On reason I never read ZDNet anymore is they always leave major stuff out. If you don't consider Zope when choosing a web development platform, you're missing out big time.
Zope, although far from perfect, gives you excellent flexibility in how you go about creating active content. It is also entirely object-oriented in nature making modular design easy.
With Zope you can do your layout and simple logic with DTML. There are also many "products" you can add to Zope for major functionality. For example, Squishdot emulates a Slashdot-like web site. Smart objects like ZCatalog and ZSQL Methods make content searching and database querying functionality plug right in. Plus you can create your own object classes to behave however you want.
But, the real key is that when you need some heavy processing logic, you can fall back to Python and more recently Perl to do your bidding.
Other nice features include infinite undos and versions which allow you to work on a live server without breaking functionality. Plus Zope has an excellent community of developers and all around nice people. With Guido and company now in the fold at Digital Creations, it'll only get better.
Like I said, Zope is not perfect, but it is quickly maturing into a rapid web development platform that is second to none. If you are searching for a platform, do yourself a favor and check it out.
We would be giddily working on our security-less machines until one day the exploit became publicized and it took out 90%+ of every machine on the net in one fell swoop.
Also, what does ILOVEYOU have to do with publicly releasing security vulnerabilities? Any 5 year old with a modem could have pulled that one off...
Please, please, please do not listen to this drivel.
There are research efforts to create a Fuel Cell powered vehicle capable of using gasoline as a fuel. From what I understand a processor will create methane and/or hydrogen from the gasoline to feed the fuel cell.
The goal is to make a flexible-fuel processor that works with many different hydrogen-rich fuels. More can be found here:
I use FreeBSD when I need scalabilty and OpenBSD when I need utmost security.
In Simple Terms: All of the OpenBSD code cas been combed over for any "potential" security holes. Every port sanctioned by OpenBSD is put through rigorous testing. That means that many times the OpenBSD version of a port is older than FreeBSD, because the new version is not confirmed as secure yet or may have bugs that need fixing. OpenBSD is tight as a drum. It is not to say that you cannot make a FreeBSD box secure, but because of the incredible level of code review in OpenBSD, it will always be "more" secure in an equivilant configuration. OpenBSD also runs on more hardware platforms due to its roots in NetBSD
I use FreeBSD whenever I want scalability. For one, FreeBSD supports SMP, OpenBSD doesn't. RAID support is also better in FreeBSD. It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'! FreeBSD is also somewhat friendlier to install and manage. On the other hand, OpenBSD is a no-frills OS, which itself has its advantages.
Re:explanation from the learning company
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
Designs of this nature are patently irresponsible. What purpose does it serve to have this program run when the computer starts up? Why would I want it using RAM and CPU time all the time?
This could so easily be designed to simply ask you if you want to check for updates when you run the program. Or they could just provide a shortcut to the updater within the program or Start menu.
I'm sure these options were not overlooked when the program was created. The program is intended to do things behind the user's back plain and simple. It is a clear example of unethical software development no matter how harmless the actual program is.
It also once again makes clear the flaws inherent in Windoze. I need not enumerate them here...
"Raw" Linux gets this wrong by failing to hide in the first place.
I disagree. To most neophyte users, Linux (or any CLI OS) hides everything. One of the hardest parts of learning Linux is what to do here:
>_
If you've never used it before try ed to see what I mean! At least a GUI presents some information for a completely novice user. Once they learn how the mouse works, they can navigate and browse the system just to get their bearings. The closest thing in *nix is man hier, not exactly interactive.
In some ways Windoze suffers the opposite problem (and the Mac to a lesser extent), showing users files that are of little consequence to them. Anyone whose ever done 'doze tech support knows what I mean. We've all had the user who decided to delete all those useless "dll" files that were "slowing down" his/her computer! (It is ironic that ultimately this user is correct, however).
"The Dock:...Should not hold the trash can. (The trash can should be on the desktop, where it belongs.)"
Funny, I prefer mine on the floor. Do you still throw disks in there to eject them? Oh, that's right no floppy drive! Hmmm, there's a flaw in every metaphor...
First off: RISC/CISC doesn't matter. In fact Intel's (an AMD's) recent designs have many "RISC-like" features especially in the processor core. Conversely, the G4 has many "CISC-like" features now.
One of the performance advantages that the G3/G4 have is support for a much faster Level 2 Backside bus cache. It can run anywhere from 1/2 to the full clock speed of the processor. This allows a bigger cache to be used more effectively. The G4 also gives programmers direct control of a huge bank of processor registers, allowing more direct control of processor resources. It also has a 128 bit bus for it's vector processing (Altivec) unit (a glorified DSP).
Another advantage the G4 has is a much smaller die size and therefore smaller power/heat dissipation requirements. This is due to the fact that the G4 does not need to support the many bloated legacy instructions in the x86 architecture. All the PowerPC instructions are the same memory size (unlike x86), which makes the preprocessor logic and pipelining *much* simpler as well.
After reading everybody bicker about MacOS, Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, ad naseum, it is emminently clear that none of them fit the bill completely. All of them have many flaws, many of which are shared by all.
None of the OSes above are designed for this purpose. They are all "general purpose" computer operating systems. What this user needs a simple narrowly focused operating environment that performs a limited set of tasks and is very forgiving to the neophyte. Allowing them to turn the machine on and off, not self destruct or give arcane fsck, scandisk error messages, illegal operations, i/o errors, etc., etc.
Such a system does not exist to my knowledge. The closest product aimed at this "market" is the iMac, love it or hate it. However, the iMac is still a general purpose machine which is far more complicated and tinker-prone than most naive users would like. I liken the computers of today to automobiles of the first decade or so of this century. The potential is clearly visible, but be sure to have a good mechanic at your bekon call, or be one yourself.
This whole discussion is an issue of perspective. We all take for granted a certain level of computer understanding that we deem obvious. Computers will always be hard to approach as long as we approach them for everyone the way we approach them for ourselves.
The year numbering scheme was first tried by Adobe if memory serves for Illustrator 88. Needless to say that was the only year versioning attempted by Adobe that I remember.
I think Microsoft likes it because it makes your software feel old more readily. Still using Windows 95? Who can remember 4.00b.3128.032-SR2b anyhow?
I'll agree that free stuff is really cool, but I throw half of it away anyhow once I get home. I would have to say that the highlight of the last show I attended (Linuxworld San Jose) was meeting Linus T. face to face and watching R. Stallman boogey to techno music whilst drinking free beer ala/. I'm sure I'll loose all those free pens long before that image slides from memory...
Slashdot Mirror
On reason I never read ZDNet anymore is they always leave major stuff out. If you don't consider Zope when choosing a web development platform, you're missing out big time.
Zope, although far from perfect, gives you excellent flexibility in how you go about creating active content. It is also entirely object-oriented in nature making modular design easy.
With Zope you can do your layout and simple logic with DTML. There are also many "products" you can add to Zope for major functionality. For example, Squishdot emulates a Slashdot-like web site. Smart objects like ZCatalog and ZSQL Methods make content searching and database querying functionality plug right in. Plus you can create your own object classes to behave however you want.
But, the real key is that when you need some heavy processing logic, you can fall back to Python and more recently Perl to do your bidding.
Other nice features include infinite undos and versions which allow you to work on a live server without breaking functionality. Plus Zope has an excellent community of developers and all around nice people. With Guido and company now in the fold at Digital Creations, it'll only get better.
Like I said, Zope is not perfect, but it is quickly maturing into a rapid web development platform that is second to none. If you are searching for a platform, do yourself a favor and check it out.
We would be giddily working on our security-less machines until one day the exploit became publicized and it took out 90%+ of every machine on the net in one fell swoop.
Also, what does ILOVEYOU have to do with publicly releasing security vulnerabilities? Any 5 year old with a modem could have pulled that one off...
Please, please, please do not listen to this drivel.
There are research efforts to create a Fuel Cell powered vehicle capable of using gasoline as a fuel. From what I understand a processor will create methane and/or hydrogen from the gasoline to feed the fuel cell.
The goal is to make a flexible-fuel processor that works with many different hydrogen-rich fuels. More can be found here:
http://www.ott.doe.gov/oaat/gtfuel.htmlhttp://www.daimler chrysler.de/index_e.htm?/news/top/t90317_e.htm
http://www.williamsinference.com/2420 fuel.htm
I use FreeBSD when I need scalabilty and OpenBSD when I need utmost security.
In Simple Terms:
All of the OpenBSD code cas been combed over for any "potential" security holes. Every port sanctioned by OpenBSD is put through rigorous testing. That means that many times the OpenBSD version of a port is older than FreeBSD, because the new version is not confirmed as secure yet or may have bugs that need fixing. OpenBSD is tight as a drum. It is not to say that you cannot make a FreeBSD box secure, but because of the incredible level of code review in OpenBSD, it will always be "more" secure in an equivilant configuration. OpenBSD also runs on more hardware platforms due to its roots in NetBSD
I use FreeBSD whenever I want scalability. For one, FreeBSD supports SMP, OpenBSD doesn't. RAID support is also better in FreeBSD. It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'! FreeBSD is also somewhat friendlier to install and manage. On the other hand, OpenBSD is a no-frills OS, which itself has its advantages.
Designs of this nature are patently irresponsible. What purpose does it serve to have this program run when the computer starts up? Why would I want it using RAM and CPU time all the time?
This could so easily be designed to simply ask you if you want to check for updates when you run the program. Or they could just provide a shortcut to the updater within the program or Start menu.
I'm sure these options were not overlooked when the program was created. The program is intended to do things behind the user's back plain and simple. It is a clear example of unethical software development no matter how harmless the actual program is.
It also once again makes clear the flaws inherent in Windoze. I need not enumerate them here...
Try 10, maybe even 2.
Hell, a couple of things I wrote last month are getting kinda long in the tooth 8^)
"Raw" Linux gets this wrong by failing to hide in the first place.
I disagree. To most neophyte users, Linux (or any CLI OS) hides everything. One of the hardest parts of learning Linux is what to do here:
>_
If you've never used it before try ed to see what I mean! At least a GUI presents some information for a completely novice user. Once they learn how the mouse works, they can navigate and browse the system just to get their bearings. The closest thing in *nix is man hier, not exactly interactive.
In some ways Windoze suffers the opposite problem (and the Mac to a lesser extent), showing users files that are of little consequence to them. Anyone whose ever done 'doze tech support knows what I mean. We've all had the user who decided to delete all those useless "dll" files that were "slowing down" his/her computer! (It is ironic that ultimately this user is correct, however).
Funny, I prefer mine on the floor. Do you still throw disks in there to eject them? Oh, that's right no floppy drive! Hmmm, there's a flaw in every metaphor...
200MHz was the bus speed, Not the processor speed.
First off: RISC/CISC doesn't matter. In fact Intel's (an AMD's) recent designs have many "RISC-like" features especially in the processor core. Conversely, the G4 has many "CISC-like" features now.
One of the performance advantages that the G3/G4 have is support for a much faster Level 2 Backside bus cache. It can run anywhere from 1/2 to the full clock speed of the processor. This allows a bigger cache to be used more effectively. The G4 also gives programmers direct control of a huge bank of processor registers, allowing more direct control of processor resources. It also has a 128 bit bus for it's vector processing (Altivec) unit (a glorified DSP).
Another advantage the G4 has is a much smaller die size and therefore smaller power/heat dissipation requirements. This is due to the fact that the G4 does not need to support the many bloated legacy instructions in the x86 architecture. All the PowerPC instructions are the same memory size (unlike x86), which makes the preprocessor logic and pipelining *much* simpler as well.
After reading everybody bicker about MacOS, Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, ad naseum, it is emminently clear that none of them fit the bill completely. All of them have many flaws, many of which are shared by all.
None of the OSes above are designed for this purpose. They are all "general purpose" computer operating systems. What this user needs a simple narrowly focused operating environment that performs a limited set of tasks and is very forgiving to the neophyte. Allowing them to turn the machine on and off, not self destruct or give arcane fsck, scandisk error messages, illegal operations, i/o errors, etc., etc.
Such a system does not exist to my knowledge. The closest product aimed at this "market" is the iMac, love it or hate it. However, the iMac is still a general purpose machine which is far more complicated and tinker-prone than most naive users would like. I liken the computers of today to automobiles of the first decade or so of this century. The potential is clearly visible, but be sure to have a good mechanic at your bekon call, or be one yourself.
This whole discussion is an issue of perspective. We all take for granted a certain level of computer understanding that we deem obvious. Computers will always be hard to approach as long as we approach them for everyone the way we approach them for ourselves.
Just myThe year numbering scheme was first tried by Adobe if memory serves for Illustrator 88. Needless to say that was the only year versioning attempted by Adobe that I remember.
I think Microsoft likes it because it makes your software feel old more readily. Still using Windows 95? Who can remember 4.00b.3128.032-SR2b anyhow?
I'll agree that free stuff is really cool, but I throw half of it away anyhow once I get home. I would have to say that the highlight of the last show I attended (Linuxworld San Jose) was meeting Linus T. face to face and watching R. Stallman boogey to techno music whilst drinking free beer ala /. I'm sure I'll loose all those free pens long before that image slides from memory...