You make it sound as though Sun is some kind of bumbling startup. This is what I get from your post: "Oh, poor Sun, they just don't understand the PC market, unlike." I mean, really, "rolling your own desktop distro is a subtle thing"? There's nothing suble about hardware support. You either support lots of hardware or you don't.
And I wold assert that if Sun wanted to have decent hardware support, they would have had it. As other posters have mentioned, this is probably designed for large call centers and the like. Sun doesn't care if the average user can't install it. Sun can afford to make sure it will work when someone buys 1000 licenses and a support contract.
I like free Linux distros too, but it's clear to me that Sun's engineers are capable of much more than your average Linux distro. This is just not their best effort; they don't need it to be.
I haven't worked tech support, but I've worked at companies that provide tech support. And let me tell you, the worst user is the "advanced" user. Sure, the user may think you know what he's talking about, but in the end it just makes him arrogant and unwilling to listen. Heck, I've been that guy, only to feel completely sheepish when I realized my mistake.
Yes, you know the hard drive has failed. But for each user like you, there are ten users that THINK the hard drive has failed, when it really turned out to be something else. It's much cheaper to make everyone go through basic troubleshooting than to replace everyone's hard drives.
I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to an AC who was presumably at score 0 when you posted. My comment didn't apply to anything you said.
But in any case, I disagree. Your attitude would prevent us from making any real progress at any point. Do you think the populous was in perfect health, happiness, etc. during the Age of Exploration? What about in the 60s, during the Space Race?
I agree with you that we must have priorities, but look at it this way: first of all, there will always be the poor and the sick. The marginal gain from throwing another couple billion dollars at them will be far greater than the cost of not spending that money on research, etc. for the future. Second of all, let's use another analogy: should we pay off the house before buying anything else? Of course not! We need to buy our wants, and we need to invest in our future, even if we are in debt.
Now, it can be debated that the mission to Mars will do little or nothing to help invest in our future. However, I believe that it will both fuel research and interest in science, both of which will greatly help the future of our country and our world.
That seems unlikely. What seems more likely is that they were trying to preserve more compatability with the Zip format by leaving the metadata unencrypted. I think everyone is being too hard on the WinZip guys. If you read at least the introduction half of the paper, you'll see that these mistakes are not completely obvious, and WinZip has been apt to correct their mistakes in the past. I suspect we'll see a new version of WinZip with these new mistakes corrected shortly.
That might do the trick (though it usually doesn't, as another poster alluded to re: sendmail). But it is sufficient, and perhaps preferred, to simply open specifications for others to implement, as WinZip did.
I say preferred because with an open specification, peer review is more likely since competitors and open source users alike will try to implement the specification, thus enforcing the "many eyes" ideal. If there was an Open Source zip program that everyone used, there would probably be less competition, and thus chances increase that everyone would use its encryption features blindly. Couple this with the fact that file formats for Open Source products, when nonstandard, are usually only specified as code and not in a separate, analyzable document, and the "many eyes" phenomenon becomes much more unlikely.
So I agree that SOMETHING needs to be open, but I'd contend it's more important that the specification be open and released as a separate document than just have the source be open alone.
That's not just the approach Apple takes. It's the approach any small laptop takes. My IBM X31 gets 6 hours with the brightness down -- and that's real time, not the fantasy rated time you see on websites. Of course, if you use a monster Dell with a 15in screen, Pentium 4 instead of Pentium M, etc., you'll only get about 2 hours. But Apple does not have the monopoly on low power laptops.
Buildings are not designed to be metaphors. They are designed for people to live and work in them. Make it unique if you like, but do not get in the way of living and working. And by reading these posts, it's clear that many people would not enjoy living or working in such a building. It is an ugly monstrosity that cannot help but make poor use of space.
Artists should stick to those stupid sculptures they put in the middle of greens.
GCC is an inferior compiler for the x86, whether you like it or not. Intel's optimizing C/C++ compiler is much faster according to numerous benchmarks (I'm sorry, it's too late to find the links.) On the other hand, I understand that GCC is great on the Mac, since Apple optimized it properly. (Certainly I appreciate the hard work of the various GCC teams over the years; hopefully new optimizations will continue to improve the quality of the release until it is as fast as Intel's offerings.)
In any case, why do you believe all of Apple's conveniently high numbers, but you don't believe Spec numbers reported by Dell, AMD, etc.? These are not numbers pulled out of a hat; they are standard Spec results. Thus, the numbers should be comparable from company to company. But Apple retested other companies' products and released new numbers without properly optimizing for the x86. Why is it when Microsoft pays for benchmarks, people freak out, but when Apple PERFORMS benchmarks, people believe them instantly?
There are plenty of other links out there that provide similar information. It is patently false advertising for Apple to claim that they use the fastest chip of any PC.
Oh, and re: the Linux issue, you're right. But you'll find that the x86 is faster in Linux with a proper optimizing compiler.
My issue is basically that at best -- at best! -- the results are inconclusive. At worst, Apple blatently lied. It's foolish to believe Apple blindly just because they're the underdogs and produce a pretty, Unix-based OS. And it's foolish to hold this strange hatred for all that is x86. I don't understand this mentality.
You keep hearing that they're faster because people don't like to admit they spent too much for inferior technology. Yes, arguably the x86 instruction set is inferior to newer, better engineered ones. But the newest offerings from Intel and AMD eclipse the G5 in speed. Apple failed to follow Spec guidelines when they released their benchmarks, thus allowing them to claim the performance crown unfairly.
Read about it if you're unconvinced. This news has been floating around. I like Macs, but please don't spread lies for Apple. They're efficient enough without you.
I see this a lot on Slashdot, and I try to always call people on it. I think people are just uninformed, but I also think the general Mac bias here influences it as well.
Gee, that's funny, I didn't realize that Microsoft and Open Source software had an Excel-compatible spreadsheet available for Linux!
Oh, they don't. This is a good business plan. Excel is very important to businesses, and this product will only make it easier for users to migrate to Linux on the desktop.
He's right, of course. Why the GPL? Is anyone really afraid that some company is going to "unfairly" use this code in a product? Just public domain it like people used to do. This thing does not need the protections of copyright.
Who is this J. R. Sixpack you keep talking about so condescendingly? You really do need to be more specific when you talk about a class of users.
It sounds like you're talking about the 18-35 year old male that doesn't know anything about computers. Now, tell me, what software does such a person install from "shovelware CDs?" Let's be honest. Such a user checks email, browses the web, watches video clips, listens to music, and talks on instant messenger. That's it. No one installs extra little apps these days. Shareware is dead. Anybody that looks around for little programs to solve tasks knows enough about computers to not be called "J. R. Sixpack."
I'm not sure why you're so against an additional distribution, anyway. It's not like another distribution hurts "the cause" or whatever you people like to harp on about. These guys have absolutely no responsbility to further "the cause" by writing software instead of coming out with another distribution. They can do as they please.
I just don't see the point of your post. You tell us that the distribution is not necessary, improvements in Windows compatability is pointless because non-Linux users are stupid, and you assume that somehow these guys are diverting resources away from the IMPORTANT aspects of "the cause."
I'll probably get modded flamebait for this post, but I think the parent is just trolling.
I like markets, too, but that's not necessarily true when you're dealing with a few large companies (the memory manufacturers). Basically, it's possible that they all agreed that they would benefit more in the long term if RAMBUS did not exist. You see, there's just not enough room for two competing RAM technologies. The fixed costs are too high. So only one tech can win out. It's POSSIBLE that the memory manufacturers decided that since RAMBUS, although superior in tech, required licensing, it would be more profitable for all of them if DDR won out in the long run. Thus, they might have colluded.
So RAMBUS might have a case, but it will take some hard evidence.
A local exploit is usually when any unprivileged user can gain root access through a security hole. This user can be logged in locally or remotely. Local does not mean physical access. Most machines are easily physically exploitable.
A remote security hole is where you don't even need a user on the machine, and are thus more dangerous. But on a large, multiuser system, local exploits are just as dangerous, since it is usually trivial to get unprivileged access, perhaps through beating the crap out of the intern.
Yes, it becomes Debian's problem. That's why Debian has a dedicated security team that released packages independently of the general packagers. If there was a "free knife company" that gave away rusty knives, and I included the knife in my product, it would be MY fault if someone got tetnis. I should have been more selective in what I distributed with the OS.
And it's very easy to enable Apache on MacOS X, as other posters have mentioned. It's used in the Personal Web Server features.
Furthermore, the code is available for me to fix the issues? Maybe for Apache. Maybe for the kernel and development tools. But that's about it. And suddenly _I_'m responsible for fixing security holes in a product that I purchased? Does Apple sell bridges too?
All that being said, I do not believe that these security issues are that serious. Apple seems to be releasing patches in a timely manner, and their policy of no open services by default is a sound one. But your assertions are the wrong way to downplay this.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, what?
." I mean, really, "rolling your own desktop distro is a subtle thing"? There's nothing suble about hardware support. You either support lots of hardware or you don't.
You make it sound as though Sun is some kind of bumbling startup. This is what I get from your post: "Oh, poor Sun, they just don't understand the PC market, unlike
And I wold assert that if Sun wanted to have decent hardware support, they would have had it. As other posters have mentioned, this is probably designed for large call centers and the like. Sun doesn't care if the average user can't install it. Sun can afford to make sure it will work when someone buys 1000 licenses and a support contract.
I like free Linux distros too, but it's clear to me that Sun's engineers are capable of much more than your average Linux distro. This is just not their best effort; they don't need it to be.
I haven't worked tech support, but I've worked at companies that provide tech support. And let me tell you, the worst user is the "advanced" user. Sure, the user may think you know what he's talking about, but in the end it just makes him arrogant and unwilling to listen. Heck, I've been that guy, only to feel completely sheepish when I realized my mistake.
Yes, you know the hard drive has failed. But for each user like you, there are ten users that THINK the hard drive has failed, when it really turned out to be something else. It's much cheaper to make everyone go through basic troubleshooting than to replace everyone's hard drives.
I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to an AC who was presumably at score 0 when you posted. My comment didn't apply to anything you said.
But in any case, I disagree. Your attitude would prevent us from making any real progress at any point. Do you think the populous was in perfect health, happiness, etc. during the Age of Exploration? What about in the 60s, during the Space Race?
I agree with you that we must have priorities, but look at it this way: first of all, there will always be the poor and the sick. The marginal gain from throwing another couple billion dollars at them will be far greater than the cost of not spending that money on research, etc. for the future. Second of all, let's use another analogy: should we pay off the house before buying anything else? Of course not! We need to buy our wants, and we need to invest in our future, even if we are in debt.
Now, it can be debated that the mission to Mars will do little or nothing to help invest in our future. However, I believe that it will both fuel research and interest in science, both of which will greatly help the future of our country and our world.
Funny how people like you equate bad economy with bad governmental decisions despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.
That seems unlikely. What seems more likely is that they were trying to preserve more compatability with the Zip format by leaving the metadata unencrypted. I think everyone is being too hard on the WinZip guys. If you read at least the introduction half of the paper, you'll see that these mistakes are not completely obvious, and WinZip has been apt to correct their mistakes in the past. I suspect we'll see a new version of WinZip with these new mistakes corrected shortly.
That might do the trick (though it usually doesn't, as another poster alluded to re: sendmail). But it is sufficient, and perhaps preferred, to simply open specifications for others to implement, as WinZip did.
I say preferred because with an open specification, peer review is more likely since competitors and open source users alike will try to implement the specification, thus enforcing the "many eyes" ideal. If there was an Open Source zip program that everyone used, there would probably be less competition, and thus chances increase that everyone would use its encryption features blindly. Couple this with the fact that file formats for Open Source products, when nonstandard, are usually only specified as code and not in a separate, analyzable document, and the "many eyes" phenomenon becomes much more unlikely.
So I agree that SOMETHING needs to be open, but I'd contend it's more important that the specification be open and released as a separate document than just have the source be open alone.
Hahaha... The crazy eyed bandit comment earns you Slashdot friend status. Classic.
That's not just the approach Apple takes. It's the approach any small laptop takes. My IBM X31 gets 6 hours with the brightness down -- and that's real time, not the fantasy rated time you see on websites. Of course, if you use a monster Dell with a 15in screen, Pentium 4 instead of Pentium M, etc., you'll only get about 2 hours. But Apple does not have the monopoly on low power laptops.
My version of FireFox (0.8) does not have this feature. Are you using an extension?
Buildings are not designed to be metaphors. They are designed for people to live and work in them. Make it unique if you like, but do not get in the way of living and working. And by reading these posts, it's clear that many people would not enjoy living or working in such a building. It is an ugly monstrosity that cannot help but make poor use of space.
Artists should stick to those stupid sculptures they put in the middle of greens.
GCC is an inferior compiler for the x86, whether you like it or not. Intel's optimizing C/C++ compiler is much faster according to numerous benchmarks (I'm sorry, it's too late to find the links.) On the other hand, I understand that GCC is great on the Mac, since Apple optimized it properly. (Certainly I appreciate the hard work of the various GCC teams over the years; hopefully new optimizations will continue to improve the quality of the release until it is as fast as Intel's offerings.)
In any case, why do you believe all of Apple's conveniently high numbers, but you don't believe Spec numbers reported by Dell, AMD, etc.? These are not numbers pulled out of a hat; they are standard Spec results. Thus, the numbers should be comparable from company to company. But Apple retested other companies' products and released new numbers without properly optimizing for the x86. Why is it when Microsoft pays for benchmarks, people freak out, but when Apple PERFORMS benchmarks, people believe them instantly?
There are plenty of other links out there that provide similar information. It is patently false advertising for Apple to claim that they use the fastest chip of any PC.
Oh, and re: the Linux issue, you're right. But you'll find that the x86 is faster in Linux with a proper optimizing compiler.
My issue is basically that at best -- at best! -- the results are inconclusive. At worst, Apple blatently lied. It's foolish to believe Apple blindly just because they're the underdogs and produce a pretty, Unix-based OS. And it's foolish to hold this strange hatred for all that is x86. I don't understand this mentality.
I would guess the difference would be comparable. Altivec is no more impressive than the SSE/SSE2/etc. types of instructions of the modern x86.
This is offtopic, but...
You keep hearing that they're faster because people don't like to admit they spent too much for inferior technology. Yes, arguably the x86 instruction set is inferior to newer, better engineered ones. But the newest offerings from Intel and AMD eclipse the G5 in speed. Apple failed to follow Spec guidelines when they released their benchmarks, thus allowing them to claim the performance crown unfairly.
Read about it if you're unconvinced. This news has been floating around. I like Macs, but please don't spread lies for Apple. They're efficient enough without you.
I see this a lot on Slashdot, and I try to always call people on it. I think people are just uninformed, but I also think the general Mac bias here influences it as well.
It's easy to write a script that checksums the MP3 data while ignoring the ID3 tags.
Gee, that's funny, I didn't realize that Microsoft and Open Source software had an Excel-compatible spreadsheet available for Linux!
Oh, they don't. This is a good business plan. Excel is very important to businesses, and this product will only make it easier for users to migrate to Linux on the desktop.
Idiot.
He's right, of course. Why the GPL? Is anyone really afraid that some company is going to "unfairly" use this code in a product? Just public domain it like people used to do. This thing does not need the protections of copyright.
Who is this J. R. Sixpack you keep talking about so condescendingly? You really do need to be more specific when you talk about a class of users.
It sounds like you're talking about the 18-35 year old male that doesn't know anything about computers. Now, tell me, what software does such a person install from "shovelware CDs?" Let's be honest. Such a user checks email, browses the web, watches video clips, listens to music, and talks on instant messenger. That's it. No one installs extra little apps these days. Shareware is dead. Anybody that looks around for little programs to solve tasks knows enough about computers to not be called "J. R. Sixpack."
I'm not sure why you're so against an additional distribution, anyway. It's not like another distribution hurts "the cause" or whatever you people like to harp on about. These guys have absolutely no responsbility to further "the cause" by writing software instead of coming out with another distribution. They can do as they please.
I just don't see the point of your post. You tell us that the distribution is not necessary, improvements in Windows compatability is pointless because non-Linux users are stupid, and you assume that somehow these guys are diverting resources away from the IMPORTANT aspects of "the cause."
I'll probably get modded flamebait for this post, but I think the parent is just trolling.
Now send them to me. I'll evaluate, then get back to you.
It makes me weep.
I like markets, too, but that's not necessarily true when you're dealing with a few large companies (the memory manufacturers). Basically, it's possible that they all agreed that they would benefit more in the long term if RAMBUS did not exist. You see, there's just not enough room for two competing RAM technologies. The fixed costs are too high. So only one tech can win out. It's POSSIBLE that the memory manufacturers decided that since RAMBUS, although superior in tech, required licensing, it would be more profitable for all of them if DDR won out in the long run. Thus, they might have colluded.
So RAMBUS might have a case, but it will take some hard evidence.
It would seem his IRC channel is a public forum. The two party consent laws would thus not apply.
Name 10 other good games, please.
Nintendo has always had a few great games, but not since the SNES have they had the majority of them.
I love it when moderators make my point for me.
A local exploit is usually when any unprivileged user can gain root access through a security hole. This user can be logged in locally or remotely. Local does not mean physical access. Most machines are easily physically exploitable.
A remote security hole is where you don't even need a user on the machine, and are thus more dangerous. But on a large, multiuser system, local exploits are just as dangerous, since it is usually trivial to get unprivileged access, perhaps through beating the crap out of the intern.
Yes, it becomes Debian's problem. That's why Debian has a dedicated security team that released packages independently of the general packagers. If there was a "free knife company" that gave away rusty knives, and I included the knife in my product, it would be MY fault if someone got tetnis. I should have been more selective in what I distributed with the OS.
And it's very easy to enable Apache on MacOS X, as other posters have mentioned. It's used in the Personal Web Server features.
Furthermore, the code is available for me to fix the issues? Maybe for Apache. Maybe for the kernel and development tools. But that's about it. And suddenly _I_'m responsible for fixing security holes in a product that I purchased? Does Apple sell bridges too?
All that being said, I do not believe that these security issues are that serious. Apple seems to be releasing patches in a timely manner, and their policy of no open services by default is a sound one. But your assertions are the wrong way to downplay this.