If you use the shift key method, you're still in danger. If you open an Explorer window and accidentally open the CD-ROM, aurorun.inf will be executed, and will install the rootkit.
People are willing to pay the seemingly high price of $2.50 for a ring tone because they will buy them much less often than they buy songs. Most people will buy one ringtone and use it for a month, more or less, then move on to another one. When they go to buy songs, through iTunes or some other service, they're usually buying multiple songs at once, fairly often. At that point, $2.50 becomes far too high a price to the consumer to continue buying songs at that rate.
It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure this out. Why the music peddlers can't figure out is beyond me. They're always trying to push the boundaries of what the consumer will allow in the way of pricing. Right now, iTunes has it just about right. People are willing to pay.99c per song, and what's more is that they actually want to do it. They don't hesitate and think, "is this worth it?" A few dimes over that price is all it really takes to make them decide "no, it's not."
Gentoo uses mirrors for fetching files. BSD apparently doesn't [I couldn't fetch mplayer because the primary server was down].
Most ports have multiple mirrors. Some don't. Looking at the MPlayer port, it's listing 10 mirrors. Maybe you didn't wait long enough for the first to time out.
Gentoo uses bash, BSD uses csh [WHY!!! OH WHY!!!]
Because csh is the traditional BSD default shell. Don't like it? Use bash then.
As for cpu scaling, it's an AMD XP-M laptop with ACPI based PST entries. with "cpufreq" loaded the cpu runs at the full speed of 1.8Ghz regardless of idle time. In Gentoo Linux [well just linux 2.6.x] scaling works and the cpu idles at 530Mhz.
Read the man page for 'powerd' Loading the cpufreq module doesn't automatically enable scaling.
You can't call FreeBSD worse if you haven't even figured out how to use it yet.
True. I guess I came off as being a troll, but it was an honest question. The BSD projects provide a fully customisable code base where you can pick and choose exactly what pieces of sofware you want. Aside from the GPL'ed bits, developers are also largely free to do whatever they want with the code, without worrying about competitor X being able to use the code changes that they originally developed for themselves. Unless they want them to, of course. There are plenty of companies that release their modified BSD sources without being required to do so.
The majority of the code also comes from that same project, so there is less worrying about mysterious dependancies when you start taking away chunks of the code, and if there is a problem, you can go directly to the project for support. If you as a developer have a problem with busybox, you have to go to busybox devs for questions. If you have a problem with glibc, you go to that project's devs for questions, and so forth.
Why do embedded developers continue to imprison themselves in the GPL trap by using Linux, when there are betteravailablealternatives that provide morefreedom for developers?
Whatever. Unix is a giant web of copycat implementations. We may love it, but it goes without saying that very few unique innovations have taken place in the Unix world for the past decade.
Do you remember having to blow onto NES cartridges and try all sorts of combinations of insertion methods? Not to menstion the need to buy a seperate cleaning kit that Nintendo should have included with the console.
Whether or not it has to be rebooted depends on the type of update. Also, Windows Update is a bit overzealous in its "Reboot Required" messages. Often, if a service receives a patch, stopping and restarting that service is adequate.
It's a DC/application server for ~40 office clients. No it's not a huge server, but it's not being rebooted every other week, like some/.'ers would have you believe.
I still can't understand what Apple is thinking. Yes, I know, they want to sell their hardware bundled with OS X. That currently makes them money. However, they're missing the boat on a lot of people that would love to install OS X hassle-free on their own choice of hardware. If Apple were to allow this, the sale of their OS could easily eclipse the profit provided by their hardware sales. Mac people will still likely continue to buy their hardware, as their hardware is "fashionable," and also because AppleCare provides decent hardware warranty service.
Maybe there's some legal stuff preventing them from doing it? I don't know. The fact that Apple continues to avoid selling to a hot market boggles my mind.
I remember when they were selling these things at Radio Shack, usually as standalone units. Hell it might have been a different product, but it had stuff like an encyclopedia, zoo games, and your other standard fare for when "multimedia" was really a huge deal. It was pretty cool, but I doubt more than a handful bought it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use the shift key method, you're still in danger. If you open an Explorer window and accidentally open the CD-ROM, aurorun.inf will be executed, and will install the rootkit.
People are willing to pay the seemingly high price of $2.50 for a ring tone because they will buy them much less often than they buy songs. Most people will buy one ringtone and use it for a month, more or less, then move on to another one. When they go to buy songs, through iTunes or some other service, they're usually buying multiple songs at once, fairly often. At that point, $2.50 becomes far too high a price to the consumer to continue buying songs at that rate.
.99c per song, and what's more is that they actually want to do it. They don't hesitate and think, "is this worth it?" A few dimes over that price is all it really takes to make them decide "no, it's not."
It doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure this out. Why the music peddlers can't figure out is beyond me. They're always trying to push the boundaries of what the consumer will allow in the way of pricing. Right now, iTunes has it just about right. People are willing to pay
Gentoo uses mirrors for fetching files. BSD apparently doesn't [I couldn't fetch mplayer because the primary server was down].
Most ports have multiple mirrors. Some don't. Looking at the MPlayer port, it's listing 10 mirrors. Maybe you didn't wait long enough for the first to time out.
Gentoo uses bash, BSD uses csh [WHY!!! OH WHY!!!]
Because csh is the traditional BSD default shell. Don't like it? Use bash then.
As for cpu scaling, it's an AMD XP-M laptop with ACPI based PST entries. with "cpufreq" loaded the cpu runs at the full speed of 1.8Ghz regardless of idle time. In Gentoo Linux [well just linux 2.6.x] scaling works and the cpu idles at 530Mhz.
Read the man page for 'powerd' Loading the cpufreq module doesn't automatically enable scaling.
You can't call FreeBSD worse if you haven't even figured out how to use it yet.
True. I guess I came off as being a troll, but it was an honest question. The BSD projects provide a fully customisable code base where you can pick and choose exactly what pieces of sofware you want. Aside from the GPL'ed bits, developers are also largely free to do whatever they want with the code, without worrying about competitor X being able to use the code changes that they originally developed for themselves. Unless they want them to, of course. There are plenty of companies that release their modified BSD sources without being required to do so.
The majority of the code also comes from that same project, so there is less worrying about mysterious dependancies when you start taking away chunks of the code, and if there is a problem, you can go directly to the project for support. If you as a developer have a problem with busybox, you have to go to busybox devs for questions. If you have a problem with glibc, you go to that project's devs for questions, and so forth.
Why do embedded developers continue to imprison themselves in the GPL trap by using Linux, when there are better available alternatives that provide more freedom for developers?
Whatever. Unix is a giant web of copycat implementations. We may love it, but it goes without saying that very few unique innovations have taken place in the Unix world for the past decade.
If you think user security will stop anything, you need to be aware of privilege escalation exploits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_escalation
Do you remember having to blow onto NES cartridges and try all sorts of combinations of insertion methods? Not to menstion the need to buy a seperate cleaning kit that Nintendo should have included with the console.
Yeah.
...And most users are just dumb enough to give it their password.
As soon as school starts getting out, the comments go through the roof. That also shows you the average age of Digg posters.
Nope. Patch applied, Plug and Play service restarted. Solved.
That's great for you. I am just countering the folks that like to claim that Windows won't stay up for a week without a reboot.
Whether or not it has to be rebooted depends on the type of update. Also, Windows Update is a bit overzealous in its "Reboot Required" messages. Often, if a service receives a patch, stopping and restarting that service is adequate.
It's a DC/application server for ~40 office clients. No it's not a huge server, but it's not being rebooted every other week, like some /.'ers would have you believe.
My 2000 Advanced Server uptime:
/help for more detail.
C:\Documents and Settings\wysoft>uptime office
\\office has been up for: 121 day(s), 0 hour(s), 39 minute(s), 23 second(s)
Estimate based on last boot record in the event log.
See UPTIME
Bite it.
In a related press release, Cisco Systems stated: "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..."
Hey, wait, come back! You forgot to fill in the blanks!
It's God sneezing
You've never driven a 6.2 turbodiesel H1 then. Fast.
Very clever. Where's it at? Who knows? It's hidden!
The sad thins is that Singularity is probably more usable than Hurd is right now, after decades of Hurd development.
I still can't understand what Apple is thinking. Yes, I know, they want to sell their hardware bundled with OS X. That currently makes them money. However, they're missing the boat on a lot of people that would love to install OS X hassle-free on their own choice of hardware. If Apple were to allow this, the sale of their OS could easily eclipse the profit provided by their hardware sales. Mac people will still likely continue to buy their hardware, as their hardware is "fashionable," and also because AppleCare provides decent hardware warranty service.
Maybe there's some legal stuff preventing them from doing it? I don't know. The fact that Apple continues to avoid selling to a hot market boggles my mind.
I remember when they were selling these things at Radio Shack, usually as standalone units. Hell it might have been a different product, but it had stuff like an encyclopedia, zoo games, and your other standard fare for when "multimedia" was really a huge deal. It was pretty cool, but I doubt more than a handful bought it.
Unfortunately, all too many Linux programmers are not writing to POSIX standards themselves. Far too many "Linuxisms" abound.
Great post. I'd mod it up if I could.