> If you don't have a valid license for Windows, you have no right to use it, PERIOD.
Actually, if you baught the software, and pretty much obayed the license agreement, such as, running the software on one computer etc. You have every right to use it.
Just because some person generates the key with a key generator or steals the key by looking behind the computer at the key. Does not mean the person who has the original should be punished for it or has no right to use the software.
Unfortunately I see more of the latter happening than the pirates being stopped.
Some pirates tend to have patched copies of Windows, that do not have any of this none-sense either, so who in the end gets punished? The home user.
> Everyone effected will (apparently) be using an illegally obtained (loosely based on the DCMA definition) or unlicensed software so tough. We will see all the Pro Microsoft folks doing the 'get tough on crime, get tough on the causes of crime' dance, and probably a few people singing the 'unlicensed software helps terrorists' song.
I've seen plenty of legitimate systems, with valid keys (even have the sticker on the computer) being told they can't activate, calling up Microsoft doesn't seem to solve the issue.
I just imagine the pirates won't have this problem, everytime the pirates have a new issue, it's generally the normal user who suffers. The pirate will probably have the system patched in some way to get around this.
Just use Sysprep to get windows setup to popup on next boot.
It won't do much, and shouldn't remove any currently installed software (this is was OEMs use to make those annoying rescue CDs with preinstalled software). But it will let you enter the OEM key again.
> Why? One look at the architecture, licensing, patents, and business plan made it obvious it was just another attempt by MS to lock people in. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me consistently for a decade... well you get the point. If MS behaves ethically and openly for three years in a row, I'll consider their technologies for adoption again.
Looking at the licensing for Mono, I dont see what youre talking about. You do know that.net technology is a open standard, right?
> Flamebait... not even worth addressing.
Actually, it might be, since you seem to be going on about how you get some additional functionality under MacOSX.
> Try some reading comprehension classes. Can you run the same spelling and grammar checker in outlook and in Photoshop and in a shell and in your Web browser?
I dont know about photoshop, but yes, you can use Microsoft Offices spell checker in other applications (the APIs have been there for a while). The spell checker used in outlook, word, excel and IE (via a plugin) are the same.
> Can you run additional, arbitrary services in all of them?
Sure I can, theres its called advanced text services, where-by you can write applications to integrate with that for various additional support features.
Such as, spell checking, voice2text, or whatever you can come up with, really.
> That changes the menus. It does not translate the message.
Ah, sorry for missunderstanding. Guess you could just use one of the spyware free translation apps that integrate in windowss advanced text services then.
> Sigh, it is not even close to sufficient. It is still in limited beta release and holes have been found.
You do know that Safari has plenty of holes too? Which Apple doesnt seem to desperately want to fix either before OS upgrades.
> I'm talking a real VM or sandbox, not the half-arsed crap in Vista/IE7
To my knowledge, IE7 under vista *IS* sandboxed. I havent seen any other browser/OS implement this yet.
> Great now we just have to convince the makers of every other application for Windows to implement it or write a plug-in for their application... or they could just offer a mouse gesture service to all applications that use the mouse and have one consistent setup like OS X.
To be honest, I find mouse gestures annoying, and have no particular interest to look it up. Im sure someone has written a great freebie application that solves this though.
> You're missing the point. Applications have certain functionality. By providing the OS with an easy way to allow it to provide that functionality to other programs you avoid having to re-implement them in every application. Right now a few MS office applications can share a spelling checker. Why can't every application that uses text share it?
They can. However office is a seperate package.
> Why can't another program offer services Word can use, like translation to other languages, or encryption, or any other arbitrary thing a user might want?
The APIs to allow this, are already there. One can easilly use the advanced text services API to extend this to all applications.
> The reason is that the Windows OS does not support it.
Who knows.
> Great, so as a result if you visit a page with sound you have to listen to it or turn off all sound, including your VoIP call, your e-mail dings, your MP3 player, etc. Hence, the room for improvement.
Actually I do tend to have volume controls on crap on pages, but still, having things auto start etc. are annoying. Id rather just have all my plugins disabled, or with IEs latest patch, just click the object square to run it (bye bye crappy flash ads).
> This is not really something an application designer should have to worry about. The OS is the proper level to handle mixing/muting sounds from most applications. Some should be able to provide their own controls as well, but the OS should be able to do it for
If I am a generic system admin, and if I wanted to be malicious, and remove my tracks after doing something. I a quite certain I wouldn't have a problem doing so via sudo.
I don't have to type in the log filename, location etc. todo it either. Heck, just having access to VIM under sudo is enough.
> you become root, in the same directory as you were in, without running root's login scripts. Of course, that means that you probably don't have/sbin on your $PATH, but if you're just installing software, you shouldn't need it.
> Forcing sudo causes more responsible behaviour on everyone's part, and knowing that commands are logged, admins tend to think a little more before blowing the system away.
I can blow a system away with sudo while whiping out the log too. Sudo can't stop me if I truely wanted to.
Interestingly enough, I've ssh'd to my mandriva server, done a "su -", then "drakconf" and the x application started up on my screen.
I don't permit root logins on SSH and my login administration name has no password prompt for when I do a "su -" (pretty much what I call a 2nd tier admin account).
I believe the reason why X and such isn't getting forwarded is because of SELinux patches, which are common in SuSE, Redhat, Fedora core.
> Again, I disagree with this. They are standards compliant with Java, although not as cutting edge as some would like. Most of the issues I've seen with this are UI ones, where people have trouble dealing with a UI that is not Windows or a Windows clone.
The UI issues are true, however one must make a note that no other platform. Including the Amiga, classic Mac OS, BSDs, Linuxes have these issues.
I have issues with things that were implemented, like AWT in Apple JAVA. This is generally supported by almost every JVM (except IKVM which is really just a java to.net binary translation system).
Even though I can get applications running perfectly under kaffe, MS JAVA, Sun Java on all sorts of platforms. Under Apple's JRE, well, that's another story, I have to include Apple specific JRE hacks because the implementation of certain elements are flawed. Numerous UI bugs come to mind (UI elements glitching, flashing etc).
When you're coding under Java, you're not supposed to worry too much about cross-platform issues, but with Apple, I do. It's extremely hard when when you cannot compile your Java application against Apple class's too.
> Linux tends to be very slightly cheaper on similar hardware.
Example is where the home user can buy a 300USD nobrand machine here which runs Linux (from the shops) vs a Apple for 599 (I currently live in Poland).
They're both single core, they're both Intel, one has a Pentium M the other a 'Intel core solo'. They both has 512MB RAM. They both have a fully featured OS that has a office suite, web browser etc. One has a three year warranty (the nobrand), the other has one year. One has eight USB ports (the nobrand). One has wi-fi and bluetooth built in (The mac).
Even for me, I think I'd probably prefer the nobrand, especially since Apple isn't exactly well known for producing flawless hardware.
> The whole "macs are expensive" thing is largely a myth.
I just know that less money goes out of my wallet for the other brand, that isn't a myth.
> Yes, you can put together a machine with the same specs for slightly less, but it usually has cheaper hardware and support.
I don't know, a system that can support pretty much every graphic card I shove into it, every stick of RAM I buy. I think the nobrand still wins in this case.
> Apple is rated number one in support and customer satisfaction every year.
Neat.
> As for running a variety of hardware, I find *nix apps run better and with more interoperability on OS X than Windows.
Signal handling makes me want to cry on MacOSX.
> And I find that it is easier to run mainstream, commercial offerings, and that they run with more interoperability than on a Linux box with WINE.
I agree, although, now that we have x86 binaries, I suspect it will only take a little time before someone makes binary support for MacOSX's binaries on Linux from Darwin's sources, while additionally writing a Aqua wrapper.
Since I don't rely on Photoshop (I use Krita), or have the need for doing obscure benchmarks (that is one of Apple's old benchmarks when they spreading FUD about PPC hardware being faster). My needs don't particularly need MacOSX.
> But really, there are not a lot of reasons for software to need to install anything outside the.app folder.
I've had to replace the Apache installation on MacOSX, because the one that came with MacOSX, had a terrible bug where it wouldn't send the rest of files after sending the first few KB. Removing/reinstalling etc. Is not easy.
Java updates/uninstalls/reinstalls on MacOSX, also problematic (this can be really hard when you're trying to help people do this over the phone).
Perhaps the issue is that more things need to go into a single 'application folder', such as: configuration settings, service start/stop scripts etc.
I don't see anything related to: "they got into trouble by trying to tie things like IE so deeply into the OS that anybody who used anybody else's browser would lose critical OS function"
I know that it was seen as 'unfair', that Microsoft got the browser market because they bundled their browser with the OS. However, I don't see anything about installing another browser, that made it lose 'critical OS function'.
Slashdot Mirror
> Google allows paediophile websites on it's service
Is that a official statement from Google?
> but my 12" Powerbook doesn't have a PC Card slot.
Get a PC.
> If you don't have a valid license for Windows, you have no right to use it, PERIOD.
Actually, if you baught the software, and pretty much obayed the license agreement, such as, running the software on one computer etc. You have every right to use it.
Just because some person generates the key with a key generator or steals the key by looking behind the computer at the key. Does not mean the person who has the original should be punished for it or has no right to use the software.
Unfortunately I see more of the latter happening than the pirates being stopped.
Some pirates tend to have patched copies of Windows, that do not have any of this none-sense either, so who in the end gets punished? The home user.
> Everyone effected will (apparently) be using an illegally obtained (loosely based on the DCMA definition) or unlicensed software so tough. We will see all the Pro Microsoft folks doing the 'get tough on crime, get tough on the causes of crime' dance, and probably a few people singing the 'unlicensed software helps terrorists' song.
I've seen plenty of legitimate systems, with valid keys (even have the sticker on the computer) being told they can't activate, calling up Microsoft doesn't seem to solve the issue.
I just imagine the pirates won't have this problem, everytime the pirates have a new issue, it's generally the normal user who suffers. The pirate will probably have the system patched in some way to get around this.
Just use Sysprep to get windows setup to popup on next boot.
It won't do much, and shouldn't remove any currently installed software (this is was OEMs use to make those annoying rescue CDs with preinstalled software). But it will let you enter the OEM key again.
Join the dark side, drink Pepsi.
I will call you, Dictionaryman!
Come Dictionaryman! we must stop the Grammer Nazis before its too late!
> How much time on the web can you spend a day anyway?
Most people who use Slashdot will probably tell 19 hours or something.
The Linux Gods have heard your call and bring to you this.
> Why? One look at the architecture, licensing, patents, and business plan made it obvious it was just another attempt by MS to lock people in. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me consistently for a decade... well you get the point. If MS behaves ethically and openly for three years in a row, I'll consider their technologies for adoption again.
.net technology is a open standard, right?
Looking at the licensing for Mono, I dont see what youre talking about. You do know that
> Flamebait... not even worth addressing.
Actually, it might be, since you seem to be going on about how you get some additional functionality under MacOSX.
> Try some reading comprehension classes. Can you run the same spelling and grammar checker in outlook and in Photoshop and in a shell and in your Web browser?
I dont know about photoshop, but yes, you can use Microsoft Offices spell checker in other applications (the APIs have been there for a while). The spell checker used in outlook, word, excel and IE (via a plugin) are the same.
> Can you run additional, arbitrary services in all of them?
Sure I can, theres its called advanced text services, where-by you can write applications to integrate with that for various additional support features.
Such as, spell checking, voice2text, or whatever you can come up with, really.
> That changes the menus. It does not translate the message.
Ah, sorry for missunderstanding. Guess you could just use one of the spyware free translation apps that integrate in windowss advanced text services then.
> Sigh, it is not even close to sufficient. It is still in limited beta release and holes have been found.
You do know that Safari has plenty of holes too? Which Apple doesnt seem to desperately want to fix either before OS upgrades.
> I'm talking a real VM or sandbox, not the half-arsed crap in Vista/IE7
To my knowledge, IE7 under vista *IS* sandboxed. I havent seen any other browser/OS implement this yet.
> Great now we just have to convince the makers of every other application for Windows to implement it or write a plug-in for their application... or they could just offer a mouse gesture service to all applications that use the mouse and have one consistent setup like OS X.
To be honest, I find mouse gestures annoying, and have no particular interest to look it up. Im sure someone has written a great freebie application that solves this though.
> You're missing the point. Applications have certain functionality. By providing the OS with an easy way to allow it to provide that functionality to other programs you avoid having to re-implement them in every application. Right now a few MS office applications can share a spelling checker. Why can't every application that uses text share it?
They can. However office is a seperate package.
> Why can't another program offer services Word can use, like translation to other languages, or encryption, or any other arbitrary thing a user might want?
The APIs to allow this, are already there. One can easilly use the advanced text services API to extend this to all applications.
> The reason is that the Windows OS does not support it.
Who knows.
> Great, so as a result if you visit a page with sound you have to listen to it or turn off all sound, including your VoIP call, your e-mail dings, your MP3 player, etc. Hence, the room for improvement.
Actually I do tend to have volume controls on crap on pages, but still, having things auto start etc. are annoying. Id rather just have all my plugins disabled, or with IEs latest patch, just click the object square to run it (bye bye crappy flash ads).
> This is not really something an application designer should have to worry about. The OS is the proper level to handle mixing/muting sounds from most applications. Some should be able to provide their own controls as well, but the OS should be able to do it for
I agree! Let's all prosecute people who are known to have illegal things like libdvdcss! mplayer! VLC!
Apple does this too, better stay away from them too.
If I am a generic system admin, and if I wanted to be malicious, and remove my tracks after doing something. I a quite certain I wouldn't have a problem doing so via sudo.
I don't have to type in the log filename, location etc. todo it either. Heck, just having access to VIM under sudo is enough.
> NTFS support of private user data is pretty useless anyway, it's fairly trivial to work around, especially on a windows box.
I don't see how, unless you're giving all your users a administrator acount.
Ah, but then I wouldn't be able todo system administration. Make up your mind.
I can easilly use sudo and modify the logs to make it look like someone else did it, or whipe the logs out entirely.
> you become root, in the same directory as you were in, without running root's login scripts. Of course, that means that you probably don't have /sbin on your $PATH, but if you're just installing software, you shouldn't need it.
/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/g ames:/home/ash/bin /sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/ local/bin:/usr/local/sbin /sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/ local/bin:/usr/local/sbin
/sbin.
[ash@Tapestry ~]$ echo $PATH
[ash@Tapestry ~]$ su
[root@Tapestry ash]# echo $PATH
[root@Tapestry ash]# exit
exit
[ash@Tapestry ~]$ su -
[root@Tapestry ~]# echo $PATH
[root@Tapestry ~]# exit
logout
[ash@Tapestry ~]$
By the way, the package management utilities in my distro are lcoated in
> Forcing sudo causes more responsible behaviour on everyone's part, and knowing that commands are logged, admins tend to think a little more before blowing the system away.
I can blow a system away with sudo while whiping out the log too. Sudo can't stop me if I truely wanted to.
Interestingly enough, I've ssh'd to my mandriva server, done a "su -", then "drakconf" and the x application started up on my screen.
I don't permit root logins on SSH and my login administration name has no password prompt for when I do a "su -" (pretty much what I call a 2nd tier admin account).
I believe the reason why X and such isn't getting forwarded is because of SELinux patches, which are common in SuSE, Redhat, Fedora core.
sudo doesn't help much with people who do 'sudo /usr/bin/bash'.
Anyome who has access to rm, can easilly craft a command that deletes the log file.
(Yes, I know you can restrict access to it, the problem is, people will still try to get a terminal anyway they can.)
If you want to stop such issues, don't give them access at all.
Eww, letting operating systems touch, are you crazy?
I thought it was something derived from darwin.
I believe OSX comes free when you buy a Mac, only upgrades cost.
> Again, I disagree with this. They are standards compliant with Java, although not as cutting edge as some would like. Most of the issues I've seen with this are UI ones, where people have trouble dealing with a UI that is not Windows or a Windows clone.
.net binary translation system).
.app folder.
The UI issues are true, however one must make a note that no other platform. Including the Amiga, classic Mac OS, BSDs, Linuxes have these issues.
I have issues with things that were implemented, like AWT in Apple JAVA. This is generally supported by almost every JVM (except IKVM which is really just a java to
Even though I can get applications running perfectly under kaffe, MS JAVA, Sun Java on all sorts of platforms. Under Apple's JRE, well, that's another story, I have to include Apple specific JRE hacks because the implementation of certain elements are flawed. Numerous UI bugs come to mind (UI elements glitching, flashing etc).
When you're coding under Java, you're not supposed to worry too much about cross-platform issues, but with Apple, I do. It's extremely hard when when you cannot compile your Java application against Apple class's too.
> Linux tends to be very slightly cheaper on similar hardware.
Example is where the home user can buy a 300USD nobrand machine here which runs Linux (from the shops) vs a Apple for 599 (I currently live in Poland).
They're both single core, they're both Intel, one has a Pentium M the other a 'Intel core solo'. They both has 512MB RAM. They both have a fully featured OS that has a office suite, web browser etc. One has a three year warranty (the nobrand), the other has one year. One has eight USB ports (the nobrand). One has wi-fi and bluetooth built in (The mac).
Even for me, I think I'd probably prefer the nobrand, especially since Apple isn't exactly well known for producing flawless hardware.
> The whole "macs are expensive" thing is largely a myth.
I just know that less money goes out of my wallet for the other brand, that isn't a myth.
> Yes, you can put together a machine with the same specs for slightly less, but it usually has cheaper hardware and support.
I don't know, a system that can support pretty much every graphic card I shove into it, every stick of RAM I buy. I think the nobrand still wins in this case.
> Apple is rated number one in support and customer satisfaction every year.
Neat.
> As for running a variety of hardware, I find *nix apps run better and with more interoperability on OS X than Windows.
Signal handling makes me want to cry on MacOSX.
> And I find that it is easier to run mainstream, commercial offerings, and that they run with more interoperability than on a Linux box with WINE.
I agree, although, now that we have x86 binaries, I suspect it will only take a little time before someone makes binary support for MacOSX's binaries on Linux from Darwin's sources, while additionally writing a Aqua wrapper.
Since I don't rely on Photoshop (I use Krita), or have the need for doing obscure benchmarks (that is one of Apple's old benchmarks when they spreading FUD about PPC hardware being faster). My needs don't particularly need MacOSX.
> But really, there are not a lot of reasons for software to need to install anything outside the
I've had to replace the Apache installation on MacOSX, because the one that came with MacOSX, had a terrible bug where it wouldn't send the rest of files after sending the first few KB. Removing/reinstalling etc. Is not easy.
Java updates/uninstalls/reinstalls on MacOSX, also problematic (this can be really hard when you're trying to help people do this over the phone).
Perhaps the issue is that more things need to go into a single 'application folder', such as: configuration settings, service start/stop scripts etc.
> The zeroconf implementation
I don't see anything related to: "they got into trouble by trying to tie things like IE so deeply into the OS that anybody who used anybody else's browser would lose critical OS function"
I know that it was seen as 'unfair', that Microsoft got the browser market because they bundled their browser with the OS. However, I don't see anything about installing another browser, that made it lose 'critical OS function'.