Despite the slightly inflammatory way you request this, I didn't think it was a troll. I think this and the several other posts asking for some statistics are fair criticism. Unfortunately, I don't have outside statistics to back this up. Quite frankly, the statistics on piracy that are available are so questionable that I am sure I'd get half a dozen angry responses if I did find them.
So, I can only report from personal experience. In software audits I've been part of, fewer Macs had pirated software & those that did had less pirated software than the Wintel boxes.
Furthermore, trips to countries where piracy was so common that I saw the sale of pirated software, NONE of it was for Macs. Perhaps the percentage of Windows users is higher in these countries. I don't know.
Online, it certainly seems that win32 programs are MUCH more readily available than Mac software: there are many times more IRC channels, more ftp servers, etc. that cater specifically to Windows warez than Mac warez. Those that cater to both have much more Windows software. P2P apps that are popular on both platforms see similar things. Go to suprnova.org & count the windows programs available vs. the mac programs.
All of this is despite the fact that copy protection is generally less sophisticated on Macs. Want to copy software to another machine? Drag and drop. It will probably work. The fact that Mac developers tend to care less about copy protection seems to suggest that I'm not the only one with this impression.
In conclusion--no, I don't have any hard facts. It was fair of you to jump on me about that. But I don't think these figures exist & I would be more interested to hear from people who have additional (even anecdotal) evidence that disputes the anecdotal evidence that I have.
Mac hardware is more expensive than PC hardware (before any true believers jump on me, I'm not making any value judgement here). Yet Mac software is pirated disproportionally less than software for Windows. Yes, Windows is significantly more popular. Apple is said to have ~3% market share. But I would say there is more than 100 times more software packages that are more heavily pirated under Windows.
Developing under cygwin for the zaurus is doable. On-device development is definitely better than ANY other handheld. More importantly, good programs have already been ported from the desktop & it is somewhat easy to do this.
It is the best handheld-computer out there.
I agree that it is a bad PDA. Not really really bad (there are great apps & the keyboard is a huge plus for data entry). The mark of a good PDA is excellent PIM software that syncs (Palm wins, but you can install good PIM software on the Zaurus & sync is great...under linux & passable under other OSs). Outstanding battery-life is a HUGE plus. To be short: if you want a PDA, get a grey-scale Palm. If you want a good toy to hack with, get a Zaurus.
A lot of corporate environments choose network backup if anything.
Retrospect is also on the PC. I assume that EZ CD Creator (also by Adaptec (just as with Toast)) will do incremental backups. If not, other CD software (such as Nero) will.
I have found Unix backups to usually use the same things as Amanda: tar and/or dump.
I think the poster was just trolling for some free/cheap suggestions & I think he's been give a few.
Has anyone had direct experience using Amanda under OS X? I know of windows support & assume that, at the very least, samba could be a work-around. I'm particularly interested in a native approach, as discussed here, but wanted to know whether more people had tried (and succeeded!).
I am looking for a cross-platform backup solution, but the per-seat charges on all proprietary solutions are a bit prohibitive (the hardware was hard enough to obtain!).
Why would you obscure features that people could reasonably say "wow--that's cool." I'd think you'd want to make them as easy to access as possible, especially if it is a setting that could be frequently changed.
Anyway, setting it to 4 (send the referrer only to the same host, otherwise none) might be a better setting since it is somewhat tedious to change.
You said a majority of F/OSS was so buggy that it couldn't be used. Yet others run complete servers, workstations, and desktops with F/OSS. Either they are all wrong or you exagerate to the point of absurdity.
Why the hell mandrake use totem by default?
I thought the same thing of most bundled Windows Media Players. That is an application. Install what you like, uninstall what you don't. Get over it.
Sure, using vi to edit modules.conf each time their tool rewrite my file is not that hard, but it's certainly annoying to redo the same thing again and again.
I don't rub MDK, but surely there is something to retain your config files!
Of course some things are to be avoided (like 2.6.x or LVM) but overall it does the job.
I disagree about 2.6. I find it better than 2.4 in almost every way. The only problem I've encountered is that some software (mostly proprietary) compiled on 2.4 doesn't like it. I've managed to use all of it (LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4 usually works), but having to jump through these hoops is a legitimate complaint.
What pisses me off is people who pretend everything is fine.... I remember when I first tried 2.6.2 on my home computer. A few weeks ago, I upgraded to 2.6.8. And guess what... yep, no more CD burning. But you can still find people who say this is not true.
They don't pretend--they either wait to upgrade until they know it will work, or they figure out what they need to do to make it work. CD Burning can work in 2.6.8 cdrecord and others drop priviliedges after opening the burner. This is bad because the kernel has been fixed such that they can't use the SG_IO interface. There are patches to the kernel that remove this fix and patches for the applications which work with the new kernel. I believe some distros even already apply these to packages in their repositories. So, I bet it was a seamless transition for some. Analagous situation: apps stop working after SP2 (including,I might add, some CD Burning applications such as older versions of Ahead Nero (and, worse, corporate versions of Symantec Antivirus)). No big deal. Don't scream at MS--they are doing what is right. Sometimes an OS-level upgrade requires apps to upgrade too. Get used to it!
Now, you say that you have a lot of problems with Outlook. Sorry, but THIS is FUD.
I disagree--I never said don't use Outlook. I never said most MS products were buggy and couldn't be used. I said we both had single bad data points. I'm not a fan of Outlook, but I don't think I trash-talked it: I don't try to convert people who like using it. I merely said that it wasn't a perfect product & also implied that it would be absurd to extrapolate anything from a few bad experiences). I'm sorry you've had problems with Thunderbird. I know TB users who don't experience this. Is there a bug report you can point me to? If not, why haven't you written one & why aren't more people experiencing this problem?
You may think losing a whole inbox is worse than losing a contact... no it's not. All my clients have at least daily backups. The most they can lose is one day of e-mail. If they received anything important, they can ask the person to re-send the e-mail
So they can recover their address books too! This argument is stupid. The person who lost his inbox most recently (in Outlook 2003, mind you), only lost a dozen or so messages. He could remember a couple senders & had a vague idea of the content. People have a much harder time remembering a hundred word email message than a 3 word email address. The email address can usually be recovered by using a directory.
(BTW, most of my clients use an IMAP server and every e-mail, incoming or outgoing, is permanently saved on a backup server, so even if their local hard disk crash or if th
Take the Mozilla suite for example...Mozilla's address book regularly lose contacts. I even saw it once mixing addresses (deleted a contact, and the address of the deleted contact replaced the e-mail address of the previous one - it's a chance I caught that one, otherwise I would have been in big trouble). I mean, it's a very simple database, but it's buggy as hell. I checked Thunderbird and it does the same thing. I switched back to outlook express in no time.
Nice data point. I've helped people who've had whole INBOXes eaten by an Outlook crash. I'd rather lose a person's address than all of my new mail. The point is that these are ONLY single data points. I know many happy thunderbird users & a few happy Outlook users.
But the fact is most OSS are extremely buggy. Some are ok (Linux, OpenOffice, Firebird...), some, like mozilla mail, are unusable in a business place.
Nice FUD. Please tell me how those who do use Linux get anything done if there is so much that is unusable and buggy. I think the major linux distros do a good job at adding non-buggy software. Many have Firefox and Thunderbird included.
Harking back to your single data point, perhaps you think this is a bad decision, but then how would you counter MS including OE with Windows or Outlook with office, when these can do stupid things too?
The apps for iCal aren't quite there but Cyrus IMAP is a thousand fold better as an email server, which I would think is more useful than a calendar of the two. (Do I get a poor email server and a moderate calendaring system, or an excellent email server and a less moderate calenaring sysyem?)
iCal IS getting better fast, and I do hope that it starts to replace exhchange. You could use more clients for one.
Evolution 1 doesn't push calendars to the server, but I thought this was supposed to be a feature in 2 (I don't actually use Evolution). You can also scp ~/evolution/ocal/Calendar/calendar.ics host:path/dbs.ics with Evolution 1 to publish the calendars (I was shown this trick by an Evolution fanatic). Put in a cron script, and you will have "poor man's" calendar sharing. I suppose you could also do this as part of an rsync regiment, if you're into that kind of thing.
I think any post that refers to a specific race or religion is often modded down & this has nothing to do with the word "Jew." Negative mods are more likely for short posts, many of which are meant as jokes (and not necessarily with any ill-will). Even more likely if the context is somewhat obscure, as in this case. It is too bad that the knee-jerk response to even slightly esoteric posts is often the worst possible one, but it IS often appropriate--there are more trolls and flamebaits than positive posts on these topics. But perhaps it is better to make more of an effort trying to understand a post before modding it in either direction. If there are at least three posts from three posters mentioning "Jews in Space" under a specific story, maybe you're missing the reference!
Of course Brooks himself is Jewish, so I'd hope that those who got the context wouldn't mod down.
But this is an exchange of views on some topic! Candidates will be asked many of the same or similar questions & will (ideally) talk about them. They're even likely to do so in such a way that is designed to set them apart from the other.
Discussions are discourses between some set of people, defined by some amount of temporal and topical continuity. Rules limiting what can be said don't stop it from being a discussion.
I'm not saying the "official" debates are a perfect system (very far from!)--just that it is stupid to argue semantics. Not only will saying that it isn't a real debate win few to your side who would agree that it should be changed, but what you choose to call it doesn't change what it is.
Woman: [dictating into cell phone] To: Mike. I had fun last night. Cell Phone: To: Mike. I have lip fungus. Woman: [into cell phone, angrily] I had FUN, not lip fungus! Cell Phone: I have fungus, not lip fungus. Woman: I DON'T HAVE LIP FUNGUS!!!
Why did you choose to cite the (obsolete) intransitive verb froms? That first definition is actually quite literal--it just isn't used anymore.
Listen--this "by definition" argument made here and in other places is careless. From the OED (emphasis added):
2. a. Contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; esp. the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly.
The candidates will be discusiing their opposing viewpoints that are of interest to the voters. That they have agreed not to ask questions of each other or to be open to questions from the general public changes the rules of the game, not the name of it.
The parent post should be modded straight to the top (or we need a method of moding submitted stories "Flamebait").
There are several very vocoal Libertarians and Green Party supporters on slashdot. I have no problems with their opinions, but the wording of this story is so bad as to turn me off. Insisting on using loaded words can turn people against you, even if you are even partially right: think RMS & "GNU/Linux" or the millenial-pedants.
But the lexical extremism doesn't even seem to be partially right in this case.
How exactly are these debates any more "real" or "actual" than the "official" debates? There are still only two parties represented. They have still agreed on a set of rules governing the event (that are more unrestricted and open than that of the "official" debate, but still...). I don't even see any indication that Kerry or Bush were invited (and, because of the timing and location, I doubt very much that they were considered).
I guess "real" must mean that the debates have a candidate you believe in & "pseudo" must mean that they don't.
No offense taken, but I wish you had read my prior post or that I didn't mess it up. The great grandparent post (in which I screwed up the link) is explicit that it is not a native port and that it wouldn't be as good as a native port. The whole subthread on running under OS X is not about a windows port either (though it has been modded down for being Evolution 1.x rather than 2)!
The original poster said "I know alot more people would be using it if they did that." If the Cygwin version runs fast enough, I see absolutely no reason people wouldn't run it. Many/.ers already have cywin loaded much of the time for their working environment. Furthermore, you don't always have to fire up cygwin or even install it to use software ported to it. As long as install files have access to the correct dlls, you can often run them as if using any other program. (Note that this would probably take considerably more work in this case if it is even possible--it requires the overhead of an X-server and a lot of the gnome libraries.)
Just because there only appears to be a cygwin port doesnt mean that this information isn't helpful or useful to some. I don't know how useful or interesting my post was (I haven't seen any instructions on actually getting it running & it is just a screenshot of the splash screen), but many of the cygwin posts are at least interesting. Seems like a good enough to mod up some of those posts to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the slightly inflammatory way you request this, I didn't think it was a troll. I think this and the several other posts asking for some statistics are fair criticism. Unfortunately, I don't have outside statistics to back this up. Quite frankly, the statistics on piracy that are available are so questionable that I am sure I'd get half a dozen angry responses if I did find them.
So, I can only report from personal experience. In software audits I've been part of, fewer Macs had pirated software & those that did had less pirated software than the Wintel boxes.
Furthermore, trips to countries where piracy was so common that I saw the sale of pirated software, NONE of it was for Macs. Perhaps the percentage of Windows users is higher in these countries. I don't know.
Online, it certainly seems that win32 programs are MUCH more readily available than Mac software: there are many times more IRC channels, more ftp servers, etc. that cater specifically to Windows warez than Mac warez. Those that cater to both have much more Windows software. P2P apps that are popular on both platforms see similar things. Go to suprnova.org & count the windows programs available vs. the mac programs.
All of this is despite the fact that copy protection is generally less sophisticated on Macs. Want to copy software to another machine? Drag and drop. It will probably work. The fact that Mac developers tend to care less about copy protection seems to suggest that I'm not the only one with this impression.
In conclusion--no, I don't have any hard facts. It was fair of you to jump on me about that. But I don't think these figures exist & I would be more interested to hear from people who have additional (even anecdotal) evidence that disputes the anecdotal evidence that I have.
Mac hardware is more expensive than PC hardware (before any true believers jump on me, I'm not making any value judgement here). Yet Mac software is pirated disproportionally less than software for Windows. Yes, Windows is significantly more popular. Apple is said to have ~3% market share. But I would say there is more than 100 times more software packages that are more heavily pirated under Windows.
...do you put a horse?
Developing under cygwin for the zaurus is doable. On-device development is definitely better than ANY other handheld. More importantly, good programs have already been ported from the desktop & it is somewhat easy to do this.
It is the best handheld-computer out there.
I agree that it is a bad PDA. Not really really bad (there are great apps & the keyboard is a huge plus for data entry). The mark of a good PDA is excellent PIM software that syncs (Palm wins, but you can install good PIM software on the Zaurus & sync is great...under linux & passable under other OSs). Outstanding battery-life is a HUGE plus. To be short: if you want a PDA, get a grey-scale Palm. If you want a good toy to hack with, get a Zaurus.
A lot of corporate environments choose network backup if anything.
Retrospect is also on the PC. I assume that EZ CD Creator (also by Adaptec (just as with Toast)) will do incremental backups. If not, other CD software (such as Nero) will.
I have found Unix backups to usually use the same things as Amanda: tar and/or dump.
I think the poster was just trolling for some free/cheap suggestions & I think he's been give a few.
XTAR comes highly recommended as well.
Has anyone had direct experience using Amanda under OS X? I know of windows support & assume that, at the very least, samba could be a work-around. I'm particularly interested in a native approach, as discussed here, but wanted to know whether more people had tried (and succeeded!).
I am looking for a cross-platform backup solution, but the per-seat charges on all proprietary solutions are a bit prohibitive (the hardware was hard enough to obtain!).
I know, but thanks for bringing this up.
Why would you obscure features that people could reasonably say "wow--that's cool." I'd think you'd want to make them as easy to access as possible, especially if it is a setting that could be frequently changed.
Anyway, setting it to 4 (send the referrer only to the same host, otherwise none) might be a better setting since it is somewhat tedious to change.
Man--between this and the thread here, I can see the Opera users are ready to rumble. (ironic that parent post was made by Tyler Durden).
I use them both. Firefox 0.10 has the perfomance needed that I am thinking about dumping Opera. But Opera is a nice piece of commercial software.
You said a majority of F/OSS was so buggy that it couldn't be used. Yet others run complete servers, workstations, and desktops with F/OSS. Either they are all wrong or you exagerate to the point of absurdity.
I thought the same thing of most bundled Windows Media Players. That is an application. Install what you like, uninstall what you don't. Get over it.
I don't rub MDK, but surely there is something to retain your config files!
I disagree about 2.6. I find it better than 2.4 in almost every way. The only problem I've encountered is that some software (mostly proprietary) compiled on 2.4 doesn't like it. I've managed to use all of it (LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4 usually works), but having to jump through these hoops is a legitimate complaint.
They don't pretend--they either wait to upgrade until they know it will work, or they figure out what they need to do to make it work. CD Burning can work in 2.6.8 cdrecord and others drop priviliedges after opening the burner. This is bad because the kernel has been fixed such that they can't use the SG_IO interface. There are patches to the kernel that remove this fix and patches for the applications which work with the new kernel. I believe some distros even already apply these to packages in their repositories. So, I bet it was a seamless transition for some. Analagous situation: apps stop working after SP2 (including,I might add, some CD Burning applications such as older versions of Ahead Nero (and, worse, corporate versions of Symantec Antivirus)). No big deal. Don't scream at MS--they are doing what is right. Sometimes an OS-level upgrade requires apps to upgrade too. Get used to it!
I disagree--I never said don't use Outlook. I never said most MS products were buggy and couldn't be used. I said we both had single bad data points. I'm not a fan of Outlook, but I don't think I trash-talked it: I don't try to convert people who like using it. I merely said that it wasn't a perfect product & also implied that it would be absurd to extrapolate anything from a few bad experiences). I'm sorry you've had problems with Thunderbird. I know TB users who don't experience this. Is there a bug report you can point me to? If not, why haven't you written one & why aren't more people experiencing this problem?
So they can recover their address books too! This argument is stupid. The person who lost his inbox most recently (in Outlook 2003, mind you), only lost a dozen or so messages. He could remember a couple senders & had a vague idea of the content. People have a much harder time remembering a hundred word email message than a 3 word email address. The email address can usually be recovered by using a directory.
Nice FUD. Please tell me how those who do use Linux get anything done if there is so much that is unusable and buggy. I think the major linux distros do a good job at adding non-buggy software. Many have Firefox and Thunderbird included.
Harking back to your single data point, perhaps you think this is a bad decision, but then how would you counter MS including OE with Windows or Outlook with office, when these can do stupid things too?
The apps for iCal aren't quite there but Cyrus IMAP is a thousand fold better as an email server, which I would think is more useful than a calendar of the two. (Do I get a poor email server and a moderate calendaring system, or an excellent email server and a less moderate calenaring sysyem?)
iCal IS getting better fast, and I do hope that it starts to replace exhchange. You could use more clients for one.
Evolution 1 doesn't push calendars to the server, but I thought this was supposed to be a feature in 2 (I don't actually use Evolution). You can also scp ~/evolution/ocal/Calendar/calendar.ics host:path/dbs.ics with Evolution 1 to publish the calendars (I was shown this trick by an Evolution fanatic). Put in a cron script, and you will have "poor man's" calendar sharing. I suppose you could also do this as part of an rsync regiment, if you're into that kind of thing.
Of course Brooks himself is Jewish, so I'd hope that those who got the context wouldn't mod down.--Family Guy
But this is an exchange of views on some topic! Candidates will be asked many of the same or similar questions & will (ideally) talk about them. They're even likely to do so in such a way that is designed to set them apart from the other.
Discussions are discourses between some set of people, defined by some amount of temporal and topical continuity. Rules limiting what can be said don't stop it from being a discussion.
I'm not saying the "official" debates are a perfect system (very far from!)--just that it is stupid to argue semantics. Not only will saying that it isn't a real debate win few to your side who would agree that it should be changed, but what you choose to call it doesn't change what it is.
Woman: [dictating into cell phone] To: Mike. I had fun last night.
Cell Phone: To: Mike. I have lip fungus.
Woman: [into cell phone, angrily] I had FUN, not lip fungus!
Cell Phone: I have fungus, not lip fungus.
Woman: I DON'T HAVE LIP FUNGUS!!!
Listen--this "by definition" argument made here and in other places is careless. From the OED (emphasis added):
The candidates will be discusiing their opposing viewpoints that are of interest to the voters. That they have agreed not to ask questions of each other or to be open to questions from the general public changes the rules of the game, not the name of it.
The parent post should be modded straight to the top (or we need a method of moding submitted stories "Flamebait").
There are several very vocoal Libertarians and Green Party supporters on slashdot. I have no problems with their opinions, but the wording of this story is so bad as to turn me off. Insisting on using loaded words can turn people against you, even if you are even partially right: think RMS & "GNU/Linux" or the millenial-pedants.
But the lexical extremism doesn't even seem to be partially right in this case.
How exactly are these debates any more "real" or "actual" than the "official" debates? There are still only two parties represented. They have still agreed on a set of rules governing the event (that are more unrestricted and open than that of the "official" debate, but still...). I don't even see any indication that Kerry or Bush were invited (and, because of the timing and location, I doubt very much that they were considered).
I guess "real" must mean that the debates have a candidate you believe in & "pseudo" must mean that they don't.
No offense taken, but I wish you had read my prior post or that I didn't mess it up. The great grandparent post (in which I screwed up the link) is explicit that it is not a native port and that it wouldn't be as good as a native port. The whole subthread on running under OS X is not about a windows port either (though it has been modded down for being Evolution 1.x rather than 2)!
/.ers already have cywin loaded much of the time for their working environment. Furthermore, you don't always have to fire up cygwin or even install it to use software ported to it. As long as install files have access to the correct dlls, you can often run them as if using any other program. (Note that this would probably take considerably more work in this case if it is even possible--it requires the overhead of an X-server and a lot of the gnome libraries.)
The original poster said "I know alot more people would be using it if they did that." If the Cygwin version runs fast enough, I see absolutely no reason people wouldn't run it. Many
Just because there only appears to be a cygwin port doesnt mean that this information isn't helpful or useful to some. I don't know how useful or interesting my post was (I haven't seen any instructions on actually getting it running & it is just a screenshot of the splash screen), but many of the cygwin posts are at least interesting. Seems like a good enough to mod up some of those posts to me.
Great point, but cygnome is a somewhat viable way of porting gnome apps.
I'm a dumbass who put that under the wrong parent. please ignore it! Sorry.
Oops! Here's the linky
Not as good as native, but 1.4 (maybe higher too) seems to run [ntwizards.net] on cygwin.