Yes, it is. If someone's bank account gets compromised because you were performing a MITM attack on their SSL session then you can bet there will be some quite serious questions levelled at you.
I'm surprised you never ran into the wireless driver mess of 10.4 and 10.5. But then again that issue didn't effect all machines either. Or even the mess of how you couldn't use more than 3GB RAM in a mac pro with an nvidia card because the graphics driver would cause kernel panic.
We're talking about operating system updates here.
As am I.
Is your environment really that different from anyone elses?
It's different from the vendor's and the vendor is the one doing the testing.
Sure you have other settings, applications, etc. etc.
No, it's more like.. When Apple shipped out squirrel mail and the only version of PHP that didn't work with it, bundled together. It got past Apple's testing environment, because obviously they were testing it on different versions of PHP etc.
Now I realize. Of course, it's the windos driver mess.
I have in my draw a mac compatible bluetooth dongle from Apple that will cause any OS X system newer than 10.4 to kernel panic.
Never understood how someone can come up with such a crappy library management system in the first place.
I never quite understood how such obvious things Apple managed to get shipped out, such as Apache only serving the first 16KB of a file and then not fixing it until the next major OS X server release could even get out of testing. Never mind the obvious mess of squirrel mail and PHP not working out of the box.
Even Microsoft doesn't require me to download the sources from upstream and install a bunch of developer tools on a server to compile it and make it work.
You obviously haven't used many Macs for a long period of time - I can recall numerous events where java updates broke things with a simple scorch game on OS X - to the point I had to put stupid warnings on the site. I can recall when my network uPnP was borked by a security update from Apple, I can recall the numerous daemons being broken in various OS X server updates too.
My anecdotal 'evidence' is based on years of experience over a wide variety and vast amount of Macs.
I shake my head when I hear the windos admins at the company test a bugfix update.
Because making sure things don't break is obviously stupid of IT.
Isn't that what the vendor is supposed to do before sending it out?
The vendor didn't test the fix in your environment, they tested it in theirs.
The child can get access to a computer when it is needed by going to the public library or most likely the school library.
I sincerely doubt I would have mastered m68k assembler at 11 years old if I had to do that or even came close to it, especially with limited time allotments and what one was allowed to do on computers.
I don't think many kids have been to one lately as they are more than happy to cut/paste without any question of the source.
I remember most of my peers at a younger age only wanted to play computer games, instant messaging and newgrounds instead of doing something constructive on computers, that said, I don't believe that is a good enough reason to deny everyone on a whole because some people can't make better use of the tools.
PC's and internet access teach NOTHING.
True, because that alone isn't enough, you need a bit more and in some cases, it's just a bit, such as one of my best friends learned English language just through IRC initially. Now his English tends to rival many good native speakers at their own language - He's never lived in an English speaking country and is even quite adept over voice chat too.
I'm glad my friends and I never had parents or educators with influence which had your stance on these issues. I have no doubt your philosophy would have made us miserable and harmed our skills development.
These are people who are paid with the expectation that they know these things. Half of the time, the first words out of their mouth is "What's a RFC?"
You wouldn't like me, I have a tendency to quote things from RFC 1796 when I don't follow RFCs in certain instances due to my own 'good reasoning' which people may oppose.
And now, I shall quote you a piece:
It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not any more than the publication in a regular journal.
First of all, Apple considers jailbreaking a phone to be a DMCA violation.
I wouldn't know. I am not a lawyer or even an armchair lawyer.
Second, iPhone SDK itself has a number of restrictions (including e.g. the infamous "no third-party languages" clause) that apply to anyone using it, whether the result is published to the App Store or not.
I remember when people were not using the iphone SDK to create applications on the iphone when it didn't have official 3rd party support for applications.
So even if you ignore the store, you're not (legally) free to do whatever you want.
Sure you are, if you don't agree to the terms, don't use that and use something else. If this is so much of a problem, then developers and users will move to a more liberal system. However, seeing Apple's current dominance it seems that users are pretty comfy with Apple DRM, since they won't give up their iPhones over it.
Oh well that's just great isn't it - you can still get it to work on a minority of phones that have been hacked.
I don't see the problem. It's not like anyone is even forced to get an iPhone.
For the entire Iphone/Ipad platform, yes.
I still don't see how people are forced to get the iphone instead of another phone.
You mean: Apple is stopping you from showing off your applications on the Iphone because they don't want it.
Indeed, they don't have to advertise or link any application because you want it there. It's their store.
But you can always develop for another, better, platform instead.
I don't know about better, but another, certainly. You can even create your own platform if you have the financial backing. I mean, just look at Google - from zero in the mobile market to now kicking asses of various long term mobile phone companies.
yeah, and you could also make your app for hacked iphones running android (has been done). but that is not what we are talking about. we are talking about normal users.
Normal users can get the official handset that supports the Ash-Fox application. I don't see a problem?
So...in order to get an official app on my phone that app must be in the app store.
I could make an official app of Ash-Fox and distribute it outside of the app store for jail broken iphones.
So...in order to get into the app store that app must pass Apple's moral police.
For the app store, yes.
So...that would be censorship.
Not really, nobody is stopping you from showing off your applications, at worst, they're just stopping you from putting it on their store because they don't want it.
Now, when kids are gonna use real Unix that is registered in OpenGroup, there appears some strange entities @ slashdot that are dislike that.
OpenGroup have poor tests, OS X is no where near POSIX compliant.
To give one example, it can't even forking properly, it disallows a process to fork violates the POSIX standard. It does not forbid you to fork(), it demands you to fork() and exec() when it cannot guarantee you that the libraries you are using are safe from async-signal-safe. Guaranteeing your code can be forked even in a signal handler at any time is what POSIX demands. Trying to fork() without exec(), this is allowed by POSIX standards, however, if OS X cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and this is not allowed, so it crashes the thread. There is tonnes of broken crap like this in OS X. Don't even get me started on the broken POSIX threading.
Now, the funny thing is that Windows actually possess a POSIX subsystem, which is fully compliant while OS X's is not.
A documentation also involved: Linux area chronically lacks good documentation (just compare Big Admin from OpenSolaris and any Linux distro docs and you will know what I am talking about).
I find SuSE's documentation tends to be written far better than Big Admin's actually.
I mean, here is also included all the learning documentation for the teachers of the School.
I think you live in a bit of a fantasy world here, teachers don't tend to be the best at learning technology and schools usually employ people who know the stuff to teach it, not the other way around.
I feel that the kids should be taught what is used in business. Businesses have a tendency to need Windows or Linux systems, I have never heard once the requirement to use a Mac. There isn't any specific software for the Mac that businesses in particular need that isn't available for Windows. Linux on the other hand is often used in businesses to deliver a server with greater performance benefits than Windows can provide.
With Windows systems additionally being often so much cheaper than any Mac, I feel it is a slap in the face for parents who want their kids to be taught real skills.
I live and work in the "real world" and we use Macs every day.
That's nice... However, my problem with Macs in education is that it's simply teaching kids to use a system that isn't generally used in business. When was the last time I heard a Mac was needed? Never. I have however heard when a Windows and/or Linux system is needed because someone was using another OS that didn't support needed software for business.
I know that the security of CAs is not as it should be, but requesting forged certificates for *all* major websites will require a lot of work and more importantly, it will be noticed sooner or later.
Interesting thing about CAs is that many of them don't even require you to be the operator of a domain to request it in their terms. There is additionally nothing illegal about requesting a bunch of SSL for usage on domains that the government intends to monitor - after all, the government makes the laws. With regards to browsers not authorizing it, I don't think that would do much at all, just take a look at Security Usability Fundamentals.
Please... SSL is not optimal, but is is not circumvented by such devices. SSL proxys work if you accept them as CA. They are designed for corporate scenarios, where it is a realistic assumption that all clients trust the proxy and accept it as CA.
You're assuming that the Australian government couldn't afford the services of some CA to get a wildcard certificate.
In the given scanario, it is not plausible to assume that everybody will blindly accept those certificats. So the proxy will simply not work.
Under the assumption that users won't just click 'yes' to the certificate, maybe. But then they don't get access to their e-mail, so maybe they'll start using their ISP's e-mail instead or some Australian mail provider - it must be fine since they're not getting security prompts, right?
I doubt many users would even know about it, those that do would probably feel powerless anyway and many would not have the knowledge to get around it.
OK Mr Wise Geek, let's assume you're right and Australians do figure out that they need encryption to secure their communications. What then? What technologies are available which can offer them secure access to their usual internet services without compromising on features?
Slashdot Mirror
[Citation Needed]
I set my transparent proxy to force legitimate HTTP methods only. Not a problem.
Here is your answer.
Such as?
I'm surprised you never ran into the wireless driver mess of 10.4 and 10.5. But then again that issue didn't effect all machines either. Or even the mess of how you couldn't use more than 3GB RAM in a mac pro with an nvidia card because the graphics driver would cause kernel panic.
As am I.
It's different from the vendor's and the vendor is the one doing the testing.
No, it's more like.. When Apple shipped out squirrel mail and the only version of PHP that didn't work with it, bundled together. It got past Apple's testing environment, because obviously they were testing it on different versions of PHP etc.
I have in my draw a mac compatible bluetooth dongle from Apple that will cause any OS X system newer than 10.4 to kernel panic.
I never quite understood how such obvious things Apple managed to get shipped out, such as Apache only serving the first 16KB of a file and then not fixing it until the next major OS X server release could even get out of testing. Never mind the obvious mess of squirrel mail and PHP not working out of the box.
Even Microsoft doesn't require me to download the sources from upstream and install a bunch of developer tools on a server to compile it and make it work.
Why? I don't understand how this is worse than my ISP/government.
Indeed, which really accounts for anything I'd be truly concerned with.
Care to explain why I would mind it any more than my ISP or government knowing?
Yeah, hating Apple is soooo last year!
They're fixing a "feature"!
You obviously haven't used many Macs for a long period of time - I can recall numerous events where java updates broke things with a simple scorch game on OS X - to the point I had to put stupid warnings on the site. I can recall when my network uPnP was borked by a security update from Apple, I can recall the numerous daemons being broken in various OS X server updates too.
My anecdotal 'evidence' is based on years of experience over a wide variety and vast amount of Macs.
Because making sure things don't break is obviously stupid of IT.
The vendor didn't test the fix in your environment, they tested it in theirs.
I sincerely doubt I would have mastered m68k assembler at 11 years old if I had to do that or even came close to it, especially with limited time allotments and what one was allowed to do on computers.
I remember most of my peers at a younger age only wanted to play computer games, instant messaging and newgrounds instead of doing something constructive on computers, that said, I don't believe that is a good enough reason to deny everyone on a whole because some people can't make better use of the tools.
True, because that alone isn't enough, you need a bit more and in some cases, it's just a bit, such as one of my best friends learned English language just through IRC initially. Now his English tends to rival many good native speakers at their own language - He's never lived in an English speaking country and is even quite adept over voice chat too.
I'm glad my friends and I never had parents or educators with influence which had your stance on these issues. I have no doubt your philosophy would have made us miserable and harmed our skills development.
Isn't the space extremely limited on Google docs?
Such as only one those technologies work with my Nintendo DS, which is why I don't use the other.
You wouldn't like me, I have a tendency to quote things from RFC 1796 when I don't follow RFCs in certain instances due to my own 'good reasoning' which people may oppose.
And now, I shall quote you a piece:
Let me help you with that!
I wouldn't know. I am not a lawyer or even an armchair lawyer.
I remember when people were not using the iphone SDK to create applications on the iphone when it didn't have official 3rd party support for applications.
Sure you are, if you don't agree to the terms, don't use that and use something else. If this is so much of a problem, then developers and users will move to a more liberal system. However, seeing Apple's current dominance it seems that users are pretty comfy with Apple DRM, since they won't give up their iPhones over it.
I don't see the problem. It's not like anyone is even forced to get an iPhone.
I still don't see how people are forced to get the iphone instead of another phone.
Indeed, they don't have to advertise or link any application because you want it there. It's their store.
I don't know about better, but another, certainly. You can even create your own platform if you have the financial backing. I mean, just look at Google - from zero in the mobile market to now kicking asses of various long term mobile phone companies.
Normal users can get the official handset that supports the Ash-Fox application. I don't see a problem?
They're not required to get the iPhone.
I could make an official app of Ash-Fox and distribute it outside of the app store for jail broken iphones.
For the app store, yes.
Not really, nobody is stopping you from showing off your applications, at worst, they're just stopping you from putting it on their store because they don't want it.
For the kids to be trained for current software that businesses are far more likely to use? Yes.
Do I think there could be room for Linux for things like development, server training - absolutely.
OpenGroup have poor tests, OS X is no where near POSIX compliant.
To give one example, it can't even forking properly, it disallows a process to fork violates the POSIX standard. It does not forbid you to fork(), it demands you to fork() and exec() when it cannot guarantee you that the libraries you are using are safe from async-signal-safe. Guaranteeing your code can be forked even in a signal handler at any time is what POSIX demands. Trying to fork() without exec(), this is allowed by POSIX standards, however, if OS X cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and this is not allowed, so it crashes the thread. There is tonnes of broken crap like this in OS X. Don't even get me started on the broken POSIX threading.
Now, the funny thing is that Windows actually possess a POSIX subsystem, which is fully compliant while OS X's is not.
I find SuSE's documentation tends to be written far better than Big Admin's actually.
I think you live in a bit of a fantasy world here, teachers don't tend to be the best at learning technology and schools usually employ people who know the stuff to teach it, not the other way around.
I feel that the kids should be taught what is used in business. Businesses have a tendency to need Windows or Linux systems, I have never heard once the requirement to use a Mac. There isn't any specific software for the Mac that businesses in particular need that isn't available for Windows. Linux on the other hand is often used in businesses to deliver a server with greater performance benefits than Windows can provide.
With Windows systems additionally being often so much cheaper than any Mac, I feel it is a slap in the face for parents who want their kids to be taught real skills.
That's nice... However, my problem with Macs in education is that it's simply teaching kids to use a system that isn't generally used in business. When was the last time I heard a Mac was needed? Never. I have however heard when a Windows and/or Linux system is needed because someone was using another OS that didn't support needed software for business.
Interesting thing about CAs is that many of them don't even require you to be the operator of a domain to request it in their terms. There is additionally nothing illegal about requesting a bunch of SSL for usage on domains that the government intends to monitor - after all, the government makes the laws. With regards to browsers not authorizing it, I don't think that would do much at all, just take a look at Security Usability Fundamentals.
You're assuming that the Australian government couldn't afford the services of some CA to get a wildcard certificate.
Under the assumption that users won't just click 'yes' to the certificate, maybe. But then they don't get access to their e-mail, so maybe they'll start using their ISP's e-mail instead or some Australian mail provider - it must be fine since they're not getting security prompts, right?
I doubt many users would even know about it, those that do would probably feel powerless anyway and many would not have the knowledge to get around it.
Both Apple and Microsoft have both failed to release some patches that don't break more than it fixes this year. No idea if it was rushed though.
I use relakks.
I do regardless though.