I don't know what this "*nix" thing is, but if you're talking about Unix, by that definition any currently shipping operating system is Unix. That's a dumb definition.
I agree it's a silly definition, but it's one a lot of people use on a practical level. It also does leave out WinXP ( cygwin emulation doesn't count, it's not standard on the system ). Hey, I'm on your side here- people need to realize that OS X is "not Unix", but in the same breath, you need to be sure you say "it's very like Unix, just better", which is what I know you're trying to say.
Clearly we're going to agree to disagree on this, but as much as BSD can trace it's origins to SysV Unix, so can Darwin, and, to a lesser degree, Linux. They share many important subsystems in common - it's easy to think of examples, like say, CUPS, inetd, file system structures - and familiarity with one of these *nix-style systems gives you a large boost with the other... the same can not be said for WinXP. You _know_ you're being tricky by saying "shipping" operating systems and excluding OS 9, which I think actually bolsters my point. OS X and Linux are, in fact, different in several fundamental ways, but ouside the kernel, they are more similar than different, and their cross-compatability with systems like Solaris are telling. I'll continue to say that the "OS X is not Unix" argument has more to do with details ( and legal/marketing issues ) than practical matters.
The idea of a "Unix-style" OS has plenty of meaning, and it's not like I came up with "*nix" myself, I first saw it used to talk about BSD and Linux over 10 years ago. It's all about the modular kernel/services/apps design, and the availablity of shell-based and Unix-style tools. You're being pedantic and I'm sure you know it. That said, you're being pedantic for a reason, and that's good as long as you're aware and clear about that.
I actually strongly agree with you in a way. Except one thing. I think it's _obvious_ that facebook and similar "these are my friends" things are exploitable. Thus, demonstrating their exploitablility and quantifying it is of dubious use.
But maybe I only *think* it's obvious. If there's some idiot out there saying "disclosing this information isn't dangerous", then, well... then you're right. Those people need to be shown they're wrong. Still, I'm not sure ( since profit motive is probably involved ) that they'll care.
"How to improve your phishing attack"
on
Phishing for Credit
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't understand fully people being upset about this, other than uhem, people who gave up their passwords ( whoops! ). It sucks to have someone er, 'make you look stupid'. Of course, there is the potential that they are somehow/somewhere keeping copies of everyone's passwords, though it looks like they're claiming to delete the actual data.
The only thing that really bothers me is that they've essentially shown phishers how to dramatically improve their results :
About 70% of recipients fell victim to the attacks using contextual information from social networks; this is an increase by a factor of 23 compared to known phishing attacks, and by a factor of four compared to the case where the sender is unknown but appears to be in the same domain as the victim
Er... this is sorta like doing research on how to make a better bomb, buddy. This is not socially responsible computer science research, is it? I'd be more interested in determining out how to create a social networking site ( like whatever this "facebook" thing is ) that _can't_ be exploited in such a manner. That sounds like a more productive and useful exercise, and one less likely to get everyone pissed off at you for showing them to be gullible. 70% is a lot, even if that's just an estimate.
That's a mighty fine hair you're splitting there, my friend.
It's very true, especially in a legal sort of way. But OS X is as much *nix as Linux, BSD, Darwin, or any Mach-based system ever were. Which is to say, for all *practical* purposes, it is *nix. If I can compile the GNU toolchain to it with relative ease, it's *nix. Without using a compatabilty layer- cygwin does not count. BSD and Darwin certainly do.
So, while you're right and you get to revel in your correctness, for marketing and other more practical purposes, OS X is a "variant" or "evolution" or "sorta" or whatever you want to say to qualify it... pretty well near Unix(TM)! Which makes your point look sort of silly, valid as it may be. Sorry. As a friend, I felt that I had to let you know.
It doesn't matter. Microsoft has, for all their faults, done a spectacular job of maintaining file-format compatibility.
That is simply not true. Backward compatability, sure. But if I have Word 6 and you have Word 2000, I have zero chance of opening your file.
Besides, you miss completely the point that it's an expensive program. You really expect _everyone_ to have a copy of Word on their machine... that's what's really "just so wrong".
Ep2 was a botched love story on top of what was actually not a half-bad action flick, introducing the clone wars. I liked Ep2, but you have to admit that it
You liked Episode 2 ??
Even with less Jar Jar compared to Ep1, and an ass-kicking Yoda ( admit it, you always knew he could do that stuff, and yea, I thought it was cool ), it'd be hard for anything to make up for the truly painful dialog scenes with Anakin and Padame. Man, that sucked... there were a good 10-20 minutes that could have been chopped out of that movie and it would have been much easier to take.
Then again, I have a much higher tolerance for stupid, goofy, childish characters than for stupid, sappy, poorly done 'serious adult' characters. I didn't mind Ewoks and Jar Jar near as much as I hated Anikin and Padame in Episode 2. Goofy I can handle; serious, boring and bad just sucks. Which brings out the point that everyone is a critic, each of us with our own personal bias.
The first Star Wars movie hit a nerve with it's classic storyline and ( then ) modern effects-laden futuristic setting. American Graffiti was a cool, focused cultural coming-of-age piece. Indiana Jones was a neat, action-packed flick. These are the three cool things George Lucas ever did ( with possible partial credit for Willow ), and he went on to remake and milk them for all they were worth and more. You can't look to the guy to do consitient, high-quality work that's true to the original, that's not his track record. Which is where you're being insightful when you say :
So... in answer to your question, we're being negative because we cannot imagine that Lucas is going to spin off a show worth watching. It's really that simple.
There is no reason for us to think it's not going to possibly suck, whatever spin-offs Lucas has planned. There's always hope if someone good is involved, like Gendy Tartovsky ( that guy is brilliant, clearly. Just watch enough of Dexter's Laboratory and Samari Jack, you'll see... ) but left on his own, Lucas is perfectly able to happily churn out painful-to-view junk. There's always hope, but it's small, and mostly related to Lucas finding a good director/co-producer and letting them do most of the real work.
So it sounds like they're both saying "Be reasonable, do it my way".
Every single article out there was generated by exactly one source, an article in a single Japanese business rag. Every other publication is just reporting on that single article.
I don't think for a second that Sony is going to back away from yet another proprietary format. That's not what they do. *If* a 'new format' comes out of any talks, it's going to be Sony's, by and large. That, or we'll see two formats.
One thing is not going to happen: the PS3 is not going to be delayed by this. It might be delayed, but not by this...
I, for one, champion the rights of 3M1C (three men and a cat) marriages! In this day and age, the artificial limits we impose on sexuality vis-a-vis marriage should be done away with completely
You came at this by saying that sharing Word documents on the Web is "just so wrong." I dispute that. I say that, in many cases, it is exactly right. You should use the right tool for the job, do you not agree with that?
When the tool you're choosing is over $300 per user, and not available on several significant computing platforms ? That doesn't sound like the 'right' tool to me. It's right only IFF everyone already has access to the tool, or IFF you are supplying the tool to them. Ship that latest copy of Office to me and every other user who asks you too, and I'll stop bitching about the fact that you're too damn lazy to use PDF or HTML. But you'll still have a problem with users on Linux, BSD and Solaris systems, not to mention handheld device users.
Oh, and what version of Word are you using there ? Not everyone has upgraded, you know... no, you need to face a fact here. Using.doc format files to share information on the internet is "just so wrong". Unless you're Microsoft and like the idea of everyone in the world forking over hundreds of dollars to you ever 3-4 years, of course.
though the GPL is a license which invokes copyright, it's not a patent...
Comments in the source about patent use just don't work, especially for products where you don't have the source.
I read this as being along the lines of "products should document clearly ( in manuals, marketing material, etc ) what patents they are protected by", just like say, your car, TV, VCR, DVD player, even lawn mower : pick up a manual to any of them, you'll see patents ( both pending and otherwise ) listed fairly prominently. It wouldn't need to be obtrusive, just something in the "about" box or in the user manual or license agreement would do.
But it shouldn't be hard to find. Right now, I wouldn't have any idea where to look for patents used in Microsoft Office, for example. If I were writing a text editor, I'd like to know what to avoid doing. It's a crock that I should have to think like that, but if I have to, I should at least know where to look, rather than having to spend a lot of effort doing some sort of search.
What world does this guy live in? Is he completely surrounded by idiots? Remind me never to go anywhere near Linspire.
He lives in a world where he's this rich guy boss-man who scoffs at the silly common people beneath him and fires idiots who can't understand that he's always right?
Seriously, he may be a great guy, I'm just goofing on him above, but... his position in the article is pretty pointy-haired-boss, don't you think? Ignore the idea of multiple users, ignore the idea of protecting you from you mistakes, in short, design a craptastic product, and maybe his ideas don't sound totally stupid... if you're willing to ignore real life for a moment, and design a completely different system from the one that will work...
I will post this with the karma bonus for no reason whatsoever
What's the reason for posting without the karma bonus ?
I guess it's in case you care about your karma and know you don't have anything interesting to say ? Or you know you'll be modded down? That's what I gather from reading the FAQ... which makes your claim to not giving a rat's ass about karma suspect, since I had to go look up what it means to check the "No Karma Bonus" box. I'm implying you care enough about karma to know details about how it's accumulated and 'spent'.
I don't think I've ever used that "No Karma Bonus" checkbox. I didn't even realize I could "filter down" my own posts that way. Maybe this post will be modded down and I'll see how it works. Now that I mention it, this is one of those posts I've read where it doesn't really say anything interesting and isn't on-topic. I'll probably be modded down. Uh-oh. Maybe I'll see how this works after all.
Can other commercial OS vendors (how many are there:) adopt a similar stance?
they do, clearly. There are just too many examples of features dropped between releases of operating systems to pick only one.
Will you be inconvenienced by the inability to run setuid scripts on MacOS X?
no. It was a mistake that the feature was ever included. You should SUID/SGID binaries, not text files or anything else. Scripts are not binaries.
Which other features/capabilities (in any OS) would you like to have removed?
Can I vote for eliminating the ability of any OS to create annoying, non-standards-supporting web pages that use too much Flash and/or Javascript ? Can I prevent any OS from sending out spam email ? Can I remove the ability of a compiled application to crash the machine? No? Too bad. In any given system, there are a lot of features that aren't really needed and can be either a source of confusion or a source of problems. Most of these shouldn't be in the OS layer, and ( like the SUID issue ) should be tightened up if they are in that layer.
Fundamentally, though, the SUID/SGID thing referenced in the story is a non-issue. If I have console access, typing "sudo" and a password isn't even an inconvenience. It's already been pointed out that this feature has already been removed from almost every other major Un*x variant, including Linux.
Parent confuses setuid-executable with setuid-shell-script. Shell script setuid is a botch in general because shells are not designed to protect security when run with privileges and so are hoaxed into permitting a breakin.
The parent also didn't read the linked article:
Impact: Permitting SUID/SGID scripts to be installed could lead to privilege escalation.
Description: Mac OS X inherited the ability to run SUID/SGID scripts from FreeBSD. Apple does not distribute any SUID/SGID scripts, but the system would allow them to be installed or created. This update removes the ability of Mac OS X to run SUID/SGID scripts. Credit to Bruce Murphy of rattus.net and Justin Walker for reporting this issue.
emphasis mine. I'm going to guess shell scripts weren't the only kind of text file you could SUID/SGID...
Now I think I understand. What is everyone complaining about in relation to PDFs? The plugin. What does FlashPaper do away with ? The plugin.
Well, not really, there's still the Flash plugin. But instead of two proprietary nonstandard plugins, you'll get one, with features ( as needed/desired ) provided through the Flash app. Which is a good thing if you're targeting small devices like cell phones, which is how they're trying to spin this to the market.
To someone who is not a developer, 10.4 does feel like a minor revision, with Dashboard and Spotlight being the only really big features.
End users might not understand why some new, really cool-sounding programs won't support OS versions prior to 10.4. But they might want the improved graphics performance enabled by Core Image enhancements, and they might also want cheaper and more feature-ful apps enabled by Core Data, even though, like Paul here, they can't be bothered to understand what either term represents.
Did I agree to download your images? Did I ask for a big animated Flash program? No.
Show me a small, simple text advertisement. I'll see it, and if it's something I'm interested in, I may even click on it.
This is the brilliance of Google's ads. Not just that they're targeted. Not just that they're relatively easy to add to your ( acceptable-content ) web page. But that they don't take over, they don't *blink*, they don't annoy people and get in the way. They're accepted, and they can't be removed from a page. People need to get a grip, realize there are still people using modems, and present ( and accept the use of ) plain-text versions of their ads.
Sure, I'd be violating some sort of imaginary 'contract' if I were able to somehow remove plain-text ads from a web page. But I wouldn't bother, and actually... where did I sign up for this contract, anyway? Yea, uh... I don't think so. The argument is bogus.
The application we use to allow our technicians work trouble tickets through a web interface got completely hosed by SP2. They were fairly apathetic about the whole thing sending a link to a MS KB article that didn't solve the problem. There attitude was pretty much it was our fault for using SP2. I finally found a solution that involved basically hacking the registry to tun off one the SP2 security features which was breaking the products javascript.
And why exactly are you not looking for a different vendor?
First-off, I'm betting their web app is requiring non-standard use of client-side scripting that probably only ever worked on certain versions of IE. Then, when IE/Windows gets fixed, they do nothing ? Find someone better. Trouble-ticket tracking apps are not that hard, and web-based interfaces shouldn't be browser-dependant.
Unless you picked them for supporting integration with Outlook or something like that. Then you have only yourself to blame.
but then no patches or support contracts with any company will stop that.
if you pay microsoft 60 bajillion dollars a month and they have one of the windows 2003 server programmers on your callable list they will not prevent an insider from compromising your systems.
the ONLY way to do that is regular audits, all admins MUST work in pairs, and finally a big bruiser guy standing there with a baseball bat and told he can pound any of the geeky guys if he thinks they are up to something.
EOL means nothing in your examples.
Someone really needs to mod up that AC. Having rock-solid perimeter firewalls doesn't mean anything in an environment where you can't secure internal access to easily-compromised systems.
. Sony has been making noises about helping avoid the format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, so I think Apple would be making a _huge_ mistake going with Blu-Ray just as Sony's about to cave.
Sony is sure to put Blu-ray drives in their PS3. They're equally as likely to release a bunch of movies in this format. They may have some olive branch to offer the HD-DVD association, but they're not saying they're stopping BD-DVD to create a single standard. Here's the story you may be talking about. From what miniscule information is there, it may just be that they're doing either (a) a PR move to make it look like they tried, or (b) offering up their tech with some modifications, pricing, or other tricky business. Either way, it's a pretty safe bet that Blu-ray is going to end up in PS3's at the very least, and it may just be Sony saying "we think we've already won, how about you save face by playing nice with us, we'll call Blu-ray HD-DVD if you like".
In any event, it'll be well over a year before Apple has the option of putting a Blu-ray disk reader in a machine, let alone a writer, so they simply will use dual-layer DVD+-RW drives for some time.
I was really curious to see the total sales of the Mac mini when these reports came out.
suspect it did not break any records, or Apple would be crowing about it by now, but it would be fun to see how it did.
While it's a little suspicious that they're not talking about Mac mini numbers, they don't ( as far as I recall ) traditionally report unit numbers on these calls ( just $ sales/profit/etc ). So it's not terribly insightful to make a big deal about them not calling the unit number out, though it is true they might have made a big deal out of it if they'd sold a ton. What is clear is that people *are* buying them, though, Apple isn't sitting on a big backlog of unsold minis, nor are they scrambling to supply minis. These are good things, both. We may find out how many they've sold at a later date, but it's not too odd that this conference call as as limited in information as it was.
Just anecdotally, you can find the ranking of various Apple computers on Amazon's top sellers list. For Amazon's list today, the two mini models sold less than the G5 iMac ( but they all outsold the nearest PC competition, but who buys computers on Amazon?? People who buy G5 iMacs, I guess ).
But I didn't see the mini on Apple's own list ( click "Top Sellers" on the right sidebar ). Apple's list makes it look like they only sell stuff for iPods, iTunes, and, oh yea, iLife software. There's a Powerbook somewhere near the bottom of the list, but that's the only computer there today. Probably everyone not buying laptops are holding off for rumored speed bumps.
The two things that are key I'll quote from AtAT : "more Macs sold last quarter than in any other quarter in the past four years; over 60 percent growth in Japan and Europe". In other words, a better Spring than any Winter ( read: includes December ) in the past 4 years. Oh, and "gross margins that, despite the introduction of low-cost offerings like the Mac mini and the iPod shuffle, went up instead of down"... which actually probably means that they're selling a large number of high-end, high-margin things, like iMac G5s and iPods rather than Mac minis and shuffles. Which makes sense. My wife decided she wanted a shuffle, then a friend convinced her an iPod mini for just a hundred bucks more would be a great thing... that's how it works. The mini and the shuffle get you into the store, and before you know it, out you walk with an iPod Photo and a PowerMac. If you have the cash, or a good credit card, of course...
From a quick read of the analysis, it comes down to a system call not checking it's input values for illegal input, right ?
If that's the only example like that which can cause a kernel panic, I'd be impressed. Especially in kernel-level I/O areas where performance is key, it's even possible that such a check is left out on purpose, and data integrity is meant to be the job of some higher-level or intermediary calling function which is ( nearly ) always used.
Of course, I avoid programming on such a low level if possible, so I could be wrong. But it is likely there's a reason why fixing this isn't terribly important, and why my OS X machine *never* reboots unless I've done some system software update.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd better not be Steve. If you are Steve, dude, you need to spend less time posting on slashdot !
Oh, and hey, I used to work at NeXT, know OS X, Objective-C and Java backwards and forwards, and I'm looking for a good gig, hook me up! ;-)
I agree it's a silly definition, but it's one a lot of people use on a practical level. It also does leave out WinXP ( cygwin emulation doesn't count, it's not standard on the system ). Hey, I'm on your side here- people need to realize that OS X is "not Unix", but in the same breath, you need to be sure you say "it's very like Unix, just better", which is what I know you're trying to say.
Clearly we're going to agree to disagree on this, but as much as BSD can trace it's origins to SysV Unix, so can Darwin, and, to a lesser degree, Linux. They share many important subsystems in common - it's easy to think of examples, like say, CUPS, inetd, file system structures - and familiarity with one of these *nix-style systems gives you a large boost with the other... the same can not be said for WinXP. You _know_ you're being tricky by saying "shipping" operating systems and excluding OS 9, which I think actually bolsters my point. OS X and Linux are, in fact, different in several fundamental ways, but ouside the kernel, they are more similar than different, and their cross-compatability with systems like Solaris are telling. I'll continue to say that the "OS X is not Unix" argument has more to do with details ( and legal/marketing issues ) than practical matters.
The idea of a "Unix-style" OS has plenty of meaning, and it's not like I came up with "*nix" myself, I first saw it used to talk about BSD and Linux over 10 years ago. It's all about the modular kernel/services/apps design, and the availablity of shell-based and Unix-style tools. You're being pedantic and I'm sure you know it. That said, you're being pedantic for a reason, and that's good as long as you're aware and clear about that.
But maybe I only *think* it's obvious. If there's some idiot out there saying "disclosing this information isn't dangerous", then, well... then you're right. Those people need to be shown they're wrong. Still, I'm not sure ( since profit motive is probably involved ) that they'll care.
The only thing that really bothers me is that they've essentially shown phishers how to dramatically improve their results :
Er... this is sorta like doing research on how to make a better bomb, buddy. This is not socially responsible computer science research, is it? I'd be more interested in determining out how to create a social networking site ( like whatever this "facebook" thing is ) that _can't_ be exploited in such a manner. That sounds like a more productive and useful exercise, and one less likely to get everyone pissed off at you for showing them to be gullible. 70% is a lot, even if that's just an estimate.
That's a mighty fine hair you're splitting there, my friend.
It's very true, especially in a legal sort of way. But OS X is as much *nix as Linux, BSD, Darwin, or any Mach-based system ever were. Which is to say, for all *practical* purposes, it is *nix. If I can compile the GNU toolchain to it with relative ease, it's *nix. Without using a compatabilty layer- cygwin does not count. BSD and Darwin certainly do.
So, while you're right and you get to revel in your correctness, for marketing and other more practical purposes, OS X is a "variant" or "evolution" or "sorta" or whatever you want to say to qualify it... pretty well near Unix(TM)! Which makes your point look sort of silly, valid as it may be. Sorry. As a friend, I felt that I had to let you know.
That is simply not true. Backward compatability, sure. But if I have Word 6 and you have Word 2000, I have zero chance of opening your file.
Besides, you miss completely the point that it's an expensive program. You really expect _everyone_ to have a copy of Word on their machine... that's what's really "just so wrong".
You liked Episode 2 ??
Even with less Jar Jar compared to Ep1, and an ass-kicking Yoda ( admit it, you always knew he could do that stuff, and yea, I thought it was cool ), it'd be hard for anything to make up for the truly painful dialog scenes with Anakin and Padame. Man, that sucked... there were a good 10-20 minutes that could have been chopped out of that movie and it would have been much easier to take.
Then again, I have a much higher tolerance for stupid, goofy, childish characters than for stupid, sappy, poorly done 'serious adult' characters. I didn't mind Ewoks and Jar Jar near as much as I hated Anikin and Padame in Episode 2. Goofy I can handle; serious, boring and bad just sucks. Which brings out the point that everyone is a critic, each of us with our own personal bias.
The first Star Wars movie hit a nerve with it's classic storyline and ( then ) modern effects-laden futuristic setting. American Graffiti was a cool, focused cultural coming-of-age piece. Indiana Jones was a neat, action-packed flick. These are the three cool things George Lucas ever did ( with possible partial credit for Willow ), and he went on to remake and milk them for all they were worth and more. You can't look to the guy to do consitient, high-quality work that's true to the original, that's not his track record. Which is where you're being insightful when you say :
So... in answer to your question, we're being negative because we cannot imagine that Lucas is going to spin off a show worth watching. It's really that simple.
There is no reason for us to think it's not going to possibly suck, whatever spin-offs Lucas has planned. There's always hope if someone good is involved, like Gendy Tartovsky ( that guy is brilliant, clearly. Just watch enough of Dexter's Laboratory and Samari Jack, you'll see... ) but left on his own, Lucas is perfectly able to happily churn out painful-to-view junk. There's always hope, but it's small, and mostly related to Lucas finding a good director/co-producer and letting them do most of the real work.
Every single article out there was generated by exactly one source, an article in a single Japanese business rag. Every other publication is just reporting on that single article.
I don't think for a second that Sony is going to back away from yet another proprietary format. That's not what they do. *If* a 'new format' comes out of any talks, it's going to be Sony's, by and large. That, or we'll see two formats.
One thing is not going to happen: the PS3 is not going to be delayed by this. It might be delayed, but not by this...
That was an excellent Simpson's episode.
When the tool you're choosing is over $300 per user, and not available on several significant computing platforms ? That doesn't sound like the 'right' tool to me. It's right only IFF everyone already has access to the tool, or IFF you are supplying the tool to them. Ship that latest copy of Office to me and every other user who asks you too, and I'll stop bitching about the fact that you're too damn lazy to use PDF or HTML. But you'll still have a problem with users on Linux, BSD and Solaris systems, not to mention handheld device users.
Oh, and what version of Word are you using there ? Not everyone has upgraded, you know... no, you need to face a fact here. Using .doc format files to share information on the internet is "just so wrong". Unless you're Microsoft and like the idea of everyone in the world forking over hundreds of dollars to you ever 3-4 years, of course.
Comments in the source about patent use just don't work, especially for products where you don't have the source.
I read this as being along the lines of "products should document clearly ( in manuals, marketing material, etc ) what patents they are protected by", just like say, your car, TV, VCR, DVD player, even lawn mower : pick up a manual to any of them, you'll see patents ( both pending and otherwise ) listed fairly prominently. It wouldn't need to be obtrusive, just something in the "about" box or in the user manual or license agreement would do.
But it shouldn't be hard to find. Right now, I wouldn't have any idea where to look for patents used in Microsoft Office, for example. If I were writing a text editor, I'd like to know what to avoid doing. It's a crock that I should have to think like that, but if I have to, I should at least know where to look, rather than having to spend a lot of effort doing some sort of search.
I'm kinda disappointed that was the funniest response that got, but it was pretty good, too bad you had to go AC.
Seriously, I have to chase that kid outside some days. At least I know he's not alone. All of the kids at preschool know about noggin.com.
He lives in a world where he's this rich guy boss-man who scoffs at the silly common people beneath him and fires idiots who can't understand that he's always right?
Seriously, he may be a great guy, I'm just goofing on him above, but... his position in the article is pretty pointy-haired-boss, don't you think? Ignore the idea of multiple users, ignore the idea of protecting you from you mistakes, in short, design a craptastic product, and maybe his ideas don't sound totally stupid... if you're willing to ignore real life for a moment, and design a completely different system from the one that will work...
I'd like him to run on an account where he's not root, thanks.
What's the reason for posting without the karma bonus ?
I guess it's in case you care about your karma and know you don't have anything interesting to say ? Or you know you'll be modded down? That's what I gather from reading the FAQ... which makes your claim to not giving a rat's ass about karma suspect, since I had to go look up what it means to check the "No Karma Bonus" box. I'm implying you care enough about karma to know details about how it's accumulated and 'spent'.
I don't think I've ever used that "No Karma Bonus" checkbox. I didn't even realize I could "filter down" my own posts that way. Maybe this post will be modded down and I'll see how it works. Now that I mention it, this is one of those posts I've read where it doesn't really say anything interesting and isn't on-topic. I'll probably be modded down. Uh-oh. Maybe I'll see how this works after all.
they do, clearly. There are just too many examples of features dropped between releases of operating systems to pick only one.
Will you be inconvenienced by the inability to run setuid scripts on MacOS X?
no. It was a mistake that the feature was ever included. You should SUID/SGID binaries, not text files or anything else. Scripts are not binaries.
Which other features/capabilities (in any OS) would you like to have removed?
Can I vote for eliminating the ability of any OS to create annoying, non-standards-supporting web pages that use too much Flash and/or Javascript ? Can I prevent any OS from sending out spam email ? Can I remove the ability of a compiled application to crash the machine? No? Too bad. In any given system, there are a lot of features that aren't really needed and can be either a source of confusion or a source of problems. Most of these shouldn't be in the OS layer, and ( like the SUID issue ) should be tightened up if they are in that layer.
Fundamentally, though, the SUID/SGID thing referenced in the story is a non-issue. If I have console access, typing "sudo" and a password isn't even an inconvenience. It's already been pointed out that this feature has already been removed from almost every other major Un*x variant, including Linux.
The parent also didn't read the linked article:
emphasis mine. I'm going to guess shell scripts weren't the only kind of text file you could SUID/SGID ...
Now I think I understand. What is everyone complaining about in relation to PDFs? The plugin. What does FlashPaper do away with ? The plugin.
Well, not really, there's still the Flash plugin. But instead of two proprietary nonstandard plugins, you'll get one, with features ( as needed/desired ) provided through the Flash app. Which is a good thing if you're targeting small devices like cell phones, which is how they're trying to spin this to the market.
End users might not understand why some new, really cool-sounding programs won't support OS versions prior to 10.4. But they might want the improved graphics performance enabled by Core Image enhancements, and they might also want cheaper and more feature-ful apps enabled by Core Data, even though, like Paul here, they can't be bothered to understand what either term represents.
Show me a small, simple text advertisement. I'll see it, and if it's something I'm interested in, I may even click on it.
This is the brilliance of Google's ads. Not just that they're targeted. Not just that they're relatively easy to add to your ( acceptable-content ) web page. But that they don't take over, they don't *blink*, they don't annoy people and get in the way. They're accepted, and they can't be removed from a page. People need to get a grip, realize there are still people using modems, and present ( and accept the use of ) plain-text versions of their ads.
Sure, I'd be violating some sort of imaginary 'contract' if I were able to somehow remove plain-text ads from a web page. But I wouldn't bother, and actually... where did I sign up for this contract, anyway? Yea, uh... I don't think so. The argument is bogus.
And why exactly are you not looking for a different vendor?
First-off, I'm betting their web app is requiring non-standard use of client-side scripting that probably only ever worked on certain versions of IE. Then, when IE/Windows gets fixed, they do nothing ? Find someone better. Trouble-ticket tracking apps are not that hard, and web-based interfaces shouldn't be browser-dependant.
Unless you picked them for supporting integration with Outlook or something like that. Then you have only yourself to blame.
Someone really needs to mod up that AC. Having rock-solid perimeter firewalls doesn't mean anything in an environment where you can't secure internal access to easily-compromised systems.
#1 - Sony's not about to cave.
#2 - Apple's already backing Blu-Ray. Check out the list of companies. They aren't alone.
Sony is sure to put Blu-ray drives in their PS3. They're equally as likely to release a bunch of movies in this format. They may have some olive branch to offer the HD-DVD association, but they're not saying they're stopping BD-DVD to create a single standard. Here's the story you may be talking about. From what miniscule information is there, it may just be that they're doing either (a) a PR move to make it look like they tried, or (b) offering up their tech with some modifications, pricing, or other tricky business. Either way, it's a pretty safe bet that Blu-ray is going to end up in PS3's at the very least, and it may just be Sony saying "we think we've already won, how about you save face by playing nice with us, we'll call Blu-ray HD-DVD if you like".
In any event, it'll be well over a year before Apple has the option of putting a Blu-ray disk reader in a machine, let alone a writer, so they simply will use dual-layer DVD+-RW drives for some time.
suspect it did not break any records, or Apple would be crowing about it by now, but it would be fun to see how it did.
While it's a little suspicious that they're not talking about Mac mini numbers, they don't ( as far as I recall ) traditionally report unit numbers on these calls ( just $ sales/profit/etc ). So it's not terribly insightful to make a big deal about them not calling the unit number out, though it is true they might have made a big deal out of it if they'd sold a ton. What is clear is that people *are* buying them, though, Apple isn't sitting on a big backlog of unsold minis, nor are they scrambling to supply minis. These are good things, both. We may find out how many they've sold at a later date, but it's not too odd that this conference call as as limited in information as it was.
Just anecdotally, you can find the ranking of various Apple computers on Amazon's top sellers list. For Amazon's list today, the two mini models sold less than the G5 iMac ( but they all outsold the nearest PC competition, but who buys computers on Amazon?? People who buy G5 iMacs, I guess ).
But I didn't see the mini on Apple's own list ( click "Top Sellers" on the right sidebar ). Apple's list makes it look like they only sell stuff for iPods, iTunes, and, oh yea, iLife software. There's a Powerbook somewhere near the bottom of the list, but that's the only computer there today. Probably everyone not buying laptops are holding off for rumored speed bumps.
The two things that are key I'll quote from AtAT : "more Macs sold last quarter than in any other quarter in the past four years; over 60 percent growth in Japan and Europe". In other words, a better Spring than any Winter ( read: includes December ) in the past 4 years. Oh, and "gross margins that, despite the introduction of low-cost offerings like the Mac mini and the iPod shuffle, went up instead of down"... which actually probably means that they're selling a large number of high-end, high-margin things, like iMac G5s and iPods rather than Mac minis and shuffles. Which makes sense. My wife decided she wanted a shuffle, then a friend convinced her an iPod mini for just a hundred bucks more would be a great thing... that's how it works. The mini and the shuffle get you into the store, and before you know it, out you walk with an iPod Photo and a PowerMac. If you have the cash, or a good credit card, of course...
If that's the only example like that which can cause a kernel panic, I'd be impressed. Especially in kernel-level I/O areas where performance is key, it's even possible that such a check is left out on purpose, and data integrity is meant to be the job of some higher-level or intermediary calling function which is ( nearly ) always used.
Of course, I avoid programming on such a low level if possible, so I could be wrong. But it is likely there's a reason why fixing this isn't terribly important, and why my OS X machine *never* reboots unless I've done some system software update.