Firefox is still the heavyweight in open source browsing, but Chrome has pulled heavily from the "I want performance" and "I want compatibility" pools, while Firefox and Chromium spinoffs have pulled to a degree from the "I want open source" pools. Firefox can fight on performance, has lost the war for compatibility, and probably has lost some trust from the "I want open source" pool that isn't coming back (but could still win back a lot of that with actions- but probably won't).
Good idea, but difficult to organize and pretty easy to blockbust. A few years ago this was used to put the squeeze on Netflix. Nowadays it will help Netflix not deal with competitors. Any members of your theoretical coalition not driven by perfectly long term self interest and fairness could get bent over.
> And when you first start it up, it automatically runs home to momma and reports the installation details before you have any option of telling it not to.
I mean, you can down the interface ahead of time. But that shouldn't be default behavior.
Waterfox follows Firefox very closely. There are plans to continue to support normal extensions in a new codebase, but we'll see. The big thing is, when Firefox throws away its older extension model, some browsers will continue to support that, and others will not, and I think it is a hard prediction.
I'll definitely check out Waterfox around that time though, thanks.
(note that the Pale Moon guy is also going to be building a browser based off of the Firefox baseline that supports the current extensions)
It's true, you'll still need a spyware browser for Netflix, and probably a couple other websites. But that doesn't mean you have to do 95% of your browsing there, when there are other alternatives.
Also there's that Brave browser, but I'm not sure on all the details about it being a non-spy browser yet.
It's nice to see a bunch of special interest groups work towards a goal that generally benefits the American citizens of the net (and certain corporations, at the expense of certain other corporations). Watching the right twist hard on this issue has been yet another source of bitter amusement for me over this last year (and believe me, I've had sources of bitter amusement from ALL political sides over the last year or two).
Here's the lowdown: net neutrality used to enjoy a broad coalition of pretty much everyone- the idea that carriers can't charge based on certain qualifications is a pretty appealing one. Some libertarians like it because the carriers are themselves a kind of monopoly (and therefore shouldn't be allowed the same power over their wires as if it was a free market), most liberals like it because it prevents corporations from screwing over the little guy, and some conservatives like it because it prevents conservative speech from being branded separately or upcharged ("CNN is free, Fox News costs extra!" or somesuch). This changed recently and rapidly: in addition to the more strict market libertarians (who were formerly pretty much the only natural philosophical opponents of net neutrality), the broad base of conservatism, led by Trump, are now opposed to net neutrality. Now it's meddlesome government, and (somehow!) the ability to censor data.
The conservative switch on this is not ENTIRELY surprising, given that the most recent action on net neutrality happened under Obama, but why would conservatives not be in favor of common carrier status? Certainly they don't want to pay more for electricity depending on its use (nor would they be ok with the power company monitoring everything in their house to ensure that they pay the correct rate for "television electricity" versus "microwave electricity"), so why the odd position?
The answer appears to be depressingly top-down. This coalition of dudes listed in the summary is pretty much all liberals (I'm not aware of any that even gave Trump credit for smashing the TPP, which they were opposed to), and they pretty much universally supported the losing Hillary Clinton in the election. Meanwhile, those who stand to benefit from the repeal of net neutrality didn't use their bully pulpit to denounce Trump for two years straight, and are broadly more Republican donors. That part I guess is part and parcel of our vaguely corporate Republic, but it is darkly amusing to watch the needs of the donors DRAG THE PHILOSOPHY IN REAL TIME. Just nuts.
> Can i use it without any form of internet connection to Apple
Can you use the remote voice processing device that streams stuff from the internet without sending data outside your local network? I mean, I expect not.
There is a legitimate need for a solution that is like: the "smart speaker" talks over wifi to your desktop, which acts as a server and processes the voice, then searches the locally built index of your locally built library. I suspect this would be a possible thing to build, but much harder for a company to sell it to you like that.
Ultimately, most of these "it just works (assuming you have an internet connection)" type products are all over the place because they sell, and the extra work to get a language processor and something to categorize your MP3s in a way that doesn't require a bunch of tech support would be more expensive and have fewer takers- they wouldn't really sell, I don't think.
When Apple says "something something privacy", they normally mean: you can use local features without any remote drama, and remote features won't be tied to your username or real name or sold or whatever. Sometimes they mean more than that. But at the end of the day, if you don't trust Apple with your voice requests if it sends the data to a remote server, then you shouldn't be trusting Apple (or ANY) company with your voice requests, and you should be doing it all locally in Linux or BSD or whatevs.
I see the Leaf as "up to" 107 miles. You lose about 15% of total capacity after about three years. A lot of drivers report about 70 miles (their batteries started a smidge smaller than the current ones). This would, in theory, meet the commuting-only needs of about 85% of commuters (and would be totally worthless to me). Batteries also get much less performance when the weather is bad, making it doubly useless to me, but seems difficult to model.
29% of drivers commute 1-5 miles one way. These folks have many options for commuting, including bicycles and mopeds and such. 22% of drivers commute 6-10 miles one way. This seems like a good fit for a Nissan Leaf, with plenty of miles left to run errands. 17% of drivers commute 11-15 miles one way. This group also seems like a very good fit for a Nissan Leaf, with some miles left if they are meeting friends or family after work. 10% of drivers commute 16-20 miles one way. This group has to consider a Nissan Leaf with some skepticism: if anything besides commuting is on the agenda that day, it may not work, depending on weather. If they are True Believers in electric cars, then this group should have no problems buying into it. 7% of drivers commute 21-25 miles one way. A 50 mile usage on a battery that can hold 60 to 90 miles is a little bit risky. A closed road or a storm could easily make you have to find alternate transportation, and hopefully without a battery drained car on the side of the road. This is a poor fit for a Nissan Leaf. 5% of drivers commute 26-30 miles one way. This is too risky for an electric car. 3% of drivers commute 31-35 miles one way. These drivers would not be able to get to work and back in their car, even making no other stops, after just a couple years. 8% of drivers commute more than 35 miles one way. A Nissan Leaf is total shit tier for these men.
Here's the problem: you give up a great deal of freedom with a 110 or 120 mile battery. A gas car can be filled up anywhere and can go 300-500 miles or whatever before caring about filling up again. It's not something you have to sweat every single day. If your power in your house is out, you don't suddenly have to worry how you'll get to work the next day. If you visit a friend who is far away on your way home, you don't usually even have to think about filling up- with the electric car, you just can't do it. Snow? Alternate routes? Stuck in a two hour traffic jam because an interstate got shut down? These are all CRITICAL ISSUES with an electric car. With a gas car, they are annoyances.
To say nothing of the general inability to take a road trip, drive between cities, and the HUGE risk you take regarding future employment- what if you get fired and have to take a job 60 miles away? With a gas car, you have 99 problems, but your car ain't one.
Electric cars need to charge faster and hold much more charge before they are generically viable. Right now they are toys for the rich to virtue signal in (I care about the environment, see my personal choice reflect my value, in a way that doesn't help anything but displays my value for all to see!), and a good fit for a small percentage of urban and near-suburban folks who have small but unavoidable driving needs. This doesn't look like a large percentage of people, but it's still a lot of people.
But what it isn't, is a lot of miles. Most miles will be driven with gas engines for the foreseeable future. The guy with the commute of 70 miles each day is not times rarer than the guy who commutes 7 miles each day, but he does drive ten times the miles.
> Those people who will buy it are not "enthusiasts". They're just rich idiots.
"Enthusiast" isn't "Gamer". A computing enthusiast is often interested in nontrivial multicore processing. The prices have gotten a bit odd, however: you are often better off buying the Xeon and going through the hoops of finding a mobo that has enough of the features you want. AMD's server solutions will also compete in that market.
Listen to yourself, lol. You want other nations to hurt us? What is wired so backwards in your head?
I hope most Democrats disagree vehemently with you and all of your sentiments, or we won't see many Democrats winning elections in the near future. I know I'd never vote for anyone with even a hint of the stench of self-hatred you reek of in your post.
This is great. Even better is that it was 8-0 (or 7-1 on some parts, as mentioned in the article). It's wonderful to see something as basic to our society as the idea that "sold products are not owned by the seller after the sale" be confirmed unanimously by the supreme court. This will send a very real message to other industries as well, and likely result in even peripherally associated industries looking for other ways to mitigate their perceived losses other than expensive legislation and punishing their customers.
Truly excellent, and will have invisible benefits for years.
Google is using the data they have to figure out how best to market to you. Data someone else has about you is not used to help you, it is used to hurt you. If nothing else, think about this: if Google knows it, the US government can request it right now (most Americans are ultimately fine with this- after all, we have a good government right now, that uses this information to fight crime and violence)... but many more governments can request it in the future. The laws can change towards tyranny somewhere far away, and that could be used against you in the future. Again, the data isn't going away- you're playing a gambling game where you either break even or lose, and there's no win condition. It's a bad gambling game, right?
Unity3D, the multiplatform development environment, or Unity, the now-defunct user interface?
> I learned systemd. It's not bad at all.
The problem is really how quickly it blazed through the community, as major distro after major distro switched to it, and how it was suddenly present in everything. Opting out was overly difficult. If it had moved slower, you'd have seen systemdless distros pop up in due time, instead of after the fact.
He said, posting from a machine that doesn't use Linux, the packets quickly routed through a machine that uses Linux, to a farm of Linux boxes, to a box that runs Linux, which stored the information.
The iMac was wrong to not have a floppy drive. It was very difficult to get data on or off of that thing, right up until the point that it was totally obsolete garbage, at which point almost every PC around could read and write USB. What did everyone who bought an iMac do? They also bought a fucking floppy drive to plug into it.
It's success was DESPITE its lack of floppy, not BECAUSE of it. It was a bad call at the time, historical revisionism aside. No one was arguing that a max 2 megabyte standard disk with really slow write speeds was going to be used forever- the point was, it was used at the PRESENT.
No, that's not "on Intel". Other laptop integrators have had no issue adding 32 gigs of RAM. You just end up with less battery life as a result. Apple's refusal to address the market segment is 100% on Apple.
> . And at that point, they need to sell bitcoins out of some wallet, and exchange them for cash
Yea, but like any burgeoning semicriminal area, there's a reasonable amount of mitigations for this risk.
The simplest one is overt laundering. You put some amount of your illegally gained money into a pool that is trusted to spit out some fraction of that at a later time, to an entirely different account. Because the pool is constantly spewing bitcoin at arbitrary accounts, it is not always obvious which goes where. As this can be repeated several times, it is argued online that it makes investigations difficult (or at least, that's the implications of the totally-not-a-criminal types who run these things).
A secondary one is to convert bitcoin to an entirely different cryptocurrency, good, or future, one that is believed to be harder to trace, and then convert it from there to either bitcoin, or direct purchase of goods.
It could also be directly turned into goods or services, or even donated to some supposed charity.
Bitcoins clearly can be investigated, and are. If they can be traced properly, that capability is not a well known or frequently deployed one.
It is only Microsoft's fault that Windows Update is not trusted. It is a usability issue and a privacy nightmare. It is Microsoft's fault that there is no setting to get security fixes without also by default slurping down megabytes of spyware and telemetry downdates.
Microsoft is fully to blame. Disable Windows Update. Manually apply security patches. This is necessary because Microsoft is not willing to provide such a list universally to allow this correct and common use case. This omission is absolutely deliberate, as is their newly obfuscated KB notes.
I turn off Windows update on the boxes that I still have. I recommend everyone I know disable Windows update on all boxes that they have.
If you leave Windows update on, and just take the security updates by default, you will get owned by Microsoft. Constant telemetry will stream from your box.
I also recommend people look up how to stop this on Windows 7 and 8, where it is possible to stop it. It is not possible in 10, though some people have had some success at limiting it.
The article's advice is horseshit. WU should be disabled for personal computers if privacy is any manner of concern. Microsoft has revectored their security update mechanism to: try to upgrade you to Windows 10. Install sleeper services that only months after installation began transmitting telemetry. Remove useful names from KBs to prevent successful system administration. Transmit information about what programs you use, when you use them, how often you use them. Transmit information regarding crashes. Broadly expose envelope information about your non-Microsoft related activities to Microsoft and anyone they choose to share that information with.
Disable WU on 7 and 8. Tear out the bad patches. Only EVER manually apply patches that you actually require for security and functioinality.
Comparing being a sensible system administrator who doesn't want to transfer control over their personal activities to Microsoft to antivaxxers is disgusting. Anyone making this comparison is irresponsible.
The list of KBs that you must manually remove (and prevent reinstallation of) to keep Windows without telemetry is provided on that su post. The list is:
KB3065988 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: July 2015 more info KB3083325 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: September 2015 more info KB3083324 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: September 2015 more info KB2976978 Compatibility update for Windows 8.1 and Windows 8 more info KB3075853 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: August 2015 more info KB3065987 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: July 2015 more info KB3050265 Windows Update Client for Windows 7: June 2015 more info KB3050267 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1: June 2015 more info KB3075851 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: August 2015 more info KB2902907 MS Security Essentials/Windows Defender related update [no description/information available] KB3068708 Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry more info KB3022345 Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry more info KB2952664 Compatibility update for upgrading Windows 7 more info KB2990214 Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 7 to a later version of Windows more info KB3035583 Update installs Get Windows 10 app in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 SP1 more info KB971033 Description of the update for Windows Activation Technologies more info KB3021917 Update to Windows 7 SP1 for performance improvements more info KB3044374 Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 8.1 to a later version of Windows more info KB3046480 Update helps to determine whether to migrate the.NET Framework 1.1 when you upgrade Windows 8.1 or Windows 7 more info KB3075249 Update that adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 more info KB3080149 Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry more info KB3083324 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: September 2015 more info KB3083325 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: September 2015 more info KB3083710 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: Octobe
> HP-UX cancelled their Itanic port before release.
HP-UX is the primary OS for these boxes. https://www.hpe.com/h20195/v2/... HP is supporting still, which makes sense. The pages saying the opposite have to be incorrect. It wouldn't make any sense for HP to sell a > 10k machine with no ability to run an OS, and they actually sell an OS.
As for the other points from the Soylent link, that sounds about right. I was hoping someone was still maintaining a Linux or a BSD.
Does Gentoo still work on these? Does any Linux? Does FreeBSD? HP-UX I'm sure does, but IA64 was well supported by major Linux distros until it was pretty well abandoned, long after it was a clear failure.
I've considered buying a cheapo old IA64 to screw around with, but I would want to be able to install Linux on it, if possible.
Protected mode started in 1982, with the 286. Only one generation of PC x86 chip DIDN'T have protected mode. If PCs had really taken off just a couple years later, everyone would have been dealing with a MUCH more robust common denominator- protected mode on 80286, instead of real mode on 8086. This would have helped dramatically during the 80s and 90s, as the weight of legacy DOS apps weighed very heavy on the industry. You'd have a PC with nearly a gigabyte of memory, and some seriously important programs that needed to be launched in 1 megabyte real mode.
Slashdot Mirror
I think "bits per LEDsecond " is the funniest unit I've seen in a long damned time. "This exploit grabs data at 1000 bits/LED*s"
Firefox is still the heavyweight in open source browsing, but Chrome has pulled heavily from the "I want performance" and "I want compatibility" pools, while Firefox and Chromium spinoffs have pulled to a degree from the "I want open source" pools. Firefox can fight on performance, has lost the war for compatibility, and probably has lost some trust from the "I want open source" pool that isn't coming back (but could still win back a lot of that with actions- but probably won't).
Good idea, but difficult to organize and pretty easy to blockbust. A few years ago this was used to put the squeeze on Netflix. Nowadays it will help Netflix not deal with competitors. Any members of your theoretical coalition not driven by perfectly long term self interest and fairness could get bent over.
> And when you first start it up, it automatically runs home to momma and reports the installation details before you have any option of telling it not to.
I mean, you can down the interface ahead of time. But that shouldn't be default behavior.
Waterfox follows Firefox very closely. There are plans to continue to support normal extensions in a new codebase, but we'll see. The big thing is, when Firefox throws away its older extension model, some browsers will continue to support that, and others will not, and I think it is a hard prediction.
I'll definitely check out Waterfox around that time though, thanks.
> in November we will be stuck with spyware browsers or
Or maybe getting Iridium, a chromium-based browser that removes the google tracking present in Chromium (and Chrome)?
https://iridiumbrowser.de/
Or maybe checking out Pale Moon, based on an older baseline of Firefox?
https://www.palemoon.org/
(note that the Pale Moon guy is also going to be building a browser based off of the Firefox baseline that supports the current extensions)
It's true, you'll still need a spyware browser for Netflix, and probably a couple other websites. But that doesn't mean you have to do 95% of your browsing there, when there are other alternatives.
Also there's that Brave browser, but I'm not sure on all the details about it being a non-spy browser yet.
It's nice to see a bunch of special interest groups work towards a goal that generally benefits the American citizens of the net (and certain corporations, at the expense of certain other corporations). Watching the right twist hard on this issue has been yet another source of bitter amusement for me over this last year (and believe me, I've had sources of bitter amusement from ALL political sides over the last year or two).
Here's the lowdown: net neutrality used to enjoy a broad coalition of pretty much everyone- the idea that carriers can't charge based on certain qualifications is a pretty appealing one. Some libertarians like it because the carriers are themselves a kind of monopoly (and therefore shouldn't be allowed the same power over their wires as if it was a free market), most liberals like it because it prevents corporations from screwing over the little guy, and some conservatives like it because it prevents conservative speech from being branded separately or upcharged ("CNN is free, Fox News costs extra!" or somesuch). This changed recently and rapidly: in addition to the more strict market libertarians (who were formerly pretty much the only natural philosophical opponents of net neutrality), the broad base of conservatism, led by Trump, are now opposed to net neutrality. Now it's meddlesome government, and (somehow!) the ability to censor data.
The conservative switch on this is not ENTIRELY surprising, given that the most recent action on net neutrality happened under Obama, but why would conservatives not be in favor of common carrier status? Certainly they don't want to pay more for electricity depending on its use (nor would they be ok with the power company monitoring everything in their house to ensure that they pay the correct rate for "television electricity" versus "microwave electricity"), so why the odd position?
The answer appears to be depressingly top-down. This coalition of dudes listed in the summary is pretty much all liberals (I'm not aware of any that even gave Trump credit for smashing the TPP, which they were opposed to), and they pretty much universally supported the losing Hillary Clinton in the election. Meanwhile, those who stand to benefit from the repeal of net neutrality didn't use their bully pulpit to denounce Trump for two years straight, and are broadly more Republican donors. That part I guess is part and parcel of our vaguely corporate Republic, but it is darkly amusing to watch the needs of the donors DRAG THE PHILOSOPHY IN REAL TIME. Just nuts.
> Can i use it without any form of internet connection to Apple
Can you use the remote voice processing device that streams stuff from the internet without sending data outside your local network? I mean, I expect not.
There is a legitimate need for a solution that is like: the "smart speaker" talks over wifi to your desktop, which acts as a server and processes the voice, then searches the locally built index of your locally built library. I suspect this would be a possible thing to build, but much harder for a company to sell it to you like that.
Ultimately, most of these "it just works (assuming you have an internet connection)" type products are all over the place because they sell, and the extra work to get a language processor and something to categorize your MP3s in a way that doesn't require a bunch of tech support would be more expensive and have fewer takers- they wouldn't really sell, I don't think.
When Apple says "something something privacy", they normally mean: you can use local features without any remote drama, and remote features won't be tied to your username or real name or sold or whatever. Sometimes they mean more than that. But at the end of the day, if you don't trust Apple with your voice requests if it sends the data to a remote server, then you shouldn't be trusting Apple (or ANY) company with your voice requests, and you should be doing it all locally in Linux or BSD or whatevs.
I see the Leaf as "up to" 107 miles. You lose about 15% of total capacity after about three years. A lot of drivers report about 70 miles (their batteries started a smidge smaller than the current ones). This would, in theory, meet the commuting-only needs of about 85% of commuters (and would be totally worthless to me). Batteries also get much less performance when the weather is bad, making it doubly useless to me, but seems difficult to model.
29% of drivers commute 1-5 miles one way. These folks have many options for commuting, including bicycles and mopeds and such.
22% of drivers commute 6-10 miles one way. This seems like a good fit for a Nissan Leaf, with plenty of miles left to run errands.
17% of drivers commute 11-15 miles one way. This group also seems like a very good fit for a Nissan Leaf, with some miles left if they are meeting friends or family after work.
10% of drivers commute 16-20 miles one way. This group has to consider a Nissan Leaf with some skepticism: if anything besides commuting is on the agenda that day, it may not work, depending on weather. If they are True Believers in electric cars, then this group should have no problems buying into it.
7% of drivers commute 21-25 miles one way. A 50 mile usage on a battery that can hold 60 to 90 miles is a little bit risky. A closed road or a storm could easily make you have to find alternate transportation, and hopefully without a battery drained car on the side of the road. This is a poor fit for a Nissan Leaf.
5% of drivers commute 26-30 miles one way. This is too risky for an electric car.
3% of drivers commute 31-35 miles one way. These drivers would not be able to get to work and back in their car, even making no other stops, after just a couple years.
8% of drivers commute more than 35 miles one way. A Nissan Leaf is total shit tier for these men.
Here's the problem: you give up a great deal of freedom with a 110 or 120 mile battery. A gas car can be filled up anywhere and can go 300-500 miles or whatever before caring about filling up again. It's not something you have to sweat every single day. If your power in your house is out, you don't suddenly have to worry how you'll get to work the next day. If you visit a friend who is far away on your way home, you don't usually even have to think about filling up- with the electric car, you just can't do it. Snow? Alternate routes? Stuck in a two hour traffic jam because an interstate got shut down? These are all CRITICAL ISSUES with an electric car. With a gas car, they are annoyances.
To say nothing of the general inability to take a road trip, drive between cities, and the HUGE risk you take regarding future employment- what if you get fired and have to take a job 60 miles away? With a gas car, you have 99 problems, but your car ain't one.
Electric cars need to charge faster and hold much more charge before they are generically viable. Right now they are toys for the rich to virtue signal in (I care about the environment, see my personal choice reflect my value, in a way that doesn't help anything but displays my value for all to see!), and a good fit for a small percentage of urban and near-suburban folks who have small but unavoidable driving needs. This doesn't look like a large percentage of people, but it's still a lot of people.
But what it isn't, is a lot of miles. Most miles will be driven with gas engines for the foreseeable future. The guy with the commute of 70 miles each day is not times rarer than the guy who commutes 7 miles each day, but he does drive ten times the miles.
> Those people who will buy it are not "enthusiasts". They're just rich idiots.
"Enthusiast" isn't "Gamer". A computing enthusiast is often interested in nontrivial multicore processing. The prices have gotten a bit odd, however: you are often better off buying the Xeon and going through the hoops of finding a mobo that has enough of the features you want. AMD's server solutions will also compete in that market.
Listen to yourself, lol. You want other nations to hurt us? What is wired so backwards in your head?
I hope most Democrats disagree vehemently with you and all of your sentiments, or we won't see many Democrats winning elections in the near future. I know I'd never vote for anyone with even a hint of the stench of self-hatred you reek of in your post.
This is great. Even better is that it was 8-0 (or 7-1 on some parts, as mentioned in the article). It's wonderful to see something as basic to our society as the idea that "sold products are not owned by the seller after the sale" be confirmed unanimously by the supreme court. This will send a very real message to other industries as well, and likely result in even peripherally associated industries looking for other ways to mitigate their perceived losses other than expensive legislation and punishing their customers.
Truly excellent, and will have invisible benefits for years.
> OH NOES! Google knows what webcomics I like!
Google knows a fuck lot more than that.
Google is using the data they have to figure out how best to market to you. Data someone else has about you is not used to help you, it is used to hurt you. If nothing else, think about this: if Google knows it, the US government can request it right now (most Americans are ultimately fine with this- after all, we have a good government right now, that uses this information to fight crime and violence)... but many more governments can request it in the future. The laws can change towards tyranny somewhere far away, and that could be used against you in the future. Again, the data isn't going away- you're playing a gambling game where you either break even or lose, and there's no win condition. It's a bad gambling game, right?
> I learned Unity.
Unity3D, the multiplatform development environment, or Unity, the now-defunct user interface?
> I learned systemd. It's not bad at all.
The problem is really how quickly it blazed through the community, as major distro after major distro switched to it, and how it was suddenly present in everything. Opting out was overly difficult. If it had moved slower, you'd have seen systemdless distros pop up in due time, instead of after the fact.
> Linux has 2% market share.
He said, posting from a machine that doesn't use Linux, the packets quickly routed through a machine that uses Linux, to a farm of Linux boxes, to a box that runs Linux, which stored the information.
Copyright bro, not patent.
The iMac was wrong to not have a floppy drive. It was very difficult to get data on or off of that thing, right up until the point that it was totally obsolete garbage, at which point almost every PC around could read and write USB. What did everyone who bought an iMac do? They also bought a fucking floppy drive to plug into it.
It's success was DESPITE its lack of floppy, not BECAUSE of it. It was a bad call at the time, historical revisionism aside. No one was arguing that a max 2 megabyte standard disk with really slow write speeds was going to be used forever- the point was, it was used at the PRESENT.
No, that's not "on Intel". Other laptop integrators have had no issue adding 32 gigs of RAM. You just end up with less battery life as a result. Apple's refusal to address the market segment is 100% on Apple.
Mac Pro probably in mid-2018, is what they lightly implied last time around. Still too early to be sure, basically.
> . And at that point, they need to sell bitcoins out of some wallet, and exchange them for cash
Yea, but like any burgeoning semicriminal area, there's a reasonable amount of mitigations for this risk.
The simplest one is overt laundering. You put some amount of your illegally gained money into a pool that is trusted to spit out some fraction of that at a later time, to an entirely different account. Because the pool is constantly spewing bitcoin at arbitrary accounts, it is not always obvious which goes where. As this can be repeated several times, it is argued online that it makes investigations difficult (or at least, that's the implications of the totally-not-a-criminal types who run these things).
A secondary one is to convert bitcoin to an entirely different cryptocurrency, good, or future, one that is believed to be harder to trace, and then convert it from there to either bitcoin, or direct purchase of goods.
It could also be directly turned into goods or services, or even donated to some supposed charity.
Bitcoins clearly can be investigated, and are. If they can be traced properly, that capability is not a well known or frequently deployed one.
It is only Microsoft's fault that Windows Update is not trusted. It is a usability issue and a privacy nightmare. It is Microsoft's fault that there is no setting to get security fixes without also by default slurping down megabytes of spyware and telemetry downdates.
Microsoft is fully to blame. Disable Windows Update. Manually apply security patches. This is necessary because Microsoft is not willing to provide such a list universally to allow this correct and common use case. This omission is absolutely deliberate, as is their newly obfuscated KB notes.
I turn off Windows update on the boxes that I still have. I recommend everyone I know disable Windows update on all boxes that they have.
If you leave Windows update on, and just take the security updates by default, you will get owned by Microsoft. Constant telemetry will stream from your box.
I also recommend people look up how to stop this on Windows 7 and 8, where it is possible to stop it. It is not possible in 10, though some people have had some success at limiting it.
The article's advice is horseshit. WU should be disabled for personal computers if privacy is any manner of concern. Microsoft has revectored their security update mechanism to: try to upgrade you to Windows 10. Install sleeper services that only months after installation began transmitting telemetry. Remove useful names from KBs to prevent successful system administration. Transmit information about what programs you use, when you use them, how often you use them. Transmit information regarding crashes. Broadly expose envelope information about your non-Microsoft related activities to Microsoft and anyone they choose to share that information with.
Disable WU on 7 and 8. Tear out the bad patches. Only EVER manually apply patches that you actually require for security and functioinality.
Comparing being a sensible system administrator who doesn't want to transfer control over their personal activities to Microsoft to antivaxxers is disgusting. Anyone making this comparison is irresponsible.
https://superuser.com/question...
The list of KBs that you must manually remove (and prevent reinstallation of) to keep Windows without telemetry is provided on that su post. The list is:
KB3065988 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: July 2015 more info .NET Framework 1.1 when you upgrade Windows 8.1 or Windows 7 more info
KB3083325 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: September 2015 more info
KB3083324 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: September 2015 more info
KB2976978 Compatibility update for Windows 8.1 and Windows 8 more info
KB3075853 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: August 2015 more info
KB3065987 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: July 2015 more info
KB3050265 Windows Update Client for Windows 7: June 2015 more info
KB3050267 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1: June 2015 more info
KB3075851 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: August 2015 more info
KB2902907 MS Security Essentials/Windows Defender related update [no description/information available]
KB3068708 Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry more info
KB3022345 Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry more info
KB2952664 Compatibility update for upgrading Windows 7 more info
KB2990214 Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 7 to a later version of Windows more info
KB3035583 Update installs Get Windows 10 app in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 SP1 more info
KB971033 Description of the update for Windows Activation Technologies more info
KB3021917 Update to Windows 7 SP1 for performance improvements more info
KB3044374 Update that enables you to upgrade from Windows 8.1 to a later version of Windows more info
KB3046480 Update helps to determine whether to migrate the
KB3075249 Update that adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 more info
KB3080149 Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry more info
KB3083324 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: September 2015 more info
KB3083325 Windows Update Client for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: September 2015 more info
KB3083710 Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: Octobe
> HP-UX cancelled their Itanic port before release.
HP-UX is the primary OS for these boxes.
https://www.hpe.com/h20195/v2/...
HP is supporting still, which makes sense. The pages saying the opposite have to be incorrect. It wouldn't make any sense for HP to sell a > 10k machine with no ability to run an OS, and they actually sell an OS.
As for the other points from the Soylent link, that sounds about right. I was hoping someone was still maintaining a Linux or a BSD.
Does Gentoo still work on these? Does any Linux? Does FreeBSD? HP-UX I'm sure does, but IA64 was well supported by major Linux distros until it was pretty well abandoned, long after it was a clear failure.
I've considered buying a cheapo old IA64 to screw around with, but I would want to be able to install Linux on it, if possible.
Protected mode started in 1982, with the 286. Only one generation of PC x86 chip DIDN'T have protected mode. If PCs had really taken off just a couple years later, everyone would have been dealing with a MUCH more robust common denominator- protected mode on 80286, instead of real mode on 8086. This would have helped dramatically during the 80s and 90s, as the weight of legacy DOS apps weighed very heavy on the industry. You'd have a PC with nearly a gigabyte of memory, and some seriously important programs that needed to be launched in 1 megabyte real mode.