price) PC workstation... Isn't price the true comparison; what does the multi-thousand dollar investment in Apple hardware get you in performance vs. an equal multi-thousand dollar investment in X-86 hardare?
The "Ultimate" apple G4 Desktop as quoted on the Apple Web Site Store 1/13/2003,
costs $4,599.00 - includes: "Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 256K L2 cache & 2MB L3
cache/processor 167MHz System Bus, 2.0GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM 4 DIMMs, 120GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive & Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW), NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium dual-display w/128MB DDR, 56K internal modem"
Now go to Dell's web site and configure yourself a small business workstation
to add up to an equivalent price... I did 1/13/2003, for $4,325, configured
like so: "Dual Intel® Xeon(TM) 2.66GHz Processors with Hyperthreading and 512K Cache each, 2GB DDR266 SDRAM Memory ECC 4 DIMMS, 120GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive with DataBurst Cache(TM), 4X DVD+RW and 16XDVD (2nd DVD/CD-RW option was not available in the list of popular options though probably possible, probably will raise price of Dell machine by $100 - $150), nVidia Quadro4 900XGL 128MB 1-2 VGA/DVI (dual monitor capable mid-range workstation graphics card), (and, to be fair) 56K,v.92 data/fax modem,PCI"
Of course, that's a Dell, I'm positive you could do better buying components yourself in price, or getting even better components for the money.
Now THAT is what I'd like to see a comparison of. That's money vs. money (not B.S. vs B.S.). I have a very strong feeling the results of such a comparitive benchmark would be thoroughly embarrasing for Apple to see published (given the superior performance they claim)! **** Folks at Dell, send me a system like that,
and **** Apple folks send me an Ultimate G4 system and I'll
give 'em a workout to see what is what!!!
The dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 processors -- with a combined performance of 18 billion floating-point operations per second, or 18 gigaflops -- put this fearsomely fast Power Mac G4 squarely in the lead as the ultimate high-end graphics workstation. - Source:
Nowhere have I seen a comparison of an Apple to an ACTUAL PC Workstation... the facts show that Apples are (I know, "theoretical" not real world usability numbers) being roasted by PC's that are really intended for gaming and general consumer usage (retrieving emails and occasionally sub 3 megapixel images from low end digital cameras)... No one would seriously purchase one of those P4 machines with Gaming graphics cards for true PC workstation usage!
I'd like to see a true "Power Mac G4 squarely in the lead as the ultimate high-end graphics workstation..." against any of its "peers" in the PC workstation world! Sit it next to a Dual Xeon Workstation with a workstation graphics card and you tell me what is the "ultimate high-end graphics workstation"? It's such complete Apple B.S.!
Top of the line "ultimate high-end graphics workstation" Apples can't compete in speed with consumer grade gaming PC's and they have the audacity to make those claims? The true reasons for those claims is that most of the print and photo editing world are locked into a huge investment in proprietary Apple versions of software and hardware and have no choice to just throw away those countless thousands of dollars of equipment (and spend the time trying to get a Mac Photoshop user to even try it on a PC... surprise, surprise, it's the same thing, except it comes out on the PC months before it comes out on OSX!!!)
If only that were true, computers would probably be a lot cheaper than they are today. Nonetheless, for the same reason people buy cars that have snappy response, people buy fast computers not because they need huge quantities of raw calcuating speed but because it makes their desktop feel snappier.
Ironically enough, if you think about it, (the vast majority of) people continue to buy new computers because they are told they are "slow". When asked if they get the job done, the average joe is shocked that their word processing or email won't be drastically increased from their PII / PIII to a Super-Duper fast 3 Ghz PIV... The thing is, most folks just don't use, as the parent of your post noted, even a fraction of the horsepower they already have!
Of course, the processor manufacturers are constantly convincing people that they need MORE, MORE... but ya know, for the normal, remedial tasks, more performance gains can be made usually by installing more memory or a better video card (alleviating a lot of the unnecessary crunching from the CPU and caching to hard disk that a better video card would do or more memory could expedite).
I had a 450 mhz AMD K6-II with 256 megs of PC100 ram and a truly old video card. For the word processing and email, it was JUST as snappy as my newer Athlon 1900 with 512 megs of DDR ram. Now drop in Photoshop or AutoCAD, or 3dsmax and the new computer leaves the old squarely in the dust (amazing to me that soon there will be personal computers twice as fast!)
The point is that the chip companies constantly giving us newer and better processors (and selling them to people that really don't need the extra horsepower but are told that they do) lowers the price for everyone! PC's haven't ever been as cheap as they are now! Just think of how much you're getting for the money... PC prices have gone, it would seem opposite inflation because every Joe sixpack is convinced that he needs a PIV with Hyperthreading to REALLY make his email work right... For the rest of us, it means ridiculously fast computers are financially within reach.
I applaud you Joe Sixpack! My hero! Buy EVERY new processor and make my next CPU purchase 4 times as fast as this one and half the price!!!
I guess if the look of the cooling kit is more important to ya, the SwifTech one might be worth paying double for. I'd personally prefer something quiet (the whole point of buying these kits) that doesn't consume a lot of power and is easy to install. Seems like the Evergreen kit is the better deal.
Anyone out there own either of these kits? Any recommendations, preferences, horror stories?
Ok, so this is a "Spam Conference"! Does this mean we can all head down there and see all our best friends that send the emails to us? I've got a two by four with a certain spammer's name on it:) J/K
I think the problem is that people expect more and more from games. When you start out to create a new game you're like, ok the graphics have to be amazing for anyone to even try it, then the sound effects and music have to be huge, then the storyline has to be epic.
Then, of course you remember you have to program all this. It's hard pressed to find someone who can program with the best of them, create stunning art, astounding music, and write the killer story. This forces you into a team environment and you find lots of people who want to help once it's rolling, which you can't do without their help.
Thus, the cache 22 begins. This is why currently individuals can't keep up with the software companies. The only way around this may be to get together some friends who are all multi-talented and equally passionate about making a game (and working at least initially, largely for free in their spare time).
Tough prospect, considering the most fun games are extremely complex and take many hours just to complete them. That means a ton of content and work and dedication that might be tough to come upon these days.
An idea. Create a project. Create a project democracy (for more fun), or a hierarchy if you know the people less, create a plan, delegate the work. Write a component of the game engine that can be customized to work with many possibilities. Get a lot of thought into the story. THEN worry about graphics (no point in working on them until you're really sure about a story). THEN worry about sound (no point in working on this until each scene / level is completed.
This is a similar process to creating a movie. Get together your people. Create a framework. Create or adapt your story. Film. Edit. Score the sound. Release the movie.
Maybe someone should try to do Adventure games again. I'm not talking about the super saturation of RPG's out their and real-time sims... I mean, a-la 1980's-90's Sierra adventure games... Police Quest, Kings Quest, Space Quest, etc.
Those were always a lot of fun to play! The closest stuff out there now involves a lot of story, lots of running, and then the endless fighting!
I think Tomb Raider is as close as you get to the old Sierra stuff, of course, with a 3d interface. It's not the killing or visuals that make the game, it's the story and the puzzles / challenges.
This is something that is mostly lacking in games now adays. It seems to be either Dungeons and Dragons (highly evolved) or Wolfenstein 3D (highly evolved). The Simulators (flight, trains, life, etc.) are also really becoming quite common.
The real tongue in cheek adventure games are missed (at least by me!)
True, and of course, there's much better animals to try this with from a simple research point of view! Simply because of the fact that humans take 9 months to have offspring. It'd be better to find animals with much shorter cycles than humans.
Plus, the fact that dogs and other animals don't tend to sue people. A pissed off volunteer to carry a clone baby could always change her mind later and decide to sue the researchers.
Actually, according to their web site (of course, had to see the Google cache of it cause it's already thoroughly slasdotted!) they believe that: "The Raelian Movement also claims that Jesus was resurrected through an advanced cloning technique performed by the Elohim"
So, therefore, they can probably be a sort of Christian cult! Of course, they call themselves "the Raelian Movement, an international religious organization" because it's not really possible for people in a cult (because of their point of view of being inside the cult) to believe they ARE in a cult.
You have GOT to check out the google cache of their site! They are making a business with Millions of potential wacko customers of the human cloning! This business is, of course, run by a member of the cult leadership! Ya see, this is why religion and business should never mix... this technology (if it's not a load of B.S.) will undoubtedly only be marketable to Military or Fanatical religious organizations trying to create armies of martyrs and other even more appealing thoughts... an army of missionaries!
If those kinds of obvious underlying intentions don't scare the living hell out of all of us that aren't part of the cult I don't know what will!
Oh, by the way, they claim that the "Elohim" are a: "... human extraterrestrial race whose name, Elohim, is found in the Hebrew Bible and was mistranslated by the word 'God'."
Agreed. Apple's current market share is contributed to by APPLE's religious dedication to making sure hardware is tested, Some extensive and detailled information on highly suggested OS User Interface Guidelines, or as apple calls them Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines (People really should read these, a truly admirable effort, in my opinion!), and, emphasis on consistency.
The important part of this statement is the fact that Apple goes through great lengths with developers to push standards they meticulously write (for User Interfaces and Interaction with the Users). Not that this isn't happening with Linux, but since there is no pressure from a central organization to standardize (it's debateable whether people want to standardize distros, as seen with much recent argument over the recent attempts being a good or bad thing) this level of an experience will not be wholly possible with the community at large (again, this is not necessarily a good or bad thing).
The point is that the comparisons to commercial OS's or, as more commonly done, to commercial OS GUI's is rather wasted. When it comes down to it, linux is a system assembled by a multitude of people working for, in most cases, the love of it, and applications and extensions are being written by an even larger and more loosely banded community of people also, often working as a labor of love. Maybe linux should just be for people that appreciate it. Let the big companies make their money and appreciate not having to personally deal with the marketing machines.
The blue is the default color scheme (which is probably to have some sort of continuity from the previously defaulted at blue for other versions of windows color themes). Of course, blue looks cartoony and stupid.
Under the "Display Properties -> Appearance (Tab)" select one of the other color schemes that ship with WinXP (or download others)... I like the "Silver" scheme.
Also, all the "fat borders" can easily be slimmed down. If you like the Win9x/2000 look, two options changed will make it look that way again (and save you a little GUI overhead if you're running an older video card).
Of course, there's also a multitude of themes and desktop modification systems for WinXP, as with all the other OS's these days, your desktop is whatever you want to make it look like.
Shouldn't the underlying OS kernel be the thing that bothers everyone since GUI's can easily be changed? Or is it now solely based on hating the corporation?
Actually, the visual theme looks more like Windows 2000, or XP in the "Windows Classic" mode. The "Luna" theme, which by the way looks lousy in blue and looks much better in the "Silver" color scheme (in my opinion), is, I'm sure copyrighted in some way or another.
I agree, program emulation should be the more important issue because that is what's needed more.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, and how many of those Virii on the unprotected win PC had to do with the fact that the people using it open EVERY email they get regardless of how strange it looks, if it's an advertisement.
Oh yeah, by the way, I've had a PC protected only with Norton Antivirus (that automatically updates itself) and running Win2k since just after Win2k's release and have NEVER been infected with a virus. NAV automatically deletes virulent code and attachments from emails and I never get the code to begin with.
In fact, I run an Email server and scan emails that come in on SMTP for viruses and delete the viruses from the emails (before they are even stored on the Email server). My email users have never received viruses in their emails!
Sounds more like people don't see the use in ponying up less than $40 per year to protect themselves from viruses. Worse yet, sounds like admins of email servers (who are using OTHER people's money) don't see the use in finding a way to get email virus scanning at the Email server working.
Easy:
You choose the version you run, download the latest service pack or update. How else do you keep up with updates? After all, keeping up with those updates is the job of admins amongst other duties. Besides, I'd rather reboot my machine from time to time than leave it vulnerable to known and patched flaws. Rebooting takes a couple of minutes not a couple of days.
Precisely! This attack would not have been very successful if there weren't vulnerabilities in most routers to such attacks and in several of the root DNS servers.
It's easier to place the blame on Microsoft for all the ills, but the failures of the software that actually controls the flow of Internet traffic did not stop it either. So you should ask? Who is to blame, MS machines that propagated the attack, or an assortment of other machines that could not stop it?
I would have to say there is more to blame here than Microsoft.
Also, note, MSDE was installed as part of Visual Studio .NET, what do you think Microsoft's programmers use to write code? I suspect that a large percentage of the problems on Microsoft's network were caused by boxes managed by individual users.
Yep, I read something about that in a news article about the worm attack last week. I think that is most likely the culprit here. The fun thing is that it's also likely that some of those developers are running and developing new versions of windows that may not be up on all the patches yet, as they aren't public yet.
Since they are on Microsoft's network, a few machines with beta OS software could have caused a huge bottleneck. If that was part of the problem, perhaps they should isolate such machines to prevent problems like that from cropping up again.
But the MAJOR factor really is that the computer MANUFACTURERS, DELL, HP, SONY, GATEWAY, won't jump on the Linux bandwagon. They could easily offer a choice of the pre-installed OS, but their competitors don't (at least not on all their machines marketed to the "average" consumer), so why should they? There is no angry mob outside their door demanding Linux pre-installed! (Relatively) No demand equates a waste of money to a corporation's penny pushers.
Besides, those computer manufacturers can't win in the eyes of the people that want Linux pre-installed on consumer PCs at retail stores anyhow. If they put Linux on a box, they will undoubtedly go with only one distro, or even more shockingly, modify their own distro, and not even please 5% of the people that want to purchase a PC from them with Linux pre-installed. Besides, people will just bitch that it was configured wrong, etc., etc. It's easier to please the flock under Windows!
What are they supposed to do? Ship the computer with 5 or 6 different distros on bootable CD's and you pop the one that you like into the PC when you boot up the first time so it installs itself? Imagine the customer service calls... "I turned it on, nothing happened"... "What do you mean (such and such) program is only available for (such and such distros), but I like the packaging for this distro better!"... "but I thought it was called Linux not Red Hat!"... or worse "Thanks, you gave me a distro that's two months old! I'm building my own next time."
According to the Google Cache of the site that is, of course, knocked out, and slashdotted...
"Macromedia has generously donated their collection of CD-ROM's to the Archive's CD-ROM & Software Library. The Collection consists of over 10,000 CD-ROM titles (from the Made-With-Macromedia Program) and we are in the process of making this into an accessible resource for people to use and enjoy.
We welcome all feedback!"
I wonder... these are software titles that were Made-With-Macromedia... I presume they were Made-By-Other-Companies... Is this some requirement of M W M that you send them a copy of what you made. If so, what right do they have to give it away to the entire world now?
I'm sure they're not giving away copies of their Made-By-Macromedia software.. I haven't been able to browse it yet, of course, but I doubt they're giving away copies of older versions of Flash or Dreamweaver.
Interesting that they regard everyone else's creations giveaways! Of course this is purely assumption... in a few hours when the slashdotted meltdown subsides, I'll take a look, but it seems pretty lousy if what I'm guessing is actually the case! After all, I seriously doubt Macromedia even ever made 500 software titles!
It should be reported that the problems were mostly with Win9x and ME. The Linux problems do not seem to have anything to do with the new release... a guy thought he had a problem with Mod_ssl and Apache 2.0.4x, but he actually had a broken public / private certificate pair.
In other words, be careful when upgrading to 2.0.44 on Win9x and ME... install the patch that was released to solve those problems with 2.0.44.
According to Will Rowe, 'The fix will be included in 2.0.45 which won't be far on the heels of 2.0.44' - Source. But, of course, in the meantime, if upgrading to 2.0.44 on 9x / ME, get the patch (above).
Well, the first TWO problems have to do with Win9x / ME... the third problem is common to all Apache releases on Windows and is a bug (potentially could be a security problem with a creative enough exploit, but it doesn't appear to force files to be served instead of executed, for example (CGIs will still run... a file called "search.pl"... you can call it from "search.
"Fix CAN-2002-0017: On Windows platforms Apache could be forced to serve unexpected files by appending illegal characters such as '
This fix is Windows specific for all versions... then, a huge list of bug fixes follows that are common to all platforms. There was talk yesterday of 2.0.45 to fix a bug that came up with the patch for the two Win 9x / ME bugs... they instead released a patch today for that specifically so it seems that 2.0.44 is here to stay for now.
I suppose running Apache on Win9x or ME is probably thought of as stupid, but I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to run on that platform as a production server. I think most of the people using Apache on 9x or ME are doing so instead of IIS or Personal Web Server... mainly for local testing in web development and programming. This could be to save some bandwidth on their web server account or because they have a slow internet connection and prefer to upload when things work properly.
Actually, the issues they have under Windows are legal and nothing else. In fact, it works just great (if you don't believe me, compile Apache with SSL under Windows (you'll need Visual C++ 5 and up)... Apache Software Foundation even gives you detailed instructions on how to do it!)!
Since Apache 2.0.x is the first version of Apache for Windows that is largely considered a Production release they are debating the legal issues of releasing a BINARY version of Apache 2.0.x for Win32 compiled with OpenSSL libraries. This is especially the case since they are not SELLING the software to do it, so they can not really control who would use it. They will figure something out, but in the meantime, do not release it in their binaries.
As a matter of fact, Apache 2.0.4x Win32 can easily be setup to use OpenSSL and ModSSL! This is thoroughly explained at this web site. It even explains to you where to get binary distributions of it (not directly from Apache as discussed above).
In fact, on a single Pentium II or III with Win2k (even workstation) you have plenty of horsepower to use SSL and Apache 2.0.x. I would like to mention a couple of things, I use it in an academic environment and it has been running stable and secure for almost half a year now.
It has a commercial SSL certificate on it. Apache 2.0.x on Win32 is quite a bit tricky to get your private key and public certificate to work if it is PEM encoded. If it is not PEM encoded, it is a snap! That right there is one thing that can save you hours of head banging on wall! Make sure your key and certificate after you've received them are not PEM encoded for less aggravation. You can always run them through (at least the cert) OpenSSL to remove the encoding.
Also, your certificate chain must be put together the right way, but you should get instructions for that from your certificate authority.
I agree, Apache on Win32 is a much better choice than IIS. IIS can be a relatively secure product if administered properly. There are, of course, numerous security holes that have been publicized, and it should be mentioned that most were left open by the administrators who should have known better. They got IIS to work and didn't bother with security! Most of the reasons to NOT use IIS are the fact that you need at least NT Server 4, 5, 6, etc. (the workstation version of IIS is too limited for production usage) and the steep licensing that costs, and the fact that it has much more features than 99.9% of websites will need!
Apache, on the other hand, gives you a relatively secure environment from the get-go that makes you ADD the features you need. After working with Apache it should become apparent that this is clearly the way to go. Intelligent administration of servers can really make almost any modern OS relatively secure. Perhaps if Apache on Win32 catches on it may encite people to port more great open source server software to natively run on Win32 as Apache does (does not use Cygwin... though you CAN of couse, use the Cygwin version of Apache which won't perform as well as the Native Win32 version does). Plus, Apache can run just fine on NT workstation (saving plenty of money on the NT server licenses)!
Interestingly enough, Apache Win32 in our setup outperforms other departments at our institution using IIS on Win32! Perhaps benchmarks in this area should be publicized a bit more!
So how exactly do you benchmark sex appeal? Do you line up 20 dogs and see which notebook they go to hump first? Then average? Please enlighten us all!
Amen!!!
Aparently you believe that the Powerbook (1ghz single processor) would smoke the PowerPC G4 Dual 1.25 Ghz with 1GB of ram desktop?!? Because if you read the test results (in seconds, where lower is better), the P4 notebook beat the top of the line Apple desktop. So, by that logic, the 1 GHz PowerBook notebook you describe should smoke the top of the line Apple desktop as well.
I think you should check your math. Otherwise, why would anyone buy the Apple top of the line desktop when they can just buy the 1ghz powerbook from you for more performance.
Of course, they should've compared the Apple desktop to a x-86 desktop for the same (probably better with a full desktop, not mobile GPU) results so that you can feel comfortable that we're comparing desktops to desktops and notebooks to notebooks (with top of the line notebooks for both platforms). Oh well, whatcanyado, benchmarks are tough to swallow when they don't give the results you expect. The fact that a notebook (yep, it can't run on battery for too long) plugged into a wall can roast a top of the line Powermac Desktop must really have you reaching into the bag of mixed up logic today.
No personal offense to you, but your claims are not substantiated. I think the guy who decided to make the test in such a format was begging for these strange arguments to arise. I'm sure he's getting a chuckle out of it as we all should :)
Precisely! I think you have to judge for yourself what "sexy" is... How many times have you been out with a girl that your friends said was "hot"... I want to see the features first, ya know (wink), not the hype. When I see a girl and say "Damn she's sexy" I'll believe it... plus, if she was so sexy, why would they send her my way? Why not keep her to themselves?
It seems Apple is trying to tell you they know a sexy girl. They try to establish style. Sure, many in the X-86 world are fashionably impaired in their peripherals, but your fashionable exterior can get you laid once. If you've got the right equipment inside and can use it right, you can get laid repeatedly (maybe even for a lifetime!)
It's like in cars. What's under the hood matters. I can't tell you how many times some one has pulled up to the light with a Honda Civic 4-banger (econo-box 4 cylinder engine for all the uninitiated) with a 1 foot ridiculous spoiler, ground effects, super-duper rims and tires, and stickers to boot saying I'm fast. What makes me laugh is how far behind me they are in my rearview mirror seconds later from the thumping my plain looking non-souped up stock car administered to them. I bought my car for what was under the hood (a Beast, that shreds tires baby!!!) not stickers outside of it claiming it's fast.
The funny thing is that their little 4-banger econoboxes cost more, when all the silly modifications were done, than mine did! I laugh all the way to the bank on that one. Does that remind anyone of a certain Beige box vs. Shiny Super-Cool looking Plastic box debate going on. I take the bigger engine EVERY day of the week on that one!!!
But isn't the Power Mac G4 supposed to be "the ultimate high-end graphics workstation." - Source:?
I suppose comparing it to a notebook computer is embarrasing (especially since the notebook won, albeit with a consumer desktop processor, but with only a mobile gaming GPU). Try comparing it to a Dual Intel Xeon Workstation with a Workstation Graphics card! That's downright humiliating. The issue is Macs are lagging about 2 years in performance to high-end x-86 graphics workstations.
I think they shouldn't have used the Alienware notebook for comparison... that was just silly because all it will draw out is "ten minute battery" stuff. Not to mention, a desktop configured as the notebook would cost half as much as the Apple they used for testing (well over 3 thousand dollars with 1 GB of ram).
Compare the Apples to a comparable (in price) PC workstation... Isn't price the true comparison; what does the multi-thousand dollar investment in Apple hardware get you in performance vs. an equal multi-thousand dollar investment in X-86 hardare?
"Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 256K L2 cache & 2MB L3 cache/processor 167MHz System Bus, 2.0GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM 4 DIMMs, 120GB Ultra ATA drive SuperDrive & Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW), NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium dual-display w/128MB DDR, 56K internal modem"
"Dual Intel® Xeon(TM) 2.66GHz Processors with Hyperthreading and 512K Cache each, 2GB DDR266 SDRAM Memory ECC 4 DIMMS, 120GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive with DataBurst Cache(TM), 4X DVD+RW and 16XDVD (2nd DVD/CD-RW option was not available in the list of popular options though probably possible, probably will raise price of Dell machine by $100 - $150), nVidia Quadro4 900XGL 128MB 1-2 VGA/DVI (dual monitor capable mid-range workstation graphics card), (and, to be fair) 56K,v.92 data/fax modem,PCI"
Of course, that's a Dell, I'm positive you could do better buying components yourself in price, or getting even better components for the money.
Now THAT is what I'd like to see a comparison of. That's money vs. money (not B.S. vs B.S.). I have a very strong feeling the results of such a comparitive benchmark would be thoroughly embarrasing for Apple to see published (given the superior performance they claim)! **** Folks at Dell, send me a system like that, and **** Apple folks send me an Ultimate G4 system and I'll give 'em a workout to see what is what!!!
What's interesting to me is that Apple claims...
The dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 processors -- with a combined performance of 18 billion floating-point operations per second, or 18 gigaflops -- put this fearsomely fast Power Mac G4 squarely in the lead as the ultimate high-end graphics workstation. - Source:
Nowhere have I seen a comparison of an Apple to an ACTUAL PC Workstation... the facts show that Apples are (I know, "theoretical" not real world usability numbers) being roasted by PC's that are really intended for gaming and general consumer usage (retrieving emails and occasionally sub 3 megapixel images from low end digital cameras)... No one would seriously purchase one of those P4 machines with Gaming graphics cards for true PC workstation usage!
I'd like to see a true "Power Mac G4 squarely in the lead as the ultimate high-end graphics workstation..." against any of its "peers" in the PC workstation world! Sit it next to a Dual Xeon Workstation with a workstation graphics card and you tell me what is the "ultimate high-end graphics workstation"? It's such complete Apple B.S.!
Top of the line "ultimate high-end graphics workstation" Apples can't compete in speed with consumer grade gaming PC's and they have the audacity to make those claims? The true reasons for those claims is that most of the print and photo editing world are locked into a huge investment in proprietary Apple versions of software and hardware and have no choice to just throw away those countless thousands of dollars of equipment (and spend the time trying to get a Mac Photoshop user to even try it on a PC... surprise, surprise, it's the same thing, except it comes out on the PC months before it comes out on OSX!!!)
[End Reality Check]
If only that were true, computers would probably be a lot cheaper than they are today. Nonetheless, for the same reason people buy cars that have snappy response, people buy fast computers not because they need huge quantities of raw calcuating speed but because it makes their desktop feel snappier.
Ironically enough, if you think about it, (the vast majority of) people continue to buy new computers because they are told they are "slow". When asked if they get the job done, the average joe is shocked that their word processing or email won't be drastically increased from their PII / PIII to a Super-Duper fast 3 Ghz PIV... The thing is, most folks just don't use, as the parent of your post noted, even a fraction of the horsepower they already have!
Of course, the processor manufacturers are constantly convincing people that they need MORE, MORE... but ya know, for the normal, remedial tasks, more performance gains can be made usually by installing more memory or a better video card (alleviating a lot of the unnecessary crunching from the CPU and caching to hard disk that a better video card would do or more memory could expedite).
I had a 450 mhz AMD K6-II with 256 megs of PC100 ram and a truly old video card. For the word processing and email, it was JUST as snappy as my newer Athlon 1900 with 512 megs of DDR ram. Now drop in Photoshop or AutoCAD, or 3dsmax and the new computer leaves the old squarely in the dust (amazing to me that soon there will be personal computers twice as fast!)
The point is that the chip companies constantly giving us newer and better processors (and selling them to people that really don't need the extra horsepower but are told that they do) lowers the price for everyone! PC's haven't ever been as cheap as they are now! Just think of how much you're getting for the money... PC prices have gone, it would seem opposite inflation because every Joe sixpack is convinced that he needs a PIV with Hyperthreading to REALLY make his email work right... For the rest of us, it means ridiculously fast computers are financially within reach.
I applaud you Joe Sixpack! My hero! Buy EVERY new processor and make my next CPU purchase 4 times as fast as this one and half the price!!!
According to the SwiftTech Web Site the Kit reviewed in the article costs around $200 - $250 depending on the specific model you buy...
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to get the Evergreen Thermagic kit? It's only $99 bucks and seems a lot easier to install. Of course, the Evergreen kit doesn't have green cooling liquid (actually, the liquid isn't visible).
I guess if the look of the cooling kit is more important to ya, the SwifTech one might be worth paying double for. I'd personally prefer something quiet (the whole point of buying these kits) that doesn't consume a lot of power and is easy to install. Seems like the Evergreen kit is the better deal.
Anyone out there own either of these kits? Any recommendations, preferences, horror stories?
Ok, so this is a "Spam Conference"! Does this mean we can all head down there and see all our best friends that send the emails to us? I've got a two by four with a certain spammer's name on it :) J/K
I think the problem is that people expect more and more from games. When you start out to create a new game you're like, ok the graphics have to be amazing for anyone to even try it, then the sound effects and music have to be huge, then the storyline has to be epic.
Then, of course you remember you have to program all this. It's hard pressed to find someone who can program with the best of them, create stunning art, astounding music, and write the killer story. This forces you into a team environment and you find lots of people who want to help once it's rolling, which you can't do without their help.
Thus, the cache 22 begins. This is why currently individuals can't keep up with the software companies. The only way around this may be to get together some friends who are all multi-talented and equally passionate about making a game (and working at least initially, largely for free in their spare time).
Tough prospect, considering the most fun games are extremely complex and take many hours just to complete them. That means a ton of content and work and dedication that might be tough to come upon these days.
An idea. Create a project. Create a project democracy (for more fun), or a hierarchy if you know the people less, create a plan, delegate the work. Write a component of the game engine that can be customized to work with many possibilities. Get a lot of thought into the story. THEN worry about graphics (no point in working on them until you're really sure about a story). THEN worry about sound (no point in working on this until each scene / level is completed.
This is a similar process to creating a movie. Get together your people. Create a framework. Create or adapt your story. Film. Edit. Score the sound. Release the movie.
Maybe someone should try to do Adventure games again. I'm not talking about the super saturation of RPG's out their and real-time sims... I mean, a-la 1980's-90's Sierra adventure games... Police Quest, Kings Quest, Space Quest, etc.
Those were always a lot of fun to play! The closest stuff out there now involves a lot of story, lots of running, and then the endless fighting!
I think Tomb Raider is as close as you get to the old Sierra stuff, of course, with a 3d interface. It's not the killing or visuals that make the game, it's the story and the puzzles / challenges.
This is something that is mostly lacking in games now adays. It seems to be either Dungeons and Dragons (highly evolved) or Wolfenstein 3D (highly evolved). The Simulators (flight, trains, life, etc.) are also really becoming quite common.
The real tongue in cheek adventure games are missed (at least by me!)
True, and of course, there's much better animals to try this with from a simple research point of view! Simply because of the fact that humans take 9 months to have offspring. It'd be better to find animals with much shorter cycles than humans.
Plus, the fact that dogs and other animals don't tend to sue people. A pissed off volunteer to carry a clone baby could always change her mind later and decide to sue the researchers.
Actually, according to their web site (of course, had to see the Google cache of it cause it's already thoroughly slasdotted!) they believe that: "The Raelian Movement also claims that Jesus was resurrected through an advanced cloning technique performed by the Elohim"
So, therefore, they can probably be a sort of Christian cult! Of course, they call themselves "the Raelian Movement, an international religious organization" because it's not really possible for people in a cult (because of their point of view of being inside the cult) to believe they ARE in a cult.
You have GOT to check out the google cache of their site! They are making a business with Millions of potential wacko customers of the human cloning! This business is, of course, run by a member of the cult leadership! Ya see, this is why religion and business should never mix... this technology (if it's not a load of B.S.) will undoubtedly only be marketable to Military or Fanatical religious organizations trying to create armies of martyrs and other even more appealing thoughts... an army of missionaries!
If those kinds of obvious underlying intentions don't scare the living hell out of all of us that aren't part of the cult I don't know what will!
Oh, by the way, they claim that the "Elohim" are a: "... human extraterrestrial race whose name, Elohim, is found in the Hebrew Bible and was mistranslated by the word 'God'."
I'm just glad I believe I'm a Human Terrestrial!
Agreed. Apple's current market share is contributed to by APPLE's religious dedication to making sure hardware is tested, Some extensive and detailled information on highly suggested OS User Interface Guidelines, or as apple calls them Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines (People really should read these, a truly admirable effort, in my opinion!), and, emphasis on consistency.
The important part of this statement is the fact that Apple goes through great lengths with developers to push standards they meticulously write (for User Interfaces and Interaction with the Users). Not that this isn't happening with Linux, but since there is no pressure from a central organization to standardize (it's debateable whether people want to standardize distros, as seen with much recent argument over the recent attempts being a good or bad thing) this level of an experience will not be wholly possible with the community at large (again, this is not necessarily a good or bad thing).
The point is that the comparisons to commercial OS's or, as more commonly done, to commercial OS GUI's is rather wasted. When it comes down to it, linux is a system assembled by a multitude of people working for, in most cases, the love of it, and applications and extensions are being written by an even larger and more loosely banded community of people also, often working as a labor of love. Maybe linux should just be for people that appreciate it. Let the big companies make their money and appreciate not having to personally deal with the marketing machines.
The blue is the default color scheme (which is probably to have some sort of continuity from the previously defaulted at blue for other versions of windows color themes). Of course, blue looks cartoony and stupid.
Under the "Display Properties -> Appearance (Tab)" select one of the other color schemes that ship with WinXP (or download others)... I like the "Silver" scheme.
Also, all the "fat borders" can easily be slimmed down. If you like the Win9x/2000 look, two options changed will make it look that way again (and save you a little GUI overhead if you're running an older video card).
Of course, there's also a multitude of themes and desktop modification systems for WinXP, as with all the other OS's these days, your desktop is whatever you want to make it look like.
Shouldn't the underlying OS kernel be the thing that bothers everyone since GUI's can easily be changed? Or is it now solely based on hating the corporation?
Actually, the visual theme looks more like Windows 2000, or XP in the "Windows Classic" mode. The "Luna" theme, which by the way looks lousy in blue and looks much better in the "Silver" color scheme (in my opinion), is, I'm sure copyrighted in some way or another.
I agree, program emulation should be the more important issue because that is what's needed more.