I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached.
Yes, as soon as he says that a consensus has been reached, that argument is loosed.
Science simply doesn't work that way! Then he follows up with "the discussions are over." No they are not. Real science is a process of ALWAYS questioning your theories and assumptions and going where the evidence leads.
Yes, there is always room for more science and theories to be revised. That does not, however, change the fact that the consensus of scientific evidence and experimentation to date is the only rational belief and making claims that we need to do more science while refusing to take actions based upon the existing evidence is a strategy of failure and denial. Since we can always do more scientific experimentation, at some point we need to accept that the preponderance of evidence is unlikely to change, relative to the ramifications of inaction.
There is some evidence that there is some heating. The evidence that it is caused by CO2 or is man-made is tenuous at best!
Even Dyson acknowledges that there is real global warming going on and that it is probably the result of CO2. He just disagrees about the predictions of how much temperatures are likely to change and how quickly. The most well supported scientific theory to date, is that global warming is partly caused by the actions of man, including CO2 emissions. Every true scientist should believe that until we have a better theory with more data. To do otherwise is forming opinions unscientifically.
Depending on computer models that are not historically consitant[sic] is also ludicrous.
Historically consistent? Have you been watching Fox "news" or something? The computer models I've seen are all predicated upon historical data.
All you really need to do is look at the prediction results for a Hurricane track.
That's funny. I was just reading a New Scientist article by a meteorologist specializing in computer models of hurricane activity complaining about how hurricane modeling is so often mistaken by the press for general climatology models, when in truth none of the general climatology models in use make predictions on small enough of a scale to predict a given hurricane season.
Further - a lot of the data that they use for their arguments of warming are things like the temperature readings in the US - where it has been proven that a goodly chunk of these numbers are biased by Urbanization, but the numbers haven't been corrected for this affect!
Really? All the main studies I've seen account for many different sources of temperature, many relying largely upon ocean temperature readings. What study (still being used) are you referring to?
Personally, I don't have a vested interest in the global warming debate. It's outside my expertise, but something I follow. For me it is more interesting from a propaganda perspective. I lump it in with evolution. Both topics are well supported by the evidence, more so than many scientific theories accepted by pretty much everyone to be facts at this point. Both are overwhelmingly supported in one direction from experts in the field and scientific journals. The real difference from other scientific subjects is that there is a huge, well funded propaganda campaign being waged to convince not scientists, but the general public that the consensus of scientists is wrong, or more subtly that what is the consensus is not really so and that there is still a real debate among the experts.
For a different search, how surprising. Not two mention to hits to somone's comments on Digg, don't count as an actual source for a quote of that nature. Looks like a bloody lie.
Who mods this stuff up as informative? This seems a lot closer to flambait to me. It mentions (but doesn't cite) what seems to be a fictitious quote from Gore and makes reference to "lord and master Barrack". If that isn't inflammatory, what is it? The whole thing is misinformation and ad hominem/argumentum ad verecundiam.
Bad studies don't support the opposite case. There was a flawed study on global warming (assuming one agrees with such an assessment) somehow makes all the other studies on the subject less credible or valid? Anyone making such a claim doesn't understand how science works.
Ubuntu is MOSTLY geared towards the desktop. If he is profitable, then the Linux desktop is profitable. If that is the case, the monopoly is broken.
MS has never had an absolute monopoly in that there have always been people making money selling desktop Linux, even if all they did was repackage another company's work and resell it. In terms of economics or EU law, MS won't be at risk of losing their monopoly status on desktop OS's until their market share drops to about 70% and they're currently at about 99%.
Does anyone have a list of current networking hardware that is IPv6 ready? Specifically I am interested in any gateway/routers that support IPv6 out of the box, in the sub-$200 category.
It depends upon what you mean by "supports IPv6". That can everything from supporting the protocol to working well with existing consumer OS's and tunneling IPv6 if your ISP is not supporting it. Also, you should look at what features are supported by IPv6, like does using it bypass your router's firewall?
The most practical I've seen are OpenWRT routers and Airport Extremes.
Like what? What's not "just working" with modern distros these days?
Auto-discovery of servers and services, network printers, VPNs, multiple monitor configurations for laptops at work and home and coffee shop, backups, hardware migration, misc. hardware drivers, etc.
Umm, you use Visual Studio to develop software for Linux? Is that even possible? What do you use Mono or something? I don't think Linux software development is what you think it is.
Heh...you shouldn't throw stones from that glass house. The most common language in Linux development is C. Turns out C is also the most cross platform language around, and you most certainly can, and I have often done so, write C programs in both XCode and Visual Studio.
First, I'm not insulting you. I honestly think you're misunderstanding what most people mean by "Linux development" and what the original poster was talking about. It means developing Linux and software that runs on top of Linux. Usually such development is done using a workstation and creating software that is going to run on a server somewhere, or network device, or cell phone, or other, specific hardware device. Usually the developer has that server or device connected via the network or is emulating it. The only exception is desktop Linux development, which is a pretty small niche.
Second, even if you can develop for Linux using XCode of Visual Studio, I don't know anyone that does. They both seem optimized for development of software that runs on OS X and Windows respectively. Lots of code for Linux is developed in C, sometimes with C++ added on, but also a lot of Python and little Ruby with a lot of misc Perl and bash script bits.
Cross platform software for office tasks? Like what? Open Office? Because you have that in Linux too, you know.
Well the obvious ones are MS Office, Adobe Acrobat (not reader), Framemaker, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, MS Publisher, Quark, and the like. Then there are various CMS clients, reporting software, you get the picture I hope. While most developers don't need all of these, it is often very handy to have one or two for collaboration with other parts of the company and other companies.
has some great OS X specific software for development and project management and collaboration
Like what? You don't like XCode either, apparently. You say people use Eclipse. Again, Eclipse runs everywhere, including Linux and Windows.
I don't dislike XCode, I just don't see it as a good choice for creating software to run on Linux or for working on the Linux kernel itself. As for Eclipse, you're the one who keeps bringing it up and I'm not sure why you'd bring it up in response to OS X specific software.
Some of the OS X specific stuff that people I know use are SubEthaEdit, OmniPlan, OmniGraffle, OmniFocus, BBEdit, TextMate, Pixelmator, iWork, and Graphic Converter.
and has all the nice dev tools and command line options of Linux, without nasty hacks like Cygwin.
Yes, but again, at most that puts you on par with Linux. What's the advantage over it?
My point was that it has this on the same OS that has the other advantages I listed (cross platform software not on Linux and OS X specific software not available on Linux). Still, it does have some nicer integration between the GUI and CLI compared to say Ubuntu, with terminal auto-updating when you move the directory they're viewing by using the GUI and by system services like spell checking and grammar checking to be accessible using the same libraries both from the CLI and GUI. Then there's the scripting access to both CLI functions and GUI elements within the same script.
Because if you're developing for linux, after you're finished coding, you still need a linux box or a vm to test the c
And the reason why you could not virtualize windows xp inside linux is...?
Obviously one can run XP in a VM on top of Linux just as one can do so on OS X. Personally, I run both Linux and Windows on top of OS X on my laptop and there are a few reasons why. First, If I want OS X programs, its a lot easier than getting OS X running in a VM on top of Linux. Second, There are more good ports of mainstream commercial software for OS X than Linux and native applications on OS X generally are more functional than on Linux or Windows (for example spelling and grammar checking tend to work in all of them, sans a few exceptions). Third, migrating an OS X install and Linux and Windows VMs to new hardware is immensely easier than migration a Linux install with VMs. Fourth, every now and again updates on Ubuntu fail and cripple the system necessitating a re-install (or restoring the VM) and it's a lot easier if Ubuntu is running in a VM when that happens.
Of course other people will have different tasks and workflows and needs and they might be better off skipping OS X and just running Linux and Windows (hopefully the latter in a VM on the former). Still, I think some of the reasons I listed are pretty important to many people and useful to consider if you're thinking about doing something similar.
Whenever I hear someone referring to systems like that I get in a mood to tell them off. Last time I checked PC meant Personal Computer.
Actually, as I recall the term was originally, "IBM compatible personal computer". Thus, the term excluded Macs. It was shortened to "PC" after the meaning was established.
yeah it's a little sad that these guys are hoarding this info for so long just to win a stupid contest. And he only had to use one of these exploits. What else is he's hoarding for next year?
Which is why software vendors should have standing bounties for useful exploits or, at very least, make a point of hiring these people to do pen testing on their software.
However, as a development machine, MacOS doesn't offer any advantages, so I don't see why Linux developers would use it.
Mostly I think it is because a lot of the things you have to fiddle with on Linux, which are not directly related to development, "just work" on OS X boxes.
XCode is the worst IDE I've ever used.
???!!!???
Umm, what does XCode have to do with Linux software development?
So the next choices are Eclipse and Code::Blocks
Umm, I know people who use Eclipse. I don't know any real Linux developers who use Code::Blocks. Isn't that just a crappy IDE for wannabe's who only know how to use Visual C++? I thought we were talking about Linux development, which as we all know is usually either server development or appliance development.
In fact, if I were going to choose an operating system for development work, I'd actually go with Windows, because the latest Visual Studio releases have been really great.
Umm, you use Visual Studio to develop software for Linux? Is that even possible? What do you use Mono or something? I don't think Linux software development is what you think it is.
So, what is it about MacOS X that developers are raving about and I've been missing out on?
Mostly a worry free desktop that gets out of the way and lets people run mainstream, cross platform software for office tasks, has some great OS X specific software for development and project management and collaboration, and has all the nice dev tools and command line options of Linux, without nasty hacks like Cygwin. At least that has been the common things developers tell me.
Sun? They're pretty late to the party, and we're not sure they're on board. But Apple? Creative? Nvidia? SONY?!?!?! You hold these guys up as pillars of openness?!?!?
We weren't discussing openness. We were discussing the possibility raised by the previous poster about making this standard into an MS controlled ActiveX based technology. Sony has a terrible record on openness in general, but they rarely if ever support closed technologies controlled by others, especially Microsoft. Sony also has a vested interest in some standards, such as OpenGL which they have been a good citizen with regard to.
What the hell have you been smoking that makes you believe that the makers/backers of itunes/ipod, BD+, pervertors of the CD standard have any interest in making things open and accessible to everyone?!?!
All of these companies have a history of promoting open standards for technology when in situations where said standards provide them with significant benefits and help cancel out the dangers of closed standards controlled by Microsoft. They've all been implementing the Khronos group technologies they help develop and all those are open technologies. What makes you think this new one added to the list will be any different?
It makes no sense. First you say that OS X saved people effort in managing configurations, then you say that the IT department configured users computers.
No, I said it saved them time managing configurations, as measured by the IT department.
I also find it very hard to believe that OS X saved IT 20 hours in configuration time.
That's the amount of time less it took the average, new user to install and configure software during the first two weeks, based upon reported hours. Given that we were in startup mode at the time and reporting "read Slashdot" or "shot QA engineers with Nerf gun" for an hour was considered perfectly acceptable, I don't see they had a lot of reason to lie.
So how the hell could OS X SAVE them 20 hours compared to Linux?
There were several theories, but most of them had to do with getting the system configured to use all our servers and get the dev tools and productivity software up and running. I know it took me a good 45 minutes to get the network printers working properly in Linux, whereas they were auto-discovered in OS X. Aside from that, I'm not sure what people spent their time doing.
At a previous job all engineers used SLED10, with machines remotely ghost-installed by the IT department. The whole process from start to ready-configured machine took less than an hour.
Our engineers were all given considerable leeway in choosing and configuring what they wanted. We had a standard Linux install archived, but very few new users chose to use it rather than install their favorite distro or alternative OS. The basic idea was that a little time lost up front was more than made up for by the users being happy and having their chosen development environment, where they were familiar. Since we relied almost entirely on standard services that were OS agnostic, it didn't really matter what OS they used and we had remotely accessible machines running a variety of OS's for compatability testing Web interfaces and the like.
It can't have been that long, Kubuntu was released in 2005. Kubuntu is a derivate of Ubuntu, not the other way around.
Yeah, it came out that spring and I made it my distro of choice that summer (having been partial to KDE previous to that). I later switched to regular Ubuntu, which is still my preferred distro. I'm fully aware that Kubuntu is a fork.
The internet's a big place, and it's tough to get everyone in it to follow the rules.
Not really. Any of them that don't have overwhelming market share in a pertinent market are kept in line by the market, as in they lose money and install base when they break compatibility. All that really needs to be done is enforce current antitrust laws against any player who tries leveraging dominance in another market to undermine this process.
I think it's useful to develop an open web 3d standard, despite the dancing GIF animations it brings to mind. What I foresee is either MS or MS sock puppet(s) getting a seat at the table. Suddenly, "Open" ActiveX is the solution.
Umm, do you have any idea who the Khronos group is? It's Apple, Sun, Id, Creative, Sony, Intel, AMD/ATI, and NVIDIA among others. They make OpenGL and pretty much all of them have a vested interest in keeping the standards open and usable by everyone and NOT controlled by Microsoft. The main purpose behind Khronos these days is to provide a usable alternative to DirectX.
Yeah, because standardizing web content has worked so very well thus far. This should take right off and just roll. No problems whatsoever. Yep.
Obviously there has been one particular company working hard to hold back Web standards. That said, between legal scrutiny of those actions and the slow erosion of their Web install share to both alternative browsers and alternative platforms (e.g. smartphones) standards are becoming both more important and more applied.
Erm shouldn't fancy stuff like 3d acceleration be handled by plug-ins not browsers? I don't even think putting ogg in the browser was a good idea!
Creating something as a Web standard does not mean browser makers have to incorporate it as part of the core browser. If you want a stripped down browser that needs a plug-in to implement more resource intensive Web standards, nobody is stopping you.
To say that Canonical, a newcomer, should be able to make an easy profit selling software for the same PCs that Microsoft has a monopoly on is ridiculous. To use Apple as support for that suggestion is not well thought out.
Actually, I believe he was suggesting a hardware company could use Linux to make money selling hardware, just as Apple uses OS X to make money selling hardware.
What lock in? THey could easily install Linux or Windows if they wanted. They could get a different OS for their next machine if they wanted. Our company services were pretty much all standards based so that they worked with Linux, BSD, Windows, and OS X. So, where's the lock-in? Having a product people prefer to use is not lock-in.
How is Apple any different than Microsoft? They both are proprietary, both use the lock-in tactic a lot, both have some BSD-code in them.
Well, with regard to OSS Apple actually has kept their BSD derived components open and contributes all their changes back to the OSS community. So I'd say that is a difference. And Apple relies mostly on open standard protocols that are interoperable with Linux and anything else someone cares to make interoperable.
Okay now you are talking about consumer-desktop-from-the-store ready. I can tell you that my wife's parent's experience with their Mac Mini has offered a multitude of challenges.
More challenging than not being able to find a computer at the store that comes with it?
But by the metric you describe, I would have to say that Linux is ready for the desktop even if it doesn't come shrink-wrapped that way.
If it doesn't come shrink wrapped, pre-installed, tweaked to work well on the hardware, and with an ecosystem of compatible services and software... it isn't ready. The overall usability of the package is what Linux is lacking right now as well as a company keeping it going.
I think that day would come if and when a hardware vendor were to actually ask a widely active mainstream distro to get involved in creating the system load for a machine.
The thing is, existing hardware vendors are unlikely to go for it because MS has too much power over them and antitrust laws are not effectively enforced. New companies getting started are unlikely because the capital required is quite large to have a chance of real success and the risk is high while likely return is much lower.
I think either the Fedora or Ubuntu communities would rally around the opportunity and would deliver exactly what you seek.
I don't think either community is likely to be good at the type of work that is needed. Testing and tweaking hardware drivers and configurations for several computer lines on an ongoing basis is pretty questionable, especially unless a company was providing that hardware for free before it went to market. As for usability testing and adjustment, there doesn't seem to be a lot of expertise in the field among Linux distro development communities. I know quite a few people in usability testing and interface design and several have offered to help out on various projects. Most now don't want anything to do with volunteer OSS development. Apple spends a pile of money on formal usability testing and engineering changes based upon those tests.
The system loads I see on linux NetBooks are a great example of "very different" from a typical Linux desktop.
That is what has worked for Linux in other markets. When you hire Linux developers with real experience to work on your netbook, you're probably hiring people who have been working on PDAs and phones and appliances. They're all accustomed to creating custom interfaces to perform a limited subset of tasks. They might be right to. It's probably easier to create a Linux distro well designed for the subset of common tasks most users will perform than it is to modify and fix an existing general purpose desktop environment to work well for average users on specialty hardware.
And to that, I still respond with: Apple, Inc. They have higher profit margins than vendors like Dell, and manage to make very tidy profits, with a small (~10% or less I believe) market share.
Apple was already in the market when the monopoly developed and bypassed most of the ill effects via bundling. They already had a large developer base going in and a lot of the investment there. Still, numerous experts advised them to cut their losses and leave that market entirely. They do quite well, but still have to invest significant money overcoming the unfair market and have to have the capital to invest in numerous peripheral markets to keep from being undermined via secondary markets (software, peripherals, services, media, etc.).
So if we agree that Linux-as-a-product is ready for the desktop market, what is missing from the equation to give it even the 10%-of-the-market appeal that Apple has garnered?
Very well funded investors foolish enough to dump money into a market where their risks are high and likely returns are comparatively low.
Have you run an Apple and tried to run it against an Exchange server?
Yes. It worked fine for everything I tried, except the Web interface (which also failed for Windows and IE).
Nothing works 100%.
Of course nothing works 100%. Windows doesn't work 100% when trying to talk to other Windows boxes. In fact it fails quite often and always has. This isn't about getting everything to work perfectly. It is about getting it to work smoothly and well enough that the average target user performing average tasks has an acceptable experience. And by experience, I don't mean they can look at their favorite Web site after their nephew comes over and installs Linux as a favor. I mean they go to the store, buy a computer with Linux installed, plug it into their cable modem, and are able to get things working and do what they expect to be able to do.
And there are most definitely limits to what Apple is capable and/or willing to support users on. Does that make Apple "not ready for the Desktop"?
Hopefully by now you see the difference based upon the example I provide above.
Apple has shown that there's a quite-profitable market for the "just works" prebuilt system. Why can't Linux seem to duplicate this in carving out it's own desktop niche? Where are the success stories of companies selling prebuilt Linux systems that just work?
There are tons of examples of prebuilt Linux system making good money, just not on the desktop. They do well for prebuilt servers, appliances, routers, cell phones, POS, and PDAs. The "desktop OS" market, however, is a different kettle of fish. Desktop OS's are a monopolized market. That means investing in them as a differentiator will cost more and provide a smaller return than a normal market. Further, most of the companies with the money and knowledge to do this are already Windows vendors under MS's influence, so to make such a move they're basically betting the whole company on it and abandoning their entire existing revenue base (selling both means MS charges them more leading to everyone else having lower prices). If companies felt confident antitrust laws would be properly and promptly enforced this might be a reasonable way to go, but no one believes that given the history of enforcement recently.
At some point, you either have to admit that you don't WANT to have that level of acceptance, or that there are still significant technical issues that prevent you from gaining that level of acceptance.
There are still technical issues, logistics issues, and usability issues to be addressed as well as the need for a hardware company to invest in solving them. It's just unlikely to happen because other markets where they don't have to fight an entrenched monopolist are going to offer better return with lower risk. Frankly, one of the best bets for Linux on the desktop is some other dominant player in a market deciding they want a bigger slice of the pie. Walmart comes to mind.
And once again, those same metrics APPLY to Mac OS X just as it does to Linux, so if people will claim Mac is ready for the desktop and that Linux isn't, I think that there is probably something broken in their assessment.
OS X does have something that Linux on the desktop is mostly lacking. That is OS X is championed by a hardware and services company (Apple) dedicated to making a very nice user experience for people who buy their hardware. It comes pre-installed, pre-configured, and working smoothly. There is support and services and a good commercial hardware ecosystem and stores individual people can go to to actually buy them at the mall.
If a large company were to start dumping money into making desktop/laptop hardware that runs Linux just as well and keeping Linux working well for those users and promoting the software and add-on ecosystem... well it would cost them a pile of money to really get it going. Then, they'd probably do quite well if they managed their brand well. That said, I really don't think Linux on the desktop is ready because the experience really isn't as polished and the hardware and software ecosystem just doesn't exist. It could with some investment, but it really isn't there yet. Netbooks and corporate desktops are fighting for which will be the first real desktops that are the exception to this.
But thats really irrelevant, the thing I take issue to is that Mac OSX is NOT a better developer environment than Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops. I own a MacMini at home and I just can't bring myself to develop on it. That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
I used to work at a software development shop that created high end Linux-based servers and appliances (I think our cheapest offering was $20K) in the security market. Employees were given the choice of workstations, laptop or desktop. Our pre-approved vendors were IBM/Lenovo and Apple. When I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it. During that whole time only one employee switched back from OS X, and it was because he did Linux on the desktop development as a hobby and it made his hobby easier. These were not casual users or casual developers. We regularly submitted code to Linux and BSD and Apache and numerous other projects. One hold out developer who was an OpenBSD fanatic only switched after he wrote some kernel modules for OS X to provide the level of security auditing he felt was lacking.
The reason people gave for sticking with OS X was that it saved them time and effort managing configurations that were not necessary to their tasks. One manager proposed a standardized Linux desktop for his group and the engineers raised hell until the idea was dropped. His proposal was not helped by the fact that he couldn't get more than two Linux fans to agree on a vision as to what that standard should look like. The cost of Apple machines over IBM was negligible and the new employee configuration time as measured by IT was about 20 hours less. They also had a lower hardware failure rate.
My point is, at least in my experience, Linux on the desktop was replaced primarily because it was not as good of a development workstation as OS X.
I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops.
I've been running Ubuntu longer than that and Kubuntu before that. There are numerous software packages I use that won't run on Linux, even in WINE. There are numerous tasks where Ubuntu is simply a lot more cumbersome. In general, all things being equal, I will run the same application in OS X instead of Ubuntu (assuming native versions for each). This is because
That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
Wow, you must work at some lousy places with weird costing. The cost of an Apple laptop versus another laptop with similar specs is pretty negligible. It probably cost companies I worked at less than filling the fridge with snacks. Just a little bit of time saved, is worth a lot of money when you're talking about the salary of a software engineer or even a QA guy. Heck, the cost of my time migrating to a new laptop using OS X's nifty auto-migrate feature versus installing Ubuntu again, re-downloading all the software, reconfiguring the software, and migrating my home directory and data probably more than makes up for the cost difference and that's just one task.
Obviously there is a lot of room for variation. Different people perform different tasks and get paid different amounts. That said, you blanket statements were certainly not true when we tried them. We saved money.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached.
Yes, as soon as he says that a consensus has been reached, that argument is loosed.
Science simply doesn't work that way! Then he follows up with "the discussions are over." No they are not. Real science is a process of ALWAYS questioning your theories and assumptions and going where the evidence leads.
Yes, there is always room for more science and theories to be revised. That does not, however, change the fact that the consensus of scientific evidence and experimentation to date is the only rational belief and making claims that we need to do more science while refusing to take actions based upon the existing evidence is a strategy of failure and denial. Since we can always do more scientific experimentation, at some point we need to accept that the preponderance of evidence is unlikely to change, relative to the ramifications of inaction.
There is some evidence that there is some heating. The evidence that it is caused by CO2 or is man-made is tenuous at best!
Even Dyson acknowledges that there is real global warming going on and that it is probably the result of CO2. He just disagrees about the predictions of how much temperatures are likely to change and how quickly. The most well supported scientific theory to date, is that global warming is partly caused by the actions of man, including CO2 emissions. Every true scientist should believe that until we have a better theory with more data. To do otherwise is forming opinions unscientifically.
Depending on computer models that are not historically consitant[sic] is also ludicrous.
Historically consistent? Have you been watching Fox "news" or something? The computer models I've seen are all predicated upon historical data.
All you really need to do is look at the prediction results for a Hurricane track.
That's funny. I was just reading a New Scientist article by a meteorologist specializing in computer models of hurricane activity complaining about how hurricane modeling is so often mistaken by the press for general climatology models, when in truth none of the general climatology models in use make predictions on small enough of a scale to predict a given hurricane season.
Further - a lot of the data that they use for their arguments of warming are things like the temperature readings in the US - where it has been proven that a goodly chunk of these numbers are biased by Urbanization, but the numbers haven't been corrected for this affect!
Really? All the main studies I've seen account for many different sources of temperature, many relying largely upon ocean temperature readings. What study (still being used) are you referring to?
Personally, I don't have a vested interest in the global warming debate. It's outside my expertise, but something I follow. For me it is more interesting from a propaganda perspective. I lump it in with evolution. Both topics are well supported by the evidence, more so than many scientific theories accepted by pretty much everyone to be facts at this point. Both are overwhelmingly supported in one direction from experts in the field and scientific journals. The real difference from other scientific subjects is that there is a huge, well funded propaganda campaign being waged to convince not scientists, but the general public that the consensus of scientists is wrong, or more subtly that what is the consensus is not really so and that there is still a real debate among the experts.
Funny, I found two results pretty quickly.
For a different search, how surprising. Not two mention to hits to somone's comments on Digg, don't count as an actual source for a quote of that nature. Looks like a bloody lie.
Who mods this stuff up as informative? This seems a lot closer to flambait to me. It mentions (but doesn't cite) what seems to be a fictitious quote from Gore and makes reference to "lord and master Barrack". If that isn't inflammatory, what is it? The whole thing is misinformation and ad hominem/argumentum ad verecundiam.
Bad studies don't support the opposite case. There was a flawed study on global warming (assuming one agrees with such an assessment) somehow makes all the other studies on the subject less credible or valid? Anyone making such a claim doesn't understand how science works.
Ubuntu is MOSTLY geared towards the desktop. If he is profitable, then the Linux desktop is profitable. If that is the case, the monopoly is broken.
MS has never had an absolute monopoly in that there have always been people making money selling desktop Linux, even if all they did was repackage another company's work and resell it. In terms of economics or EU law, MS won't be at risk of losing their monopoly status on desktop OS's until their market share drops to about 70% and they're currently at about 99%.
Does anyone have a list of current networking hardware that is IPv6 ready? Specifically I am interested in any gateway/routers that support IPv6 out of the box, in the sub-$200 category.
It depends upon what you mean by "supports IPv6". That can everything from supporting the protocol to working well with existing consumer OS's and tunneling IPv6 if your ISP is not supporting it. Also, you should look at what features are supported by IPv6, like does using it bypass your router's firewall?
The most practical I've seen are OpenWRT routers and Airport Extremes.
Like what? What's not "just working" with modern distros these days?
Auto-discovery of servers and services, network printers, VPNs, multiple monitor configurations for laptops at work and home and coffee shop, backups, hardware migration, misc. hardware drivers, etc.
Umm, you use Visual Studio to develop software for Linux? Is that even possible? What do you use Mono or something? I don't think Linux software development is what you think it is.
Heh...you shouldn't throw stones from that glass house. The most common language in Linux development is C. Turns out C is also the most cross platform language around, and you most certainly can, and I have often done so, write C programs in both XCode and Visual Studio.
First, I'm not insulting you. I honestly think you're misunderstanding what most people mean by "Linux development" and what the original poster was talking about. It means developing Linux and software that runs on top of Linux. Usually such development is done using a workstation and creating software that is going to run on a server somewhere, or network device, or cell phone, or other, specific hardware device. Usually the developer has that server or device connected via the network or is emulating it. The only exception is desktop Linux development, which is a pretty small niche.
Second, even if you can develop for Linux using XCode of Visual Studio, I don't know anyone that does. They both seem optimized for development of software that runs on OS X and Windows respectively. Lots of code for Linux is developed in C, sometimes with C++ added on, but also a lot of Python and little Ruby with a lot of misc Perl and bash script bits.
Cross platform software for office tasks? Like what? Open Office? Because you have that in Linux too, you know.
Well the obvious ones are MS Office, Adobe Acrobat (not reader), Framemaker, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, MS Publisher, Quark, and the like. Then there are various CMS clients, reporting software, you get the picture I hope. While most developers don't need all of these, it is often very handy to have one or two for collaboration with other parts of the company and other companies.
has some great OS X specific software for development and project management and collaboration
Like what? You don't like XCode either, apparently. You say people use Eclipse. Again, Eclipse runs everywhere, including Linux and Windows.
I don't dislike XCode, I just don't see it as a good choice for creating software to run on Linux or for working on the Linux kernel itself. As for Eclipse, you're the one who keeps bringing it up and I'm not sure why you'd bring it up in response to OS X specific software.
Some of the OS X specific stuff that people I know use are SubEthaEdit, OmniPlan, OmniGraffle, OmniFocus, BBEdit, TextMate, Pixelmator, iWork, and Graphic Converter.
and has all the nice dev tools and command line options of Linux, without nasty hacks like Cygwin.
Yes, but again, at most that puts you on par with Linux. What's the advantage over it?
My point was that it has this on the same OS that has the other advantages I listed (cross platform software not on Linux and OS X specific software not available on Linux). Still, it does have some nicer integration between the GUI and CLI compared to say Ubuntu, with terminal auto-updating when you move the directory they're viewing by using the GUI and by system services like spell checking and grammar checking to be accessible using the same libraries both from the CLI and GUI. Then there's the scripting access to both CLI functions and GUI elements within the same script.
Because if you're developing for linux, after you're finished coding, you still need a linux box or a vm to test the c
And the reason why you could not virtualize windows xp inside linux is ...?
Obviously one can run XP in a VM on top of Linux just as one can do so on OS X. Personally, I run both Linux and Windows on top of OS X on my laptop and there are a few reasons why. First, If I want OS X programs, its a lot easier than getting OS X running in a VM on top of Linux. Second, There are more good ports of mainstream commercial software for OS X than Linux and native applications on OS X generally are more functional than on Linux or Windows (for example spelling and grammar checking tend to work in all of them, sans a few exceptions). Third, migrating an OS X install and Linux and Windows VMs to new hardware is immensely easier than migration a Linux install with VMs. Fourth, every now and again updates on Ubuntu fail and cripple the system necessitating a re-install (or restoring the VM) and it's a lot easier if Ubuntu is running in a VM when that happens.
Of course other people will have different tasks and workflows and needs and they might be better off skipping OS X and just running Linux and Windows (hopefully the latter in a VM on the former). Still, I think some of the reasons I listed are pretty important to many people and useful to consider if you're thinking about doing something similar.
Whenever I hear someone referring to systems like that I get in a mood to tell them off. Last time I checked PC meant Personal Computer.
Actually, as I recall the term was originally, "IBM compatible personal computer". Thus, the term excluded Macs. It was shortened to "PC" after the meaning was established.
yeah it's a little sad that these guys are hoarding this info for so long just to win a stupid contest. And he only had to use one of these exploits. What else is he's hoarding for next year?
Which is why software vendors should have standing bounties for useful exploits or, at very least, make a point of hiring these people to do pen testing on their software.
Why can't you sue a software company if you suffer a loss due to poor security in their product?
You can. You are just highly unlikely to win.
However, as a development machine, MacOS doesn't offer any advantages, so I don't see why Linux developers would use it.
Mostly I think it is because a lot of the things you have to fiddle with on Linux, which are not directly related to development, "just work" on OS X boxes.
XCode is the worst IDE I've ever used.
???!!!???
Umm, what does XCode have to do with Linux software development?
So the next choices are Eclipse and Code::Blocks
Umm, I know people who use Eclipse. I don't know any real Linux developers who use Code::Blocks. Isn't that just a crappy IDE for wannabe's who only know how to use Visual C++? I thought we were talking about Linux development, which as we all know is usually either server development or appliance development.
In fact, if I were going to choose an operating system for development work, I'd actually go with Windows, because the latest Visual Studio releases have been really great.
Umm, you use Visual Studio to develop software for Linux? Is that even possible? What do you use Mono or something? I don't think Linux software development is what you think it is.
So, what is it about MacOS X that developers are raving about and I've been missing out on?
Mostly a worry free desktop that gets out of the way and lets people run mainstream, cross platform software for office tasks, has some great OS X specific software for development and project management and collaboration, and has all the nice dev tools and command line options of Linux, without nasty hacks like Cygwin. At least that has been the common things developers tell me.
Sun? They're pretty late to the party, and we're not sure they're on board. But Apple? Creative? Nvidia? SONY?!?!?! You hold these guys up as pillars of openness?!?!?
We weren't discussing openness. We were discussing the possibility raised by the previous poster about making this standard into an MS controlled ActiveX based technology. Sony has a terrible record on openness in general, but they rarely if ever support closed technologies controlled by others, especially Microsoft. Sony also has a vested interest in some standards, such as OpenGL which they have been a good citizen with regard to.
What the hell have you been smoking that makes you believe that the makers/backers of itunes/ipod, BD+, pervertors of the CD standard have any interest in making things open and accessible to everyone?!?!
All of these companies have a history of promoting open standards for technology when in situations where said standards provide them with significant benefits and help cancel out the dangers of closed standards controlled by Microsoft. They've all been implementing the Khronos group technologies they help develop and all those are open technologies. What makes you think this new one added to the list will be any different?
You're just trolling anyway, aren't you?
What weird company did this occur on?
I'd rather not say for reasons of anonymity.
It makes no sense. First you say that OS X saved people effort in managing configurations, then you say that the IT department configured users computers.
No, I said it saved them time managing configurations, as measured by the IT department.
I also find it very hard to believe that OS X saved IT 20 hours in configuration time.
That's the amount of time less it took the average, new user to install and configure software during the first two weeks, based upon reported hours. Given that we were in startup mode at the time and reporting "read Slashdot" or "shot QA engineers with Nerf gun" for an hour was considered perfectly acceptable, I don't see they had a lot of reason to lie.
So how the hell could OS X SAVE them 20 hours compared to Linux?
There were several theories, but most of them had to do with getting the system configured to use all our servers and get the dev tools and productivity software up and running. I know it took me a good 45 minutes to get the network printers working properly in Linux, whereas they were auto-discovered in OS X. Aside from that, I'm not sure what people spent their time doing.
At a previous job all engineers used SLED10, with machines remotely ghost-installed by the IT department. The whole process from start to ready-configured machine took less than an hour.
Our engineers were all given considerable leeway in choosing and configuring what they wanted. We had a standard Linux install archived, but very few new users chose to use it rather than install their favorite distro or alternative OS. The basic idea was that a little time lost up front was more than made up for by the users being happy and having their chosen development environment, where they were familiar. Since we relied almost entirely on standard services that were OS agnostic, it didn't really matter what OS they used and we had remotely accessible machines running a variety of OS's for compatability testing Web interfaces and the like.
It can't have been that long, Kubuntu was released in 2005. Kubuntu is a derivate of Ubuntu, not the other way around.
Yeah, it came out that spring and I made it my distro of choice that summer (having been partial to KDE previous to that). I later switched to regular Ubuntu, which is still my preferred distro. I'm fully aware that Kubuntu is a fork.
The internet's a big place, and it's tough to get everyone in it to follow the rules.
Not really. Any of them that don't have overwhelming market share in a pertinent market are kept in line by the market, as in they lose money and install base when they break compatibility. All that really needs to be done is enforce current antitrust laws against any player who tries leveraging dominance in another market to undermine this process.
I think it's useful to develop an open web 3d standard, despite the dancing GIF animations it brings to mind. What I foresee is either MS or MS sock puppet(s) getting a seat at the table. Suddenly, "Open" ActiveX is the solution.
Umm, do you have any idea who the Khronos group is? It's Apple, Sun, Id, Creative, Sony, Intel, AMD/ATI, and NVIDIA among others. They make OpenGL and pretty much all of them have a vested interest in keeping the standards open and usable by everyone and NOT controlled by Microsoft. The main purpose behind Khronos these days is to provide a usable alternative to DirectX.
Yeah, because standardizing web content has worked so very well thus far. This should take right off and just roll. No problems whatsoever. Yep.
Obviously there has been one particular company working hard to hold back Web standards. That said, between legal scrutiny of those actions and the slow erosion of their Web install share to both alternative browsers and alternative platforms (e.g. smartphones) standards are becoming both more important and more applied.
Erm shouldn't fancy stuff like 3d acceleration be handled by plug-ins not browsers? I don't even think putting ogg in the browser was a good idea!
Creating something as a Web standard does not mean browser makers have to incorporate it as part of the core browser. If you want a stripped down browser that needs a plug-in to implement more resource intensive Web standards, nobody is stopping you.
To say that Canonical, a newcomer, should be able to make an easy profit selling software for the same PCs that Microsoft has a monopoly on is ridiculous. To use Apple as support for that suggestion is not well thought out.
Actually, I believe he was suggesting a hardware company could use Linux to make money selling hardware, just as Apple uses OS X to make money selling hardware.
Conclusion: Apple lock-in works.
???
What lock in? THey could easily install Linux or Windows if they wanted. They could get a different OS for their next machine if they wanted. Our company services were pretty much all standards based so that they worked with Linux, BSD, Windows, and OS X. So, where's the lock-in? Having a product people prefer to use is not lock-in.
How is Apple any different than Microsoft? They both are proprietary, both use the lock-in tactic a lot, both have some BSD-code in them.
Well, with regard to OSS Apple actually has kept their BSD derived components open and contributes all their changes back to the OSS community. So I'd say that is a difference. And Apple relies mostly on open standard protocols that are interoperable with Linux and anything else someone cares to make interoperable.
You're probably just trolling though.
Okay now you are talking about consumer-desktop-from-the-store ready. I can tell you that my wife's parent's experience with their Mac Mini has offered a multitude of challenges.
More challenging than not being able to find a computer at the store that comes with it?
But by the metric you describe, I would have to say that Linux is ready for the desktop even if it doesn't come shrink-wrapped that way.
If it doesn't come shrink wrapped, pre-installed, tweaked to work well on the hardware, and with an ecosystem of compatible services and software... it isn't ready. The overall usability of the package is what Linux is lacking right now as well as a company keeping it going.
I think that day would come if and when a hardware vendor were to actually ask a widely active mainstream distro to get involved in creating the system load for a machine.
The thing is, existing hardware vendors are unlikely to go for it because MS has too much power over them and antitrust laws are not effectively enforced. New companies getting started are unlikely because the capital required is quite large to have a chance of real success and the risk is high while likely return is much lower.
I think either the Fedora or Ubuntu communities would rally around the opportunity and would deliver exactly what you seek.
I don't think either community is likely to be good at the type of work that is needed. Testing and tweaking hardware drivers and configurations for several computer lines on an ongoing basis is pretty questionable, especially unless a company was providing that hardware for free before it went to market. As for usability testing and adjustment, there doesn't seem to be a lot of expertise in the field among Linux distro development communities. I know quite a few people in usability testing and interface design and several have offered to help out on various projects. Most now don't want anything to do with volunteer OSS development. Apple spends a pile of money on formal usability testing and engineering changes based upon those tests.
The system loads I see on linux NetBooks are a great example of "very different" from a typical Linux desktop.
That is what has worked for Linux in other markets. When you hire Linux developers with real experience to work on your netbook, you're probably hiring people who have been working on PDAs and phones and appliances. They're all accustomed to creating custom interfaces to perform a limited subset of tasks. They might be right to. It's probably easier to create a Linux distro well designed for the subset of common tasks most users will perform than it is to modify and fix an existing general purpose desktop environment to work well for average users on specialty hardware.
And to that, I still respond with: Apple, Inc. They have higher profit margins than vendors like Dell, and manage to make very tidy profits, with a small (~10% or less I believe) market share.
Apple was already in the market when the monopoly developed and bypassed most of the ill effects via bundling. They already had a large developer base going in and a lot of the investment there. Still, numerous experts advised them to cut their losses and leave that market entirely. They do quite well, but still have to invest significant money overcoming the unfair market and have to have the capital to invest in numerous peripheral markets to keep from being undermined via secondary markets (software, peripherals, services, media, etc.).
So if we agree that Linux-as-a-product is ready for the desktop market, what is missing from the equation to give it even the 10%-of-the-market appeal that Apple has garnered?
Very well funded investors foolish enough to dump money into a market where their risks are high and likely returns are comparatively low.
Have you run an Apple and tried to run it against an Exchange server?
Yes. It worked fine for everything I tried, except the Web interface (which also failed for Windows and IE).
Nothing works 100%.
Of course nothing works 100%. Windows doesn't work 100% when trying to talk to other Windows boxes. In fact it fails quite often and always has. This isn't about getting everything to work perfectly. It is about getting it to work smoothly and well enough that the average target user performing average tasks has an acceptable experience. And by experience, I don't mean they can look at their favorite Web site after their nephew comes over and installs Linux as a favor. I mean they go to the store, buy a computer with Linux installed, plug it into their cable modem, and are able to get things working and do what they expect to be able to do.
And there are most definitely limits to what Apple is capable and/or willing to support users on. Does that make Apple "not ready for the Desktop"?
Hopefully by now you see the difference based upon the example I provide above.
Apple has shown that there's a quite-profitable market for the "just works" prebuilt system. Why can't Linux seem to duplicate this in carving out it's own desktop niche? Where are the success stories of companies selling prebuilt Linux systems that just work?
There are tons of examples of prebuilt Linux system making good money, just not on the desktop. They do well for prebuilt servers, appliances, routers, cell phones, POS, and PDAs. The "desktop OS" market, however, is a different kettle of fish. Desktop OS's are a monopolized market. That means investing in them as a differentiator will cost more and provide a smaller return than a normal market. Further, most of the companies with the money and knowledge to do this are already Windows vendors under MS's influence, so to make such a move they're basically betting the whole company on it and abandoning their entire existing revenue base (selling both means MS charges them more leading to everyone else having lower prices). If companies felt confident antitrust laws would be properly and promptly enforced this might be a reasonable way to go, but no one believes that given the history of enforcement recently.
At some point, you either have to admit that you don't WANT to have that level of acceptance, or that there are still significant technical issues that prevent you from gaining that level of acceptance.
There are still technical issues, logistics issues, and usability issues to be addressed as well as the need for a hardware company to invest in solving them. It's just unlikely to happen because other markets where they don't have to fight an entrenched monopolist are going to offer better return with lower risk. Frankly, one of the best bets for Linux on the desktop is some other dominant player in a market deciding they want a bigger slice of the pie. Walmart comes to mind.
And once again, those same metrics APPLY to Mac OS X just as it does to Linux, so if people will claim Mac is ready for the desktop and that Linux isn't, I think that there is probably something broken in their assessment.
OS X does have something that Linux on the desktop is mostly lacking. That is OS X is championed by a hardware and services company (Apple) dedicated to making a very nice user experience for people who buy their hardware. It comes pre-installed, pre-configured, and working smoothly. There is support and services and a good commercial hardware ecosystem and stores individual people can go to to actually buy them at the mall.
If a large company were to start dumping money into making desktop/laptop hardware that runs Linux just as well and keeping Linux working well for those users and promoting the software and add-on ecosystem... well it would cost them a pile of money to really get it going. Then, they'd probably do quite well if they managed their brand well. That said, I really don't think Linux on the desktop is ready because the experience really isn't as polished and the hardware and software ecosystem just doesn't exist. It could with some investment, but it really isn't there yet. Netbooks and corporate desktops are fighting for which will be the first real desktops that are the exception to this.
But thats really irrelevant, the thing I take issue to is that Mac OSX is NOT a better developer environment than Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops. I own a MacMini at home and I just can't bring myself to develop on it. That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
I used to work at a software development shop that created high end Linux-based servers and appliances (I think our cheapest offering was $20K) in the security market. Employees were given the choice of workstations, laptop or desktop. Our pre-approved vendors were IBM/Lenovo and Apple. When I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it. During that whole time only one employee switched back from OS X, and it was because he did Linux on the desktop development as a hobby and it made his hobby easier. These were not casual users or casual developers. We regularly submitted code to Linux and BSD and Apache and numerous other projects. One hold out developer who was an OpenBSD fanatic only switched after he wrote some kernel modules for OS X to provide the level of security auditing he felt was lacking.
The reason people gave for sticking with OS X was that it saved them time and effort managing configurations that were not necessary to their tasks. One manager proposed a standardized Linux desktop for his group and the engineers raised hell until the idea was dropped. His proposal was not helped by the fact that he couldn't get more than two Linux fans to agree on a vision as to what that standard should look like. The cost of Apple machines over IBM was negligible and the new employee configuration time as measured by IT was about 20 hours less. They also had a lower hardware failure rate.
My point is, at least in my experience, Linux on the desktop was replaced primarily because it was not as good of a development workstation as OS X.
I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops.
I've been running Ubuntu longer than that and Kubuntu before that. There are numerous software packages I use that won't run on Linux, even in WINE. There are numerous tasks where Ubuntu is simply a lot more cumbersome. In general, all things being equal, I will run the same application in OS X instead of Ubuntu (assuming native versions for each). This is because
That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
Wow, you must work at some lousy places with weird costing. The cost of an Apple laptop versus another laptop with similar specs is pretty negligible. It probably cost companies I worked at less than filling the fridge with snacks. Just a little bit of time saved, is worth a lot of money when you're talking about the salary of a software engineer or even a QA guy. Heck, the cost of my time migrating to a new laptop using OS X's nifty auto-migrate feature versus installing Ubuntu again, re-downloading all the software, reconfiguring the software, and migrating my home directory and data probably more than makes up for the cost difference and that's just one task.
Obviously there is a lot of room for variation. Different people perform different tasks and get paid different amounts. That said, you blanket statements were certainly not true when we tried them. We saved money.