Apple saw the $$$$ signs flashing in front of their eyes and signed away. End of story.
Corporation seeks to make profit. Film at eleven.
Seriously, what were they supposed to do? Release it untethered to appease the fraction of the population that actually cares about shit like this, i.e. freaks like yourself? Given that they have sold well in excess of a million of these phones, it is clear that most people don't care that the phone is locked (indeed, I am willing to bet that a significant number of those people wouldn't even know what 'locking' was).
One thing still puzzles me however, and that is Apple's choice of form factor.
Interesting point. The system requirements do permit installation on desktop Macs as well (including, by implication, the Mac mini), and I myself have successfully installed it on a PowerBook G4 in the past. But you're right - a half-deep 2U unit would be far more appropriate. I'm not sure whether you can call that style over practicality though - I am sure Apple would be able to make a 2U server look beautiful as well!
JoeUser: Cool, a 'Users' object - that shouldn't be there, I've given myself Admin rights along with everyone else so they can print and stuff. So I'm and Admin, and don't need this Users groups anymore... *JoeUser deletes the User class from the tree*
Point. But my point - that servers needn't be that complex still stands, I think. And the market is moving in that direction anyway. Consider Windows Home Server, or whatever it's called...
I rarely respond to Cowards, much less those who start out as you did, but your post betrays such a serious misunderstanding - that someone who runs a server must RTFM in order to get it to work. Why does a server need a special somebody to tend to it, pamper it, water it every now and then? Why can't one just buy a server, switch it on and let it get on with doing what it is supposed to do? I understand that IT departments have a vested interest in self-preservation, but truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use.
Well, firstly, I'd like to inform people that admins shouldn't be seen as more important than other members of Wikipedia.:-)
But if you rule on what is and isn't included in Wikipedia, if you are the people who exercise that right to delete, if you decide what is and isn't important in Wikipedia, then yes, you are more important. And this is fundamentally the problem. Who are you to decide whether something is important or not? As someone has suggested elsewhere, a "serious" encyclopaedia would never have an article on the Dominion War or any number of other such articles. It would not have an edition in Klingon (with apologies for picking on Star Trek). The fact is that Wikipedia is brilliant because of its depth and its diversity. For you to presume to decide what is and is not fit to feature in it by branding what you do not know (or do not care to know) as "trivia" is arrogant in the extreme.
Wikipedia could be the sum of all knowledge - that is the beauty of the wiki. Billions of people the world over contributing, correcting, improving. Indeed, was it not conceived in those terms - something which railed against the cosy coterie of academia by democratising knowledge? Do you not see that all you have become - as a gatekeeper of legitimate and illegitimate knowledge - is just one more of those academics. That is truly a sorry state of affairs...
Running Mac OS on a beige box PC isn't supported anywhere, meaning bricking your machine is much more likely.
No, it isn't. The only way you can possibly brick a PC is perhaps by turning it off during a BIOS flash, and even then, if the chip is removable, you can probably put it in another mobo and flash it from there (yes, I have hotswapped mobo BIOS chips before).
But installing Mac OS X on a PC (which I have also done, quite a number of times) will not brick your PC. Ever.
First up, perhaps I'm a bit weird. Massively into vinyl - the majority of my music is on vinyl, and that's something of an achievement given that it is largely pop/rock with some more interesting stuff thrown in for good measure. Why do I buy vinyl? For the product: I would far rather have something cool, beautiful big cover art, maybe a nice booklet to go with it, something...tangible...than just some horrible plastic CD. Picture discs, gatefolds, boxes, so many different and rather wonderful things...
I also have a large MP3 collection. Most if not all of the music I have on vinyl I also have in my iTunes library. Some of that has been acquired via P2P, but I don't feel guilty as I've already paid for the record once. They like to talk about licensing content - well, by buying it on vinyl, I've licensed it.
But what would be really cool is if you could get a free FLAC or MP3 or something download with the vinyl. That way, you buy the vinyl - the special thing that you keep, or put on your wall, or whatever - and you put the MP3 on your iPod. Convenience and a beautiful product.
Vinyl has made a considerable comeback in Britain in recent years (I know nothing about elsewhere), thanks in part to the increased prominence of hip-hop and dance but also, I think, because of its perceived value as a product. 7" singles, which owe nothing to the aforementioned genres (which rely more on the 12" single) and which had almost completely died by the mid 1990s, are now back with a vengeance. Most indie/alternative records now come on CD and at least one 7" single. Sometimes two. At 99p, they are cheaper than CD singles as well! Couple a free MP3 (or, if you must, FairPlay DRMed AAC file) with that and I'd be very happy indeed. Given that everyone who buys these kind of records has an iPod these days, I can't be the only one.
Nonono, X11 has been massively enhanced! It's beautiful. Now, when you run a program from Terminal.app that needs X11, it launches automatically! It's beautiful! Almost my favourite Leopard feature so far.
That's the hope. I don't get why Apple haven't done it themselves. It is important to a lot of potential customers.
Because it is a phone aimed at consumers. It is not a smart phone. It just happens to be rather a good consumer phone.
If Apple had been chasing the business market (which they aren't), then it might have been a different story, but as it is, this is an über-trendy phone for people with lots of money, not something that corporations are going to buy to give to each of their employees...however much the latter might wish it were so.
Do you hate Nickelodeon for not producing good, quality porn?
I think you've hit the nail on the head here - this is a brilliant analogy. If you want to watch kids TV, you watch Nickelodeon; if you want porn, you watch the Adult Channel, or whatever. But you don't go moaning at Nickelodeon because they don't show porn. It just doesn't make any sense!
And so it is with the iPhone. It was never sold as a smart phone - that's just what everyone hyped it up to be. It does exactly what it says on the tin, nothing more. If you like it, you buy it; if you don't, fuck the fuck off and get something else! Don't buy it and moan that it doesn't do what you want it to do. Caveat fucking emptor, for fuck's sake.
Just do what I do - switch sharing off in iTunes and install Firefly Media Server and encourage others to do the same. It's an iTunes 4.7-style music server, which means people can download from it using things like OurTunes and, of course, it doesn't have the 5 connections/day limit.
I can't use the same smb.conf on my Mac as I have on my Linux box.
Indeed you cannot, and this has a lot to do with what I alluded to in an earlier post - I suspect that rather than using the smbpasswd file (as Linux does), Mac OS X uses NetInfo. Just transplanting a Linux-oriented smb.conf into your Mac will thus not work.
I think you need to be a bit clearer about what's doing what. It is certainly true that Apple File Sharing will share your whole hard disk, but you need to log on as one of the users registered on your Mac. The reason I and others are skeptical that this is what was happening is because it is non-trivial to get Linux to see AFP shares. You can't just go into GNOME's browser and see them.
The fact that I could see my whole harddisk on my Linux PC even with Personal File Sharing switched off still puzzles me. I'm certain it was not a samba issue.
Interesting. The key thing is, though, were you able to see the whole hard disk via Windows File Sharing (i.e. port 139, SMB/CIFS) or via Apple File Sharing (i.e. port 548, AFP). It takes some effort to get Linux to talk to AFP shares, if memory serves, which means that it is far more likely that it was via Windows File Sharing. In the latter case, it is beyond doubt that it was due to your configuration changes, because, as you know, it only shares home folders by default.
As to your contention that password handling in Mac OS X's version of Samba is broken, I am still convinced that you are mistaken. The first two examples you cite refer almost exclusively to pre-Tiger versions of Mac OS X (really rather old versions of Samba) and in any case relate primarily to a Mac OS X client accessing a Windows or Linux server. Your problem is with a Mac OS X machine serving Windows shares. Having just conducted some experiments myself, it is clear that smbpasswd is troubled, but there is no problem with password synchronisation, at least not if you change a user's password using System Preferences.
It may be that smbpasswd is deprecated in Mac OS X 10.4 (which I assume you are using). Instead, Windows passwords are stored in the NetInfo database. Don't quote me on that though - it's just what I am inferring from/etc/smb.conf.
If you want to share a folder for use on a Windows computer, you can only share all home directories, or nothing.
Valid point, although it's not as though they aren't passworded (which your post almost seems to imply). Complexity is sacrificed for ease-of-use, though whether this is a good thing or not is, I suppose, ultimately down to who is using the system. For the average user, it won't be a problem, because they probably won't know what Windows File Sharing is, and if they do, it will be sufficient. Advanced users, too, will be fine, because they can simply edit/etc/smb.conf to their heart's content. The problem comes for the semi-advanced users, the mediocre types who are all too common these days, often talking the UN*X talk (particularly here on Slashdot) but who are too afraid to walk the walk. They want to share other Windows folders but are not sufficiently competent to edit/etc/smb.conf. Judging by your inability to configure passworded shares, it appears you may fall into this category...
This will all probably be moot anyway, as I have a feeling I have seen they have re-done the Sharing Preferences in Leopard and more granularity will be offered.
(I should, however, take the opportunity to take a swipe at Windows, on which file sharing is hopelessly broken. The problem in Windows is that there is no easy way to turn such sharing off (i.e. like the tick box in Sharing on the Mac). By moving the sharing interface to the folder, one can share folders buried deep in the hierarchy and forget where they are, thus leaving sharing on very easily. Reliance is then placed on a firewall to secure the machine - not a good way of doing things.)
And a few days ago I discovered that even while I had everything but remote logon (which basically means sshd) and Windows Sharing... switched on in the Preferences, I could still access my whole harddisk remotely from my Linux PC.
If I am parsing your sentence correctly, you had Personal File Sharing, Personal Web Sharing, FTP Service, etc. all switched on. Of course Personal File Sharing shares your hard disk - this is what it has done since time immemorial on the Mac. Again, though, as you note, it is passworded, so I fail to see the problem.
If, on the other hand, you meant that you only had Remote Login and Windows Sharing switched on, one can only assume you have a poor command of smb.conf's syntax (as well as of English - apologies). This would appear consistent with your earlier statements about the lack of passworded shares. A bad workman always blames his tools.
Finally, given that I seem to have decided to start taking swipes, you might also want to learn to use the enter key. Or HTML's <br/> tag. It makes what you write a hell of a lot more readable.
A dissenting opinion, for what it's worth - a friend of mine has an Acer still going fine after about two years. Indeed, I have just installed Mac OS X on it, thanks to those wonderful people over at the OSx86 Project, and it does a very good job. Admittedly, it wasn't one of their cheapest models, but with a Pentium M and a "proper" graphics card (i.e. dedicated memory; none of that shared crap), at least it's got a decent set of components.
Frankly, I can't see the point of buying anything other than cheap brands like Acer when sourcing PC hardware, as you're only going to be running Windows on it anyway. What is the point of paying a fortune for some Sony crap when at the end of the day, what's on the screen is just the same as what you get on a machine that costs half the price? At least when you buy a Mac, the higher price (although even that is debatable) gets you some decent software, which from a day-to-day use perspective is what matters more in the long run anyway.
It's up to each person to pick an OS, platform and application suite that meets their needs...
Exactly! And if he needs Mac OS X applications, he needs Mac OS X! OS choice and application suite choice are not unrelated. If the submitter were as rational as you, then he wouldn't have bought a bloody Mac in the first place. Given that he is clearly taken in by The Great Turtlenecked One's promises of teh purdy and has drunk at the Fountain of iLife, switching to Linux seems non-sensical.
I know it's just a really nice Window Manager on top of BSD (for the most part)...
Not even close.
Is it really just a device driver issue where they don't want to support 1,000,000 combinations of hardware?
In a word: yes. If you ever have the misfortune to have to use a 3rd party driver for, say, a networking device on Mac OS X - whether on a real Mac or because you need it to run Mac OS X on your generic x86 box - you will come to understand quite quickly the difference in quality between Apple's efforts and those of basically everyone else.
Ah, you misunderstand me. When you used the term "hacking", I presumed you were referring to poking around with a device to see what it can do, pushing it to its limits, etc. e.g. what they are doing to the iPhone by running Apache on it. You know - hacking in the UN*X/Slashdot/etc. sense. Given that your/. ID is lower than mine, and so you should be more familiar with what hacking really is, my presumption seemed reasonable.
Evidently not.
Now, if we were talking about cracking then that's an entirely different matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple saw the $$$$ signs flashing in front of their eyes and signed away. End of story.
:|
Corporation seeks to make profit. Film at eleven.
Seriously, what were they supposed to do? Release it untethered to appease the fraction of the population that actually cares about shit like this, i.e. freaks like yourself? Given that they have sold well in excess of a million of these phones, it is clear that most people don't care that the phone is locked (indeed, I am willing to bet that a significant number of those people wouldn't even know what 'locking' was).
Idiot.
Yes he is.
No, you can't.
It's a small, family owned shop.
:|
Then it's not a fucking emergency...
For fuck's sake, get some perspective.
Who knows, only Reiser certainly knows for sure.
:P
One would presume that the lawyer has a reasonable idea which one he is as well...
One thing still puzzles me however, and that is Apple's choice of form factor.
:P
Interesting point. The system requirements do permit installation on desktop Macs as well (including, by implication, the Mac mini), and I myself have successfully installed it on a PowerBook G4 in the past. But you're right - a half-deep 2U unit would be far more appropriate. I'm not sure whether you can call that style over practicality though - I am sure Apple would be able to make a 2U server look beautiful as well!
JoeUser: Cool, a 'Users' object - that shouldn't be there, I've given myself Admin rights along with everyone else so they can print and stuff. So I'm and Admin, and don't need this Users groups anymore... *JoeUser deletes the User class from the tree*
:)
Point. But my point - that servers needn't be that complex still stands, I think. And the market is moving in that direction anyway. Consider Windows Home Server, or whatever it's called...
All your points are rubbish...
:|
I rarely respond to Cowards, much less those who start out as you did, but your post betrays such a serious misunderstanding - that someone who runs a server must RTFM in order to get it to work. Why does a server need a special somebody to tend to it, pamper it, water it every now and then? Why can't one just buy a server, switch it on and let it get on with doing what it is supposed to do? I understand that IT departments have a vested interest in self-preservation, but truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use.
Well, firstly, I'd like to inform people that admins shouldn't be seen as more important than other members of Wikipedia. :-)
:|
But if you rule on what is and isn't included in Wikipedia, if you are the people who exercise that right to delete, if you decide what is and isn't important in Wikipedia, then yes, you are more important. And this is fundamentally the problem. Who are you to decide whether something is important or not? As someone has suggested elsewhere, a "serious" encyclopaedia would never have an article on the Dominion War or any number of other such articles. It would not have an edition in Klingon (with apologies for picking on Star Trek). The fact is that Wikipedia is brilliant because of its depth and its diversity. For you to presume to decide what is and is not fit to feature in it by branding what you do not know (or do not care to know) as "trivia" is arrogant in the extreme.
Wikipedia could be the sum of all knowledge - that is the beauty of the wiki. Billions of people the world over contributing, correcting, improving. Indeed, was it not conceived in those terms - something which railed against the cosy coterie of academia by democratising knowledge? Do you not see that all you have become - as a gatekeeper of legitimate and illegitimate knowledge - is just one more of those academics. That is truly a sorry state of affairs...
Running Mac OS on a beige box PC isn't supported anywhere, meaning bricking your machine is much more likely.
:|
No, it isn't. The only way you can possibly brick a PC is perhaps by turning it off during a BIOS flash, and even then, if the chip is removable, you can probably put it in another mobo and flash it from there (yes, I have hotswapped mobo BIOS chips before).
But installing Mac OS X on a PC (which I have also done, quite a number of times) will not brick your PC. Ever.
iqu
First up, perhaps I'm a bit weird. Massively into vinyl - the majority of my music is on vinyl, and that's something of an achievement given that it is largely pop/rock with some more interesting stuff thrown in for good measure. Why do I buy vinyl? For the product: I would far rather have something cool, beautiful big cover art, maybe a nice booklet to go with it, something...tangible...than just some horrible plastic CD. Picture discs, gatefolds, boxes, so many different and rather wonderful things...
:|
I also have a large MP3 collection. Most if not all of the music I have on vinyl I also have in my iTunes library. Some of that has been acquired via P2P, but I don't feel guilty as I've already paid for the record once. They like to talk about licensing content - well, by buying it on vinyl, I've licensed it.
But what would be really cool is if you could get a free FLAC or MP3 or something download with the vinyl. That way, you buy the vinyl - the special thing that you keep, or put on your wall, or whatever - and you put the MP3 on your iPod. Convenience and a beautiful product.
Vinyl has made a considerable comeback in Britain in recent years (I know nothing about elsewhere), thanks in part to the increased prominence of hip-hop and dance but also, I think, because of its perceived value as a product. 7" singles, which owe nothing to the aforementioned genres (which rely more on the 12" single) and which had almost completely died by the mid 1990s, are now back with a vengeance. Most indie/alternative records now come on CD and at least one 7" single. Sometimes two. At 99p, they are cheaper than CD singles as well! Couple a free MP3 (or, if you must, FairPlay DRMed AAC file) with that and I'd be very happy indeed. Given that everyone who buys these kind of records has an iPod these days, I can't be the only one.
iqu
Nonono, X11 has been massively enhanced! It's beautiful. Now, when you run a program from Terminal.app that needs X11, it launches automatically! It's beautiful! Almost my favourite Leopard feature so far.
:)
iqu
That's the hope. I don't get why Apple haven't done it themselves. It is important to a lot of potential customers.
:|
Because it is a phone aimed at consumers. It is not a smart phone. It just happens to be rather a good consumer phone.
If Apple had been chasing the business market (which they aren't), then it might have been a different story, but as it is, this is an über-trendy phone for people with lots of money, not something that corporations are going to buy to give to each of their employees...however much the latter might wish it were so.
iqu
That would be if the announcement came from Corporation Du Pomme.
:P
Actually, it would be known as Pomme S.A., which is how corporations are styled in civil law countries.
iqu
Do you hate Nickelodeon for not producing good, quality porn?
:|
I think you've hit the nail on the head here - this is a brilliant analogy. If you want to watch kids TV, you watch Nickelodeon; if you want porn, you watch the Adult Channel, or whatever. But you don't go moaning at Nickelodeon because they don't show porn. It just doesn't make any sense!
And so it is with the iPhone. It was never sold as a smart phone - that's just what everyone hyped it up to be. It does exactly what it says on the tin, nothing more. If you like it, you buy it; if you don't, fuck the fuck off and get something else! Don't buy it and moan that it doesn't do what you want it to do. Caveat fucking emptor, for fuck's sake.
Hmmm, that was quite a lot of fucking...
iqu
Just do what I do - switch sharing off in iTunes and install Firefly Media Server and encourage others to do the same. It's an iTunes 4.7-style music server, which means people can download from it using things like OurTunes and, of course, it doesn't have the 5 connections/day limit.
:)
iqu
I can't use the same smb.conf on my Mac as I have on my Linux box.
:|
Indeed you cannot, and this has a lot to do with what I alluded to in an earlier post - I suspect that rather than using the smbpasswd file (as Linux does), Mac OS X uses NetInfo. Just transplanting a Linux-oriented smb.conf into your Mac will thus not work.
I think you need to be a bit clearer about what's doing what. It is certainly true that Apple File Sharing will share your whole hard disk, but you need to log on as one of the users registered on your Mac. The reason I and others are skeptical that this is what was happening is because it is non-trivial to get Linux to see AFP shares. You can't just go into GNOME's browser and see them.
iqu
Go to Control Panel, Networking, Right click on the interface you want to remove sharing from, and remove File and Printer sharing?
:P
Ah yes. It's all coming back to me now. These days, I only venture into network device properties to turn off the fucking firewall...
iqu
The fact that I could see my whole harddisk on my Linux PC even with Personal File Sharing switched off still puzzles me. I'm certain it was not a samba issue.
/etc/smb.conf.
:|
Interesting. The key thing is, though, were you able to see the whole hard disk via Windows File Sharing (i.e. port 139, SMB/CIFS) or via Apple File Sharing (i.e. port 548, AFP). It takes some effort to get Linux to talk to AFP shares, if memory serves, which means that it is far more likely that it was via Windows File Sharing. In the latter case, it is beyond doubt that it was due to your configuration changes, because, as you know, it only shares home folders by default.
As to your contention that password handling in Mac OS X's version of Samba is broken, I am still convinced that you are mistaken. The first two examples you cite refer almost exclusively to pre-Tiger versions of Mac OS X (really rather old versions of Samba) and in any case relate primarily to a Mac OS X client accessing a Windows or Linux server. Your problem is with a Mac OS X machine serving Windows shares. Having just conducted some experiments myself, it is clear that smbpasswd is troubled, but there is no problem with password synchronisation, at least not if you change a user's password using System Preferences.
It may be that smbpasswd is deprecated in Mac OS X 10.4 (which I assume you are using). Instead, Windows passwords are stored in the NetInfo database. Don't quote me on that though - it's just what I am inferring from
iqu
If you want to share a folder for use on a Windows computer, you can only share all home directories, or nothing.
/etc/smb.conf to their heart's content. The problem comes for the semi-advanced users, the mediocre types who are all too common these days, often talking the UN*X talk (particularly here on Slashdot) but who are too afraid to walk the walk. They want to share other Windows folders but are not sufficiently competent to edit /etc/smb.conf. Judging by your inability to configure passworded shares, it appears you may fall into this category...
... switched on in the Preferences, I could still access my whole harddisk remotely from my Linux PC.
/> tag. It makes what you write a hell of a lot more readable.
:P
Valid point, although it's not as though they aren't passworded (which your post almost seems to imply). Complexity is sacrificed for ease-of-use, though whether this is a good thing or not is, I suppose, ultimately down to who is using the system. For the average user, it won't be a problem, because they probably won't know what Windows File Sharing is, and if they do, it will be sufficient. Advanced users, too, will be fine, because they can simply edit
This will all probably be moot anyway, as I have a feeling I have seen they have re-done the Sharing Preferences in Leopard and more granularity will be offered.
(I should, however, take the opportunity to take a swipe at Windows, on which file sharing is hopelessly broken. The problem in Windows is that there is no easy way to turn such sharing off (i.e. like the tick box in Sharing on the Mac). By moving the sharing interface to the folder, one can share folders buried deep in the hierarchy and forget where they are, thus leaving sharing on very easily. Reliance is then placed on a firewall to secure the machine - not a good way of doing things.)
And a few days ago I discovered that even while I had everything but remote logon (which basically means sshd) and Windows Sharing
If I am parsing your sentence correctly, you had Personal File Sharing, Personal Web Sharing, FTP Service, etc. all switched on. Of course Personal File Sharing shares your hard disk - this is what it has done since time immemorial on the Mac. Again, though, as you note, it is passworded, so I fail to see the problem.
If, on the other hand, you meant that you only had Remote Login and Windows Sharing switched on, one can only assume you have a poor command of smb.conf's syntax (as well as of English - apologies). This would appear consistent with your earlier statements about the lack of passworded shares. A bad workman always blames his tools.
Finally, given that I seem to have decided to start taking swipes, you might also want to learn to use the enter key. Or HTML's <br
iqu
I guess you get what you pay for with them...
:|
A dissenting opinion, for what it's worth - a friend of mine has an Acer still going fine after about two years. Indeed, I have just installed Mac OS X on it, thanks to those wonderful people over at the OSx86 Project, and it does a very good job. Admittedly, it wasn't one of their cheapest models, but with a Pentium M and a "proper" graphics card (i.e. dedicated memory; none of that shared crap), at least it's got a decent set of components.
Frankly, I can't see the point of buying anything other than cheap brands like Acer when sourcing PC hardware, as you're only going to be running Windows on it anyway. What is the point of paying a fortune for some Sony crap when at the end of the day, what's on the screen is just the same as what you get on a machine that costs half the price? At least when you buy a Mac, the higher price (although even that is debatable) gets you some decent software, which from a day-to-day use perspective is what matters more in the long run anyway.
iqu
It's up to each person to pick an OS, platform and application suite that meets their needs...
:|
Exactly! And if he needs Mac OS X applications, he needs Mac OS X! OS choice and application suite choice are not unrelated. If the submitter were as rational as you, then he wouldn't have bought a bloody Mac in the first place. Given that he is clearly taken in by The Great Turtlenecked One's promises of teh purdy and has drunk at the Fountain of iLife, switching to Linux seems non-sensical.
iqu
I know it's just a really nice Window Manager on top of BSD (for the most part)...
:|
Not even close.
Is it really just a device driver issue where they don't want to support 1,000,000 combinations of hardware?
In a word: yes. If you ever have the misfortune to have to use a 3rd party driver for, say, a networking device on Mac OS X - whether on a real Mac or because you need it to run Mac OS X on your generic x86 box - you will come to understand quite quickly the difference in quality between Apple's efforts and those of basically everyone else.
iqu
Pull your head out of the sand.
/. ID is lower than mine, and so you should be more familiar with what hacking really is, my presumption seemed reasonable.
:|
Ah, you misunderstand me. When you used the term "hacking", I presumed you were referring to poking around with a device to see what it can do, pushing it to its limits, etc. e.g. what they are doing to the iPhone by running Apache on it. You know - hacking in the UN*X/Slashdot/etc. sense. Given that your
Evidently not.
Now, if we were talking about cracking then that's an entirely different matter.
iqu
Not only can they be jailed for insulting a stupid religion, their government is a monarchy, so they can't ever change it.
:|
Malaysia is a democracy.
iqu