That must suck to walk out the front door and be inside an actual FPS game. No wonder he doesn't want to do that in his spare time. I was waiting for the GTA reference about car bombs...
Does (or should) the typical computer user care whether they are are more secure...?
Good question but the banter over better design or obscurity is the side show. The discussion always tends toward proving to [defiant] Windows users that something else is probably more secure. The discussions should be the fact that Microsoft technologies have been demonstrated to be criminally insecure in every possible way for years. I say criminally like "criminal negligence". Microsoft has known about these problems for years and yet they continue to ship products which account for nearly every issue we battle on the Internet. Consumers should at least care about that if they want to get less spam from other Windows machines.
They're slowly catching on but consumer's brains don't move as fast as the market. They still think Macs are stupendously expensive (they aren't) and they think Macs aren't "compatible" (whatever that means) and they think they'll be viewed as an alien outsider (which is happening less and less) and they think there's no software for the Mac (yeah, right!) and they don't think they can learn a Mac (it takes 10 minutes) and they don't think there's an alternative to the PC (stupid consumers).
I know several of people who have told me these excuses recently and they won't even (literally) walk across the street to the Apple Store to see for themselves. They don't want to know. On the other hand, after introducing a few dozen Macs to my workplace of 80 people a few years ago, about half the company has drop kicked their home PCs and bought Macs for themselves. We have more Mac owners now than PC owners in the company and most had never touched a Mac before. The only element that will actually change people's minds is experience with the product and you can watch all the old excuses quickly disappear from their comments. The number one reason they switched to Macs turns out to be "it just works".
For the ones that yell "but you can't play games", I tell them "fine, then use a PC or buy fucking Xbox - see if I care". They're the ones who criticize my preference for a Mac while I'm helping them fix their PC.
..the main stream is finally (slowly) catching on to the reality of choices?
Consumers are relatively stupid that way, but I think it's true that consumers in general are creating a change in the wind. Ever notice how all the consumers demand "choices" in the market, yet whenever there are multiple competitors, consumers do their best to kill off all except one and accidentally create stagnating monopolies? (see 8-track/Cassette, VHS/Beta, PC/Mac etc). Very few people will embrace more than one technology (obviously) but everyone tries to convince everyone they know to also choose the same thing they've chosen. Funny, though.
Synopsis: The Government mopped the courtroom floor with IBM for a dozen years ending in 1982 with the slowest, most expensive bureaucratic paper chase ever undertaken by the DOJ. The DOJ ultimately dropped the suit. IBM started slipping in the marketplace at the hands of Silicon Valley startups, automatically disproving a monopoly condition. They lost two-thirds of their worth over the next several years.
Although IBM posessed huge market power at one time, they were also subject to market forces and competition in spite of what the Government was unsuccessfully trying to prove against them. The DOJ had no case after that. Many say Microsoft is on the leading edge of their downward slide right now.
IBM is still the constant subject of numerous Antitrust actions triggered by competitors, the latest being Wallace vs. IBM over bundling Linux on their machines at an unbeatable price (free).
Examples of sanctioned monopolies would be utilities like power companies, the phone company, gas companies, cable television companies etc. The Government moves very slowly but is always examining accusations of monopoly in the free enterprise system, usually in response to competitors complaining.
Is it actually that much cheaper to make this kind of crap?
Somebody sure decided that. You'll likely only kill the first router in the chain because it will truncate the frame to the maximum buffer size.
Back in the day when I had ISDN Internet access (and 10base-T Ethernet), I discovered my bandwidth would almost quadruple if I used jumbo frames. The old Netopia ISDN routers would take it just fine. Not these Linksys things and even some HP ProCurve switches, of all things.
Whether Microsoft is or is not a monopoly is not up for interpretation - it's the law which has a series of tests to determine if there is a monopoly condition. The only legal monopoly by a private interest is one which agrees to have Government monitored policy and price regulation. Microsoft had neither of those and in fact thumbed its nose at the law for years. Most of that has changed. Microsoft is subject to inspection, fines and corrective action, even as they respond with hostility and attempts to submerge their activities from view.
Microsoft was [is] a class called a "coercive monopoly" which triggered anti-trust action against them since only the Government may grant such a class. Microsoft's actions of buying out or creating obstacles for competitors eventually allowed them to simultaneously charge high prices and stagnate with little fear of competition.
Normally, this would be impossible in a free market except for one important factor - the customer base developed a fear of obsolescence and incompatibility while competitors developed a fear of being coopted and crushed. Microsoft consistently demonstrated a willingness and ability to do exactly that. Aside from countless exclusive and coercive business deals which ran afoul of the law, Microsoft was masterful at creating demand for their products through effective marketing strategies (like any good business should), especially playing the FUD card with tremendous efficiency. It worked both on clients and competitors. Quite remarkable and commendable. However, Microsoft also developed hubris on a grand scale which eventually got it into trouble.
The only country in the world which puts up with Microsoft is the United States. Everywhere else on the planet, Microsoft is getting hung. For the interpretation of Apple behaving as a monopoly, it's perfectly legal to have products which belong to you and you alone. Apple has a legal monopoly on their own OS, hardware and select technologies just as Coca Cola retains a monopoly on their secret formula. However, there's also Pepsi Cola, RC Cola, Aztec Cola and dozens of other cola drink makers, so there is no monopoly on Cola drinks. A monopoly absent coercion is legal. Now, if Coca Cola attempted to corner the world market on cola nuts, buy and eliminate smaller competitors, drive prices up for remaining competitors and deny access to raw materials, that would attract the attention of anti-trust examiners.
The degree to which Apple and Microsoft are monopolies are polar opposites.
The MTU is the number of bytes in an Ethernet frame (not specific to Gigabit) the standard being 1500 bytes before the sender asks the receiver for confirmation. It can be set to as high as 9000 bytes which decreases overhead. If your external ethernet systems will take 9000, transfers run like a rocketship. If they can't take anything higher than 1500, you can create what amounts to a buffer overrun and kill routers and switches. You'd be surprised how much high end equipment can't take jumbo frames.
Out of about 50 desktop users in my company, we migrated about half to Macs over the last 3 years. The results were spectacular from a maintenance and security standpoint and even better from a user productivity standpoint. In fact, most of those former Windows-only users ditched their home XP machines and bought Macs. We also deployed an Xserve 3 years ago which runs our Windows and AFP file sharing (and Windows domain). It's been fast, solid and wayyyyyyy cheaper to run than any of the Windows servers [licensing].
Say what you will. Anyone who blindly installs Windows systems without really looking at alternatives should get fired.
--------------
Apple - where "people_ready" isn't just a marketing slogan.
Hmmm... lets see... take 3 billion years of accumulated hydrocarbons and release half of it into the atmosphere over the last 200 years (since the start of the Industrial Revolution). Who thinks that won't have any impact? (put your hand down, ExxMob, you already had a turn)
I'm going to preempt some of the semantic arguments by replying to my own post (goodbye, karma). I know OS X.x won't boot in a Dell, but what if Apple did a deal with Dell on specially selected models? Specially selected meaning it's built for compatibility and it's got the "yes, boot it anyway" flag set on the mother board. Just a thought.
Now that Microsoft is somewhat de-fanged, we can actually exercise our rights as consumers and not get beheaded! How about this: Buy a Dell computer and get $52.50 off the purchase price of Mac OS X.5!
Um.. that's a little twisted from the whole story. Because Apple chooses to not license their boxen, that doesn't make them a "monopoly" at their level of market penetration. Once anyone makes a product the planet can't live without and starts yanking everyone around because they can [think "Microsoft"], that triggers the "monopoly" flag. Apple is getting dangerously close with the iPod/iTunes connection but nobody has shown significant, damaging abuse, like jacking the prices way up or suddenly making you re-purchase things you thought you owned.
Think of the Macintosh as more like a game console where the hardware, software, gui and experience are all one entity that isn't separable. The developer of the product can choose to license [or not license] the manufacture of said console to potential competitors. Same with iPod/iTunes so far. There's no law that requires a company to commit financial suicide.
When Apple cut off the competitors (UMax, Motorola, Power Computing etc.), the license to use the ROM and boot the MacOS was revoked. Nothing personal, it was just business. Apple's hardware sales were getting reamed in the market and it turned out to be a mistake. Apple had no plans to exit the hardware business at the time and this almost made the decision for them. Wikipedia (can I say that here?) has a good writeup about it.
What possible mystery could there be here? I thought the Taiwanese were smarter than that. Here's a case where the Chinese don't mind delineating Taiwan as a separate entity.
Slashdot Mirror
Third possibility... after looking at the Phone/MP3 player combos out before, they SHOULD be separate things if they worked as poorly as THAT!!!
Enter iPhone... now THAT'S how it should work! Sign me up!
Does the battery come out with a clip? I haven't read all 1,200 comments but it worries me they haven't shown the back to anybody.
iWant
Does Wisam know that America isn't like GTA?... except in Compton?... and parts of Newark?... oh, and East St. Louis?
That must suck to walk out the front door and be inside an actual FPS game. No wonder he doesn't want to do that in his spare time. I was waiting for the GTA reference about car bombs...
"Ack Ack Ack! Ack Ack!"
Good question but the banter over better design or obscurity is the side show. The discussion always tends toward proving to [defiant] Windows users that something else is probably more secure. The discussions should be the fact that Microsoft technologies have been demonstrated to be criminally insecure in every possible way for years. I say criminally like "criminal negligence". Microsoft has known about these problems for years and yet they continue to ship products which account for nearly every issue we battle on the Internet. Consumers should at least care about that if they want to get less spam from other Windows machines.
Then why isn't the world using a Mac?
They're slowly catching on but consumer's brains don't move as fast as the market. They still think Macs are stupendously expensive (they aren't) and they think Macs aren't "compatible" (whatever that means) and they think they'll be viewed as an alien outsider (which is happening less and less) and they think there's no software for the Mac (yeah, right!) and they don't think they can learn a Mac (it takes 10 minutes) and they don't think there's an alternative to the PC (stupid consumers).
I know several of people who have told me these excuses recently and they won't even (literally) walk across the street to the Apple Store to see for themselves. They don't want to know. On the other hand, after introducing a few dozen Macs to my workplace of 80 people a few years ago, about half the company has drop kicked their home PCs and bought Macs for themselves. We have more Mac owners now than PC owners in the company and most had never touched a Mac before. The only element that will actually change people's minds is experience with the product and you can watch all the old excuses quickly disappear from their comments. The number one reason they switched to Macs turns out to be "it just works".
For the ones that yell "but you can't play games", I tell them "fine, then use a PC or buy fucking Xbox - see if I care". They're the ones who criticize my preference for a Mac while I'm helping them fix their PC.
..the main stream is finally (slowly) catching on to the reality of choices?Consumers are relatively stupid that way, but I think it's true that consumers in general are creating a change in the wind. Ever notice how all the consumers demand "choices" in the market, yet whenever there are multiple competitors, consumers do their best to kill off all except one and accidentally create stagnating monopolies? (see 8-track/Cassette, VHS/Beta, PC/Mac etc). Very few people will embrace more than one technology (obviously) but everyone tries to convince everyone they know to also choose the same thing they've chosen. Funny, though.
No intervention? There have been decades of intervention. Check out one list of IBM Antitrust Suit Records which claims a printed length of 41 linear feet - and that list ends in 1980. You might also want to read up on the most famous case with Telex v. IBM. It's kind of interesting. The last linked article was written in 1974 before all the appeals started.
Synopsis: The Government mopped the courtroom floor with IBM for a dozen years ending in 1982 with the slowest, most expensive bureaucratic paper chase ever undertaken by the DOJ. The DOJ ultimately dropped the suit. IBM started slipping in the marketplace at the hands of Silicon Valley startups, automatically disproving a monopoly condition. They lost two-thirds of their worth over the next several years.
Although IBM posessed huge market power at one time, they were also subject to market forces and competition in spite of what the Government was unsuccessfully trying to prove against them. The DOJ had no case after that. Many say Microsoft is on the leading edge of their downward slide right now.
IBM is still the constant subject of numerous Antitrust actions triggered by competitors, the latest being Wallace vs. IBM over bundling Linux on their machines at an unbeatable price (free).
Examples of sanctioned monopolies would be utilities like power companies, the phone company, gas companies, cable television companies etc. The Government moves very slowly but is always examining accusations of monopoly in the free enterprise system, usually in response to competitors complaining.
Somebody sure decided that. You'll likely only kill the first router in the chain because it will truncate the frame to the maximum buffer size.
Back in the day when I had ISDN Internet access (and 10base-T Ethernet), I discovered my bandwidth would almost quadruple if I used jumbo frames. The old Netopia ISDN routers would take it just fine. Not these Linksys things and even some HP ProCurve switches, of all things.
I know OS X.x won't boot in a Dell... without effort. How's that?
Whether Microsoft is or is not a monopoly is not up for interpretation - it's the law which has a series of tests to determine if there is a monopoly condition. The only legal monopoly by a private interest is one which agrees to have Government monitored policy and price regulation. Microsoft had neither of those and in fact thumbed its nose at the law for years. Most of that has changed. Microsoft is subject to inspection, fines and corrective action, even as they respond with hostility and attempts to submerge their activities from view.
Microsoft was [is] a class called a "coercive monopoly" which triggered anti-trust action against them since only the Government may grant such a class. Microsoft's actions of buying out or creating obstacles for competitors eventually allowed them to simultaneously charge high prices and stagnate with little fear of competition.
Normally, this would be impossible in a free market except for one important factor - the customer base developed a fear of obsolescence and incompatibility while competitors developed a fear of being coopted and crushed. Microsoft consistently demonstrated a willingness and ability to do exactly that. Aside from countless exclusive and coercive business deals which ran afoul of the law, Microsoft was masterful at creating demand for their products through effective marketing strategies (like any good business should), especially playing the FUD card with tremendous efficiency. It worked both on clients and competitors. Quite remarkable and commendable. However, Microsoft also developed hubris on a grand scale which eventually got it into trouble.
The only country in the world which puts up with Microsoft is the United States. Everywhere else on the planet, Microsoft is getting hung. For the interpretation of Apple behaving as a monopoly, it's perfectly legal to have products which belong to you and you alone. Apple has a legal monopoly on their own OS, hardware and select technologies just as Coca Cola retains a monopoly on their secret formula. However, there's also Pepsi Cola, RC Cola, Aztec Cola and dozens of other cola drink makers, so there is no monopoly on Cola drinks. A monopoly absent coercion is legal. Now, if Coca Cola attempted to corner the world market on cola nuts, buy and eliminate smaller competitors, drive prices up for remaining competitors and deny access to raw materials, that would attract the attention of anti-trust examiners.
The degree to which Apple and Microsoft are monopolies are polar opposites.
The MTU is the number of bytes in an Ethernet frame (not specific to Gigabit) the standard being 1500 bytes before the sender asks the receiver for confirmation. It can be set to as high as 9000 bytes which decreases overhead. If your external ethernet systems will take 9000, transfers run like a rocketship. If they can't take anything higher than 1500, you can create what amounts to a buffer overrun and kill routers and switches. You'd be surprised how much high end equipment can't take jumbo frames.
Open the terminal and enter "ifconfig" to see how things are set. Better yet visit this KB article:3 192
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
Let me guess - you figured out how to set the MTU to 9000.
Out of about 50 desktop users in my company, we migrated about half to Macs over the last 3 years. The results were spectacular from a maintenance and security standpoint and even better from a user productivity standpoint. In fact, most of those former Windows-only users ditched their home XP machines and bought Macs. We also deployed an Xserve 3 years ago which runs our Windows and AFP file sharing (and Windows domain). It's been fast, solid and wayyyyyyy cheaper to run than any of the Windows servers [licensing].
Say what you will. Anyone who blindly installs Windows systems without really looking at alternatives should get fired.
--------------Apple - where "people_ready" isn't just a marketing slogan.
Hmmm... lets see... take 3 billion years of accumulated hydrocarbons and release half of it into the atmosphere over the last 200 years (since the start of the Industrial Revolution). Who thinks that won't have any impact? (put your hand down, ExxMob, you already had a turn)
"are as pure as the wind driven snow..."
Oh, yeah, I remember snow (looking at webcam of mud covered ski slope in January).
I'm going to preempt some of the semantic arguments by replying to my own post (goodbye, karma). I know OS X.x won't boot in a Dell, but what if Apple did a deal with Dell on specially selected models? Specially selected meaning it's built for compatibility and it's got the "yes, boot it anyway" flag set on the mother board. Just a thought.
Now that Microsoft is somewhat de-fanged, we can actually exercise our rights as consumers and not get beheaded! How about this: Buy a Dell computer and get $52.50 off the purchase price of Mac OS X.5!
Um.. that's a little twisted from the whole story. Because Apple chooses to not license their boxen, that doesn't make them a "monopoly" at their level of market penetration. Once anyone makes a product the planet can't live without and starts yanking everyone around because they can [think "Microsoft"], that triggers the "monopoly" flag. Apple is getting dangerously close with the iPod/iTunes connection but nobody has shown significant, damaging abuse, like jacking the prices way up or suddenly making you re-purchase things you thought you owned.
Think of the Macintosh as more like a game console where the hardware, software, gui and experience are all one entity that isn't separable. The developer of the product can choose to license [or not license] the manufacture of said console to potential competitors. Same with iPod/iTunes so far. There's no law that requires a company to commit financial suicide.
When Apple cut off the competitors (UMax, Motorola, Power Computing etc.), the license to use the ROM and boot the MacOS was revoked. Nothing personal, it was just business. Apple's hardware sales were getting reamed in the market and it turned out to be a mistake. Apple had no plans to exit the hardware business at the time and this almost made the decision for them. Wikipedia (can I say that here?) has a good writeup about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone/
What possible mystery could there be here? I thought the Taiwanese were smarter than that. Here's a case where the Chinese don't mind delineating Taiwan as a separate entity.
I believe Dr. von Braun also said "Nazi, Schmatzi"
Tom Lehrer Lives!
Exactly. Email everything to themselves because they can find it easier that way. GUI designers take note.