brought to you by the old-fucking-news dept.
on
KDE Running on Mac OS X
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hrm... this article seems like old news -- I have been doing this since my brand-new 700mhz iBook on OS X 10.1. What's even better, that I didn't see when I skimmed through the article, is that you can drop OS X into console mode by entering the user >console at the login screen, with no password -- log in to the console and issue the 'startx' command. No more aqua, just kde (or gnome)...
This is kinda useful on the new iBooks that would like to run a more linux-y interface, but still want wireless support (the airport extreme cards use a closed-source broadcom chip-set that will never be opened due to FCC regulations). You can just run your qt / gtk programs in your respective window manager and run all the programs you can either find on fink, or anything else you can get to compile correctly (good luck). Obviously the down-side to this is that you can't run an OS X apps, but if you just log out it will throw you back to the OS X log-in screen.
What I would really like to see (calling out to the talended/. developer community) would be a way to initiate sessions on OS X, so that the ctrl-alt-F* would give you a different session -- one running quartz/aqua, and one running Xfree86/Xorg. Say hello to the best of both worlds -- the window manager of your choice right at your finger-tips!
Note to computer hardware manufacturers: STOP PUTTING SHIT IN THE 2.4 GHZ RANGE! THERE ISN'T ANY MORE ROOM!
If my mouse, router, laptop, pda, desktop, and whatever other fucking wireless device looses connection when ever I turn on my microwave (not to mention interfere with all my neighbors devices), I decide that there are too many god damn wireless devices in the air.
The 2.4ghz portion of the spectrum has been taken, by the hardware industry, as the answer to all their wireless prayers. It is believed that if you ever need a (moderately) long range wireless transport, use the 2.4ghz range!
Guess what guys? There aren't enough goddamn channels, and no 'interface robustness' is going to fix the problem.
Here is what I suggest: Logitech, as much as I like your products, please stick to mouse and keyboard technology (whatever that might be), and leave the 2.4ghz range to the network guys. Thanks!
Somebody please tell me that this means the slow death of the pathetic, and inherently unfunctional, win32 platform. I want to see the day in which even microsoft comes to the striking conclusion that, yes, indeed, their software does suck.
Now microsoft must bow to a better platform, with more room for growth, vast security potential, user permissions, and proper user and kernel space.
... Though, you know Microsoft, they really know how to fuck a good thing up the best.
I think that certifications can be dangerous, to a certain degree. Certifications lend to the old mentality that you can go to school, learn something, and just know it for the rest of your life.
You know, there used to be that ford mechanic that had the shop down on the corner, but he just worked on fords. You had a ford, so you took it to him and he always fixed it.
But a computer is not a ford. A computer is a complex piece of technology that changes almost as rapidly as the days pass. With computers you don't get the choice about what you want to learn -- the good tech guru learns everything (or as much as one can be possibly expected to learn). Sure, somebody will have an area of expertise, but if you walk up to a good sys admin and you say "I have (X) hardware, make it into a fully functioning network using (X) Operating System," they will be able to pull out a product for you of some shape and size.
Computers can no longer rely on "I know windows," "I know linux," or "I know Mac OS X". None of those, alone, are good enough. You have to have at least a VERY functional knowledge of each, and likely be an expert in at least one. If you can't live up to that standard: go home.
But certifications don't establish that this person has done one bit of work into the area his cert is, past getting it. A cert doesn't prove anything. Experiance and knowledge are the key -- not some stupid piece of paper worth $$$$$.
So, since google's scanners picked up images that were evidently public images (in some way or another), they are getting sued? That doesn't sound like a law suit, it sounds like a poor web-masters security policy.
Seriously, it is obvious that there is private information on the internet that google doesn't pick up due to the security policy being correct on the server. Google uses automated processes, not monkey with type-writers searching the web. How is it their fault for somebody else linking public images?
why have books when you can just have the distracting power of solitaire and the internet in front of you? Plus, the internet always has great ads, where books usually don't try and sell you things. How am I expected to be a proper consumer when I am wasting my time NOT being fed ads?
[insert obligatory comment about Texas education here]
This is a much more subjective issue than people give credit. A laptop (like any other computer) can be a totally mixed bag. Give a laptop to one kid and they may use it as a tool with vast potential to educate them about virtually anything; give a laptop to another kid and they will use it to play FreeCell. The question is not "when should you buy a child a laptop" but "when should you buy YOUR child a laptop." For many parents they may find that their child at age 10 could really use a tool like that to it's full potential, whereas other parents might not see fit to buy their child one until collage.
Here is one simple fact: computers don't educate people. The drive to learn is entirely something particular to the individual. Just as many people have said, you have to instill in your child the will to learn -- to enjoy learning. With the proper motivation and drive to learn a laptop is just like any other tool, and can be used to create wonderful results.
There can't be any blanket judgement on giving computer technology to children. Children will all learn differently. Just like when you look at half the posters here saying "a laptop was worth it's wright in gold through school" and the other half saying "just give me a pad and a pen." Who's to say that one or the other side is correct, or has better insight into the issue? Everyone simply has to be honest to their (or their child's) needs: that is what parenting is all about.
Vigilantie Vigilante justice is rarely, if never, justifiable. The whole issue with DDOSing spamers is this -- we all recognize that spam is a problem, so what are our options? Let's be honest with ourselves -- government regulation won't work. If government regulation worked nobody would smoke pot or share music on the internet. Give me a break. You can't stop somebody from doing something they want to do by asking or threatening them. In this case a DDOS sends a very clear and direct message to the spammer that 'spamming people is not acceptable."
There is always a catch: vigilante justice is never the most exact form of justice. Obviously you could end up DDOSing a zombie machine, or a hosting company, and end up shutting them down due to their direct, or indirect, contact with the spammer. Also, it opens the question that seems to be often brought up here -- when is this justifiable? What constitutes something somebody has done that is 'wrong' and 'needs to be stopped?' What happens to the next guy that comes along that nobody likes?
Let's look at is this way -- vigilante justice should not be something that is just strewn about randomly. Spammers are a real problem, and if you think that us DDOSing them is any worse than massive spewing of advertisement e-mail and clogging up anybody and everybody's e-mail... guess again. A DDOS is not the best solution, but is about the only option, and still better than what they do to us.
I personally believe it is not the security holes themselves but a.) how severe they are, and b.) how they are handled. The difference between Linux and Windows on these points is very stark, with little to "muddy the water." 'Critical' Microsoft updates are much more common than you will find on the linux platform. But even that is not nearly as important as how the issue of security is taken.
My problem with Microsoft is that security for them still means bad press and politics. Microsoft does not want to announce security holes to the public, they don't want to give details, and they won't be pressured into issuing a patch until they are damn good and ready.
The linux community is quite different. Security holes are discovered and readily broadcasted. This communication leads to an immediate concerted effort to fix the problem, and it's done. Time to patch through the open source model is quite superior. An open security policy as far as communication is concerned is absolutely vital for everyone.
Microsoft has the notion that they own the software despite the fact that I buy it. Linux has no such delusions. Linux is yours, or collectively all of ours. Windows is owned by Microsoft, and you get to "rent it" or "license it." But as a home user or system administrator I want to know what is happening with my operating system -- I want to know what it is doing, what might happen, etc. With Linux I have that luxery... with Microsoft, I don't.
There is a lot of talk about "you can't install OS X on a dell because there are no 3rd party drivers." People, remember the issue of drivers is not like we are dealing with a totally new subsystem now. It's just darwin. Drivers that are relased for a BSD (darwin, in our case) are by default out for OS X, or, for that matter, any driver out for mostly any *NIX. Simple porting is a possibility for the OS X sub-system when things actually need to be adapted -- wtitting / re-writting is not needed. There isn't the worry of "who is going to write all these drivers?" because most of them are already written. The sub-system is OPEN SOURCE -- you have always been able to install darwin on a generic PC and have the drivers you need (for the most part).
People have come to think of OS X on intel as some dramatic change. It's not. The only thing that is different now is that the proprietary UI and random Apple code (quartz, etc.) is now ported to x86/intel. But darwin has always been a cross-platform OS. I think people still have this idea that the change is so dramatic because they have the tendency to look at it from the classic Mac OS perspective. OS 9 would have been bizzar to put on x86 because everything would have to be re-written. But every good *nix user knows that architecture, for the most part, doesn't matter. Sure endian changes here and there, certain instruction sets that exist on one arch but not the other, but how many linux programs (for example) do you know that really give a sh** if you compile them on PPC SPARC x86 or Alpha? Most programs don't deal with assembly level code like that.
People are failing to realize that changing from PPC to intel/x86 with a *NIX (BSD, to be specific) subsystem is less dramatic than switching from 32-bit procs to 64-bit procs. The only major change between OS X PPC and OS X intel is switching from OpenFirmware to a PC standard BIOS, especially concerning the boot process, whereas the general arch (proc, etc.) is pretty secondary.
I think this will be an incredibly interesting transition, as people will really see the versatility of OS X, as the possibilities will be pretty endless. People, IMHO, will really get to see what a constrictive platform windows is and what mobility Apple OS and hardware really has.
PS: Has anybody tried a 'dd' clone of an installed OS X intel system? or maybe a net-boot image? Maybe trying those with a standard dell (etc.) would be a possibility.
I have to say that I don't quite know how I would feel about Dell selling apple branded hardware / OS X. I really am impressed with Dell's server lines, networking components (switches, SAN solutions, etc.) printers, and LCD screens; but, quite frankly, I think their consumer grade products (i.e. desktops, laptops) suck nuts. I somehow doubt that their desktops would improve in quality enough to justify me wanting to buy a dell desktop w/ OS X.
However... and this is a big point... at this point I will admit that Apple needs to take advantage of the low end consumer market -- the grandparents that buy a computer to e-mail their grandkids and do other minor things. I quite adamently feel that nobody should ever use a windows OS unless they are truely proficent with computers (and even then, most people truely proficent with computers don't use windows... though there is still occasionally a need).
I think the case is quite strong that OS X is the better OS, especially for those who aren't computer guru's. The interface is intuitive, attractive, and easy to use. Applications don't requre an un-install program, programs don't spew crap across the file system, and you don't have to worry about the decay rate of the OS (like you do with windows)... security, of course being the constant debate, is still better then win32 by the fact that *NIXs are more secure.
I think Apple has really seen, with the advent of the Mac Mini, that there is a big market for people who just want something cheap, nice looking, and easy to use. The iMac started it all for apple and they have been moving in that direction ever since. Dell could really help materialize Apple as a prominent platform contender.
So... while I might think Dell desktops are crap... who knows, there might still be some value in such a partnership -- as long as the high-end Apple desktops still stick around.
I don't really understand why there is such adamant opposition to this idea. Jesus. Like a 450 mhz G4 is really THAT useful anymore? 10.4 runs great on my g4 ibook, and sort of well on my eMac 700mhz... but on my 600 mhz G3 iMac it runs like crap. I don't have a g4 cube, but the specs on them aren't the greatest anymore -- my iMac is roughly equivalent to the G4 cube (sans altivec). Personally, I would love to have a G4 cube with this upgrade because the G4 cubes look cool. I would rather have a functional linux box with a Pentium M in it than a less-than-functional G4 that won't even run the current Mac OS properly.
This strangely violent opposition is why most people are turned off by mac users. "PENTIUM IN MAC IS EVIL!!!11" Get over yourselves. I love OS X just as much, if not more, than the next person -- but I am still more interested in functionality than some religious adherence to any OS. Hardware that works well and the OS that is the best tool for the job / best fit for the hardware is what is important.
I am looking at the press release and it looks to be totally abandoning PPC -- http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.h tml. This, I am directly assuming would mean a break between Apple and IBM -- which would sound to me to be a tragically bad idea. I don't think apple can survive by burning those bridges and leaving a platform which they have developed on for going on a decade now.
Apple has always had the luxury of developing on a hardware platform that they, for the most part, own. They don't have to worry so much about 3rd party vendors, there are no 3rd party mothreboards, chip sets, etc. Everyone should remember the dark days of Apple when such things did exist with the Mac clones (what terrible machines). Such a luxury is something they will not have when it comes to the Intel/x86 world, unless they keep their ROM and/or hardware design specifically proprietary, in which case the will loose with Intel.
Intel produces wonderful mobile cpus -- the centrino is a great laptop cpu. But in the desktop world they loose out to both AMD and IBM. Why Apple would think that a partnership of such a nature with a chip designer that has proven to be second rate time and again is beyond me.
Will Apple really give up PPC -- IBM and Motorola? Can they really survive? Is this anything more than trying to take Microsoft head-on? Let's all hope for the best, because a wrong move now could mean the death of Apple.
I honestly believe that these companies, such as IBM, can only do good for the OSS community as a whole. There are certain issues that large corporations can deal with that the OSS community simply can't -- doesn't have the rescources to do. Of course I mean legal battles.
With mounting pressure from M$, or SCO, or any other company that feels wronged by people "giving things away for free" they will fight against the opposing buisness model with tooth and nail. OSS simply does not have the capital to take on software patents, accusations of stolen code, etc. when they come along.
OSS can take care of a lot of things very quickly. It's model for developing software and man-power availible is simply mind-boggling -- something no corporation could even match. There is not a company in the world that could pay to employ the amount of man-power OSS has on constant active reserve.
But let's face it, in this day and age it's simply not the ideas you have, and the things you can do; it's the money you have. It is unfortunate, but we see it in every walk of life in first world nations: second rate products are allowed to flourish and become main-stream consumer goods due to the capital the company that produces it has (*cough* microsoft *cough*). Mean while these companies will use their capital to destroy their competitors by any means possible. OSS is an easy target because it has no ready reserves of $$. You can always insist that somewhere buried in the kernel is an offending bit of code, or that microsoft was the first to develop a certain code declaration or algorithm. Of course everyone knows that is crap -- but who has the money to back up that fact?
When it comes right down to it, these companies like IBM, HP, and the like are absolutely needed to protect OSS from the imperfections of our own society -- so that OSS is less political and more development. The OSS model works great, but it can be eroded by capitalism on legal grounds unless somebody does something.
With all of that said, I would like to thank all of the large companies who work with OSS to keep it alive. Companies that work for people, and not for a corperate board, are few and far between; it's always nice to see something good done with money and power.
The whole thing that makes Microsoft's moves at this point laughable is because they are just continually playing catch-up. They are simply not an inovative company, and inovation is what drives the tech. industry.
On-line Music Store? Apple got there first. M$ is working diligently.
Comprehensive Search Engine? Google got there first. M$ put in a shot, but is failing.
Tabbed Browser? Every other browser got their first. M$ followed... eventually.
Digital Music Players? Apple got there first. M$ is still trying...
Ad-ware scanning to fix their own broken and / or crappy software? Many got their long before the eventual "Microsoft Antispyware."
The list just goes on and on. Name one thing that M$ has developed.... ever? They have always just tried to ride on the coat-tails of every great idea since the inception of the GUI. Even if M$ were to do a good job at somebodies else' idea, who cares? They are still too late. My only question is still why they ever got so successful for doing nothing and making a second rate product. I understand their supremecy now, because they can strong-arm people, or just buy them out... but it's got to end somewhere... I hope.
I think that the punishment is supposed to be proportional to the crime... though I don't agree with the death penalty -- since it lacks point, reason, compassion, and especially creativity... I got the sarcasm though.
Spammers shouldn't be killed; what would really be great is if they were forced to be human spam blockers in prison -- cleaning out e-mail accounts of spam BY HAND for 12 hours a day. Why should I have to buy a hardware spam blocker, pay for spam blocking software, or implement anti-spam mail server policies, when there is so much idle man-power that could be put to use!
I was really skeptical of Ubuntu, as it had been quite a while since I used a debian-based distro. My linux history has been rather varied -- I always work to try as many distros as possible, so I keep a handle on everything out there. I started with mandrake, went to gentoo primarily for quite a while, then fedora (trying out other distros along the way -- Suse, Debian, Novell linux, Redhat, etc.). I recently decided to try Ubuntu. I am not totally sold on.debs, and I find apt-get and dselect clunky, but really Ubuntu strikes me as being very fast and auto-configures itself very well. I was intially quite surprised at it's speed that I haven't seen since gentoo. My impression of it are a distro that is poised to become very popular, as it is full featured and easy to use... But that is just my opinion.
There seems to be a lot of talk in Paul Murphy's article about "... if SCO could..." Right. That's about what all legal cases of this nature come down to -- if they *could* show that IBM stole code, or had direct access to AT&T UNIX (etc.) and implemented it in linux. No argument here -- that's what the whole case is about. But they can't.
But here is what it actually comes down to: what SCO has done, and is doing -- indeed the only thing they *can* do...
SCO has proved through this absurd circus-show that they are motivated by profit margins, political assassination of FOSS, and spreading FUD about the whole Linux development community.
And what is this whole talk about when Linux "... became a new kernel by March of 1991 and a whole new Unix clone when file system processing was internalized in June." That is the pivot point that makes Linux a "UNIX clone?"
Linux is anything but a "UNIX clone." We could point to a lot of things that linux is *kind of like*. Linux is kind of like BSD, or Minix, or even some parts are like UNIX -- but it is anything but a "UNIX clone" -- linux is a GNU clone, hence whole NotUnix thing (get the acronym?).
The overall article speaks of somebody who has a command over *NIX rhetoric, but very little command over what makes a *NIX and how they work. He shows a little knowledge of AT&T UNIX history, but very little knowledge of a *NIX varient in terms of technology and development.
It is ironic that Paul Murphy references the 1982 IBM legal case. The conclusion that he positing -- potential SCO victory over IBM -- would be the tipping point that would thrust us away from FOSS progress and back into the land of proprietary obfuscation -- the exact opposite from what IBM's defeat in 1982 meant to the tech world. Instead of gaining freedom from proprietary operating systems we would be gaining again the time when one (or at least very few) companies could hold total control over where and what computers do and making us pay for it at the same time. No offense Mr. Murphy, but after being a "20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry..." you would think you would have gained one thing: a clue.
But why properly implement anything when you can just cripple it instead?
Seriously, this is the all-too-common fatal flaw that I have seen in *almost* every tech organization I have ever worked for, or with. It is always easier to throw crap together with no reguard for how it actually works. If it limps along, that is enough for some people (maybe because they were all raised on Windows?).
At this point, if M$ had any respect for itself or the tech industry they would liquidate their company and give all their capital to a more helpful and pertinent organization... dare I say, the OSDL?
... but then again, where would be the mafia-capitalism joy that can only come from making a 4th rate product and then strong-arming tech markets into using it...
This whole battle is absurd. Why has it all become so convoluted?
Cost of deployment / migration: it is this simple -- if you have a pre-existing IT staff that is trained exclusively in windows, windows will be cheaper. If you have an IT staff educated in linux, it will be MUCH cheaper. This goes with TCO, etc.
When it comes to stability, security, management, operation, these things will all be relative -- once again, to the competence of your IT staff (how and why they use what the use, how everything is implemented, etc.).
Don't listen to anybody who says windows security holes are directly variable to linux security holes if they are just looking at them by numbers. Yea, linux has security holes (every OS does), but windows has HUGE security holes that are open invitations to destruction that are patched... eventually. The OSS community is pretty damn good at patching even the obscure holes pretty darn quick - and being honest about it.
M$ will always be willing to strong-arm you into using their proprietary crap, and they will attempt to thwart linux via absurd propaganda campaigns. But none of that matters. Let the politics alone - that's not the IT workers job.
Who is your IT staff, how are they trained? If they know what they are doing the OS shouldn't matter -- linux, aix, *bsd, windows, OS X, solaris: who cares?!
We could all sit and bicker about the pluses and minuses of every server OS until the earth crashes into the sun, but the better plan is to skip the politics and educate the IT industry about every option and alternative.
The problem with OS wars will always be that people believe that if they choose a side, fight for it, and win that they have won. Wrong. The burden of the IT professional and / or system administrator is one hell of a burden: you have to know everything. If you are an extremist in your profession to either side you are wrong -- it's not about the sys. admin. it's about the user and what works for them. It's about ensuring that *they* don't have to fix their computer -- that is our job. If a secretary has to spend even 5 minutes a day worrying about a program consistently crashing, or if they can log in or not, it's the admins. fault. period. Those are 5 minutes that they should have been doing what their job is.
What we, as IT professionals, use at home is our deal, our preference, and our choice -- what we do at work is a different story.
As an industry we all need to stop bickering and just learn our stuff, be competent, and be able and willing to work with everything that is out there to ensure that things "just work."
It seems perfectly reasonable that distributions collectively agree on what and where things are going to go. Standards directory struc. (beyond just/etc,/bin,/sbin,/usr, etc.) so that libraries go HERE and programs go THERE, etc. It is fine to have system apps in/sbin and/bin, and user apps be in/usr/bin, etc. but PLEASE just keep it to that. Every other commercial OS has been able to do this succesfully (windows, Mac OS classic and OS X, etc.) and it has worked well for them. Sure, even a moderate linux geek will be able to tell you what is where, or at least where to find it, but my grandmother won't unless it is right there in front of her. Having standard environment variables, paths, directory structure, even (dare I say it) a standard package system could only help linux. How is the average user supposed to tell the differance between an RPM based distro, or.deb, portage, or any other obscure not-so-commonly-used package system -- further still, how is my grandmother to understand that an RPM isn't going to 'just work' on debian or gentoo. Windows users know.exe and that makes things easy for everybody to download and install anything fast without ever having to know where lib*.so is, or what arguments to tag onto %sh./configure --*. Why should anyone have to sit and stare at a list of distros and weigh what package system they should go with to make their experiance as easy and fast as possible? Shouldn't such decisions only arise for IT directors and system administrators? It is these issues that will easily keep linux on the server, or the geeks desk. Don't get me wrong: I love my choice of distros, and like the variety between RPM,.deb, portage, etc. (some systems I just find easier and work better than others to throw on a server here, or workstation there) -- but I wouldn't mind having 4 or 5 distros that I could throw in a computer and know where everything is, all the time, with little-to-no variation. Maybe a situation where I can just go over to versiontracker.com and download a package, double click, hit next, and be done with it.
When will the media industry/ies realize that p2p will always find another way. Yea, sure you can shut down napster, flood kazaa, or shutdown the next torrent site -- but there will still be the next p2p protocol to pick up where the others left off. When will the MPAA or RIAA realize that no matter what new method is devised to stop *a* p2p network it still won't change the fact that some people are not willing to pay $16 for a cd or $20 for a dvd? Companies cannot coerce a demographic of intelligent people into doing what they want -- there will always be a spirit of resistence, and means to work around the barriers put in place (see decss, breaking of various DRM, etc.). Maybe instead of devising methods of stopping p2p, somebody should think of providing me, the consumer, with more and better options concerning how I spend my money. Such things can be successful -- look at the iTunes Music store (I don't mind spending a dollar on a song). How about a service to download movies -- $5 to download the latest feature film. How about an alternative to paying for cable when I don't want to watch half the crap they put on -- e.g. a $15 monthly service to let me download the shows I want to watch (keep your fox news and "must see tv" -- give me the daily show and deadwood). There are endless opportunities that technology and the internet provide that could limit p2p traffic purely by making it more convienent for me to get my media directly from the source, as opposed to from a back-ally bittorrnet site. The media industry seems to be more interested in regulation and litigation than serving us, the consumer -- which makes me inclined to just stick to downloading a tv show, album, or movie: they get my money when they make it worth my while. Do these companies exist just to make obscene profit margins so a CEO can buy a ninth home, or are they there to provide a service I value? Just keep trying to kill p2p, and I will keep moving on.
Windows reviewers are so vapid. Great, the guy gives a nice review of 10.4, but misses what is great about Apple's upgrades. Sure the interface tweaks are nice, the cute little tools make some day-to-day tasks easier -- but what is the best about OS X version iterations is their overall improvements to stability / operation, and dedication to their *NIX roots. With each OS X version it gets a bit more nimble, a bit more efficent (anybody remember loading 10.0 PR 1 on an iMac G3 600mhz?). Note that the guy makes no reference to Apple's continued dedication to improving their *NIX underpinnings in terms of it's vast functionality (can anybody say spot-light command utilities?). Maybe he ignores the UNIX(like) under-pinnings, and the vast revamp they get every upgrade, because he is a windows guy ("yay for the impotent win32 cmd prompt") so he only knows a GUI. OS X get's my support through and through because they are always able to make a OS that supports everybodies needs -- from a GUI friendly enough to make your grandmother feel comfortable, and the command line environment to make programmers and systems administrators alike happy. This makes for a fast, efficent, and fully-usable OS. OS X gets extreme points for being heavy into interoperability from their server OS down to the client (their OS X server handles mixed networks of Windows, OS X, linux, bsd, etc. VERY well -- so that the capable admin should never have to worry about what client platform he is dealing with).
If microsoft could create anything nearly as full-featured as that I might give them the time of day -- but the unrelenting dedication to a buggy interface and the worthless win32 platform is what will leave "die-hard" windows users in the dark forever. Sure they will come over one at a time and buy an iPod or 'mini, but they will likely always let the really wonderful nuances pass by without any attention paid.
It may be debated about if this will really help the common user or not, but I think the one thing it will most certainly do is help systems administration by miles -- in such situation where you can, for the most part, manufacture a proper and safe environment for the user to work in. It is also amusing to note how M$ would really like to convince people that their implementation of such concepts as user permissions, or even being a multi-user OS, serve the same purpose as UNIX flavors. Over the years Windows has gone from no user permissions, to some, to more, to their recent scheme with windows 2003 server and the many authentication processes through their exchange server. Any such notion that Windows is a multi-user OS are equally as absurd. This process of making windows a full-fledge enterprise-grade server / client environtment will not be fully realized until the drop the worthless Win32 platform and develop, at the very least, their own *NIX flavor.
'"If you test Red Hat against Solaris 10 against whatever else... we would say that Solaris 10 beats it hands down on functionality and everything else," said Hassell."'
You mean that somebody on Sun's payroll is telling their product is better? Sounds honest to me.
Slashdot Mirror
This is kinda useful on the new iBooks that would like to run a more linux-y interface, but still want wireless support (the airport extreme cards use a closed-source broadcom chip-set that will never be opened due to FCC regulations). You can just run your qt / gtk programs in your respective window manager and run all the programs you can either find on fink, or anything else you can get to compile correctly (good luck). Obviously the down-side to this is that you can't run an OS X apps, but if you just log out it will throw you back to the OS X log-in screen.
What I would really like to see (calling out to the talended /. developer community) would be a way to initiate sessions on OS X, so that the ctrl-alt-F* would give you a different session -- one running quartz/aqua, and one running Xfree86/Xorg. Say hello to the best of both worlds -- the window manager of your choice right at your finger-tips!
If my mouse, router, laptop, pda, desktop, and whatever other fucking wireless device looses connection when ever I turn on my microwave (not to mention interfere with all my neighbors devices), I decide that there are too many god damn wireless devices in the air.
The 2.4ghz portion of the spectrum has been taken, by the hardware industry, as the answer to all their wireless prayers. It is believed that if you ever need a (moderately) long range wireless transport, use the 2.4ghz range!
Guess what guys? There aren't enough goddamn channels, and no 'interface robustness' is going to fix the problem.
Here is what I suggest: Logitech, as much as I like your products, please stick to mouse and keyboard technology (whatever that might be), and leave the 2.4ghz range to the network guys. Thanks!
Now microsoft must bow to a better platform, with more room for growth, vast security potential, user permissions, and proper user and kernel space.
You know, there used to be that ford mechanic that had the shop down on the corner, but he just worked on fords. You had a ford, so you took it to him and he always fixed it.
But a computer is not a ford. A computer is a complex piece of technology that changes almost as rapidly as the days pass. With computers you don't get the choice about what you want to learn -- the good tech guru learns everything (or as much as one can be possibly expected to learn). Sure, somebody will have an area of expertise, but if you walk up to a good sys admin and you say "I have (X) hardware, make it into a fully functioning network using (X) Operating System," they will be able to pull out a product for you of some shape and size.
Computers can no longer rely on "I know windows," "I know linux," or "I know Mac OS X". None of those, alone, are good enough. You have to have at least a VERY functional knowledge of each, and likely be an expert in at least one. If you can't live up to that standard: go home.
But certifications don't establish that this person has done one bit of work into the area his cert is, past getting it. A cert doesn't prove anything. Experiance and knowledge are the key -- not some stupid piece of paper worth $$$$$.
Seriously, it is obvious that there is private information on the internet that google doesn't pick up due to the security policy being correct on the server. Google uses automated processes, not monkey with type-writers searching the web. How is it their fault for somebody else linking public images?
The whole story is bullshit.
why have books when you can just have the distracting power of solitaire and the internet in front of you? Plus, the internet always has great ads, where books usually don't try and sell you things. How am I expected to be a proper consumer when I am wasting my time NOT being fed ads? [insert obligatory comment about Texas education here]
Here is one simple fact: computers don't educate people. The drive to learn is entirely something particular to the individual. Just as many people have said, you have to instill in your child the will to learn -- to enjoy learning. With the proper motivation and drive to learn a laptop is just like any other tool, and can be used to create wonderful results.
There can't be any blanket judgement on giving computer technology to children. Children will all learn differently. Just like when you look at half the posters here saying "a laptop was worth it's wright in gold through school" and the other half saying "just give me a pad and a pen." Who's to say that one or the other side is correct, or has better insight into the issue? Everyone simply has to be honest to their (or their child's) needs: that is what parenting is all about.
There is always a catch: vigilante justice is never the most exact form of justice. Obviously you could end up DDOSing a zombie machine, or a hosting company, and end up shutting them down due to their direct, or indirect, contact with the spammer. Also, it opens the question that seems to be often brought up here -- when is this justifiable? What constitutes something somebody has done that is 'wrong' and 'needs to be stopped?' What happens to the next guy that comes along that nobody likes?
Let's look at is this way -- vigilante justice should not be something that is just strewn about randomly. Spammers are a real problem, and if you think that us DDOSing them is any worse than massive spewing of advertisement e-mail and clogging up anybody and everybody's e-mail... guess again. A DDOS is not the best solution, but is about the only option, and still better than what they do to us.
I personally believe it is not the security holes themselves but a.) how severe they are, and b.) how they are handled. The difference between Linux and Windows on these points is very stark, with little to "muddy the water." 'Critical' Microsoft updates are much more common than you will find on the linux platform. But even that is not nearly as important as how the issue of security is taken. My problem with Microsoft is that security for them still means bad press and politics. Microsoft does not want to announce security holes to the public, they don't want to give details, and they won't be pressured into issuing a patch until they are damn good and ready. The linux community is quite different. Security holes are discovered and readily broadcasted. This communication leads to an immediate concerted effort to fix the problem, and it's done. Time to patch through the open source model is quite superior. An open security policy as far as communication is concerned is absolutely vital for everyone. Microsoft has the notion that they own the software despite the fact that I buy it. Linux has no such delusions. Linux is yours, or collectively all of ours. Windows is owned by Microsoft, and you get to "rent it" or "license it." But as a home user or system administrator I want to know what is happening with my operating system -- I want to know what it is doing, what might happen, etc. With Linux I have that luxery... with Microsoft, I don't.
People have come to think of OS X on intel as some dramatic change. It's not. The only thing that is different now is that the proprietary UI and random Apple code (quartz, etc.) is now ported to x86/intel. But darwin has always been a cross-platform OS. I think people still have this idea that the change is so dramatic because they have the tendency to look at it from the classic Mac OS perspective. OS 9 would have been bizzar to put on x86 because everything would have to be re-written. But every good *nix user knows that architecture, for the most part, doesn't matter. Sure endian changes here and there, certain instruction sets that exist on one arch but not the other, but how many linux programs (for example) do you know that really give a sh** if you compile them on PPC SPARC x86 or Alpha? Most programs don't deal with assembly level code like that.
People are failing to realize that changing from PPC to intel/x86 with a *NIX (BSD, to be specific) subsystem is less dramatic than switching from 32-bit procs to 64-bit procs. The only major change between OS X PPC and OS X intel is switching from OpenFirmware to a PC standard BIOS, especially concerning the boot process, whereas the general arch (proc, etc.) is pretty secondary.
I think this will be an incredibly interesting transition, as people will really see the versatility of OS X, as the possibilities will be pretty endless. People, IMHO, will really get to see what a constrictive platform windows is and what mobility Apple OS and hardware really has.
PS: Has anybody tried a 'dd' clone of an installed OS X intel system? or maybe a net-boot image? Maybe trying those with a standard dell (etc.) would be a possibility.
However... and this is a big point... at this point I will admit that Apple needs to take advantage of the low end consumer market -- the grandparents that buy a computer to e-mail their grandkids and do other minor things. I quite adamently feel that nobody should ever use a windows OS unless they are truely proficent with computers (and even then, most people truely proficent with computers don't use windows... though there is still occasionally a need).
I think the case is quite strong that OS X is the better OS, especially for those who aren't computer guru's. The interface is intuitive, attractive, and easy to use. Applications don't requre an un-install program, programs don't spew crap across the file system, and you don't have to worry about the decay rate of the OS (like you do with windows)... security, of course being the constant debate, is still better then win32 by the fact that *NIXs are more secure.
I think Apple has really seen, with the advent of the Mac Mini, that there is a big market for people who just want something cheap, nice looking, and easy to use. The iMac started it all for apple and they have been moving in that direction ever since. Dell could really help materialize Apple as a prominent platform contender.
So... while I might think Dell desktops are crap... who knows, there might still be some value in such a partnership -- as long as the high-end Apple desktops still stick around.
This strangely violent opposition is why most people are turned off by mac users. "PENTIUM IN MAC IS EVIL!!!11" Get over yourselves. I love OS X just as much, if not more, than the next person -- but I am still more interested in functionality than some religious adherence to any OS. Hardware that works well and the OS that is the best tool for the job / best fit for the hardware is what is important.
Apple has always had the luxury of developing on a hardware platform that they, for the most part, own. They don't have to worry so much about 3rd party vendors, there are no 3rd party mothreboards, chip sets, etc. Everyone should remember the dark days of Apple when such things did exist with the Mac clones (what terrible machines). Such a luxury is something they will not have when it comes to the Intel/x86 world, unless they keep their ROM and/or hardware design specifically proprietary, in which case the will loose with Intel.
Intel produces wonderful mobile cpus -- the centrino is a great laptop cpu. But in the desktop world they loose out to both AMD and IBM. Why Apple would think that a partnership of such a nature with a chip designer that has proven to be second rate time and again is beyond me.
Will Apple really give up PPC -- IBM and Motorola? Can they really survive? Is this anything more than trying to take Microsoft head-on? Let's all hope for the best, because a wrong move now could mean the death of Apple.
With mounting pressure from M$, or SCO, or any other company that feels wronged by people "giving things away for free" they will fight against the opposing buisness model with tooth and nail. OSS simply does not have the capital to take on software patents, accusations of stolen code, etc. when they come along.
OSS can take care of a lot of things very quickly. It's model for developing software and man-power availible is simply mind-boggling -- something no corporation could even match. There is not a company in the world that could pay to employ the amount of man-power OSS has on constant active reserve.
But let's face it, in this day and age it's simply not the ideas you have, and the things you can do; it's the money you have. It is unfortunate, but we see it in every walk of life in first world nations: second rate products are allowed to flourish and become main-stream consumer goods due to the capital the company that produces it has (*cough* microsoft *cough*). Mean while these companies will use their capital to destroy their competitors by any means possible. OSS is an easy target because it has no ready reserves of $$. You can always insist that somewhere buried in the kernel is an offending bit of code, or that microsoft was the first to develop a certain code declaration or algorithm. Of course everyone knows that is crap -- but who has the money to back up that fact?
When it comes right down to it, these companies like IBM, HP, and the like are absolutely needed to protect OSS from the imperfections of our own society -- so that OSS is less political and more development. The OSS model works great, but it can be eroded by capitalism on legal grounds unless somebody does something.
With all of that said, I would like to thank all of the large companies who work with OSS to keep it alive. Companies that work for people, and not for a corperate board, are few and far between; it's always nice to see something good done with money and power.
On-line Music Store? Apple got there first. M$ is working diligently.
Comprehensive Search Engine? Google got there first. M$ put in a shot, but is failing.
Tabbed Browser? Every other browser got their first. M$ followed... eventually.
Digital Music Players? Apple got there first. M$ is still trying...
Ad-ware scanning to fix their own broken and / or crappy software? Many got their long before the eventual "Microsoft Antispyware."
The list just goes on and on. Name one thing that M$ has developed.... ever? They have always just tried to ride on the coat-tails of every great idea since the inception of the GUI. Even if M$ were to do a good job at somebodies else' idea, who cares? They are still too late. My only question is still why they ever got so successful for doing nothing and making a second rate product. I understand their supremecy now, because they can strong-arm people, or just buy them out... but it's got to end somewhere... I hope.
Spammers shouldn't be killed; what would really be great is if they were forced to be human spam blockers in prison -- cleaning out e-mail accounts of spam BY HAND for 12 hours a day. Why should I have to buy a hardware spam blocker, pay for spam blocking software, or implement anti-spam mail server policies, when there is so much idle man-power that could be put to use!
I was really skeptical of Ubuntu, as it had been quite a while since I used a debian-based distro. My linux history has been rather varied -- I always work to try as many distros as possible, so I keep a handle on everything out there. I started with mandrake, went to gentoo primarily for quite a while, then fedora (trying out other distros along the way -- Suse, Debian, Novell linux, Redhat, etc.). I recently decided to try Ubuntu. I am not totally sold on .debs, and I find apt-get and dselect clunky, but really Ubuntu strikes me as being very fast and auto-configures itself very well. I was intially quite surprised at it's speed that I haven't seen since gentoo. My impression of it are a distro that is poised to become very popular, as it is full featured and easy to use... But that is just my opinion.
But here is what it actually comes down to: what SCO has done, and is doing -- indeed the only thing they *can* do...
SCO has proved through this absurd circus-show that they are motivated by profit margins, political assassination of FOSS, and spreading FUD about the whole Linux development community.
And what is this whole talk about when Linux "... became a new kernel by March of 1991 and a whole new Unix clone when file system processing was internalized in June." That is the pivot point that makes Linux a "UNIX clone?"
Linux is anything but a "UNIX clone." We could point to a lot of things that linux is *kind of like*. Linux is kind of like BSD, or Minix, or even some parts are like UNIX -- but it is anything but a "UNIX clone" -- linux is a GNU clone, hence whole NotUnix thing (get the acronym?).
The overall article speaks of somebody who has a command over *NIX rhetoric, but very little command over what makes a *NIX and how they work. He shows a little knowledge of AT&T UNIX history, but very little knowledge of a *NIX varient in terms of technology and development.
It is ironic that Paul Murphy references the 1982 IBM legal case. The conclusion that he positing -- potential SCO victory over IBM -- would be the tipping point that would thrust us away from FOSS progress and back into the land of proprietary obfuscation -- the exact opposite from what IBM's defeat in 1982 meant to the tech world. Instead of gaining freedom from proprietary operating systems we would be gaining again the time when one (or at least very few) companies could hold total control over where and what computers do and making us pay for it at the same time. No offense Mr. Murphy, but after being a "20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry..." you would think you would have gained one thing: a clue.
Seriously, this is the all-too-common fatal flaw that I have seen in *almost* every tech organization I have ever worked for, or with. It is always easier to throw crap together with no reguard for how it actually works. If it limps along, that is enough for some people (maybe because they were all raised on Windows?).
At this point, if M$ had any respect for itself or the tech industry they would liquidate their company and give all their capital to a more helpful and pertinent organization... dare I say, the OSDL?
This whole battle is absurd. Why has it all become so convoluted? Cost of deployment / migration: it is this simple -- if you have a pre-existing IT staff that is trained exclusively in windows, windows will be cheaper. If you have an IT staff educated in linux, it will be MUCH cheaper. This goes with TCO, etc. When it comes to stability, security, management, operation, these things will all be relative -- once again, to the competence of your IT staff (how and why they use what the use, how everything is implemented, etc.). Don't listen to anybody who says windows security holes are directly variable to linux security holes if they are just looking at them by numbers. Yea, linux has security holes (every OS does), but windows has HUGE security holes that are open invitations to destruction that are patched... eventually. The OSS community is pretty damn good at patching even the obscure holes pretty darn quick - and being honest about it. M$ will always be willing to strong-arm you into using their proprietary crap, and they will attempt to thwart linux via absurd propaganda campaigns. But none of that matters. Let the politics alone - that's not the IT workers job. Who is your IT staff, how are they trained? If they know what they are doing the OS shouldn't matter -- linux, aix, *bsd, windows, OS X, solaris: who cares?! We could all sit and bicker about the pluses and minuses of every server OS until the earth crashes into the sun, but the better plan is to skip the politics and educate the IT industry about every option and alternative. The problem with OS wars will always be that people believe that if they choose a side, fight for it, and win that they have won. Wrong. The burden of the IT professional and / or system administrator is one hell of a burden: you have to know everything. If you are an extremist in your profession to either side you are wrong -- it's not about the sys. admin. it's about the user and what works for them. It's about ensuring that *they* don't have to fix their computer -- that is our job. If a secretary has to spend even 5 minutes a day worrying about a program consistently crashing, or if they can log in or not, it's the admins. fault. period. Those are 5 minutes that they should have been doing what their job is. What we, as IT professionals, use at home is our deal, our preference, and our choice -- what we do at work is a different story. As an industry we all need to stop bickering and just learn our stuff, be competent, and be able and willing to work with everything that is out there to ensure that things "just work."
It seems perfectly reasonable that distributions collectively agree on what and where things are going to go. Standards directory struc. (beyond just /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr, etc.) so that libraries go HERE and programs go THERE, etc. It is fine to have system apps in /sbin and /bin, and user apps be in /usr/bin, etc. but PLEASE just keep it to that. Every other commercial OS has been able to do this succesfully (windows, Mac OS classic and OS X, etc.) and it has worked well for them. Sure, even a moderate linux geek will be able to tell you what is where, or at least where to find it, but my grandmother won't unless it is right there in front of her. Having standard environment variables, paths, directory structure, even (dare I say it) a standard package system could only help linux. How is the average user supposed to tell the differance between an RPM based distro, or .deb, portage, or any other obscure not-so-commonly-used package system -- further still, how is my grandmother to understand that an RPM isn't going to 'just work' on debian or gentoo. Windows users know .exe and that makes things easy for everybody to download and install anything fast without ever having to know where lib*.so is, or what arguments to tag onto %sh ./configure --*. Why should anyone have to sit and stare at a list of distros and weigh what package system they should go with to make their experiance as easy and fast as possible? Shouldn't such decisions only arise for IT directors and system administrators? It is these issues that will easily keep linux on the server, or the geeks desk. Don't get me wrong: I love my choice of distros, and like the variety between RPM, .deb, portage, etc. (some systems I just find easier and work better than others to throw on a server here, or workstation there) -- but I wouldn't mind having 4 or 5 distros that I could throw in a computer and know where everything is, all the time, with little-to-no variation. Maybe a situation where I can just go over to versiontracker.com and download a package, double click, hit next, and be done with it.
When will the media industry/ies realize that p2p will always find another way. Yea, sure you can shut down napster, flood kazaa, or shutdown the next torrent site -- but there will still be the next p2p protocol to pick up where the others left off. When will the MPAA or RIAA realize that no matter what new method is devised to stop *a* p2p network it still won't change the fact that some people are not willing to pay $16 for a cd or $20 for a dvd? Companies cannot coerce a demographic of intelligent people into doing what they want -- there will always be a spirit of resistence, and means to work around the barriers put in place (see decss, breaking of various DRM, etc.). Maybe instead of devising methods of stopping p2p, somebody should think of providing me, the consumer, with more and better options concerning how I spend my money. Such things can be successful -- look at the iTunes Music store (I don't mind spending a dollar on a song). How about a service to download movies -- $5 to download the latest feature film. How about an alternative to paying for cable when I don't want to watch half the crap they put on -- e.g. a $15 monthly service to let me download the shows I want to watch (keep your fox news and "must see tv" -- give me the daily show and deadwood). There are endless opportunities that technology and the internet provide that could limit p2p traffic purely by making it more convienent for me to get my media directly from the source, as opposed to from a back-ally bittorrnet site. The media industry seems to be more interested in regulation and litigation than serving us, the consumer -- which makes me inclined to just stick to downloading a tv show, album, or movie: they get my money when they make it worth my while. Do these companies exist just to make obscene profit margins so a CEO can buy a ninth home, or are they there to provide a service I value? Just keep trying to kill p2p, and I will keep moving on.
Windows reviewers are so vapid. Great, the guy gives a nice review of 10.4, but misses what is great about Apple's upgrades. Sure the interface tweaks are nice, the cute little tools make some day-to-day tasks easier -- but what is the best about OS X version iterations is their overall improvements to stability / operation, and dedication to their *NIX roots. With each OS X version it gets a bit more nimble, a bit more efficent (anybody remember loading 10.0 PR 1 on an iMac G3 600mhz?). Note that the guy makes no reference to Apple's continued dedication to improving their *NIX underpinnings in terms of it's vast functionality (can anybody say spot-light command utilities?). Maybe he ignores the UNIX(like) under-pinnings, and the vast revamp they get every upgrade, because he is a windows guy ("yay for the impotent win32 cmd prompt") so he only knows a GUI. OS X get's my support through and through because they are always able to make a OS that supports everybodies needs -- from a GUI friendly enough to make your grandmother feel comfortable, and the command line environment to make programmers and systems administrators alike happy. This makes for a fast, efficent, and fully-usable OS. OS X gets extreme points for being heavy into interoperability from their server OS down to the client (their OS X server handles mixed networks of Windows, OS X, linux, bsd, etc. VERY well -- so that the capable admin should never have to worry about what client platform he is dealing with). If microsoft could create anything nearly as full-featured as that I might give them the time of day -- but the unrelenting dedication to a buggy interface and the worthless win32 platform is what will leave "die-hard" windows users in the dark forever. Sure they will come over one at a time and buy an iPod or 'mini, but they will likely always let the really wonderful nuances pass by without any attention paid.
It may be debated about if this will really help the common user or not, but I think the one thing it will most certainly do is help systems administration by miles -- in such situation where you can, for the most part, manufacture a proper and safe environment for the user to work in. It is also amusing to note how M$ would really like to convince people that their implementation of such concepts as user permissions, or even being a multi-user OS, serve the same purpose as UNIX flavors. Over the years Windows has gone from no user permissions, to some, to more, to their recent scheme with windows 2003 server and the many authentication processes through their exchange server. Any such notion that Windows is a multi-user OS are equally as absurd. This process of making windows a full-fledge enterprise-grade server / client environtment will not be fully realized until the drop the worthless Win32 platform and develop, at the very least, their own *NIX flavor.
'"If you test Red Hat against Solaris 10 against whatever else... we would say that Solaris 10 beats it hands down on functionality and everything else," said Hassell."' You mean that somebody on Sun's payroll is telling their product is better? Sounds honest to me.