You seem to disregard the fact that math is a rigorous language as well, not less so than English. If you claim it's a language deficiency that someone is not able to use correct grammar and spelling in a natural language, the same deficiency will impair the ability to write correct math formulas. And I claim the same deficiency or carelessness will lead to one writing buggy programs, since programs are expressed in terms of programming languages that have rigorous mathematical foundation.
It is nothing but personal preference that you excel in math and history but not English. Linking geek's social ineptitude to poor mastering of English is fallacious. Are there socially inept people who are strong commanders of English? Yes, they become writers, but not the bestseller kinds. They write the gems of the books that you don't find anywhere in a chain book store.
How do you know those who post in English are native English speakers? I'm not one. I'm sure I make spelling and grammatical mistakes, or even use the wrong words from time to time.
From TFA: President Bush signed a new law last month setting tough penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught distributing a movie or song before its commercial release.
MPAA/RIAA: we're pleased to release a movie/song that has never been released before. To all you smart asses out there, say no to piracy!
FBI: you said, it's never been commercially released?
MPAA/RIAA: no, it's the hottest new release ever!
FBI: okay, I'll have to put you in jail.
MPAA/RIAA: why?
FBI: this movie/song has never been commercially released before so you're violating a law. Sorry. See you in jail.
I think most companies with separate folks for unix and NT admins find the two teams hate each other, and therefore can't work together, just like the software. Assuming that you love yourself, if you have both skills, then you can make unix and NT interoperate, which is what these businesses are looking for.
Or you can always try to install love among the unix and NT admins. Once they love each other, they can work together, and their software will too.
That article on CoolTechZone has blown it all out of proportions. Considering that Darwin (being the kernel of Mac OS X) is open source, it is only a matter of time before someone will either (1) engineer some sort of compatibility chipset, or (2) write kernel support for PC chipsets, to make Mac OS X run on commodity hardware.
I don't think Apple is intentionally preventing its users of doing that. Apple is just not going to support running Mac OS X on your average PC.
I think OpenFirmware is likely to be the major hurdle preventing you from running Mac OS X on your PC. Most PCs have BIOS that date back to the IBM PC clones. Modern computers (UltraSparc, Macs) have OpenFirmware instead. Your best bet is to check out OpenBIOS and see how you can get that running on your PC.
And then, you just need to make sure whatever other pieces of hardware on your PC has a driver in Darwin... the same game that Linux has to play, all over again.
Next time when you post link to a video, can you point it to Coral Cache instead? It makes the link available to more readers and makes the webmaster there happier.
Many comments so far criticise the article with a technologician's understanding of the words "scalability", "consistency", "predictability", and "self-contained." However, we have to realize that this article is targeted to businesspersons. These words have a different understanding in a business sense. I try to point out the "business meaning" here and reassess Linux on those merits.
If you don't care about businesses using Linux, then what I say here is a waste of time for you, and you can skip the rest.
Scalability does not mean excatly if a computing cluster can scale from a few nodes to a huge number of nodes. But rather, in a more general sense, can I scale the system from one solution to another solution? In particular, if I change my business model, can my solutions scale with me?
This also includes scalability in size as one factor. As the business grows, the solution must also scale in size, therefore the underlying platform must also scale.
The problem with Linux here is that there is a high initial cost of deployment in labor, though justified by the software being free and low maintenance thereafter. However, the high cost of labor in deployment must be paid again whenever a new solution is deployed. So Linux is not scalable for new deployments. The fact that many businesses, especially those migrating from Windows, need a pilot program already says that Linux costs too much.
Windows by itself also has a similar cost of labor for deployment, but asset management solutions exist that lower that cost. (OpenCountry is selling software for Linux asset management though, but don't accuse me of putting a plug here. You did not read this text inside the parentheses.)
Consistency, in the sense that if I learn one thing about an application, then it also applies to another application. People in business do not have time to learn everything over and over. Training only makes sense because supposedly you learn everything you need to know.
The difference in distributions is only one minor factor to inconsistency in Linux. The problem is that user experiences are different for applications like OpenOffice.org, Firefox, GNOME desktop environment, KDE, etc. A trick or two that you learn to do is not "portable" to another application.
There is no hope for consistency if open source developers only care about programming for their own itches. Fortunately, many developers are willing to stick to a certain guideline if it means more people can benefit from the program.
Predictability is the ability to answer for "what if" scenarios. Although systems crash unpredictably, but it has become a general expectation that all systems fail at some point. One must be able to tell "what if that happens?" Who do you turn to in order to get help? For commercial products, including commercialized Linux distributions, you turn to the vendor from whom you bought support. If you reaped a free version of Linux distribution, all you can do is search the web for an answer. It is unpredictable where you get your answers, how much time it takes to get it, or if you'd even get your answers at all.
Self-containedness, if you take that to mean all-in-one packaging, then Linux distributions are much more feature rich than a Windows installation CD. However, it should be taken to mean "what solutions can I buy for $10,000?" You may say "infinite" because "Linux is free." But that also means you can't buy a free Linux solution with money. An ideal business is that you invest in some money, you get profit from it, then you reinvest the money for growth, which earns you more money more quickly. Money is self-contained; Linux is not contained in money.
Again, commercial Linux distributions come close by pulling Linux into the circle of money. Linux vendors should go further to sell prepackaged solution to business. Heck, they should even sell a business model if they know how. Notice that Microsoft actually
I think your idea with plastic pins in the hole would work. If it were just coins on a flat surface, it could fly off when you spin the turntable too hard.
And good job, you just made your first contribution to a hardware GPL project!
If you play the guitar, you'd know that pitch bend is achieved by bending the string, increasing the tension. Havin a sensor for each string between every frets of a guitar only gives you the notes that you played. And let's hope if you wear a shiny glove, it doesn't pick up your palm as notes.
Yes, this site at webexhibits.org tells us the correct spelling and all that. Also the letter by Benjamin Franklin on the issue of daylight saving is an interesting read. In short, why the hell do we all stay up late at night, wake at noon, and complain that we don't have enough daylight? Just go to bed early and wake up early!
I just recently discovered that Mac OS X actually switches from EST (eastern standard time) to EDT (eastern daylight-saving time) 5 seconds before it turns to 2am on the first Sunday of April.
The clock ticked to 1:59:54 am and jumped to 2:59:55 am.
We could probably convert CO2 and H2O back into hydrocarbons cheaper.
You mean carbohydrate, right?
The cheapest way is to grow lots of plants. Let the nature takes care of them! We just need to figure out how to use these plants as an efficient source of energy. Energy researches who are botanists will have an edge here.
On Mac OS X, Acrobat's "Save as PDF" in the Print dialog is disabled (just try to click on it). I presume you have to use Preview, but I don't think Preview supports Javascript anyways.
It has been 6 years since I've been using a laptop, and I noticed a consistent worsening for my eye sight (with a mix of myopia and astigmatism). Before that, I used desktop computers with CRT monitor with no problems. It turns out that using a laptop is bad too in the sense that you're looking at the screen much closer, since the keyboard is right under the screen. Nowadays I use an usb keyboard for my laptop whenever possible. With the external keyboard, I get at least an additional 30cm between my eyes and the monitor.
I have an obviously foreign name, and my luggage was searched two in a row for the last two times that I travelled. They put in a "notice of baggage inspection" slip in my bag. Now, the fact that they were searched wasn't a problem. The problem is that last August, they (1) delayed one luggage for a more thorough search, and (2) when I finally got my luggage, my $300 minidisc player/recorder was missing. The minidisc player was kept in a soft pouch; the pouch was stored inside a hand bag, which sit inside the luggage. They apparently opened the hand bag, pulled out the contents, found the minidisc player/recorder and found it convenient to transfer it to the inspector's own pocket.
Now, I tried to contact TSA and it wasn't helpful. The phone number they provided, (866) 289-9673, always responded with a busy tone. I e-mailed the airline, United Airlines, and they never got back to me. Maybe I was too cynical. I told them I don't think an innocuous little device like my minidisc player is a threat to airline safety.
But it is funny if you think about it. TSA steals my stuff and put a slip saying "we did it." Then the fact that there is no where to complain is like them saying to me, "nanner nanner nanner..."
I think you either misread or didn't read the article. The guy just plugged his PSP to a LAN where he can DNS spoof himself at will, so he basically redirected the default site to anything he wants. The PSP is capable of following links, so he did a jump page that links to various sites, including Google.
It is very similar to an ad blocking technique by editing/etc/hosts. They just point the name of known ad servers to 127.0.0.1 (your own machine). That way, unless you're serving ads to yourself, you can avoid seeing ads from those servers. It's just that there probably isn't a/etc/hosts on a PSP, so he did it by setting up a spoof DNS server that functions as if there is a/etc/hosts.
DNS spoofing does happen in real life on a large scale, but it takes more work, and it does much more damage than hacking into a PSP unit. For example, it can be used to fake a bank website that secretly collects banking information. If that happens, PSP is probably the least of your worries.
You rightfully have a point. Script kiddies often try to attack his own machine before he can wreck havoc on others'. As Macs gain popularity, these 14-year olds want to do the same, but money is a bigger problem.
Kid: "mom, I want a Mac." Mom: "honey, we just spent $900 on that Athlon!" Kid: "but, mom, I want a Mac now." Mom: "no!! And your teacher just called. Apparently you flunked your English exam. Now shut up before I decide to cancel your DSL line."
Only perhaps the richest script kiddies end up writing Mac viruses. But then, if they're so rich, why don't they just spend the money on greater enjoyment of life, like taking girls out for a date in a fine restaurant?
You're probably not thinking about the "obscurity" the same way as "security through obscurity". It is true that the prescense of Mac OS X machines on the net is rather obscure (i.e., as in unpopular minority), but many key components of the OS (Darwin kernel, daemon services, bsd tools) are either open sourced or taken from open source. In terms of source code, Mac OS X definitely does not enjoy security through obscurity.
Somewhere in the void of Internet, a message is quietly being sent to/dev/null, for that it did not pass someone's procmail "crook" filter.
To: "Theo de Raadt"
From: "Dickson, Doug"
Mr de Raadt.....
I am sure you have painfully found out about this.....
The trailing dots we type after all of the sentences, mean a way to act sly and sound stupid...by deliberately neglecting periods after abbreviations (eg Mr de Raadt) and misuse as many periods as we like to break sentences.....
We just pretend we don't understand a word you're saying, and make you feel bad about yourself.....
But, you are still not going to get any documentation, because I say so...instead, we're going to throw at you a closed source SDK and screw you over.....
CloseBSD...get it? hahaha...I hope you will write your CloseBSD 3.7 release song about us...
Indeed, I feel that 2.6 was pushed out prematurely, but many features in it are desparately needed for publicity (for example, a working ACPI), so the kernel needs the "stable" status to give people incentive to use.
The fact that kernel developers are still adding new features suggest that it is still a development kernel. Stable kernels are for bug fixes. If they need new features to fix existing bugs, that's when they should bump up the stable version number.
However, I think version number is already obsolete for Linux kernels. We should be able to manage patchsets as if they're software packages, complete with dependency and conflict information that are automatically computed. When you want a "patch" to be included in your kernel, it looks for patches it depends on, checks to see whether it results in a conflict, and apply the patches. Periodically, "metapatches" are updated to depend on the most recent patches along some feature. More intricacies need to be worked out.
Assuming (0) that there is a demand for such a patch manager---I think the problem with developing it is that (1) it's difficult to develop a realistic test project from ground up using the patch manager, so the patch system can show that its design is useful, and (2) if we use an existing large software project (such as the Linux kernel), programmers for the patch manager would spend too much time following the development for that other project, rather than have useful work done; they might not want to do it. In general, we want to test the patch manager on a big project, but we also risk wasting too much time on the test project.
It would be best if the developers of a large project (can also think about the Linux kernel) will take the initiative into developing a patch manager, since they have a demand for it (or can be convinced to have a demand), already have a realistic software product, and are willing to follow the development of their own project.
I'm saying that there is a seed for an innovative patch management and revision control system from maintaining a Linux kernel. They should do something about it.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to disregard the fact that math is a rigorous language as well, not less so than English. If you claim it's a language deficiency that someone is not able to use correct grammar and spelling in a natural language, the same deficiency will impair the ability to write correct math formulas. And I claim the same deficiency or carelessness will lead to one writing buggy programs, since programs are expressed in terms of programming languages that have rigorous mathematical foundation.
It is nothing but personal preference that you excel in math and history but not English. Linking geek's social ineptitude to poor mastering of English is fallacious. Are there socially inept people who are strong commanders of English? Yes, they become writers, but not the bestseller kinds. They write the gems of the books that you don't find anywhere in a chain book store.
How do you know those who post in English are native English speakers? I'm not one. I'm sure I make spelling and grammatical mistakes, or even use the wrong words from time to time.
From TFA: President Bush signed a new law last month setting tough penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught distributing a movie or song before its commercial release.
MPAA/RIAA: we're pleased to release a movie/song that has never been released before. To all you smart asses out there, say no to piracy!
FBI: you said, it's never been commercially released?
MPAA/RIAA: no, it's the hottest new release ever!
FBI: okay, I'll have to put you in jail.
MPAA/RIAA: why?
FBI: this movie/song has never been commercially released before so you're violating a law. Sorry. See you in jail.
I think most companies with separate folks for unix and NT admins find the two teams hate each other, and therefore can't work together, just like the software. Assuming that you love yourself, if you have both skills, then you can make unix and NT interoperate, which is what these businesses are looking for. Or you can always try to install love among the unix and NT admins. Once they love each other, they can work together, and their software will too.
Yes you're right. Apparently reading slashdot top-down (anti-chronological order) is not a very good practice, as I just found out myself.
That article on CoolTechZone has blown it all out of proportions. Considering that Darwin (being the kernel of Mac OS X) is open source, it is only a matter of time before someone will either (1) engineer some sort of compatibility chipset, or (2) write kernel support for PC chipsets, to make Mac OS X run on commodity hardware.
... the same game that Linux has to play, all over again.
I don't think Apple is intentionally preventing its users of doing that. Apple is just not going to support running Mac OS X on your average PC.
I think OpenFirmware is likely to be the major hurdle preventing you from running Mac OS X on your PC. Most PCs have BIOS that date back to the IBM PC clones. Modern computers (UltraSparc, Macs) have OpenFirmware instead. Your best bet is to check out OpenBIOS and see how you can get that running on your PC.
And then, you just need to make sure whatever other pieces of hardware on your PC has a driver in Darwin
Next time when you post link to a video, can you point it to Coral Cache instead? It makes the link available to more readers and makes the webmaster there happier.
And of course don't forget the Third Button!
The parent post is misinformation; should be modded "funny" instead (if you will).
Many comments so far criticise the article with a technologician's understanding of the words "scalability", "consistency", "predictability", and "self-contained." However, we have to realize that this article is targeted to businesspersons. These words have a different understanding in a business sense. I try to point out the "business meaning" here and reassess Linux on those merits.
If you don't care about businesses using Linux, then what I say here is a waste of time for you, and you can skip the rest.
Scalability does not mean excatly if a computing cluster can scale from a few nodes to a huge number of nodes. But rather, in a more general sense, can I scale the system from one solution to another solution? In particular, if I change my business model, can my solutions scale with me?
This also includes scalability in size as one factor. As the business grows, the solution must also scale in size, therefore the underlying platform must also scale.
The problem with Linux here is that there is a high initial cost of deployment in labor, though justified by the software being free and low maintenance thereafter. However, the high cost of labor in deployment must be paid again whenever a new solution is deployed. So Linux is not scalable for new deployments. The fact that many businesses, especially those migrating from Windows, need a pilot program already says that Linux costs too much.
Windows by itself also has a similar cost of labor for deployment, but asset management solutions exist that lower that cost. (OpenCountry is selling software for Linux asset management though, but don't accuse me of putting a plug here. You did not read this text inside the parentheses.)
Consistency, in the sense that if I learn one thing about an application, then it also applies to another application. People in business do not have time to learn everything over and over. Training only makes sense because supposedly you learn everything you need to know.
The difference in distributions is only one minor factor to inconsistency in Linux. The problem is that user experiences are different for applications like OpenOffice.org, Firefox, GNOME desktop environment, KDE, etc. A trick or two that you learn to do is not "portable" to another application.
There is no hope for consistency if open source developers only care about programming for their own itches. Fortunately, many developers are willing to stick to a certain guideline if it means more people can benefit from the program.
Predictability is the ability to answer for "what if" scenarios. Although systems crash unpredictably, but it has become a general expectation that all systems fail at some point. One must be able to tell "what if that happens?" Who do you turn to in order to get help? For commercial products, including commercialized Linux distributions, you turn to the vendor from whom you bought support. If you reaped a free version of Linux distribution, all you can do is search the web for an answer. It is unpredictable where you get your answers, how much time it takes to get it, or if you'd even get your answers at all.
Self-containedness, if you take that to mean all-in-one packaging, then Linux distributions are much more feature rich than a Windows installation CD. However, it should be taken to mean "what solutions can I buy for $10,000?" You may say "infinite" because "Linux is free." But that also means you can't buy a free Linux solution with money. An ideal business is that you invest in some money, you get profit from it, then you reinvest the money for growth, which earns you more money more quickly. Money is self-contained; Linux is not contained in money.
Again, commercial Linux distributions come close by pulling Linux into the circle of money. Linux vendors should go further to sell prepackaged solution to business. Heck, they should even sell a business model if they know how. Notice that Microsoft actually
I think your idea with plastic pins in the hole would work. If it were just coins on a flat surface, it could fly off when you spin the turntable too hard.
And good job, you just made your first contribution to a hardware GPL project!
If you play the guitar, you'd know that pitch bend is achieved by bending the string, increasing the tension. Havin a sensor for each string between every frets of a guitar only gives you the notes that you played. And let's hope if you wear a shiny glove, it doesn't pick up your palm as notes.
...
Yeah, copyright your idea, whatever
Yes, this site at webexhibits.org tells us the correct spelling and all that. Also the letter by Benjamin Franklin on the issue of daylight saving is an interesting read. In short, why the hell do we all stay up late at night, wake at noon, and complain that we don't have enough daylight? Just go to bed early and wake up early!
I just recently discovered that Mac OS X actually switches from EST (eastern standard time) to EDT (eastern daylight-saving time) 5 seconds before it turns to 2am on the first Sunday of April.
The clock ticked to 1:59:54 am and jumped to 2:59:55 am.
We could probably convert CO2 and H2O back into hydrocarbons cheaper.
You mean carbohydrate , right?
The cheapest way is to grow lots of plants. Let the nature takes care of them! We just need to figure out how to use these plants as an efficient source of energy. Energy researches who are botanists will have an edge here.
On Mac OS X, Acrobat's "Save as PDF" in the Print dialog is disabled (just try to click on it). I presume you have to use Preview, but I don't think Preview supports Javascript anyways.
Are you sure you're not from Krypton and it's not that leftover kryptonite remains on Earth that is bothering you?
It has been 6 years since I've been using a laptop, and I noticed a consistent worsening for my eye sight (with a mix of myopia and astigmatism). Before that, I used desktop computers with CRT monitor with no problems. It turns out that using a laptop is bad too in the sense that you're looking at the screen much closer, since the keyboard is right under the screen. Nowadays I use an usb keyboard for my laptop whenever possible. With the external keyboard, I get at least an additional 30cm between my eyes and the monitor.
I have an obviously foreign name, and my luggage was searched two in a row for the last two times that I travelled. They put in a "notice of baggage inspection" slip in my bag. Now, the fact that they were searched wasn't a problem. The problem is that last August, they (1) delayed one luggage for a more thorough search, and (2) when I finally got my luggage, my $300 minidisc player/recorder was missing. The minidisc player was kept in a soft pouch; the pouch was stored inside a hand bag, which sit inside the luggage. They apparently opened the hand bag, pulled out the contents, found the minidisc player/recorder and found it convenient to transfer it to the inspector's own pocket.
..."
Now, I tried to contact TSA and it wasn't helpful. The phone number they provided, (866) 289-9673, always responded with a busy tone. I e-mailed the airline, United Airlines, and they never got back to me. Maybe I was too cynical. I told them I don't think an innocuous little device like my minidisc player is a threat to airline safety.
But it is funny if you think about it. TSA steals my stuff and put a slip saying "we did it." Then the fact that there is no where to complain is like them saying to me, "nanner nanner nanner
I think you either misread or didn't read the article. The guy just plugged his PSP to a LAN where he can DNS spoof himself at will, so he basically redirected the default site to anything he wants. The PSP is capable of following links, so he did a jump page that links to various sites, including Google.
/etc/hosts. They just point the name of known ad servers to 127.0.0.1 (your own machine). That way, unless you're serving ads to yourself, you can avoid seeing ads from those servers. It's just that there probably isn't a /etc/hosts on a PSP, so he did it by setting up a spoof DNS server that functions as if there is a /etc/hosts.
It is very similar to an ad blocking technique by editing
DNS spoofing does happen in real life on a large scale, but it takes more work, and it does much more damage than hacking into a PSP unit. For example, it can be used to fake a bank website that secretly collects banking information. If that happens, PSP is probably the least of your worries.
You rightfully have a point. Script kiddies often try to attack his own machine before he can wreck havoc on others'. As Macs gain popularity, these 14-year olds want to do the same, but money is a bigger problem.
Kid: "mom, I want a Mac."
Mom: "honey, we just spent $900 on that Athlon!"
Kid: "but, mom, I want a Mac now."
Mom: "no!! And your teacher just called. Apparently you flunked your English exam. Now shut up before I decide to cancel your DSL line."
Only perhaps the richest script kiddies end up writing Mac viruses. But then, if they're so rich, why don't they just spend the money on greater enjoyment of life, like taking girls out for a date in a fine restaurant?
You're probably not thinking about the "obscurity" the same way as "security through obscurity". It is true that the prescense of Mac OS X machines on the net is rather obscure (i.e., as in unpopular minority), but many key components of the OS (Darwin kernel, daemon services, bsd tools) are either open sourced or taken from open source. In terms of source code, Mac OS X definitely does not enjoy security through obscurity.
Somewhere in the void of Internet, a message is quietly being sent to /dev/null, for that it did not pass someone's procmail "crook" filter.
Actually, that one is called "Looking Glass for CDE."
Indeed, I feel that 2.6 was pushed out prematurely, but many features in it are desparately needed for publicity (for example, a working ACPI), so the kernel needs the "stable" status to give people incentive to use.
The fact that kernel developers are still adding new features suggest that it is still a development kernel. Stable kernels are for bug fixes. If they need new features to fix existing bugs, that's when they should bump up the stable version number.
However, I think version number is already obsolete for Linux kernels. We should be able to manage patchsets as if they're software packages, complete with dependency and conflict information that are automatically computed. When you want a "patch" to be included in your kernel, it looks for patches it depends on, checks to see whether it results in a conflict, and apply the patches. Periodically, "metapatches" are updated to depend on the most recent patches along some feature. More intricacies need to be worked out.
Assuming (0) that there is a demand for such a patch manager---I think the problem with developing it is that (1) it's difficult to develop a realistic test project from ground up using the patch manager, so the patch system can show that its design is useful, and (2) if we use an existing large software project (such as the Linux kernel), programmers for the patch manager would spend too much time following the development for that other project, rather than have useful work done; they might not want to do it. In general, we want to test the patch manager on a big project, but we also risk wasting too much time on the test project.
It would be best if the developers of a large project (can also think about the Linux kernel) will take the initiative into developing a patch manager, since they have a demand for it (or can be convinced to have a demand), already have a realistic software product, and are willing to follow the development of their own project.
I'm saying that there is a seed for an innovative patch management and revision control system from maintaining a Linux kernel. They should do something about it.