In other words, in terms of permissions and system access, NT is far and away more complete in its configurability.
If you're trying to imply that ACLs that NT has are on the level that SELinux is, you're mistaken. While the NT ACLs are more fine grained, they don't actually prove much more useful than the ACLs present in SELinux. Also; they're just ACLs, not an the entire security policy that SELinux is. SELinux is a lot more than a set of ACLs.
Further more, on the claim that there exist no implementations of ACLs on linux, you're again wrong. Manditory ACLs are a part of SELinux, and as such are in a lot of popular distributions. The ones I can think of, off-hand, are Red Hat and derivatives (including Fedora Core and CentOS), Debian testing (will be in the next stable release) and Gentoo. These are popular distributions, and probably account for a relatively large percentage of the market, particularly in server use.
Furthermore, until recently (ie Vista) since so many legacy or poor written programs (and there are lots of these in a typical NT enviroment) required elevated privileges simply to run, the ACLs available to NT weren't actually of much benefit. This is (somewhat unusually) not a case of poor design on MSs part though, it's poor execution on the part of application developers. There are lots of interesting features than NT has, which are largely ignored because they aren't a selling point of software.
Can't speak for NTFS, but my mp3 player uses HFS+ as a filesystem, which both linux and osx can access perfectly well.
If you're referring to some kind of Ipod, bear in mind that previously, Apple would format the Ipod differently depending on the host OS that it was first used on. Nowadays though, they've dropped that, and use FAT32 on all Ipods.
Your comment encouraged me to try this out and compare the US Dell site with system76.
I was trying to build the cheapest desktop system I could (ie for a Grandmother who wants to type letters, do email and web browsing), with the requirement of having a screen and keyboard/mouse. Somewhat surprisingly, system76 has more options than Dell, especially in low end parts, meaning that buying a low end machine from system76 substantially cheaper than buying from Dell.
Dell ended up charging $969, with system76 charging $761. While I would still expect that buying two equal spec machines would result in Dell being cheaper, buying two functionality equal machines results in system76 being much cheaper.
Yes, but the stuff on www.uspto.gov clearly IS subject to patent protection. Mary Bono is talking about being both on the internet and being free of patent protection.
So instead of making fun of Vista for actually taking advantage of this extra 'free' RAM and scaling it in a way that 'continues' to add performance even when applications don't need it, maybe we should focus our efforts in the OSS community to work on caching technology so all OSS OSes will scale RAM as well as Vista.
I agree with you in the sense that all this hoo hah about Vista's caching is utterly devoid of point.
However, you should bear in mind that Linux and FreeBSD already have (and have had for a long time!) caching performance equal to or greater than that of Vista.
As far as Unix-based OS's are concerned, this has been standard. In fact, I think I'm correct in saying that XP implemented it in some minor fashion when it was released (quite a while back by the way).
Just for your infomation, xorg takes around 25 minutes to just over an hour on machines currently being sold, so maybe in the short-term future, compile-based install proceedures could become viable (even if I am not currently aware of many good reasons for anyone to do so).
(although the AMD-64 version of Macromedia Flash for Linux is not yet available).
I'm going offtopic here, but it is possible to play flash video files in mplayer under amd64. I can visit youtube, use the videodownloader firefox extension to get the flv, and then play it in mplayer. Works reasonably well. (I mention this because no one else ever does.)
Hmmm... well, I suppose, if you use openoffice (depends on non-free java IIRC) or non-free flash.
It's kinda unsettling to think of such non-frees and non-free dep's as part of a "typical" *nix distro. They aren't part of any of the distros I use (Debian, Gentoo, OpenBSD etc).
So, what? We're argueing in favour of grossly disproportionate incomes for the wealthy and poverty in the third world.
It's easy to misrepresent what people are saying. There's even a name for it; the Straw Man logical fallacy. Bear in mind that people who point out the "1% population, 90% wealth" statistic do so because it is shocking, scary and unsettling. Not because they advocate communism.
(To be totally honest to VDARE, I've looked around and seen stupid, racist, xenophobic politics, but I haven't seen any evidence of promoting violence. But if you don't mind, I'd rather discuss the concept of hate speech in general).
Hate speech is a seperate concept from criminal intention. The two are not necessarily linked. Hate speech does not have to intend violence. It can simply be a discussion of politics. There is nothing violent about believing that certain races are above others, and should be treated better (it is utterly disgusting though: but that should not be a case for the law).
People often ban what they call "hate speech", but the effect of this is often to mute discussion on the subject. How can one be outraged if he is unaware? This is beside the point, though, as all people should never unreasonably decide for others, no matter how noble their intentions may appear to be.
People should never have racism, bigotry or stupidity hidden from them. It should always be available, especially to disgust.
They simply need a new category "political controversy" that people can optionally block, for items/sites where it's subjective to label them as "hate."
It would be better to name that catagory "dissent". Then people would know exactly what they were blocking.
Possibly because your question doesn't have the interest of looking into another discipline. It's fairly standard advice that you could pick up from anyone, and while I'm sure that there are bound to be discussion points, there is going to be far less interest in your question than in one such as this.
Yes, I see your point. You're totally correct. I probably should have (at least) made the fact that I wouldn't be buying Intel again more direct.
Well, hopefully, that's a framed letter for other people to use, and this will increase the level of mail that Majid and Peter recieve. Future use should probably pay-up lost Intel sales.
I use virtual desktops heavily (I use twenty-six of them, to be precise), but you really have to accept that some people actually dislike that method of working.
Windows and Mac (IIRC) have never been very big on the vitual desktop thing, and while I find it second nature, it's important to realise that some people prefer to use a taskbar.
This kind of debate comes out in user interface design. Some people want to have unique windows for every instance of a program, and others prefer to use tabs. At the moment there are only really these two ways for handling multiple windows, but I'm sure people will think of more as time goes on. Multiple screens for example, might bring up some new ideas.
Either way, virtual desktops are a very unixy thing, so don't be surprised when windows or mac users keep many, small windows. People have been thinking in terms of many, small windows for many years - people probably won't be switching around their method of work so soon.
From: Cal Paterson
To: majid.awad@intel.com, peter.engelbrecht@intel.com
Date: Oct 1, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: Intel Firmware for the Wireless chips
As an OpenBSD user and "Intel Wireless PRO" owner, I would like you to
release your firmware for the "Intel Wireless PRO" chipset. I have an
IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad that uses this chipset, and I am unable to use it
without the binary blob firmware you provide.
You often say at conferences that you are committed to Open
Source/Free Software, and that you release sourcecode to that effect,
but often times you fail to release critical code, or even
documentation that would make it possible for the community to
re-create that code.
At the Open Drivers Summit, James Ketrenos said:
"If you need to keep IP closed source (for example some whiz-bang
algorithm), document the hardware sufficiently that the community can
provide their own."
This is a fine statement, but it would probably be more meaningful if
Intel would actually do so. The wpi driver for OpenBSD is currently
suffering for lack of documentation from Intel.
Lies and double standards are the currency of your commitment to Open
Source/Free Software as it is.
However, this is a issue that is easily solved. Release the
documentation for this chipset (or, even better, the original code).
Slashdot Mirror
If you're trying to imply that ACLs that NT has are on the level that SELinux is, you're mistaken. While the NT ACLs are more fine grained, they don't actually prove much more useful than the ACLs present in SELinux. Also; they're just ACLs, not an the entire security policy that SELinux is. SELinux is a lot more than a set of ACLs.
Further more, on the claim that there exist no implementations of ACLs on linux, you're again wrong. Manditory ACLs are a part of SELinux, and as such are in a lot of popular distributions. The ones I can think of, off-hand, are Red Hat and derivatives (including Fedora Core and CentOS), Debian testing (will be in the next stable release) and Gentoo. These are popular distributions, and probably account for a relatively large percentage of the market, particularly in server use.
Furthermore, until recently (ie Vista) since so many legacy or poor written programs (and there are lots of these in a typical NT enviroment) required elevated privileges simply to run, the ACLs available to NT weren't actually of much benefit. This is (somewhat unusually) not a case of poor design on MSs part though, it's poor execution on the part of application developers. There are lots of interesting features than NT has, which are largely ignored because they aren't a selling point of software.
If you're referring to some kind of Ipod, bear in mind that previously, Apple would format the Ipod differently depending on the host OS that it was first used on. Nowadays though, they've dropped that, and use FAT32 on all Ipods.
Your comment encouraged me to try this out and compare the US Dell site with system76.
I was trying to build the cheapest desktop system I could (ie for a Grandmother who wants to type letters, do email and web browsing), with the requirement of having a screen and keyboard/mouse. Somewhat surprisingly, system76 has more options than Dell, especially in low end parts, meaning that buying a low end machine from system76 substantially cheaper than buying from Dell.
Dell ended up charging $969, with system76 charging $761. While I would still expect that buying two equal spec machines would result in Dell being cheaper, buying two functionality equal machines results in system76 being much cheaper.
Interesting, no?
Yes, but the stuff on www.uspto.gov clearly IS subject to patent protection. Mary Bono is talking about being both on the internet and being free of patent protection.
www.uspto.gov only meets one of those criteria.
So instead of making fun of Vista for actually taking advantage of this extra 'free' RAM and scaling it in a way that 'continues' to add performance even when applications don't need it, maybe we should focus our efforts in the OSS community to work on caching technology so all OSS OSes will scale RAM as well as Vista.
I agree with you in the sense that all this hoo hah about Vista's caching is utterly devoid of point.
However, you should bear in mind that Linux and FreeBSD already have (and have had for a long time!) caching performance equal to or greater than that of Vista.
As far as Unix-based OS's are concerned, this has been standard. In fact, I think I'm correct in saying that XP implemented it in some minor fashion when it was released (quite a while back by the way).
Thankyou for that insight, I truely had never thought of that before.
Personally, I refuse to use closed-source flash, and the "flash downloader" plugin for firefox allows me to watch the videos in mplayer.
Just for your infomation, xorg takes around 25 minutes to just over an hour on machines currently being sold, so maybe in the short-term future, compile-based install proceedures could become viable (even if I am not currently aware of many good reasons for anyone to do so).
(although the AMD-64 version of Macromedia Flash for Linux is not yet available).
I'm going offtopic here, but it is possible to play flash video files in mplayer under amd64. I can visit youtube, use the videodownloader firefox extension to get the flv, and then play it in mplayer. Works reasonably well. (I mention this because no one else ever does.)
Hmmm... well, I suppose, if you use openoffice (depends on non-free java IIRC) or non-free flash.
It's kinda unsettling to think of such non-frees and non-free dep's as part of a "typical" *nix distro. They aren't part of any of the distros I use (Debian, Gentoo, OpenBSD etc).
So, what? We're argueing in favour of grossly disproportionate incomes for the wealthy and poverty in the third world.
It's easy to misrepresent what people are saying. There's even a name for it; the Straw Man logical fallacy. Bear in mind that people who point out the "1% population, 90% wealth" statistic do so because it is shocking, scary and unsettling. Not because they advocate communism.
Is everything on a typical x86-64 Linux distribution 64-bit? No.
I personally wouldn't know which parts of Vista are 32bit or not, but would you mind pointing out which parts of a normal linux distro aren't 64bit?
And retro in ten.
(To be totally honest to VDARE, I've looked around and seen stupid, racist, xenophobic politics, but I haven't seen any evidence of promoting violence. But if you don't mind, I'd rather discuss the concept of hate speech in general).
Hate speech is a seperate concept from criminal intention. The two are not necessarily linked. Hate speech does not have to intend violence. It can simply be a discussion of politics. There is nothing violent about believing that certain races are above others, and should be treated better (it is utterly disgusting though: but that should not be a case for the law).
People often ban what they call "hate speech", but the effect of this is often to mute discussion on the subject. How can one be outraged if he is unaware? This is beside the point, though, as all people should never unreasonably decide for others, no matter how noble their intentions may appear to be.
People should never have racism, bigotry or stupidity hidden from them. It should always be available, especially to disgust.
If I was talking about law, I would have written IANAL. I didn't, and am talking about morals.
Hate speech is still speech.
They simply need a new category "political controversy" that people can optionally block, for items/sites where it's subjective to label them as "hate."
It would be better to name that catagory "dissent". Then people would know exactly what they were blocking.
Everyone makes mistakes. Especially the moderator who voted us as Offtopic.
The slashdot post without line breaks -> The condescending slashdot post linking to a basic html tutorial.
If a product is touted as significantly better technologically, it should also be a pleasure to look at.
No, no, no. This is most certainly not a requirement.
Possibly because your question doesn't have the interest of looking into another discipline. It's fairly standard advice that you could pick up from anyone, and while I'm sure that there are bound to be discussion points, there is going to be far less interest in your question than in one such as this.
Yes, I see your point. You're totally correct. I probably should have (at least) made the fact that I wouldn't be buying Intel again more direct.
Well, hopefully, that's a framed letter for other people to use, and this will increase the level of mail that Majid and Peter recieve. Future use should probably pay-up lost Intel sales.
I use virtual desktops heavily (I use twenty-six of them, to be precise), but you really have to accept that some people actually dislike that method of working.
Windows and Mac (IIRC) have never been very big on the vitual desktop thing, and while I find it second nature, it's important to realise that some people prefer to use a taskbar.
This kind of debate comes out in user interface design. Some people want to have unique windows for every instance of a program, and others prefer to use tabs. At the moment there are only really these two ways for handling multiple windows, but I'm sure people will think of more as time goes on. Multiple screens for example, might bring up some new ideas.
Either way, virtual desktops are a very unixy thing, so don't be surprised when windows or mac users keep many, small windows. People have been thinking in terms of many, small windows for many years - people probably won't be switching around their method of work so soon.
Shite. Forgot about html ;)
;)]
From: Cal Paterson
To: majid.awad@intel.com, peter.engelbrecht@intel.com
Date: Oct 1, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: Intel Firmware for the Wireless chips
As an OpenBSD user and "Intel Wireless PRO" owner, I would like you to
release your firmware for the "Intel Wireless PRO" chipset. I have an
IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad that uses this chipset, and I am unable to use it
without the binary blob firmware you provide.
You often say at conferences that you are committed to Open
Source/Free Software, and that you release sourcecode to that effect,
but often times you fail to release critical code, or even
documentation that would make it possible for the community to
re-create that code.
At the Open Drivers Summit, James Ketrenos said:
"If you need to keep IP closed source (for example some whiz-bang
algorithm), document the hardware sufficiently that the community can
provide their own."
This is a fine statement, but it would probably be more meaningful if
Intel would actually do so. The wpi driver for OpenBSD is currently
suffering for lack of documentation from Intel.
Lies and double standards are the currency of your commitment to Open
Source/Free Software as it is.
However, this is a issue that is easily solved. Release the
documentation for this chipset (or, even better, the original code).
[Next time, I'll use the preview button