I'm the lead developer for a product that is currently available only for Outlook (shameless plug/advertisement: http://www.lettermark.com/ )
The next major release which of the system, which now supports Thunderbird, Gmail, Yahoo mail, Apple Mail, and of course Outlook is in the early alpha stages and has been given to several of our larger clients. We've worked with these clients through their Outlook upgrades, complaints and joys.
I can tell you that none of them will ever switch to Gmail as it stands. Theres a good chance none of them will switch off Outlook any time soon, period.
Its not JUST about the company data sitting somewhere else, that really doesn't bother a lot of companies as shocking as it sounds.
The problem? Any of the customers we have, and pretty much ALL of the customers we have that are over 100 seats ALL have other products besides ours that integrate with Outlook to make their email part of a larger workflow. These people track sales, customer relations, trouble tickets, orders, you name it, ALL via Outlook and most of the time using Exchange so that the data can nicely be shared, calendars can be viewed, ect.
Some of this you can do with GMail, but its a pain in the ass. We also have use Google Apps for your Domain to test with. Its not even close, and can't be until they open it up. Yes, Outlook is far more open than GMail in its wettest dreams.
GMail doesn't let my random sales person app hit a button then thrown an entire wedding planning itinerary into an email to the customer, which is also stored in the sales system.
GMail doesn't let my random technical support person import the message into our issue tracking system.
GMail doesn't let me encrypt messages with personally identifiable information in it, which is required by law, regardless of whom it is sent to in a couple of states now.
In short, you may call it 'inertia' if by 'inertia' you mean a far more mature and feature rich product. Otherwise it is simply, and I cringe as I type this, that Outlook is a far more useful tool than GMail.
I HAVE to deal with Outlook and Exchange, I know far too much about it. I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT STAND IT. The only reason we're supporting other email clients going forward is because I refuse to be forced to use Outlook for email, so I want a choice. Fortunately, there are still large organizations that use things like Groupwise and Lotus Notes which allowed me a very nice business case for supporting more than just Outlook when I took the project over.
But if you think for a second there is a replacement for the Outlook/Exchange combination for a integrated solution of your typical business persons email/contacts/calendar then you're are completely out of touch with reality. I REALLY REALLY wish there was, but there isn't. And GMail isn't anything more than OWA, with less features and a better UI. Its just missing far too many features and the ability for third party software to integrate with it for it to become a replacement for Outlook. Not to mention the legal issues as to why companies really shouldn't be using GMail when customer data is being emailed.
I wish that someone out there would realize this and actually make real Thunderbird extensions to make it on par with the Outlook, but it doesn't exist. I've used all the OSS alternatives, if you think they are equal, you haven't used one of the two things you are comparing. It wouldn't even freaking be hard, all you need is some damn plugins that use IMAP folders for storing things. Do it on something like Cyrus IMAP which has proper notify support and it really could be just as good if not better than exchange! I'd do it myself if I wasn't so overloaded aleady.
And thats supposed to be shocking or something? Do you realize this is pretty much standard operating procedure for software development now, I can't think of any company that gives me a software release date and I believe it.
In tough economic times the only companies that suffer are the ones that weren't doing well or weren't needed to begin with.
Show me one well managed company that provides an essential service thats anywhere close to failure.
The only companies suffering are the ones that were riding on the over inflated economy. I say this full well knowing that the company I work for, on the verge of going out of business falls squarely into both categories.
Darwin. Do you know what that is? Hmm? No? Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an ignorant post.
Thats the base port of FreeBSD to the Mac hardware.
The BSD components came from FreeBSD, not NetBSD.
I'm not sure that FreeBSD would ever have been given a decent USB subsystem if Apple hadn't done it.
Apple employees several of the FBSD developers full time and the code they create is for FBSD, which Apple gladly uses of course.
ZFS was ported FBSD thanks to Apple.
See, thats the point of BSD licensed code. Apple CAN do this. They contribute back because its in their best interests. They can give back the code and not have to maintain and keep a fork in sync with the changes to the master code base.
Pull your head out of your ass and get a clue fanboy. I don't own a Mac or a machine running OS X, but I have at least 6 machines that I admin that are better because of Apple contributions.
They aren't all designed by aeronautical engineers.
They are designed by a team of aeronautical engineers as well as usability experts, customer service experts and thousands of other people, as well as nearly a century of experience creating aircraft to serve as carriers of people.
If you left it up to aeronautical engineers alone, we'd all be flying in the belly of aircraft with no seats, no luggage space, no heating or air and about a million other differences that would make the aircraft far more efficient, yet highly unsuitable for you and I to fly on, unless you want require every passenger to wear a flight suit and personal oxygen mask, I don't recommend having aircraft designed exclusively by aeronautical engineers.
And lets talk about subsystems. You don't want an aeronautical engineer designing a turbo fan, you want an aeronautical engineer, a materials engineer, someone who knows how to safely design a turbine, someone who can design the turbo fan in such away that when it comes apart for whatever reason that it does so in a non-catastrophic way, such as throwing fan blades through the cabin. You don't want an aeronautical engineer programming the Flight Management Systems any more than you want an aeronautical engineer writting software for your pace maker.
Commercial aircraft aren't designed by aeronautical engineers, they are designed by a LOT of engineers of all types.
Unlike most software, which is written by self proclaimed 'engineers' who really don't have a clue.
Microsoft... good marketing... what the fuck planet are you one? On Earth, MS has shitty marketing as everyone knows.
Both Apple and MS's successful products are successful because they provide enough of what users want/need to keep them as users.
Linux does as well, the difference is it provides for the needs of a select view bunch of geeks and wanna be geeks who think that using Linux and going out of their way to do things the hardware makes it better. There are far fewer of these types of people in the world than everyone else.
While you are right, we live in a society driven by media, but thinking that the only reason OSS has utterly failed to penetrate the market is because of marketing is just silly.
I'm pretty sure that just makes you an idiot. There are two reasons to own a Mac: 1) To show everyone you like trendy overpriced hardware 2) To run OS X, which is UNIX under the hood with a non-shitty gui on top of that
Personally, I'm want a Mac for #2. If you don't run OS X on your macs then your just an idiot who paid too much for hardware. If you're using a Mac too old to run OS X than you should stop being a idiot and pay the $50 to by some used more modern PC that uses less power than your 3 macs and has about 18 times the processing power. You'll make the $50 back in the first years electric bill.
I run desktop Unix because I LIKE UNIX.
Hate to break it to you, and I'm sure this will start a flame but Linux isn't UNIX, never has been, never will be, which for the record everyone was proudly screaming while SCO was suing. Linux is a bastardization of an OS, its not pure like you'd like to think. Interestingly enough, OS X IS UNIX, includes the certification.
I like Unix because first and foremost I want things to "work". "Looking pretty" is a secondary consideration.
So what do you use? I've used just about every OS that will run on a x86 PC or a Mac, and none of them 'just work' 'all the time'. Nice try to pretend like what you use is somehow different, but its really not and this tired old bullshit doesn't mean anything to anyone that isn't a fanboy.
Gimp gets the job done. iPhoto doesn't.
Well gee, you think applications of an entirely different class would work differently? Compare GIMP to photoshop, then you're making a more valid comparison. If you think GIMP out classes photoshop on anything other than price then I doubt you actually are capable of a fair evaluation of anything and your entire rant gets thrown out due to your inability to compare apples to apples rather than apples to apple sauce.
Unix and Linux by extension is "function over form".
Apple is "form over function"
How do you figure this exactly? OS X IS UNIX, it has form yes, but it is more about function which is why it is so well liked and making inroads in the desktop market. Without years of knowledge about intricate details from using UNIX (or linux) then it is hardly function over form. Unix becomes powerful after a steep learning curve that you just ignore. OS X is rather functional for almost everyone the instant you plug it in.
Linux will never be a clone of anything worth a damn, you all spend too much time in a circle jerk saying how you're so much better than everyone else and that next year will be the year of the Linux desktop because everyone else will finally get how great linux is... After MS and Apple fuck up with their new (WHATEVER YOUR WHINING ABOUT TODAY).
There is also ONE apple UI standard and toolkit, not 6 or 20 as OSS people seem to think is a selling point.
One of the advantages that the whole windowing gui brought to the table was consistency. FOSS authors utterly fail to grasp that almost across the board.
While I agree whole heartedly, I would like to add...
If you think the way you name something has no bearing on what people will think of it, than you are in fact a complete and utter idiot.
If you think names don't matter than change your legal name to 'I Am a Dumb Ass and think everyone else should be my slave, especially the ' and see how far you get in life.
If someone picks an utterly retarded name, like 'The GIMP' then there is a good chance that they also made several other utterly retarded choices, and in this case it most certainly holds true as soon as you see the UI.
I'm sorry you are too stupid to realize that image matters, but it does. Inside jokes are cool for the 3 people that know about it, you just look like an idiot to everyone else in the world. Which is okay if you don't want anyone else to have anything to do with you, but if you're going to go into it with the typical 'FOSS WILL RULE THE WORLD!@$!@%!@%!@%' mentality, then you need to start thinking about the big picture and stop being so incredibly narrow minded.
Whats wrong is that you act like its difficult to do.
If you remove greedy from the picture, producing that vehicle is pretty damn easy really.
SUV with room for 8 and 50 MPG? Can be done right now, just requires you to use deasel fuel. Under 12k? No problem. Get us back into an economy with a real backing standard to stop inflation and you'll get prices back down to something sane rather than the bullshit we have now.
Just because what customers want isn't something you want to produce doesn't make the customer wrong. Just because you're incapable of accepting that it can be done doesn't make the customer wrong.
Your ignorance, greed, and absolutely shitty management ability is not the customers problem, its your problem, and its the reason you're failing Mr GM exec.
There is nothing in your statement that can't be done. Nice try though.
Why don't we just start picking random RIAA lawyers and start shooting them.
Sure, it's going to cost a few of us some jail time, but really, how many of them do you think we'd have to shoot before they'd be slightly more concerned with representing the scum bags.
Yes yes, I know we're supposed to be enlightened and all that bullshit, but it isn't working. A good old fashioned ass beating looks to be the only course of action that will work until we overthrow the lobbists... err, government.
Especially trying to break into a market by telling everyone about your awesome super cool new way of doing things... that everyone else has been doing for 10 years already.
My cable modem connects to a Cisco 7200, which most certainly supports CEF and has for at least 10 years, which was when I first started playing with 7200s.
How much closer to the edge do you want?
Its been a few years since I was a router flunky so if I get the exact model wrong don't castrate me, but as I recall the Cisco 12k came out screaming about how it did this for many gb/s of data without even breathing heavy. I realize thats not the highest of high end by any means, and that model is years old, but this isn't new in any way. Its hard for me to think that the quality and performance of routers has declined since I stopped doing it.
Sounds like the author just hasn't actually used any real routing equipment in years and thinks he's inventing something new.
There is no way in hell an app constantly running and listening to the mic is going to last 8 hours.
I'm on my second iPhone, both the original and the 3G, there is no way in hell they have the battery life to do this.
If by 'everyday life' the author means sitting in front of your PC with the USB cable attached, then okay, not my definition of everyday life, but okay. Otherwise, I call bullshit.
The DOM is a programming technique. DOM is independent of HTML and HTML doesn't require DOM. DOM is how an app interacts and deals with HTML in general in its own memory.
SAX is another common alternative.
Then you can do what companies like Google, Yahoo! and MS do right now which is completely custom and has very little in common with a DOM implementation because a DOM implementation doesn't work on the scale they deal with.
Wow, WTF do you think open source is for? You've managed to imply that the two most important advantages to open source don't exist for two very large open source projects.
Gecko is open source. They can't yank the license out from under you any more than they can from Webkit because the OSS license implies that you can continue to use it forever.
Second, Webkit, like Gecko can stop development right this instant and they won't be any worse off than using Trident. They'll just have to do the webkit or gecko development themselves, which they already do with trident (okay, another MS group does, but thats not the point).
The advantages to OSS is that they can't take away your license to what you're already using. Nor can the death of an OSS project leave you out in the cold with no where to go.
When selecting a rendering engine to replace Trident when I took over the current project I'm working on it was always Gecko or Webkit from the very start because on of the FIRST things I got smacked in the face with when taking over the project is that MS was discontinuing the parts of trident we needed.
So, we switched to Gecko. Try to take those parts away now, go for it. I can continue to use the code I have and bug fix it as needed. I have no dependency on Mozilla if I don't want it. Sure, for the moment I just use what they have and commit bugfixes back to the Mozilla effort because it saves me a whole shitload of effort trying to maintain patches or a fork. Its in everyones best interest for my version of gecko to not diverge from the main code base, and it saves EVERYONE involved time and money by sharing the effort. It doesn't matter that the company I work for doesn't own the copyright to Gecko because the Mozilla guys aren't exerting it to hurt anyone, they just use it to cover their own asses, and have released it under a license which effectively allows me to cover my ass at the same time.
I'm amazed at how someone on slashdot so effectively entirely missed what I consider the greatest benefits of Gecko and Webkit being OSS. Yea yea, finding security issues is great and all, and feature enhancements for free are nice too, but I don't mind paying for those things. Whats far more important to the survival of my company is that I don't have to worry about Mozilla or Webkit doing something that utterly fucks me over. They can't. They have given me a way to protect myself.
That is not something you can get out of Opera or Microsoft, and that is why our company happily contributes all of our changes back to Gecko, which, for reference is in no way a requirement according to MPL, but its most certainly the right thing to do, and as I said, means I don't have to merge our code bases to stay in sync with mozdev.
You may pipe it through a file, a socket or as in unix a 'pipe'. But in the end you are effectively sharing bits of memory in one way or another, thats the point of IPC, to share data and commands.
It CAN be more secure, but as history shows, pretty clearly, the more code you add, the less likely it is to be secure.
You don't get automatic security when you have multiple processes unless they are completely and in every way unable to do anything to the other. Since multiprocess browsing results in using shared memory, IPC, and even sharing files on disk, there is pretty much no reason what so ever to assume that multiprocess is more secure.
Once you break one process you can go after the next using any one of the ways the different processes communicate with each other.
Since most programmers think like you do, these IPC methods are likely to be FULL of holes to advantage of.
It is not any more or less secure because of some theory. Implementation defines security as much as a specification, if not more so.
Uhm... segmenting didn't sandbox shit. It just made it annoying to get in between, not impossible as shown by the many different libraries that help programmers do exactly that.
The Virtual Memory Manager support built into processors on the other hand DOES segment blocks of ram. This is why kernel space can be protected from random attacks in user space.
Perhaps an OS that takes more advantage of the VMU would accomplish what you want, but jumping back to segmented addressing just means that the hackers (i.e. the programmers that actually do know what they are doing) will still be able to take advantage of exploits that exist now, as well as being able to take advantage of all the clueless programmers and CS grads who shouldn't touch code with a 10 foot pole but do it anyway since these people are the ones who will have a problem with a segmented memory model.
Of course the only way any of this works is if the code that manages it all is secure. Since I've yet to see any OS manage this for just the user/kernel space boundry well, then I think trying to add more boundries at this point is just asking for trouble. The smart hackers are still going to beat the code that was farmed out to India or some local uni, sorry.
There is nothing to do with safety in ruminants, and more to do with the fact that they eat foods that require far more processing to be broken down into useful components. Basically the food ferments in their 'stomachs' as other bacteria and such break the food down as the bacteria eat it, then as it makes its way along the process it becomes something useful to the animal itself.
Cows can't eat grasses. They can how absorb the byproducts of the grass that ferments in their stomach thanks to the symbiotic relationship with the organisms in their stomachs.
Yes yes, its off topic, but I've just been the boyfriend to 4 years of vet school. err, I mean a girl in vet school.
Yea, cause that machine will run Firefox the memory/cpu hog nice enough to actually be able to stand browsing.
Of course it won't, browsing even simple pages will be mind numbingly shitty because you're trying to shoehorn modern software into a machine far too old to run it.
The proper thing to do is use a browser from that machines age, no one is going to exploit your shitty old mac anyway, more so, you're not likely to find any of those exploits in existence now days, you're more likely to find a Linux exploit than a page exploiting a browser on that thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm the lead developer for a product that is currently available only for Outlook (shameless plug/advertisement: http://www.lettermark.com/ )
The next major release which of the system, which now supports Thunderbird, Gmail, Yahoo mail, Apple Mail, and of course Outlook is in the early alpha stages and has been given to several of our larger clients. We've worked with these clients through their Outlook upgrades, complaints and joys.
I can tell you that none of them will ever switch to Gmail as it stands. Theres a good chance none of them will switch off Outlook any time soon, period.
Its not JUST about the company data sitting somewhere else, that really doesn't bother a lot of companies as shocking as it sounds.
The problem? Any of the customers we have, and pretty much ALL of the customers we have that are over 100 seats ALL have other products besides ours that integrate with Outlook to make their email part of a larger workflow. These people track sales, customer relations, trouble tickets, orders, you name it, ALL via Outlook and most of the time using Exchange so that the data can nicely be shared, calendars can be viewed, ect.
Some of this you can do with GMail, but its a pain in the ass. We also have use Google Apps for your Domain to test with. Its not even close, and can't be until they open it up. Yes, Outlook is far more open than GMail in its wettest dreams.
GMail doesn't let my random sales person app hit a button then thrown an entire wedding planning itinerary into an email to the customer, which is also stored in the sales system.
GMail doesn't let my random technical support person import the message into our issue tracking system.
GMail doesn't let me encrypt messages with personally identifiable information in it, which is required by law, regardless of whom it is sent to in a couple of states now.
In short, you may call it 'inertia' if by 'inertia' you mean a far more mature and feature rich product. Otherwise it is simply, and I cringe as I type this, that Outlook is a far more useful tool than GMail.
I HAVE to deal with Outlook and Exchange, I know far too much about it. I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT STAND IT. The only reason we're supporting other email clients going forward is because I refuse to be forced to use Outlook for email, so I want a choice. Fortunately, there are still large organizations that use things like Groupwise and Lotus Notes which allowed me a very nice business case for supporting more than just Outlook when I took the project over.
But if you think for a second there is a replacement for the Outlook/Exchange combination for a integrated solution of your typical business persons email/contacts/calendar then you're are completely out of touch with reality. I REALLY REALLY wish there was, but there isn't. And GMail isn't anything more than OWA, with less features and a better UI. Its just missing far too many features and the ability for third party software to integrate with it for it to become a replacement for Outlook. Not to mention the legal issues as to why companies really shouldn't be using GMail when customer data is being emailed.
I wish that someone out there would realize this and actually make real Thunderbird extensions to make it on par with the Outlook, but it doesn't exist. I've used all the OSS alternatives, if you think they are equal, you haven't used one of the two things you are comparing. It wouldn't even freaking be hard, all you need is some damn plugins that use IMAP folders for storing things. Do it on something like Cyrus IMAP which has proper notify support and it really could be just as good if not better than exchange! I'd do it myself if I wasn't so overloaded aleady.
And thats supposed to be shocking or something? Do you realize this is pretty much standard operating procedure for software development now, I can't think of any company that gives me a software release date and I believe it.
In tough economic times the only companies that suffer are the ones that weren't doing well or weren't needed to begin with.
Show me one well managed company that provides an essential service thats anywhere close to failure.
The only companies suffering are the ones that were riding on the over inflated economy. I say this full well knowing that the company I work for, on the verge of going out of business falls squarely into both categories.
Darwin. Do you know what that is? Hmm? No? Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an ignorant post.
Thats the base port of FreeBSD to the Mac hardware.
The BSD components came from FreeBSD, not NetBSD.
I'm not sure that FreeBSD would ever have been given a decent USB subsystem if Apple hadn't done it.
Apple employees several of the FBSD developers full time and the code they create is for FBSD, which Apple gladly uses of course.
ZFS was ported FBSD thanks to Apple.
See, thats the point of BSD licensed code. Apple CAN do this. They contribute back because its in their best interests. They can give back the code and not have to maintain and keep a fork in sync with the changes to the master code base.
Pull your head out of your ass and get a clue fanboy. I don't own a Mac or a machine running OS X, but I have at least 6 machines that I admin that are better because of Apple contributions.
They aren't all designed by aeronautical engineers.
They are designed by a team of aeronautical engineers as well as usability experts, customer service experts and thousands of other people, as well as nearly a century of experience creating aircraft to serve as carriers of people.
If you left it up to aeronautical engineers alone, we'd all be flying in the belly of aircraft with no seats, no luggage space, no heating or air and about a million other differences that would make the aircraft far more efficient, yet highly unsuitable for you and I to fly on, unless you want require every passenger to wear a flight suit and personal oxygen mask, I don't recommend having aircraft designed exclusively by aeronautical engineers.
And lets talk about subsystems. You don't want an aeronautical engineer designing a turbo fan, you want an aeronautical engineer, a materials engineer, someone who knows how to safely design a turbine, someone who can design the turbo fan in such away that when it comes apart for whatever reason that it does so in a non-catastrophic way, such as throwing fan blades through the cabin. You don't want an aeronautical engineer programming the Flight Management Systems any more than you want an aeronautical engineer writting software for your pace maker.
Commercial aircraft aren't designed by aeronautical engineers, they are designed by a LOT of engineers of all types.
Unlike most software, which is written by self proclaimed 'engineers' who really don't have a clue.
Okay, apple has good marketing, I got that.
Microsoft ... good marketing ... what the fuck planet are you one? On Earth, MS has shitty marketing as everyone knows.
Both Apple and MS's successful products are successful because they provide enough of what users want/need to keep them as users.
Linux does as well, the difference is it provides for the needs of a select view bunch of geeks and wanna be geeks who think that using Linux and going out of their way to do things the hardware makes it better. There are far fewer of these types of people in the world than everyone else.
While you are right, we live in a society driven by media, but thinking that the only reason OSS has utterly failed to penetrate the market is because of marketing is just silly.
I'm pretty sure that just makes you an idiot. There are two reasons to own a Mac:
1) To show everyone you like trendy overpriced hardware
2) To run OS X, which is UNIX under the hood with a non-shitty gui on top of that
Personally, I'm want a Mac for #2. If you don't run OS X on your macs then your just an idiot who paid too much for hardware. If you're using a Mac too old to run OS X than you should stop being a idiot and pay the $50 to by some used more modern PC that uses less power than your 3 macs and has about 18 times the processing power. You'll make the $50 back in the first years electric bill.
Hate to break it to you, and I'm sure this will start a flame but Linux isn't UNIX, never has been, never will be, which for the record everyone was proudly screaming while SCO was suing. Linux is a bastardization of an OS, its not pure like you'd like to think. Interestingly enough, OS X IS UNIX, includes the certification.
So what do you use? I've used just about every OS that will run on a x86 PC or a Mac, and none of them 'just work' 'all the time'. Nice try to pretend like what you use is somehow different, but its really not and this tired old bullshit doesn't mean anything to anyone that isn't a fanboy.
Well gee, you think applications of an entirely different class would work differently? Compare GIMP to photoshop, then you're making a more valid comparison. If you think GIMP out classes photoshop on anything other than price then I doubt you actually are capable of a fair evaluation of anything and your entire rant gets thrown out due to your inability to compare apples to apples rather than apples to apple sauce.
How do you figure this exactly? OS X IS UNIX, it has form yes, but it is more about function which is why it is so well liked and making inroads in the desktop market. Without years of knowledge about intricate details from using UNIX (or linux) then it is hardly function over form. Unix becomes powerful after a steep learning curve that you just ignore. OS X is rather functional for almost everyone the instant you plug it in.
Linux will never be a clone of anything worth a damn, you all spend too much time in a circle jerk saying how you're so much better than everyone else and that next year will be the year of the Linux desktop because everyone else will finally get how great linux is ... After MS and Apple fuck up with their new (WHATEVER YOUR WHINING ABOUT TODAY).
Truth of the matter is, YOU don't get it.
There is also ONE apple UI standard and toolkit, not 6 or 20 as OSS people seem to think is a selling point.
One of the advantages that the whole windowing gui brought to the table was consistency. FOSS authors utterly fail to grasp that almost across the board.
While I agree whole heartedly, I would like to add ...
If you think the way you name something has no bearing on what people will think of it, than you are in fact a complete and utter idiot.
If you think names don't matter than change your legal name to 'I Am a Dumb Ass and think everyone else should be my slave, especially the ' and see how far you get in life.
If someone picks an utterly retarded name, like 'The GIMP' then there is a good chance that they also made several other utterly retarded choices, and in this case it most certainly holds true as soon as you see the UI.
I'm sorry you are too stupid to realize that image matters, but it does. Inside jokes are cool for the 3 people that know about it, you just look like an idiot to everyone else in the world. Which is okay if you don't want anyone else to have anything to do with you, but if you're going to go into it with the typical 'FOSS WILL RULE THE WORLD!@$!@%!@%!@%' mentality, then you need to start thinking about the big picture and stop being so incredibly narrow minded.
Whats wrong with wanting that? Nothing.
Whats wrong is that you act like its difficult to do.
If you remove greedy from the picture, producing that vehicle is pretty damn easy really.
SUV with room for 8 and 50 MPG? Can be done right now, just requires you to use deasel fuel. Under 12k? No problem. Get us back into an economy with a real backing standard to stop inflation and you'll get prices back down to something sane rather than the bullshit we have now.
Just because what customers want isn't something you want to produce doesn't make the customer wrong. Just because you're incapable of accepting that it can be done doesn't make the customer wrong.
Your ignorance, greed, and absolutely shitty management ability is not the customers problem, its your problem, and its the reason you're failing Mr GM exec.
There is nothing in your statement that can't be done. Nice try though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Accounting
They don't make a profit/loss/income.
They sell everything they have in circles until it appears that there is no money made or a loss on everything.
Why don't we just start picking random RIAA lawyers and start shooting them.
Sure, it's going to cost a few of us some jail time, but really, how many of them do you think we'd have to shoot before they'd be slightly more concerned with representing the scum bags.
Yes yes, I know we're supposed to be enlightened and all that bullshit, but it isn't working. A good old fashioned ass beating looks to be the only course of action that will work until we overthrow the lobbists ... err, government.
Especially trying to break into a market by telling everyone about your awesome super cool new way of doing things ... that everyone else has been doing for 10 years already.
My cable modem connects to a Cisco 7200, which most certainly supports CEF and has for at least 10 years, which was when I first started playing with 7200s.
How much closer to the edge do you want?
Its been a few years since I was a router flunky so if I get the exact model wrong don't castrate me, but as I recall the Cisco 12k came out screaming about how it did this for many gb/s of data without even breathing heavy. I realize thats not the highest of high end by any means, and that model is years old, but this isn't new in any way. Its hard for me to think that the quality and performance of routers has declined since I stopped doing it.
Sounds like the author just hasn't actually used any real routing equipment in years and thinks he's inventing something new.
There is no way in hell an app constantly running and listening to the mic is going to last 8 hours.
I'm on my second iPhone, both the original and the 3G, there is no way in hell they have the battery life to do this.
If by 'everyday life' the author means sitting in front of your PC with the USB cable attached, then okay, not my definition of everyday life, but okay. Otherwise, I call bullshit.
Why?
The DOM is a programming technique. DOM is independent of HTML and HTML doesn't require DOM. DOM is how an app interacts and deals with HTML in general in its own memory.
SAX is another common alternative.
Then you can do what companies like Google, Yahoo! and MS do right now which is completely custom and has very little in common with a DOM implementation because a DOM implementation doesn't work on the scale they deal with.
Wow, WTF do you think open source is for? You've managed to imply that the two most important advantages to open source don't exist for two very large open source projects.
Gecko is open source. They can't yank the license out from under you any more than they can from Webkit because the OSS license implies that you can continue to use it forever.
Second, Webkit, like Gecko can stop development right this instant and they won't be any worse off than using Trident. They'll just have to do the webkit or gecko development themselves, which they already do with trident (okay, another MS group does, but thats not the point).
The advantages to OSS is that they can't take away your license to what you're already using. Nor can the death of an OSS project leave you out in the cold with no where to go.
When selecting a rendering engine to replace Trident when I took over the current project I'm working on it was always Gecko or Webkit from the very start because on of the FIRST things I got smacked in the face with when taking over the project is that MS was discontinuing the parts of trident we needed.
So, we switched to Gecko. Try to take those parts away now, go for it. I can continue to use the code I have and bug fix it as needed. I have no dependency on Mozilla if I don't want it. Sure, for the moment I just use what they have and commit bugfixes back to the Mozilla effort because it saves me a whole shitload of effort trying to maintain patches or a fork. Its in everyones best interest for my version of gecko to not diverge from the main code base, and it saves EVERYONE involved time and money by sharing the effort. It doesn't matter that the company I work for doesn't own the copyright to Gecko because the Mozilla guys aren't exerting it to hurt anyone, they just use it to cover their own asses, and have released it under a license which effectively allows me to cover my ass at the same time.
I'm amazed at how someone on slashdot so effectively entirely missed what I consider the greatest benefits of Gecko and Webkit being OSS. Yea yea, finding security issues is great and all, and feature enhancements for free are nice too, but I don't mind paying for those things. Whats far more important to the survival of my company is that I don't have to worry about Mozilla or Webkit doing something that utterly fucks me over. They can't. They have given me a way to protect myself.
That is not something you can get out of Opera or Microsoft, and that is why our company happily contributes all of our changes back to Gecko, which, for reference is in no way a requirement according to MPL, but its most certainly the right thing to do, and as I said, means I don't have to merge our code bases to stay in sync with mozdev.
You realize that IPC implies shared memory right?
You may pipe it through a file, a socket or as in unix a 'pipe'. But in the end you are effectively sharing bits of memory in one way or another, thats the point of IPC, to share data and commands.
Bullshit.
It is not more secure 'just because'.
It CAN be more secure, but as history shows, pretty clearly, the more code you add, the less likely it is to be secure.
You don't get automatic security when you have multiple processes unless they are completely and in every way unable to do anything to the other. Since multiprocess browsing results in using shared memory, IPC, and even sharing files on disk, there is pretty much no reason what so ever to assume that multiprocess is more secure.
Once you break one process you can go after the next using any one of the ways the different processes communicate with each other.
Since most programmers think like you do, these IPC methods are likely to be FULL of holes to advantage of.
It is not any more or less secure because of some theory. Implementation defines security as much as a specification, if not more so.
Uhm ... segmenting didn't sandbox shit. It just made it annoying to get in between, not impossible as shown by the many different libraries that help programmers do exactly that.
The Virtual Memory Manager support built into processors on the other hand DOES segment blocks of ram. This is why kernel space can be protected from random attacks in user space.
Perhaps an OS that takes more advantage of the VMU would accomplish what you want, but jumping back to segmented addressing just means that the hackers (i.e. the programmers that actually do know what they are doing) will still be able to take advantage of exploits that exist now, as well as being able to take advantage of all the clueless programmers and CS grads who shouldn't touch code with a 10 foot pole but do it anyway since these people are the ones who will have a problem with a segmented memory model.
Of course the only way any of this works is if the code that manages it all is secure. Since I've yet to see any OS manage this for just the user/kernel space boundry well, then I think trying to add more boundries at this point is just asking for trouble. The smart hackers are still going to beat the code that was farmed out to India or some local uni, sorry.
Ruminants have multiple chambers, period.
There is no set number and it depends on species.
There is nothing to do with safety in ruminants, and more to do with the fact that they eat foods that require far more processing to be broken down into useful components. Basically the food ferments in their 'stomachs' as other bacteria and such break the food down as the bacteria eat it, then as it makes its way along the process it becomes something useful to the animal itself.
Cows can't eat grasses. They can how absorb the byproducts of the grass that ferments in their stomach thanks to the symbiotic relationship with the organisms in their stomachs.
Yes yes, its off topic, but I've just been the boyfriend to 4 years of vet school. err, I mean a girl in vet school.
Oh, even better.
This isn't a article from Microsoft. Its an article from another news aggregator, like slashdot about a paper published by microsoft.
Theres something fundementally wrong when your stories consist of links to other people talking about stories they didn't even write.
Ars and slashdot are gonna get together and just circlejerk each other into their own little world.
No, they never had any sort of Linux product ever. They had some Linux machines they used for various things but there was never a Microsoft Linux.
You may be refering to Xenix, which was most certainly around before Linus started.
If I recall correctly, Xenix was one of the things that got linus started on Linux, it was part of his drive for an alternative that didn't suck.
Nice try though, next time a clue would be more useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
Unless if by new you mean:
From february at least, seems older to me: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79655
Has already appeared on slashdot and a hundred other tech sites.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/22/1724244
Its hard to google before you run to try and get a story submitted isn't it?
Yea, cause that machine will run Firefox the memory/cpu hog nice enough to actually be able to stand browsing.
Of course it won't, browsing even simple pages will be mind numbingly shitty because you're trying to shoehorn modern software into a machine far too old to run it.
The proper thing to do is use a browser from that machines age, no one is going to exploit your shitty old mac anyway, more so, you're not likely to find any of those exploits in existence now days, you're more likely to find a Linux exploit than a page exploiting a browser on that thing.