I feel your pain. Our tech support ticket tracking system (a wonderful piece of shit called "Magic" by the fine people at Network Associates) requires Internet Explorer 6 for Windows. And here's the kicker: I'm a Mac support analyst, and the system's supposed to be geared toward multi-platform support! So we've actually set up a Windows 2000 box that the other Mac analyst and I can remote into with Microsoft's RDC for Mac OS X and log tickets that way.
It's slow as shit and just unbelievably ugly. The interface is one of the biggest crimes against computing I've ever witnessed. Some horrific hodge-podge of ActiveX controls with windows that refresh about 15 times every time you change something.
This is just flatly and totally WRONG. A power user can do exactly that.
No, they cannot. According to this, power users can:
Create local user accounts
Modify user accounts which they have created
Change user permissions on users, power users, and guests
Install and run applications that do not affect the operating system
Customize settings and resources on the Control Panel, such as Printers, Date/Time, and Power Options
Do anything a User can
Power users cannot:
Access other users' data without permission
Delete or modify user accounts they did not create
In other words, power users cannot do everything an administrator in Mac OS X can. Mac OS X administrators can modify other users' data by entering their password. If a power user, for example, wants to install software which modifies the operating system, he must enter an administrator's username and password. That means that the administrator whose username and password he entered is the one who was logged as performing the action, not the power user himself.
Any user can enter an administrator's username and password to do things they normally could not do in Windows. That does not mean that all Windows users are Power Users. Do you see the distinction yet?
It's bullshit security. If I delete the Root account on my Unix box, it doesn't make Unix suddenly more secure. It's just bullshit.
Yes, everything you don't understand is bullshit. We know. But the fact that there is no root account on a Mac OS X box means that there is one less account with a password to crack. That's why administrators don't create any more accounts on a system than necessary, because the less active accounts you have on a box, the more secure that box is. And if you're seriously going to argue that not having a super-user account on a machine that doesn't need one makes no difference in security, you're simply delusional.
The use of the sudoer system on Mac OS X also makes accountability far easier. When an administrator in Mac OS X performs an action, as opposed to logging in as root to perform an action, that administrator's name is attached to the action, much like Windows administrators. However, Windows also activates a super-user-esque account by default, when the box doesn't really need such an account. That makes it less secure.
The fact that Windows ALLOWS you to log-in as a true administrator, doesn't make it any less secure, though it does allow someone stupid to use the OS in a less secure way.
Any feature in an operating system that could be used to facilitate the compromising of a system can be said to lessen that system's security. The trick is knowing which of these features are necessary to include and striking a balance between usability and security. Having a super-powerful administrator account on your system when regular administrators can already do everything they need to is needless and reduces security.
In other words, an OS X admin is not an admin at all. Just a "power user". So, having an Admin account on OS X is NO MORE (or less) SECURE than a Power User accont on Windows.
No, retard. A power user cannot modify anything he pleases. An admin in Mac OS X can, provided he authenticates. A power user cannot temporarily assume administrator rights the way a Mac OS X administrator can. In other words, if a power user wants to do something he's not normally allowed to do, he needs to switch to an administrator account. That account has a different username, different password, and the power user will not be logged as performing the action. Mac OS X administrators can do anything they want, provided they authenticate.
Saying that OS X is more secure because what is CALLED an administrator, is really an OPERATOR or POWER USER, is absolutely crap.
It's more secure because, even as the highest-ranked user on the system, you must authenticate to perform installs. I explained this in my previous post, which you obviously ignored.
What are you thinking? That all other OSes just give you an OKAY button and don't ask for a password to get Admin rights? No, of course not. You always need the password.
Not quite. Administrators on Mac OS X and Windows are different things. On Mac OS X, an administrator is a user who is allowed to temporarily acquire root privileges through a sudo action. To get these privileges, the user must enter his password. So, if I want to install a program that needs to write files to/Library or anywhere that isn't/Applications (the admin group has full access to the/Applications directory) or my home directory, I need to enter my password. If I choose, I can require authentication for "secure" system preferences, like the login preferences.
On Windows, if you are logged in as an administrator (not the Administrator account), your account will automatically authenticate during program installations and such, hence why you can make changes to the system settings and install programs without ever being challenged for a password. That is what makes the Windows way of doing things inherently more risky. You don't need to enter your password for administrator actions.
Not very. In OS X, you can set a login hook for a guest account which will reset the account to defaults. So if I put something in a public machine's guest user's ~/Documents folder, it would be gone as soon as I logged in as guest again. Same goes for the entire contents of ~/. All caches would go with it.
I'm sure there are people who have cheated with a correct assignment that I haven't caught, but think - if you have a correct assignment, and will get full marks, why would you risk your own mark sharing it with some loser who can't do the assignment?
There are a few motivations. The guy could be your friend and might've just not found the time to finish the assignment. So you help him out in a crunch, and he owes you a favor. Or he could just be some random idiot who offers you $50 for a look at your code. That's 10 days' worth of lunch.
And why _would_ you, as another poster pointed out, spend twice as much time reshuffling your assignment to look original as you could just doing the thing following the steps in the book?
Reshuffling code is a brain-dead job. I remember back in one of my CS labs, I found that some previous student of the class had saved all the lab assignments to the local drive in some temp folder buried where no one would ever think to look. I went "Sweet!" There was a catch. The guy's coding style was the absolute most unreadable garbage I've ever seen. Whoever it was apparently didn't believe in putting spaces between variables and operators. So I spent as much time modifying the code I saw to fit my coding style as I would've actually coding the assignment from scratch.
But it was also a god damn 7:00pm lab, and I just didn't feel like thinking. So copying someone else's code and modifying it was a much better proposition than actually exerting thought. Copying code is an art that only anal retentive people like me can master. I don't copy code except in rare circumstances like that, mostly because I'm arrogant and think I'm a better coder than everyone in my class. That's an attitude that's gotten me into trouble.:)
Your average Mac OS X application does lots of AltiVec... because it interacts with the Quartz windowing system, which is full of, you guessed it, AltiVec code. (Not to mention PowerPC assembly.) PowerPC also has a greater number of GPRs than x86; x86 CPUs would be register-starved trying to emulate any part of PowerPC, regardless of whether it has SIMD or not.
Evolution predicts speciation and on a large-scale level. Speciation is simply the long-term result of the mechanism which drives evolution: natural selection. If creationists can't take the time to learn about evolutionary theory, I don't see how that's science's problem. The theory stands with the general theory of relativity in terms of its robustness and accuracy.
Well, well, well, what do you know? A random mutation grants a survival advantage, just like evolutionary theory predicts. Who'da thunk it? Those biologists actually know what they're talking about.
A particle of anti-matter colliding with its matter counterpart will produce an annihilation of 100% efficiency. And yes, there will be resulting gamma-ray photons. But this reaction will not produce radioactive materials, like a nuclear fission reaction would.
And the article didn't mention the chief problem with storing anti-matter. You can't allow it to touch anything. At all. It has to be in a vacuum container and make no contact with the edges. Otherwise, you'll get an explosion.
Well polish of the software really has nothing to do with the installed hardware base. They're probably optimizing the shit out of it though to get some sort of playability on older machines.
Hollensted made it quite clear that an OS X port is in the works and will be shipping.
Mac and Linux: Unfortunately I don't have dates for either of these. However, Linux binaries will be available very soon after the PC game hits store shelves. There are no plans for boxed Linux games. More remains to be done for the OSX version of DOOM 3 and that will take some time. We won't release the OSX version until it's just as polished as the PC version. The date for OSX DOOM 3 remains "when it's done",
but I can confirm that it's definitely coming.
Or Timothee Besset's quote that...
"Since gold, the Mac port was definitely the big thing; it benefits both the Linux and the Mac version, but Mac had to come first."
Oh fucking blow me. CISC v. RISC is about two architectures whose distinction is no longer relevant. If you want to talk about "complex" vs "simplified," that's a separate issue.
Apple is a good example of how businesses can maintain a proprietary business model, make money and still use open source software while not violating the spirit of open source. They integrate open source into their products and give their changes back to the community, and they make money from those products. So everyone ends up happy. It's worked out really well for them so far.
I really wish this RISC/CISC myth would just die. Just about every desktop processor nowadays is a RISC/CISC hybrid, including the Pentium 4 and PowerPC 970.
Graphics cards in Powerbooks aren't that hot (I should know, I own one) and iD aren't sure whether they should even release a *native* Doom 3 for Mac due to the low standard of cards as shipped on all but the most expensive of machines.
You must be on crack. id most certainly are porting Doom 3 to Mac OS X. It was first demoed on a Mac, after all.
Actually, I don't think you can do that. If you have MP3 files in your music library that cannot be played, they will not be copied to the iPod, and iTunes will throw an error telling you so.
Contrary to popular belief, OS X is not rendering its output using the 3D capabilities of the video card but is merely using it as a high-speed 2D blitter.
I didn't say that it did. I said that OS X composites all the screen elements together before drawing them to the screen, which is true.
Try putting that mouse cursor shadow over a playing DVD window some time. You'll get an ugly blob that was supposed to be the alpha channel. Or try putting a translucent window over a playing DVD window. In OS X, you can do those things because the screen is composited before being drawn, and that's the only way to really achieve transparency.
I think you're on drugs. Look at those screenshots of the X shadows and then look at screenshots of OS X. (Hint: Shadows on windows don't serve much purpose if they are all of the same depth.) I swear, no matter how many cool new features the Linux folks add to their WMs, they can still make them look ugly as sin.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel your pain. Our tech support ticket tracking system (a wonderful piece of shit called "Magic" by the fine people at Network Associates) requires Internet Explorer 6 for Windows. And here's the kicker: I'm a Mac support analyst, and the system's supposed to be geared toward multi-platform support! So we've actually set up a Windows 2000 box that the other Mac analyst and I can remote into with Microsoft's RDC for Mac OS X and log tickets that way.
It's slow as shit and just unbelievably ugly. The interface is one of the biggest crimes against computing I've ever witnessed. Some horrific hodge-podge of ActiveX controls with windows that refresh about 15 times every time you change something.
-
Create local user accounts
-
Modify user accounts which they have created
-
Change user permissions on users, power users, and guests
-
Install and run applications that do not affect the operating system
-
Customize settings and resources on the Control Panel, such as Printers, Date/Time, and Power Options
-
Do anything a User can
Power users cannot:-
Access other users' data without permission
-
Delete or modify user accounts they did not create
In other words, power users cannot do everything an administrator in Mac OS X can. Mac OS X administrators can modify other users' data by entering their password. If a power user, for example, wants to install software which modifies the operating system, he must enter an administrator's username and password. That means that the administrator whose username and password he entered is the one who was logged as performing the action, not the power user himself.Any user can enter an administrator's username and password to do things they normally could not do in Windows. That does not mean that all Windows users are Power Users. Do you see the distinction yet? Yes, everything you don't understand is bullshit. We know. But the fact that there is no root account on a Mac OS X box means that there is one less account with a password to crack. That's why administrators don't create any more accounts on a system than necessary, because the less active accounts you have on a box, the more secure that box is. And if you're seriously going to argue that not having a super-user account on a machine that doesn't need one makes no difference in security, you're simply delusional.
The use of the sudoer system on Mac OS X also makes accountability far easier. When an administrator in Mac OS X performs an action, as opposed to logging in as root to perform an action, that administrator's name is attached to the action, much like Windows administrators. However, Windows also activates a super-user-esque account by default, when the box doesn't really need such an account. That makes it less secure. Any feature in an operating system that could be used to facilitate the compromising of a system can be said to lessen that system's security. The trick is knowing which of these features are necessary to include and striking a balance between usability and security. Having a super-powerful administrator account on your system when regular administrators can already do everything they need to is needless and reduces security.
On Windows, if you are logged in as an administrator (not the Administrator account), your account will automatically authenticate during program installations and such, hence why you can make changes to the system settings and install programs without ever being challenged for a password. That is what makes the Windows way of doing things inherently more risky. You don't need to enter your password for administrator actions.
MPEG-2 is hardly what I'd call "outstanding" compression.
Not very. In OS X, you can set a login hook for a guest account which will reset the account to defaults. So if I put something in a public machine's guest user's ~/Documents folder, it would be gone as soon as I logged in as guest again. Same goes for the entire contents of ~/. All caches would go with it.
But it was also a god damn 7:00pm lab, and I just didn't feel like thinking. So copying someone else's code and modifying it was a much better proposition than actually exerting thought. Copying code is an art that only anal retentive people like me can master. I don't copy code except in rare circumstances like that, mostly because I'm arrogant and think I'm a better coder than everyone in my class. That's an attitude that's gotten me into trouble.
Your average Mac OS X application does lots of AltiVec ... because it interacts with the Quartz windowing system, which is full of, you guessed it, AltiVec code. (Not to mention PowerPC assembly.) PowerPC also has a greater number of GPRs than x86; x86 CPUs would be register-starved trying to emulate any part of PowerPC, regardless of whether it has SIMD or not.
Evolution predicts speciation and on a large-scale level. Speciation is simply the long-term result of the mechanism which drives evolution: natural selection. If creationists can't take the time to learn about evolutionary theory, I don't see how that's science's problem. The theory stands with the general theory of relativity in terms of its robustness and accuracy.
I thought that you couldn't disable simple file sharing in XP Home ... am I mistaken?
Well, well, well, what do you know? A random mutation grants a survival advantage, just like evolutionary theory predicts. Who'da thunk it? Those biologists actually know what they're talking about.
A particle of anti-matter colliding with its matter counterpart will produce an annihilation of 100% efficiency. And yes, there will be resulting gamma-ray photons. But this reaction will not produce radioactive materials, like a nuclear fission reaction would.
And the article didn't mention the chief problem with storing anti-matter. You can't allow it to touch anything. At all. It has to be in a vacuum container and make no contact with the edges. Otherwise, you'll get an explosion.
Well polish of the software really has nothing to do with the installed hardware base. They're probably optimizing the shit out of it though to get some sort of playability on older machines.
Oh fucking blow me. CISC v. RISC is about two architectures whose distinction is no longer relevant. If you want to talk about "complex" vs "simplified," that's a separate issue.
Apple is a good example of how businesses can maintain a proprietary business model, make money and still use open source software while not violating the spirit of open source. They integrate open source into their products and give their changes back to the community, and they make money from those products. So everyone ends up happy. It's worked out really well for them so far.
Don't you mean "spell differently"? ;)
You can compile Gaim to run under the X11 environment.
I really wish this RISC/CISC myth would just die. Just about every desktop processor nowadays is a RISC/CISC hybrid, including the Pentium 4 and PowerPC 970.
Actually, I don't think you can do that. If you have MP3 files in your music library that cannot be played, they will not be copied to the iPod, and iTunes will throw an error telling you so.
If you deny explorer.exe, yes, but not if you deny iexplorer.exe, as far as I know.
Try putting that mouse cursor shadow over a playing DVD window some time. You'll get an ugly blob that was supposed to be the alpha channel. Or try putting a translucent window over a playing DVD window. In OS X, you can do those things because the screen is composited before being drawn, and that's the only way to really achieve transparency.
I think you're on drugs. Look at those screenshots of the X shadows and then look at screenshots of OS X. (Hint: Shadows on windows don't serve much purpose if they are all of the same depth.) I swear, no matter how many cool new features the Linux folks add to their WMs, they can still make them look ugly as sin.