am very well trained in gorilla combat, AND I'm willing to die for my freedoms.
Personally, I'd be more impressed if you took on polar bears....but gorillas are tough enough I guess. Would you be willing to do an act at my local zoo?
Interesting though that Bush's brother was apparently running the company that provided security to the WTC buildings and they had a planned power outage a couple days before the "attacks" (ie. no security cameras....)
Actually, OpenOffice.org's inconsistency and lack of enterprise features will certainly keep it out of large corporations. Its poor performance and overall rough look-and-feel will likely keep it away from the majority of home users that want a decent experience unless they can't afford MS Office (which is about the only drawback of MS Office as far as I'm concerned...for home use).
Great comment! It's very true. Most people are completely unwilling to learn even the basics of how to operate a computer yet they allow themselves to become completely and utterly dependent on them. For example, I can't tell you the number of people that can't understand the concept of a file. How many times have I walked someone through a task and when I tell them to click on something, they ask me if I mean right-click or left-click. They obviously have no concept of what the right button is for. Or I ask them to look at something on their desktop and have no clue what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, operating a computer is not like driving a car and never will be. I had some hope that the next generation of computer users (read: current teenagers and younger) would be better, but I feel like I find just as many of them that are nearly as clueless as their parents. The only difference is, they can use iTunes. I sometimes feel the human race is doomed if this level of computer ignorance continues.......
Quick question, since you are an admitted mac fanboy. Does Apple turn on the outgoing firewall by default? I didn't think so....
And no, the problem of botnets would not go away unless you think everyone upgrades right away. Hell, I just met someone using DOS on an old IBM with dual 5.25" floppy drives the other week.
You fanboys need to get a life....
You sure are dense. Compare the case where n is 10,000 and when n is in the millions. In which case is your vote more important? Since you were originally talking about the chances of being the deciding vote I think you just proved my point.
You really can't debate your way out of a paper bag, and you keep dropping touch-downs for me! I think you should head over to digg where you will be more welcome and have more of a chance of impressing 12 year-old boys with your "math skillz"...
I assume that you realize that not all elections are for President,
I would assume you were talking about the presidential election, because otherwise your point is moot. In elections for local representation, your vote certainly does matter. You've proven this in your original post as your variable n would be orders of magnitudes smaller!!!
and that not everybody lives in the United States?
Regardless, not many countries do a direct election of their head of state(since that does seem to be the type of election we are talking about here). I think Indonesia does this, but I can't think of any others off hand.
Quit spreading your troll crap. You're just making a fool of yourself.
Apparently you didn't realize that the popular vote doesn't decide an election. People living in very small states (population-wise) have an even smaller chance of changing the course of an election than those living in more populous states.
I love linux and use it extensively. That being said, I can't argue with this guy at all. There is truth to every point he has made (though the last couple of paragraphs were a little over the top). However, if you are willing to give a machine a little TLC, running linux (especially as a server) is very rewarding.
As far as the article goes, I would tend to agree. I think there are going to be those that will buy an Apple so they can dual-boot. I may even do it because it would be very handy for work. However, the average person is not going to want to learn and maintain two separate operating systems (and they're unlikely to buy an Apple just to run Windows..). The average business is not going to do this because it's more expensive both in initial investment and in time booting back and forth between two operating systems.
The article title is kind of misleading. To me, it implies there is something technically wrong with Boot Camp or that it doesn't do what is advertised. I guess the editors believe these sensationalized titles will increase readership.....it worked on me.
Unfortunately you cannot do this when you using Active Directory... Fast User Switching is not allowed in this context. This is a serious PITA, but I imagine it's for security reasons.
It is not trolling to express a serious point, even though it challenges your views.
You have not challenged my views. If anything, I have challenged your views. Your view seems to be very X-centric, that all web applications should use the X protocol simply because it's good at displaying remote applications (unfortunately that's all it's good for..displaying and accepting input, very slowly and yet it's missing several very important features). I am challenging your views because they are very misguided.
The original post suggested that the client server model used by tty programs is not conceptually different from web programs in a cleint server sense. My reply (modded up I might add) suggested that X also followed the same model, and offered a universe of capability over the broken, confused, shity web 2.0 "technologies" we see today.
Put simply, you are wrong. It does not offer a universe of capabilty over current technologies, and it's a step backwards in terms of functionality. The only thing it offers is a nice-looking GUI. Unfortunately not a functional one. For example, you cannot
Print to your own printer
Save files to your local machine
Play video (ever tried to play video through a remote X application even over a high-speed connection? Forget about it)
If you decide to respond to this post, please start by telling me how the above list is a "universe of capability" over what we have now.
So the web programing fanboys came out of the woodwork to defend the disfunctional status quo.
Show me where I defended the status quo. You will look back and see I never did. I have only said that using X is even worse than the status quo.
I read much about the minutae of HTTP extensions and justification of slow, uninteractive web pages and bloated frameworks.
Once again, I never defended HTTP. However, it seems that you are confusing HTTP and HTML again. HTTP is certainly not perfect, but HTML is probably the worse offender here. As usual, you give no details to back up your claims
I don't believe that you can abstract concepts from diverse systems deeply enough to formulate a judgement. Perhaps you don't have experience with many. Get some before your start foaming at the mouth.
Why don't you back yourself up with something meaningful to say rather than simply insulting me? From all of your posts it seems that the only thing you are capable of is making baseless statements with little or no evidence to support them. Then, when you get backed into a wall you lash out with insults. You are subtle about it, but still nothing more than a troll.
Compare the HTTP architecture with X. You have a few significantly incompatable browsers that are among the most complex programs ever written. There is no steady definition of what these cesspools of code really are. For all that complexity it is remarkable how little they do!
I think you are confusing HTTP and HTML. I am quite certain that what makes web browsers complex is not the high-level transport protocol (HTTP) but the rendering of poorly written HTML. Nobody said HTML was the ideal situation for web applications, but don't blame HTTP for that...
I think you're trolling here, and your signature and the several troll or flamebait downmods in your past seems to support it. I wonder if you have thought through your original proposal or your response carefully?
First off, spawning HTTP processes to handle a new connection is not nearly as costly as spawning a process to handle an X application. Why? Because generally speaking an HTTP connection will handle a very discrete and limited amount of data. Most of the time, the request will be processed quickly and will not use a significant amount of memory. However, spawning an X application is different because you will be spawning an instance of an entire application (the stack and the heap) for every user that connects. Lets say 1000 users wanted to simultaneously use OpenOffice for example. What kind of machine could handle this load? Remember, the client contributes very little processor time and memory to running these applications remotely.
The biggest problem with X is that the application is not running on the client machine, it is only being viewed there. Because of this, much of the functionality that would expect is not present. For example, suppose you were using an X-based mail application. What would happen if you wanted to print an email? Where would you be printing to? It would not be the X server (ie. your client for those who are not familiar with the way X works), it would in fact be the server you are connected to! Can you think of any non-hack that would allow you to print to your printer on your machine? Do you think any of these hacks would be secure enough to use in practice?
Now say you were using an X-based word processor. Let's say you want to save your document so that you can close the program. You click the save button. Where are you going to save the document? I'm sorry to tell you but it would be the server you are connected to. Sure, this could be coupled with some kind of remote storage facility so that you could get access to your documents, but it's very much still a hack, and not everyone is interested in saving their work to remote storage. The only way around these problems are hacks that are not only insecure but also far more costly in terms of bandwidth and loss of functionality for the client and processor time, memory, and bandwidth for the server.
Besides the above problems, you are still paying a lot more in terms of bandwidth costs for every single interaction with the GUI. As more people use said application, the slower it will become for everyone. What if someone discovers a bug in an X application that causes it to hang with 100% CPU usage. This would hose every other user on the server instantly. Just imagine the DOS attacks that would result from your proposal???
I don't know if you are a troll, an X fanboy, or you just plain didn't think it through, but I would suggest in the future that you argue on matters that you actually know something about and have thought through a little more. Thanks for your time.
I'm sorry, but X is neither efficient for the client or the server. The premise behind X is that the application is running on the server (not the X server) and merely displaying on the workstation (the X server). Each instance of said application is going to consume massive resources (on the server..again not the X server), and is ABSOLUTELY NOT SCALABLE! Network-wise this is not ideal either as their is a tremendous amount of inefficient bi-directional communication just to click buttons and type in fields. This equals poor performance for the client (and what about printing, or other types of interactions that are now made far more difficult because the application is not actually running on your machine?) Have you ever tried to run X applications over a modem connection?? Well let me tell you the performance is miserable, even when you use X compression protocol modules.
I think the requirement of any scalable solution is for the application to in fact run on the client and merely communicate with the server. This cuts down on excess bandwidth usage, memory usage and CPU usage on the server while providing a much faster and better experience for the end-user. I'm not saying AJAX et. all is the solution but X certainly is not!
It sounds like the European system is a recipe for corruption. The governement doesn't like the lower courts ruling so it pays for "another shot at guilty". What's that saying in the US about letting a dozen guilty go free before letting one innocent be sent to jail or something to that effect?
Giving both sides the right to appeal would draw out cases even further and cost taxpayers even more hard-earned money. Court cases are long enough and expensive enough as it is! Who really wants the European way besides the governments?
Agreed, I built a server over a year ago at work that uses a SuperMicro case with triple redundant 760W power supply. It doesn't draw nearly that. The three power modules simply balance the load. If one fails, then the load gets balanced between the remaining two...
That's intereting......I run XP on a celeron 433Mhz at work with 512MB RAM and a crappy intel video adapter built on to the motherboard. It sounds to me like it runs circles around your newish computer. Either you're a troll or a novice computer user.
Apparently you can't be bothered to set any preferences for your applications (or is this something that you think you should only have to do in Linux)? Word and Outlook are customizable and scriptable via VBA, far more than most applications written for either *NIX-like or Windows platforms (Apple has got AppleScript, but it's a mixed bag). Go find a clue before opening your mouth next time.
I'll reply to this as I have other posts about OS X stability. It's not all it's cracked up to be, especially when heavily used by very processor and memory intensive processes. One of the most frustrating things is the full system crash that occurs when you place a scratched CD or DVD into a PowerMac G5. We have literally thousands of CD's that go in and out of several machines, and when you get a significantly scratched one, good luck. It'll freeze the system in a heartbeat (with no error message to indicate why, another pet peeve I have for Apple's products in general).
Also, when the worthless Finder dies you might as well reboot because half the time it won't relaunch even when "forced". I am sure OS X is relatively stable at it's BSD core. It's all of Apple's "magic" on top that makes the OS next to worthless in my opinion.
I think anyone but zealots can see the cons of OS X FAR outweight the pros.
Interesting, have you ever tried to put a scratched CD in a G5 running Panther and watch it crash the entire system? I've seen it happen at least 5 times at work on different machines. Clean the CD and everything works fine. But, I've never noticed this happen on either Windows or Linux. In my experience, OS X is only stable when used for the most minor of tasks. Push it too hard and....well, if it's never happened to you you must be a very light user of your computer
Exactly right. Businesses have to face facts that you cannot really acheive total security by looking at the network alone. They must also look at the user environment. In addition to locked down networks, they would need completely locked down workstations. The machines would not only have to be physically secured (and without cd-roms, floppies, even USB ports), but the OS as well. The OS shell would have to be removed and the software environment completely forced on the user. The tradeoff is definitely going to be useability, productivity, and flexibility. All of these things are very important in any business environment, so I cannot see anyone going to the extremes that are really needed in order to make a decently secure working environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting though that Bush's brother was apparently running the company that provided security to the WTC buildings and they had a planned power outage a couple days before the "attacks" (ie. no security cameras....)
Actually, OpenOffice.org's inconsistency and lack of enterprise features will certainly keep it out of large corporations. Its poor performance and overall rough look-and-feel will likely keep it away from the majority of home users that want a decent experience unless they can't afford MS Office (which is about the only drawback of MS Office as far as I'm concerned...for home use).
Great comment! It's very true. Most people are completely unwilling to learn even the basics of how to operate a computer yet they allow themselves to become completely and utterly dependent on them. For example, I can't tell you the number of people that can't understand the concept of a file. How many times have I walked someone through a task and when I tell them to click on something, they ask me if I mean right-click or left-click. They obviously have no concept of what the right button is for. Or I ask them to look at something on their desktop and have no clue what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, operating a computer is not like driving a car and never will be. I had some hope that the next generation of computer users (read: current teenagers and younger) would be better, but I feel like I find just as many of them that are nearly as clueless as their parents. The only difference is, they can use iTunes. I sometimes feel the human race is doomed if this level of computer ignorance continues.......
Quick question, since you are an admitted mac fanboy. Does Apple turn on the outgoing firewall by default? I didn't think so....
And no, the problem of botnets would not go away unless you think everyone upgrades right away. Hell, I just met someone using DOS on an old IBM with dual 5.25" floppy drives the other week.
You fanboys need to get a life....
You really can't debate your way out of a paper bag, and you keep dropping touch-downs for me! I think you should head over to digg where you will be more welcome and have more of a chance of impressing 12 year-old boys with your "math skillz"...
Quit spreading your troll crap. You're just making a fool of yourself.
Give us the math on that one, troll!
As far as the article goes, I would tend to agree. I think there are going to be those that will buy an Apple so they can dual-boot. I may even do it because it would be very handy for work. However, the average person is not going to want to learn and maintain two separate operating systems (and they're unlikely to buy an Apple just to run Windows..). The average business is not going to do this because it's more expensive both in initial investment and in time booting back and forth between two operating systems.
The article title is kind of misleading. To me, it implies there is something technically wrong with Boot Camp or that it doesn't do what is advertised. I guess the editors believe these sensationalized titles will increase readership.....it worked on me.
Unfortunately you cannot do this when you using Active Directory... Fast User Switching is not allowed in this context. This is a serious PITA, but I imagine it's for security reasons.
If you decide to respond to this post, please start by telling me how the above list is a "universe of capability" over what we have now. Show me where I defended the status quo. You will look back and see I never did. I have only said that using X is even worse than the status quo. Once again, I never defended HTTP. However, it seems that you are confusing HTTP and HTML again. HTTP is certainly not perfect, but HTML is probably the worse offender here. As usual, you give no details to back up your claims Why don't you back yourself up with something meaningful to say rather than simply insulting me? From all of your posts it seems that the only thing you are capable of is making baseless statements with little or no evidence to support them. Then, when you get backed into a wall you lash out with insults. You are subtle about it, but still nothing more than a troll.
I think you are confusing HTTP and HTML. I am quite certain that what makes web browsers complex is not the high-level transport protocol (HTTP) but the rendering of poorly written HTML. Nobody said HTML was the ideal situation for web applications, but don't blame HTTP for that...
The biggest problem with X is that the application is not running on the client machine, it is only being viewed there. Because of this, much of the functionality that would expect is not present. For example, suppose you were using an X-based mail application. What would happen if you wanted to print an email? Where would you be printing to? It would not be the X server (ie. your client for those who are not familiar with the way X works), it would in fact be the server you are connected to! Can you think of any non-hack that would allow you to print to your printer on your machine? Do you think any of these hacks would be secure enough to use in practice?
Now say you were using an X-based word processor. Let's say you want to save your document so that you can close the program. You click the save button. Where are you going to save the document? I'm sorry to tell you but it would be the server you are connected to. Sure, this could be coupled with some kind of remote storage facility so that you could get access to your documents, but it's very much still a hack, and not everyone is interested in saving their work to remote storage. The only way around these problems are hacks that are not only insecure but also far more costly in terms of bandwidth and loss of functionality for the client and processor time, memory, and bandwidth for the server.
Besides the above problems, you are still paying a lot more in terms of bandwidth costs for every single interaction with the GUI. As more people use said application, the slower it will become for everyone. What if someone discovers a bug in an X application that causes it to hang with 100% CPU usage. This would hose every other user on the server instantly. Just imagine the DOS attacks that would result from your proposal???
I don't know if you are a troll, an X fanboy, or you just plain didn't think it through, but I would suggest in the future that you argue on matters that you actually know something about and have thought through a little more. Thanks for your time.
I think the requirement of any scalable solution is for the application to in fact run on the client and merely communicate with the server. This cuts down on excess bandwidth usage, memory usage and CPU usage on the server while providing a much faster and better experience for the end-user. I'm not saying AJAX et. all is the solution but X certainly is not!
The editors are just trying to get us to actually RTFA. Did it work for you?
Or spell apparently.... unless you were talking about art students, in which case I understand..
It sounds like the European system is a recipe for corruption. The governement doesn't like the lower courts ruling so it pays for "another shot at guilty". What's that saying in the US about letting a dozen guilty go free before letting one innocent be sent to jail or something to that effect? Giving both sides the right to appeal would draw out cases even further and cost taxpayers even more hard-earned money. Court cases are long enough and expensive enough as it is! Who really wants the European way besides the governments?
Agreed, I built a server over a year ago at work that uses a SuperMicro case with triple redundant 760W power supply. It doesn't draw nearly that. The three power modules simply balance the load. If one fails, then the load gets balanced between the remaining two...
Sorry, I believe that you're spreading an urban legend.......
Hey, me too. I loved that book!
That's intereting......I run XP on a celeron 433Mhz at work with 512MB RAM and a crappy intel video adapter built on to the motherboard. It sounds to me like it runs circles around your newish computer. Either you're a troll or a novice computer user. Apparently you can't be bothered to set any preferences for your applications (or is this something that you think you should only have to do in Linux)? Word and Outlook are customizable and scriptable via VBA, far more than most applications written for either *NIX-like or Windows platforms (Apple has got AppleScript, but it's a mixed bag). Go find a clue before opening your mouth next time.
I'll reply to this as I have other posts about OS X stability. It's not all it's cracked up to be, especially when heavily used by very processor and memory intensive processes. One of the most frustrating things is the full system crash that occurs when you place a scratched CD or DVD into a PowerMac G5. We have literally thousands of CD's that go in and out of several machines, and when you get a significantly scratched one, good luck. It'll freeze the system in a heartbeat (with no error message to indicate why, another pet peeve I have for Apple's products in general).
Also, when the worthless Finder dies you might as well reboot because half the time it won't relaunch even when "forced". I am sure OS X is relatively stable at it's BSD core. It's all of Apple's "magic" on top that makes the OS next to worthless in my opinion.
I think anyone but zealots can see the cons of OS X FAR outweight the pros.
Interesting, have you ever tried to put a scratched CD in a G5 running Panther and watch it crash the entire system? I've seen it happen at least 5 times at work on different machines. Clean the CD and everything works fine. But, I've never noticed this happen on either Windows or Linux. In my experience, OS X is only stable when used for the most minor of tasks. Push it too hard and....well, if it's never happened to you you must be a very light user of your computer
Exactly right. Businesses have to face facts that you cannot really acheive total security by looking at the network alone. They must also look at the user environment. In addition to locked down networks, they would need completely locked down workstations. The machines would not only have to be physically secured (and without cd-roms, floppies, even USB ports), but the OS as well. The OS shell would have to be removed and the software environment completely forced on the user. The tradeoff is definitely going to be useability, productivity, and flexibility. All of these things are very important in any business environment, so I cannot see anyone going to the extremes that are really needed in order to make a decently secure working environment.