I had managed to get the tightwads where I work to approve a budget for Xen Server this year (I'm using Xen Express), but now it looks like I'll get to use that money for something else.
At any place I've ever worked, if funds for a certain thing were no longer needed (product became free, we found a free alternative, etc.), we did NOT get to spend the money on something else. At best, you get to brag about cost savings!
Yes, eeeeverything that can be run on Linux/Unix can be run on a Mac. A lot of things are already there, or downloadable in binary form. For most everything else, there's MacPorts or Fink. If it's not covered there, there's always downloading source code and compiling. This sometimes is a lot of extra work.
It all depends on how much extra work you want to put into it, and how familiar you are with *nix environments.
I can handle them both, but there's a difference. CPAN is a way to add modules to existing software. ports is a way to add software that should be there in the first place on a *nix system, or more standard versions of software that is already there. Before I'm going to go through that trouble, I will just use my Linux box.
So I guess I should say I won't do MacPorts. Except maybe to install watch. Come on Apple, give us that already!
About half of the CPAN modules I've tried to install on OS X (roughly a dozen or so) failed to install. So I had to look elsewhere for ways to run cool Perl scripts on OS X, until finally I just said screw it, anything with a.pl extension, I'll run on my Dell with Ubuntu. There, I can use the package manager that I use for the rest of the OS to install my CPAN modules.
I think you miss my point. You say if you do something yourself eventually an Apple update will overwrite what you did. But in this case it was Apple's own implementation that was broken.
The summary states that Apple's Perl is broken--if you installed third-party modules. People who use Perl out of the box the way Apple shipped it (which is quite old, by the way) don't have a broken Perl at the moment. But that Perl is quite boring.
Yes, you could have gotten around this by using Fink or ports version of Perl, or a compiled-from-source version. But that's where my point about Linux comes in. In nearly any distro, the version you can play around with safely is already there, and is kept as up-to-date as you like, depending on whether you subscribe to stable or unstable repositories.
I love OS X, I really do. It's the best desktop environment out there. It's a good development environment, but not great. You really have to know what you're doing, and Linux is just plain better in this area. I think after you have played with your dual-boot Mac for a while, you will agree. OS X is great for the everyday tasks, but you can't beat the freedom and flexibility of a more traditional *nix when it comes to development.
Like other's you have it backwards. Apple's update only affects Apple's implementation of Perl. If you built your own Perl implementation it wasn't affected.
Well, I was being somewhat sarcastic in response to a very sarcastic comment. I know you can use Fink or ports, or even compile from source, your own Perl on OS X. But my point remains the same...if you are going to mess with Apple's Perl, you can't do much because it will break at some point with an update. This applies to many of the *nix-y parts of OS X. Your config files get overwritten by Software Update. The extensions you configured and compiled yourself because they weren't there get disabled because all of a sudden, Apple decides to include it (but an old version).
So that's where my comment came from: You can use Perl fine on OS X as long as you don't dick around with it too much. Unless that is, you are willing to build it yourself, in which case I have to say Linux is better. In most distros, you get a more flexible, up-to-date distribution that is less likely to break if you play around with it too much.
I prefer OS X to Linux, but I'm not going to use Apple's Perl distribution. It's just too much of a hassle to do anything beyond plain-vanilla stuff. If you install third-party stuff, you run the risk of having Apple overwrite, or end up with a broken Perl, just like in this case.
It does just work, if you take what Apple gives you and don't customize it too much. Installing your own modules? Not the Apple way. Go to Linux for that kind of thing. Who would use OS X for serious Perl work anyway?
Although that is the dictionary definition, it is antiquated at this point. It almost always refers to the first definition. "Semi-monthly," as noted in definition 2, is universally used for twice a month now.
Both of the DVD players in my house play AAC. My car stereo does also, playing ISO-9660 formatted discs with either MP3, AAC or WMA files on them. Yes, I know you will run into a product here or there that only supports MP3, but I think all this talk of the lack of devices that support MP4/AAC is greatly exaggerated.
"Troll" my ass. He makes a legitimate point and the moderator needs to have his points confiscated.
Yes, mods please fix this. As a vet of the newspaper industry (started out as a typesetter, moved up to city beat reporter, then managing editor, then editor/publisher), I can tell you that what the original poster said is 100% on the mark.
Yeah, relatively - OS X stores passwords in a proper way: in the central "Keychain", to which you may only get access to by supplying your user credidentials. Does your Linux or Windows have anything like that? No? Trolling failed, then, you Linux/Windows luser of ignoramus stance
Somebody, please mod down this AC's +1 Insightful. Yes, Linux has an equivalent of the Keychain. If you use Gnome, it's called the Keyring. If you use KDE, it's called the Wallet. They all work equally well. Props to Apple, though, for first implementing it way back in 1994 as part of the PowerTalk add-on pack to System 7.5
I have Charter's cable modem service, and while I do have their HD cable service, it's not mandatory. I agree the rates are pretty darn good, especially for where I live (basically Nowhereville, Rural America). I started out with them in 2003, paying $39.95/month for 512 kilobit download/64 kilobit upload. They were the first to provide broadband to my town. The cable company in the next town over (a more local outfit) was charging $54.95/month for 512/128.
Within three months, Charter had upgraded my price level to 1.5 megabit/128 kilobit. Over the years, they kept raising the speed, without charging more. Currently, I pay $89/month for 10 megabit/1 megabit, along with Charter's basic HD package (no HBO, Showtime or Skinemax, but that's what Netflix is for). This is *not* a package deal; I could cancel the TV service and still pay $39.95/month for my theoretical 10 megabits per second. Folks in the next town over would have to pay close to $150/month to get the same service.
Despite my initial distrust of Charter (with Paul Allen being a major stakeholder and all), they have really done great for a humble guy living in the sticks. Now, I know people in France or China probably get 30 megabit download for the same price, but I feel pretty lucky considering where I'm at.
The Onion ran one of their parody news articles a few years back concerning drugs. IIRC, the headline was "Drugs now legal if user is gainfully employed." I think that really cuts to the heart of the matter. What we should be most concerned about is people contributing in a positive manner to society. The negative effects to society in relation to drug use mostly revolve around crimes committed to acquire the drugs; the violent actions some people commit once under the influence of drugs; and harm done to children/teenagers who start drugs while their bodies and minds are still developing.
If people did drugs in the privacy of their own home, went to work everyday and played their part in the overall good of society, and you had to be 18 or 21 (like cigarettes and booze in the USA) to legally do drugs, these main concerns would go away.
Some people will never be able to wrap their minds around this concept. They've been raised with the "drugs==bad" mentality and can't see what goes on everyday around them. We already allow this with certain drugs. Alcohol, make no mistake about it, is a drug. It is one of the worst drugs around. Not to generalize (because there are "happy drunks"), but it makes people mean, and makes them do and say things they wouldn't otherwise. It is very addictive, especially to those genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. It incapacitates users to a point that many other drugs don't. And the long-term health effects are among the worst of all drugs out there. But, for whatever reason, partaking in this drug is socially acceptable if you are 21 or older in the USA (other ages, usually younger in other countries). And then we have nicotine, the active ingredient in cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products. This is an extremely addictive drug, so much so that many heroin addicts find it easier to kick smack than to give up smoking.
And then we have "controlled substances," of which doctors write out legitimate prescriptions by the the millions every day. Oxycontin is known in some circles as "hillbilly heroin," because the effects are similar, and it is the closest equivalent that can be found in rural areas. Other opioid medications like Vicodin are equally addictive, and when it comes time to quit them, the user might has well have been taking heroin. The withdrawals of any opiate or opioid or all the same: a hellish process that makes user either want to get a fix ASAP, or just die. Yet these drugs are legal.
I've gotten off-track a little bit, but for whatever reason, there's three drugs that are very much legal if you are the right age, or have the right doctor. Why are they legal when marijuana is less intoxicating than alcohol, and smoking it at worst provides the same risk for cancer as cigarettes? (I think weed is less likely to cause cancer because it is not pumped full of extra chemicals, like the tobacco companies do to keep their users hooked.) A habitual marijuana user will certainly feel "bummed" if they run out, but they won't go through withdrawals that are potentially deadly, as in the case of alcohol or opiates. And a pothead can quit with just willpower; as the commercials for many stop-smoking-aids, willpower is not enough to kick the cigarette habit.
We tolerate alcohol, tobacco and addictive prescription medications, as long as their users are otherwise productive members of society. I can only see at as a great hypocrisy that other drugs are not afforded the same opportunity--especially when we are talking about something as innocuous as marijuana. Drop all the drug laws now. If people let the drugs turn themselves into criminals, there are other laws to take care of that. Just like laws that take care of drunk drivers, people that steal cigarettes, or people that forge fake prescriptions. If consenting adults want to do these things in the privacy of their own home, and keep them out of the reach of their children, and stay on the right side of the law, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed too.
As to why they are not allowed to, there are a lot of reasons why the dope dealers and the lawmakers don't want it to change; there's plenty of posts above mine that state these reasons in an insightful manner.
As others have mentioned, it's AFP, not AFS, but the point remains the same. It's slow because it sacrifices speed for goodies like hi-res icons, and remembering icon positions.
NFS is slower yet on OS X, both as a server and a client,
The funny thing is, though, that Mac OS X Server can serve out the same sharepoint over AFP, SMB/CIFS, and NFS. All at the same time. There's no conversion necessary. Just click the checkbox for the protocols you want to turn on. (This includes FTP also.) So why they complain about AFP, when there are other options available with a click of a mouse, is a little puzzling.
I remember that. I was six years old and so looking forward to it, thinking it was going to be like Star Wars. I was totally bored the whole time. I've come to appreciate it on its own merits, but Start Trek: TMP is definitely not a film for six-year-olds.
They just want to get it out in time for the Memorial Day holiday in the USA. It's one of the bigger box-office weekends of the year, and perfect for a release like the new Star Trek flick.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought it was "Operation Release All Cash to Larry Ellison."
I had managed to get the tightwads where I work to approve a budget for Xen Server this year (I'm using Xen Express), but now it looks like I'll get to use that money for something else.
At any place I've ever worked, if funds for a certain thing were no longer needed (product became free, we found a free alternative, etc.), we did NOT get to spend the money on something else. At best, you get to brag about cost savings!
For those who don't get it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_(EP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use:_The_Story_of_the_Letter_U_and_the_Numeral_2
Yes, eeeeverything that can be run on Linux/Unix can be run on a Mac. A lot of things are already there, or downloadable in binary form. For most everything else, there's MacPorts or Fink. If it's not covered there, there's always downloading source code and compiling. This sometimes is a lot of extra work.
It all depends on how much extra work you want to put into it, and how familiar you are with *nix environments.
You can handle CPAN but not MacPorts?
I can handle them both, but there's a difference. CPAN is a way to add modules to existing software. ports is a way to add software that should be there in the first place on a *nix system, or more standard versions of software that is already there. Before I'm going to go through that trouble, I will just use my Linux box.
So I guess I should say I won't do MacPorts. Except maybe to install watch. Come on Apple, give us that already!
How many modules does Apple provide?
Not many.
How many who use Perl do not use CPAN?
About half of the CPAN modules I've tried to install on OS X (roughly a dozen or so) failed to install. So I had to look elsewhere for ways to run cool Perl scripts on OS X, until finally I just said screw it, anything with a .pl extension, I'll run on my Dell with Ubuntu. There, I can use the package manager that I use for the rest of the OS to install my CPAN modules.
I think you miss my point. You say if you do something yourself eventually an Apple update will overwrite what you did. But in this case it was Apple's own implementation that was broken.
The summary states that Apple's Perl is broken--if you installed third-party modules. People who use Perl out of the box the way Apple shipped it (which is quite old, by the way) don't have a broken Perl at the moment. But that Perl is quite boring.
Yes, you could have gotten around this by using Fink or ports version of Perl, or a compiled-from-source version. But that's where my point about Linux comes in. In nearly any distro, the version you can play around with safely is already there, and is kept as up-to-date as you like, depending on whether you subscribe to stable or unstable repositories.
I love OS X, I really do. It's the best desktop environment out there. It's a good development environment, but not great. You really have to know what you're doing, and Linux is just plain better in this area. I think after you have played with your dual-boot Mac for a while, you will agree. OS X is great for the everyday tasks, but you can't beat the freedom and flexibility of a more traditional *nix when it comes to development.
Like other's you have it backwards. Apple's update only affects Apple's implementation of Perl. If you built your own Perl implementation it wasn't affected.
Well, I was being somewhat sarcastic in response to a very sarcastic comment. I know you can use Fink or ports, or even compile from source, your own Perl on OS X. But my point remains the same...if you are going to mess with Apple's Perl, you can't do much because it will break at some point with an update. This applies to many of the *nix-y parts of OS X. Your config files get overwritten by Software Update. The extensions you configured and compiled yourself because they weren't there get disabled because all of a sudden, Apple decides to include it (but an old version).
So that's where my comment came from: You can use Perl fine on OS X as long as you don't dick around with it too much. Unless that is, you are willing to build it yourself, in which case I have to say Linux is better. In most distros, you get a more flexible, up-to-date distribution that is less likely to break if you play around with it too much.
I prefer OS X to Linux, but I'm not going to use Apple's Perl distribution. It's just too much of a hassle to do anything beyond plain-vanilla stuff. If you install third-party stuff, you run the risk of having Apple overwrite, or end up with a broken Perl, just like in this case.
It does just work, if you take what Apple gives you and don't customize it too much. Installing your own modules? Not the Apple way. Go to Linux for that kind of thing. Who would use OS X for serious Perl work anyway?
Although that is the dictionary definition, it is antiquated at this point. It almost always refers to the first definition. "Semi-monthly," as noted in definition 2, is universally used for twice a month now.
Unplug the network cable in the back
My Ethernet jack is on the side of my computer, you insensitive clod!
Both of the DVD players in my house play AAC. My car stereo does also, playing ISO-9660 formatted discs with either MP3, AAC or WMA files on them. Yes, I know you will run into a product here or there that only supports MP3, but I think all this talk of the lack of devices that support MP4/AAC is greatly exaggerated.
"One button. Endless possibilities." That's totally something Apple would put on a poster.
"Troll" my ass. He makes a legitimate point and the moderator needs to have his points confiscated.
Yes, mods please fix this. As a vet of the newspaper industry (started out as a typesetter, moved up to city beat reporter, then managing editor, then editor/publisher), I can tell you that what the original poster said is 100% on the mark.
Australia reports a rise in connections to proxy servers in the USA.
Yeah, relatively - OS X stores passwords in a proper way: in the central "Keychain", to which you may only get access to by supplying your user credidentials. Does your Linux or Windows have anything like that? No? Trolling failed, then, you Linux/Windows luser of ignoramus stance
Somebody, please mod down this AC's +1 Insightful. Yes, Linux has an equivalent of the Keychain. If you use Gnome, it's called the Keyring. If you use KDE, it's called the Wallet. They all work equally well. Props to Apple, though, for first implementing it way back in 1994 as part of the PowerTalk add-on pack to System 7.5
Screenshot of System 7.5 Keychain:http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/9D82740A-139C-432C-8279-AD2D4E04892E_files/img008.jpg
I have Charter's cable modem service, and while I do have their HD cable service, it's not mandatory. I agree the rates are pretty darn good, especially for where I live (basically Nowhereville, Rural America). I started out with them in 2003, paying $39.95/month for 512 kilobit download/64 kilobit upload. They were the first to provide broadband to my town. The cable company in the next town over (a more local outfit) was charging $54.95/month for 512/128.
Within three months, Charter had upgraded my price level to 1.5 megabit/128 kilobit. Over the years, they kept raising the speed, without charging more. Currently, I pay $89/month for 10 megabit/1 megabit, along with Charter's basic HD package (no HBO, Showtime or Skinemax, but that's what Netflix is for). This is *not* a package deal; I could cancel the TV service and still pay $39.95/month for my theoretical 10 megabits per second. Folks in the next town over would have to pay close to $150/month to get the same service.
Despite my initial distrust of Charter (with Paul Allen being a major stakeholder and all), they have really done great for a humble guy living in the sticks. Now, I know people in France or China probably get 30 megabit download for the same price, but I feel pretty lucky considering where I'm at.
Broadcom crams all these functions on to one chip. And still won't release drivers for Linux. ndiswrapper lives on...
The Onion ran one of their parody news articles a few years back concerning drugs. IIRC, the headline was "Drugs now legal if user is gainfully employed." I think that really cuts to the heart of the matter. What we should be most concerned about is people contributing in a positive manner to society. The negative effects to society in relation to drug use mostly revolve around crimes committed to acquire the drugs; the violent actions some people commit once under the influence of drugs; and harm done to children/teenagers who start drugs while their bodies and minds are still developing.
If people did drugs in the privacy of their own home, went to work everyday and played their part in the overall good of society, and you had to be 18 or 21 (like cigarettes and booze in the USA) to legally do drugs, these main concerns would go away.
Some people will never be able to wrap their minds around this concept. They've been raised with the "drugs==bad" mentality and can't see what goes on everyday around them. We already allow this with certain drugs. Alcohol, make no mistake about it, is a drug. It is one of the worst drugs around. Not to generalize (because there are "happy drunks"), but it makes people mean, and makes them do and say things they wouldn't otherwise. It is very addictive, especially to those genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. It incapacitates users to a point that many other drugs don't. And the long-term health effects are among the worst of all drugs out there. But, for whatever reason, partaking in this drug is socially acceptable if you are 21 or older in the USA (other ages, usually younger in other countries). And then we have nicotine, the active ingredient in cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products. This is an extremely addictive drug, so much so that many heroin addicts find it easier to kick smack than to give up smoking.
And then we have "controlled substances," of which doctors write out legitimate prescriptions by the the millions every day. Oxycontin is known in some circles as "hillbilly heroin," because the effects are similar, and it is the closest equivalent that can be found in rural areas. Other opioid medications like Vicodin are equally addictive, and when it comes time to quit them, the user might has well have been taking heroin. The withdrawals of any opiate or opioid or all the same: a hellish process that makes user either want to get a fix ASAP, or just die. Yet these drugs are legal.
I've gotten off-track a little bit, but for whatever reason, there's three drugs that are very much legal if you are the right age, or have the right doctor. Why are they legal when marijuana is less intoxicating than alcohol, and smoking it at worst provides the same risk for cancer as cigarettes? (I think weed is less likely to cause cancer because it is not pumped full of extra chemicals, like the tobacco companies do to keep their users hooked.) A habitual marijuana user will certainly feel "bummed" if they run out, but they won't go through withdrawals that are potentially deadly, as in the case of alcohol or opiates. And a pothead can quit with just willpower; as the commercials for many stop-smoking-aids, willpower is not enough to kick the cigarette habit.
We tolerate alcohol, tobacco and addictive prescription medications, as long as their users are otherwise productive members of society. I can only see at as a great hypocrisy that other drugs are not afforded the same opportunity--especially when we are talking about something as innocuous as marijuana. Drop all the drug laws now. If people let the drugs turn themselves into criminals, there are other laws to take care of that. Just like laws that take care of drunk drivers, people that steal cigarettes, or people that forge fake prescriptions. If consenting adults want to do these things in the privacy of their own home, and keep them out of the reach of their children, and stay on the right side of the law, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed too.
As to why they are not allowed to, there are a lot of reasons why the dope dealers and the lawmakers don't want it to change; there's plenty of posts above mine that state these reasons in an insightful manner.
As others have mentioned, it's AFP, not AFS, but the point remains the same. It's slow because it sacrifices speed for goodies like hi-res icons, and remembering icon positions.
NFS is slower yet on OS X, both as a server and a client,
The funny thing is, though, that Mac OS X Server can serve out the same sharepoint over AFP, SMB/CIFS, and NFS. All at the same time. There's no conversion necessary. Just click the checkbox for the protocols you want to turn on. (This includes FTP also.) So why they complain about AFP, when there are other options available with a click of a mouse, is a little puzzling.
At least it was only $1,495 and not $185,325 Canadian dollars (based on the MPAA's figure of US$150,000 per copyright violation).
I remember that. I was six years old and so looking forward to it, thinking it was going to be like Star Wars. I was totally bored the whole time. I've come to appreciate it on its own merits, but Start Trek: TMP is definitely not a film for six-year-olds.
They just want to get it out in time for the Memorial Day holiday in the USA. It's one of the bigger box-office weekends of the year, and perfect for a release like the new Star Trek flick.
Yes, please adjust your command as rm -rf ~/ Not quite as damaging, but potentially just as irritating.