Why isn't Secunia being flamed here for releasing details of an exploit before Apple has had a chance to patch it?
Why isn't Apple being flamed for such a stupid and easily exploitable bug? Oh, that's right - it's Apple we're talking about. Potential thoughtcrime - best shoot the messenger instead. Wouldn't want to get modded flamebait would we?
they could of course try to divert the attention or try to get a better image by making an optimized and open source version of their graphics driver for X.
Dude, they can't even produce an optimised closed source driver for X. A lot of people would be happy if they could produce a completely un-optimised closed source driver for X that didn't crash their box.
Expecting them to produce an optimised open source driver just to make themselves look better is asking a bit much.
One thing they could do to make amends - modify the installer for their Windows Catalyst drivers so that they'll install on laptops without having to be hacked. There is no technical reason why they can't do this - I've always just assumed that they are too busy sucking Satan's cock to perform this simple service to their customers. Anyone with an alternative explanation feel free to chime in.
I'm not an Nvidia fanboy as such. It's just that Nvidia have never gone out of their way to deliberately fuck me up the ass. They therefore win by default.
1, the unit was dropped or concussed and it was a matter of time before the crack actualized, or 2, it was a defective unit. I would bet the farm that (1) is the case, because unless there were obvious damage the store would've replaced the unit for you.
To be fair to the original poster, heretic though he clearly is, there is a third possibility that you should consider.
Is it possible that you are just so desperate to suck Steve Jobs' Apple flavoured cock, that you will post anything, anywhere, at any time that will bring you closer to that goal?
I don't mean to cause offence, this is just based on a previous observation that Apple zealots tend to be rabid scum who eventually come to infest and destroy any on-line forum.
I now return you to your regular scheduled communal circle jerk.
I will enjoy the day when I can remove the horrid taint from my system (Cedega) and be able to game with only native or WINE run games.:)
Oh right, but you don't mind tainting your system with cracked games? Because those are the only ones you're going to be running with vanilla WINE. WINE doesn't include the code for working round the various protection mechanisms. Some is being added, but it's never going to get much development effort because of the legal problems. Cedega does, but the code can't be released due to the DMCA. Did you even know you can download all of the Cedega source minus the copy protection bits?
So you consider it a "horrible taint" to your system because of the feature that actually makes it work.
And because of your fucked up software idealism you're either going to end up running cracked games or no games.
It may also come as a surprise to find out that those games you're playing aren't released under the GPL either (even the Linux native ones). How the fuck do those not taint your system?
I can see you've given this a lot of thought. Shame you forgot about that whole reality thing.
Re:WoW, Amd 64, Via Chipset, ATI Radeon 9200
on
Cedega 5.1 Released
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Last time I tried Cedega it didn't work. Textures were missing.
This was playing WoW on an AMD64 in 32bit mode, on a motherboard with a Via chipset and an AGP ATI Radeon 9200 (Gigabyte)
Dude, you've got an ATI card! Linux native games aren't going to work properly on that. What makes you think a Windows game running under Cedega is going to work?
Did you think that Cedega contained magic code to stop ATI's Linux drivers from sucking?
I have a windows machine now. So have they fixed this?
"SGI's transition away from MIPS and IRIX to Linux on Itanium has proved disastrous."
Well, that was obvious. As everyone knows Linux is only capable of 4 colour EGA level graphics and can only display them at a non-standard 320x197 resolution. It was insanity to try and use Linux for a graphics workstation. Frankly, the people who made that decision should be shot in the face like the mad dogs they are.
Taking a look at Asymettric procesing... (PS3) This allows us to give each processors specific tasks. For example we could dedicate 1 cell chip to running say the AI for a game, another for the Player physics and the rest for graphics and sound.
Sorry, that's not how it works. You're thinking that the developers have 7 processors to play with, each capable of running a complex task like AI or the graphics engine. In fact the SPUs are more like DSPs or specialised co-processors. Last time I checked, no-one was designing AI algorithms to run on DSPs.
I'm sure that a sufficiently motivated person could write a multi-threaded AI algorithm to run on a conventional CPU with 7 co-processors. But it would be really hard to develop.
PS. If the Cell architecture is ideal for graphics rendering, what's that honking great Nvidia chip doing in the PS3? Providing ballast? PPS. You can save time when typing out plurals by not adding an apostrophe every time.
I would have thought the most scary thing facing VMware is Intel Virtualisation Technology - it makes what was previously very hard fairly simple. It also doesn't require the guest OSes to be hacked, ala Xen.
Oh wow. You actually believe that having Vanderpool means you won't need something like VMWare.
Well this will blow your mind - the latest VMWare has Vanderpool support. It doesn't make a great deal of difference by all accounts. Why would VMWare have Vanderpool support if Vanderpool makes VMWare obsolete. Doesn't make much sense does it?
I think you may be suffering from a hype overdose. I suggest you check in to your local ER for a stomach pump. Alternatively try being a little more cynical in future.
Really? I thought that everybody -- especially Slashdot -- had this impression.
Bullshit. If you actually read Slashdot you'll find more people ready to defend MS than you will Linux & OSS zealots. Why don't you go and read the comments attached to the story about the trainwreck that is the IE7 beta and then come back and say that again.
And you know what's better? The simple fact that you, an anonymous coward, got modded +4 insightful for saying it, instantly disproves it.
Re:If one wants to clone, Why not pick MacOS inste
on
ReactOS Code Audit
·
· Score: 1
If ReactOS folks want to sweatout an open source OS, why not pick a better product to clone?
The one and only goal of the ReactOS project is to provide a free, functionally complete and open source clone of Windows. It is so that people can run Windows apps without requiring Windows. Please provide a detailed explanation of exactly how cloning OSX could possibly further that goal in any way, shape or form.
I just noticed that Nmap 4.0 has a new OS detection fingerprint. It's for the Sony AIBO.
I don't know how we ever got by without that one! Although I suppose you'd want to know if you had one on your corporate LAN. Sony probably rootkits the little fuckers before they leave the factory.
You may already be aware of this, but it looks like you hit the "submit" button too early. You completely missed the bit of your comment where you explain why you feel that Google will be better at producing a desktop Linux than anyone else.
On the other hand, if that was supposed to be the whole comment, can I suggest that you try digg.com? I think you'll find that they not only welcome, but posistively encourage content-free one liner posts from cretins.
P.S. Linux doesn't really count in this manner because it gets ignored as a "geek OS" and not really something anybody can run.
In that case, would it be alright to ignore OSX as a "boutique OS" and not really something that anybody who isn't a homosexual graphic designer can run?
Oh sorry, this is a troll but your comment isn't? How does that work exactly?
Nothing stops you from contributing secretly patented code (whatever that is) to a GPL project and then suing them either. Yes, the GPL says you can't incorporate such code, but you can't incorporate such code into a BSD program either (as it is patent infringement!). The license has no effect and offers no protection in this case.
You're claiming there is no difference. I am not a lawyer (and I sincerely hope you aren't either) but it seems obvious to me that there is a difference.
You state that in the case of a BSD project you can't contribute your secretly patented code because it would be patent infringement (I'm ignoring the fact that you seem to think that contributing your own patented code would somehow be patent infringement).
In the case of a GPL project you can't contribute the code because (as you state) it would be patent infringement AND because the license forbids it.
Do you really think that someone who had secretly contributed patented code to a project in direct violation of the license would have a case against that project if they decided to turn around and sue them for patent infringement at a later date?
I guess if you've never heard the legal term "bad faith" you would conclude that the license offers no additional protection.
What smoking and having those "bad" habits only do is make the last few years of your life miserable, not simply end it.
I'm really sorry to break this to you, but the last few years of your life are likely to be miserable and painful anyway.
I know it is very comforting to believe that you can avoid this by living healthily, but you are still going to degenerate and die. And that process is not necessarily going to be more comfortable just because you ate tofu all the time and never passed up an opportunity to whine about someone smoking a cigarette 50 feet away from you.
If there is a God, I strongly suspect that He has a very dark sense of humour. Leading an excessively healthy life probably counts as provocation.
If I can have a BSD based operating system with vendor supported device drivers, why would I want Red Hat?
Well, the obvious answer would be so that you could do something that Apple doesn't want you to do.
And the obvious couterpoint to the above is that if you own a Mac you wouldn't even want to do anything that Apple doesn't want you to do.
Take DRM as an example - Mac users tend to be the most voiciferous supporters of DRM simply because without it Apple wouldn't make as much money.
Frankly I am amazed that nobody has ever been killed by rabid Apple users for the heresy of running Linux on a Powerbook. It can only be a matter of time.
Can't. Quit reading SA after they started publishing thinly vieled political hacks instead of science articles.
Don't tell me - they published an article pointing out that the oil is going to run out eventually and you took it as an attack on your entire political belief system.
Or was it something about global warming that offended you so much?
Do you actually read the magazine, or are you just basing this on the occasional "new theory about dark matter/energy might do the job" stories Slashdot picks up on? There's a heck of a difference between the two.
To be fair to the original poster, New Scientist has been going downhill very fast for some time. It is now basically a science tabloid. Most of the lead articles are about highly speculative almost-science.
To exerimentally verify this go and buy one copy of New Scientist and one copy of Scientific America. Compare.
By default Opera identifies itself as "Internet Explorer" and some webmasters incorrectly use this information to determine which web browsers are more commonly used.
How the hell do you accidentally post a comment twice? Or was it because the original was so thoroughly debunked?
If you're a big fan of Opera, like we are (and it's already standard at some of the companies we regularly deal with too)
Dude, if you're not astroturfing you really need to work on your writing style. It sounds like you're writing ad copy.
Yes, I know. I actually noticed that someone had in fact requested a torrent link right at the bottom of the comments, but I went ahead and posted it anyway. Do you know why? Just to piss you off.
Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't Secunia being flamed here for releasing details of an exploit before Apple has had a chance to patch it?
Why isn't Apple being flamed for such a stupid and easily exploitable bug? Oh, that's right - it's Apple we're talking about. Potential thoughtcrime - best shoot the messenger instead. Wouldn't want to get modded flamebait would we?
they could of course try to divert the attention or try to get a better image by making an optimized and open source version of their graphics driver for X.
Dude, they can't even produce an optimised closed source driver for X. A lot of people would be happy if they could produce a completely un-optimised closed source driver for X that didn't crash their box.
Expecting them to produce an optimised open source driver just to make themselves look better is asking a bit much.
One thing they could do to make amends - modify the installer for their Windows Catalyst drivers so that they'll install on laptops without having to be hacked. There is no technical reason why they can't do this - I've always just assumed that they are too busy sucking Satan's cock to perform this simple service to their customers. Anyone with an alternative explanation feel free to chime in.
I'm not an Nvidia fanboy as such. It's just that Nvidia have never gone out of their way to deliberately fuck me up the ass. They therefore win by default.
I can't imagine what you could possibly want to do that you couldn't do with a fifty cent one-time programmable microcontroller.
What exactly motivates people to post to Slashdot saying, "I have no imagination whatsoever!"?
Is it something you're all proud of? Do you want a pat on the back?
1, the unit was dropped or concussed and it was a matter of time before the crack actualized, or 2, it was a defective unit. I would bet the farm that (1) is the case, because unless there were obvious damage the store would've replaced the unit for you.
To be fair to the original poster, heretic though he clearly is, there is a third possibility that you should consider.
Is it possible that you are just so desperate to suck Steve Jobs' Apple flavoured cock, that you will post anything, anywhere, at any time that will bring you closer to that goal?
I don't mean to cause offence, this is just based on a previous observation that Apple zealots tend to be rabid scum who eventually come to infest and destroy any on-line forum.
I now return you to your regular scheduled communal circle jerk.
I will enjoy the day when I can remove the horrid taint from my system (Cedega) and be able to game with only native or WINE run games. :)
Oh right, but you don't mind tainting your system with cracked games? Because those are the only ones you're going to be running with vanilla WINE. WINE doesn't include the code for working round the various protection mechanisms. Some is being added, but it's never going to get much development effort because of the legal problems. Cedega does, but the code can't be released due to the DMCA. Did you even know you can download all of the Cedega source minus the copy protection bits?
So you consider it a "horrible taint" to your system because of the feature that actually makes it work.
And because of your fucked up software idealism you're either going to end up running cracked games or no games.
It may also come as a surprise to find out that those games you're playing aren't released under the GPL either (even the Linux native ones). How the fuck do those not taint your system?
I can see you've given this a lot of thought. Shame you forgot about that whole reality thing.
Last time I tried Cedega it didn't work. Textures were missing.
This was playing WoW on an AMD64 in 32bit mode, on a motherboard with a Via chipset and an AGP ATI Radeon 9200 (Gigabyte)
Dude, you've got an ATI card! Linux native games aren't going to work properly on that. What makes you think a Windows game running under Cedega is going to work?
Did you think that Cedega contained magic code to stop ATI's Linux drivers from sucking?
I have a windows machine now. So have they fixed this?
If you're using Windows now, why do you care?
Why not take a look at BFS (or BeFS, depending who you ask)?
Because only BeOS can write to it.
Because it hasn't been developed for many years.
There are many, many other reasons I could list why it's not feasible but I think I'll just summarise as follows :
You are an idiot. And probably a BeOS zealot. But I repeat myself.
Unlike XJFReiFS 2.3.1.5, DVDs will be readable in 50 years time.
So, do you actually have any 50 year old DVDs that you can still read? Or are you just hilariously naive and optimistic?
"SGI's transition away from MIPS and IRIX to Linux on Itanium has proved disastrous."
Well, that was obvious. As everyone knows Linux is only capable of 4 colour EGA level graphics and can only display them at a non-standard 320x197 resolution. It was insanity to try and use Linux for a graphics workstation. Frankly, the people who made that decision should be shot in the face like the mad dogs they are.
Taking a look at Asymettric procesing... (PS3) This allows us to give each processors specific tasks. For example we could dedicate 1 cell chip to running say the AI for a game, another for the Player physics and the rest for graphics and sound.
Sorry, that's not how it works. You're thinking that the developers have 7 processors to play with, each capable of running a complex task like AI or the graphics engine. In fact the SPUs are more like DSPs or specialised co-processors. Last time I checked, no-one was designing AI algorithms to run on DSPs.
I'm sure that a sufficiently motivated person could write a multi-threaded AI algorithm to run on a conventional CPU with 7 co-processors. But it would be really hard to develop.
PS. If the Cell architecture is ideal for graphics rendering, what's that honking great Nvidia chip doing in the PS3? Providing ballast?
PPS. You can save time when typing out plurals by not adding an apostrophe every time.
I would have thought the most scary thing facing VMware is Intel Virtualisation Technology - it makes what was previously very hard fairly simple. It also doesn't require the guest OSes to be hacked, ala Xen.
Oh wow. You actually believe that having Vanderpool means you won't need something like VMWare.
Well this will blow your mind - the latest VMWare has Vanderpool support. It doesn't make a great deal of difference by all accounts. Why would VMWare have Vanderpool support if Vanderpool makes VMWare obsolete. Doesn't make much sense does it?
I think you may be suffering from a hype overdose. I suggest you check in to your local ER for a stomach pump. Alternatively try being a little more cynical in future.
Really? I thought that everybody -- especially Slashdot -- had this impression.
Bullshit. If you actually read Slashdot you'll find more people ready to defend MS than you will Linux & OSS zealots. Why don't you go and read the comments attached to the story about the trainwreck that is the IE7 beta and then come back and say that again.
And you know what's better? The simple fact that you, an anonymous coward, got modded +4 insightful for saying it, instantly disproves it.
If ReactOS folks want to sweatout an open source OS, why not pick a better product to clone?
The one and only goal of the ReactOS project is to provide a free, functionally complete and open source clone of Windows. It is so that people can run Windows apps without requiring Windows. Please provide a detailed explanation of exactly how cloning OSX could possibly further that goal in any way, shape or form.
I am waiting.
I just noticed that Nmap 4.0 has a new OS detection fingerprint. It's for the Sony AIBO.
I don't know how we ever got by without that one! Although I suppose you'd want to know if you had one on your corporate LAN. Sony probably rootkits the little fuckers before they leave the factory.
This, if any, will be THE Desktop Linux.
You may already be aware of this, but it looks like you hit the "submit" button too early. You completely missed the bit of your comment where you explain why you feel that Google will be better at producing a desktop Linux than anyone else.
On the other hand, if that was supposed to be the whole comment, can I suggest that you try digg.com? I think you'll find that they not only welcome, but posistively encourage content-free one liner posts from cretins.
This has been a public service announcement.
N.B. mu is a nice Japanese Zen word which means emptiness of mind, or literally "nothing."
It's also a nice letter from the ancient Greek alphabet which means literally "mu".
P.S. Linux doesn't really count in this manner because it gets ignored as a "geek OS" and not really something anybody can run.
In that case, would it be alright to ignore OSX as a "boutique OS" and not really something that anybody who isn't a homosexual graphic designer can run?
Oh sorry, this is a troll but your comment isn't? How does that work exactly?
We got Q3/Q4 reports from both Free and NetBSD.
I somehow predict a yet another article soon...
No, sadly OpenBSD aren't releasing an annual report this year.
The problem is that they have been unable to find a text editor which has been sufficiently audited for security holes.
Apparently they are diverting 50% of their developer resource to work on a BSD licensed replacement for EMACS which should be ready sometime in 2012.
Nothing stops you from contributing secretly patented code (whatever that is) to a GPL project and then suing them either. Yes, the GPL says you can't incorporate such code, but you can't incorporate such code into a BSD program either (as it is patent infringement!). The license has no effect and offers no protection in this case.
You're claiming there is no difference. I am not a lawyer (and I sincerely hope you aren't either) but it seems obvious to me that there is a difference.
You state that in the case of a BSD project you can't contribute your secretly patented code because it would be patent infringement (I'm ignoring the fact that you seem to think that contributing your own patented code would somehow be patent infringement).
In the case of a GPL project you can't contribute the code because (as you state) it would be patent infringement AND because the license forbids it.
Do you really think that someone who had secretly contributed patented code to a project in direct violation of the license would have a case against that project if they decided to turn around and sue them for patent infringement at a later date?
I guess if you've never heard the legal term "bad faith" you would conclude that the license offers no additional protection.
What smoking and having those "bad" habits only do is make the last few years of your life miserable, not simply end it.
I'm really sorry to break this to you, but the last few years of your life are likely to be miserable and painful anyway.
I know it is very comforting to believe that you can avoid this by living healthily, but you are still going to degenerate and die. And that process is not necessarily going to be more comfortable just because you ate tofu all the time and never passed up an opportunity to whine about someone smoking a cigarette 50 feet away from you.
If there is a God, I strongly suspect that He has a very dark sense of humour. Leading an excessively healthy life probably counts as provocation.
If I can have a BSD based operating system with vendor supported device drivers, why would I want Red Hat?
Well, the obvious answer would be so that you could do something that Apple doesn't want you to do.
And the obvious couterpoint to the above is that if you own a Mac you wouldn't even want to do anything that Apple doesn't want you to do.
Take DRM as an example - Mac users tend to be the most voiciferous supporters of DRM simply because without it Apple wouldn't make as much money.
Frankly I am amazed that nobody has ever been killed by rabid Apple users for the heresy of running Linux on a Powerbook. It can only be a matter of time.
Can't. Quit reading SA after they started publishing thinly vieled political hacks instead of science articles.
Don't tell me - they published an article pointing out that the oil is going to run out eventually and you took it as an attack on your entire political belief system.
Or was it something about global warming that offended you so much?
Do you actually read the magazine, or are you just basing this on the occasional "new theory about dark matter/energy might do the job" stories Slashdot picks up on? There's a heck of a difference between the two.
To be fair to the original poster, New Scientist has been going downhill very fast for some time. It is now basically a science tabloid. Most of the lead articles are about highly speculative almost-science.
To exerimentally verify this go and buy one copy of New Scientist and one copy of Scientific America. Compare.
By default Opera identifies itself as "Internet Explorer" and some webmasters incorrectly use this information to determine which web browsers are more commonly used.
How the hell do you accidentally post a comment twice? Or was it because the original was so thoroughly debunked?
If you're a big fan of Opera, like we are (and it's already standard at some of the companies we regularly deal with too)
Dude, if you're not astroturfing you really need to work on your writing style. It sounds like you're writing ad copy.
you were 6 minutes late with this comment
Yes, I know. I actually noticed that someone had in fact requested a torrent link right at the bottom of the comments, but I went ahead and posted it anyway. Do you know why? Just to piss you off.