Honestly. OSV is SLOW compared to native. No one wants slow.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Incorrect. Anyone who's ever run os x in a vmware window will tell you that it's quite snappy (maybe 90% of normal system speed). And that's without any vendor support.
Not bad! I think for extra points you should have bought up speculation that Apple closed the OS X kernel to ease the future transition to the Vista kernel.
And of course, no modern anti-apple troll should be complete without reference to Apple's 'betrayel' of PA semi
No, I made a presumption that someone living in China who chose a Chinese pseudonym and domain name might, somehow, support China.
But that just shows your stupidity. Would you think someone with a cuban name & spanish language site supports Castro? How about someone with an American sounding name with an English language website - are they automatically Bush supporters?
There are thousands of Chinese living all over the world, covering the full spectrum of political opinions. The fact that you assume Chinese language==Support for China just shows that you need to get a passport & go & see a bit of the world.
(As an aside, is it just me, or is calling someone "dude" in an argument a pretty clear sign of rhetorical capitulation? Just an observation.)
Can you explain what you mean by that extraordinarily stupid statement?
I've made it very clear that I don't support most of the actions taken by the current administration. However, I still feel that it's inappropriate (and rude) to hold all Americans responsible for this. Such accusations, directed at certain other ethnic groups, would be labelled racism or bigotry.
Whatever dude. I hold the citizens of democratically elected governments responsible for their governments actions, no matter what race they are.
You're misinterpreting the point of my original argument. It's not "still more human rights than China," but rather "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." And at this point in our global development, we all pretty much live in the same house.
But the O.P. did not make any statement of support for the Chinese government. Did he?
(Furthermore, your assertion that a country of 100 people immediately becomes a democracy as soon as the 51st person gets the right to vote seems rather silly.)
My assertaion was that a country where only white, male landowners can vote is not a "modern liberal democracy". Modern democracy has been a gradual process, I think NZ was the first country to achieve it.
and most of us would never have supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place had we not been flat-out lied to by Bush.
The whole world got lied to by bush - only America believed him tho' - because of attitudes very similar to the one you're displaying. It can be boiled down to 'my country, right or wrong'.
. As such, I don't think his background is outside of the scope of the argument, and (aside from that Happy Meal comment, which you have to admit was kind of funny), I don't think I stepped outside of the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
Aceptable discourse? Whatever dude - the fact is you made presumptions about the OP that criticism of America==support of China. That is stupid.
And unless you're wearing clothes made in your local village, eating only locally-grown food and working for a small, local business with no connections outside your country, you're also complicit in a lot of this. Does your government have trade relations with the United States? Why haven't you done something to stop them? You're responsible for what they do, after all.
The difference between you & me is that I do not defend my government when they're in the wrong. You are (with your "US, still more human rights then China" argument)
Can't Gonzales think of the unintended consequences of legislation such as this? If leeks can no longer be published, what will happen to websites such as this one?;-)
Now I've gotten my joke in, for those too lazy to install the firefox bugmenot extension here's the article text:
Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible
The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."
"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."
"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."
Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and "communications intelligence activities."
Those laws are the basis of a pending case against two lobbyists, but they have never been used to prosecute journalists.
Some legal scholars say that even if the plain language of the laws could be read to reach journalists, the laws were never intended to apply to the press. In any event, these scholars say, prosecuting reporters under the laws might violate the First Amendment.
Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
Mr. Gonzales sidestepped a question concerning whether the administration had been reviewing reporters' telephone records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.
"To the extent that we engage in electronic surveillance or surveillance of content, as the president says, we don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," he said. "And obviously if, in fact, there is a basis under the Constitution to go to a federal judge and satisfy the constitutional standards of probable cause and we get a court order, that will be pursued."
Look at the OP's name and website, then get back to me.
Are you saying that because he lived in china for a while, anything critical he says against the US automatically means that he thinks the (positive) reverse about China?
I'm quite familiar with my country's history, TYVM.
No, you're not familiar with your countries history, if you were, you would not have said:
We may have sided with some real bastards in the Middle East in the early 1980's, but China's the one blocking action against everyone's favorite nascent nuclear theocracy in the UN Security Council.
When it is perfectly clear to most of the world, that America is still supporting some real bastards in the middle east (not to mention an illegal nuclear power).
Chances are you live in a country whose system of government is based on the one we first implemented. I'd also imagine you're enjoying not living under a Kaiser or a Fuhrer, something for which the United States is largely responsible.
1) The first democratic country was New Zealand. Prior to that, there was no democratic nation (as less then 50% of the population could vote).
2) I live in a country that's enormously grateful for the Marshall plan, no doubt about it, that was a good thing for the world (thanks to your grandfather's generation)
3) Why do you have to bring up WWII? 'cause you have not fought any wars where you were clearly in the right since?
The OP said something that I found offensive about Americans, while quite clearly trumpeting his association with China. I felt obligated to point out the hypocrisy there. That's where the China connection came from.
Incorrect. The OP said something that you found offensive about Americans, and you looked at his website and jumped to the conclusion that he was chinese. You couldn't attack his argument, so you attacked what you thought he was instead.
Yes, you can. If you haven't registered Undercover yet, you can uninstall Undercover by clicking the Uninstall button in the setup assistant that's part of the installation process. If you are a registered Undercover user, please contact us and we will send you uninstall instructions. During uninstall you will need the Administrator password, to prevent thieves from uninstalling Undercover.
Can Undercover be uninstalled by a thief?
For a thief, uninstalling Undercover is impossible. You can only uninstall Undercover if you know the Administrator password for the given mac.
Errrrr, impossible? What a stupid thing to say. Admin password recovery is trivial under os x. And a serious thief would reinstall os x before reselling.
In other words, this piece of software is useful only to:
1) Stupid people (who are reassured by a false sense of security)
2) People who want to spy on someone.
Oh, and anyone tempted to quote the following from the faq at me:
What if someone does a clean install of OS X on my machine?
You can prevent this by installing a firmware password. You can find the firmware password utility on your Mac OS X Tiger DVD (in/Applications/Utilities/ on the disc).
1) Bypassing the firmware is also trivial on Apple machines - all you have to do is add some Ram, and boot:-/
2) Noone has a firmware bios password.
Oh, and last thing - again from the FAQ
Is it possible for Undercover to work behind a firewall?
Yes, Undercover has the ability to autodetect any proxy or firewall settings used to connect to the Internet. Undercover collects and autodetects the necessary settings to access the Internet even if your firewall requires a password.[emph mine]
Bullshit. If they could do that, they would be selling that, not their little toy spyware app.
While I have no doubt that the US & China spy on each other constantly:
But after angry objections from the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan panel of experts appointed by Congress, the department opted this week to pull the computers from the network. [emph mine]
I really do have to ask. Is the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission really unaware that the vast majority of PCs (including Apple, dell, hp, gateway, etc) are manufactured (or at least part manufactured) in China?
I find it hard to believe that they don't, so this punishment is not for the computers being manufactured in China, rather for the company not being US owned anymore. In other words, it's fine for the Chinese to do the manufacturing, but it has to be Americans making the real money (and again, this sort of chauvinism is pretty common & not unexpected, but it would be nice for the US to be a little more honest about its motivations).
I mostly agree with your post - and you put things well, but:*
and yes, I would like selinux to have a regional accent (and maybe even talk)
That regional accent will have to be Chuck Norris (yes, he has his own region).
Seriously - I think you're quite right, but I suspect that will just make (and again, this presumes MS & Apple have something similar in their OSes) the worms smarter, and take longer to gain highest priviliges.
When people are executing untrusted code locally, it's really hard to stop it 100% of the time.
*everyone must preface their posts with this phrase in this thread:-)
I mostly agree with your post - and you put things well, but:
Probably not, because the typical default access for a linux user is unprivileged (I've been working intensively in the linux environment, and I'll bet I've not been logged in as a privileged user (i.e., root) more than two or three times a year during that span).
I'm not sure how long user privilege separation is going to continue to be the great protection it is now, once the majority of desktop users have it. Consider a single user desktop with privilege separation (linux, vista (supposedly) or os x):
1) Malware downloaded & executed by dumb user. 2) Malware sets itself to start at that user's privileges when the user logs in. 3) Malware can do many things at malware level at least when user is logged in (including periodically checking its update server for local privilege escalation exploits it can run).
We're about to enter an age of smarter malware, that takes its time getting root, and keeps a low profile (maybe a little keylogging here or there) until it does... you read it here first:-)
It's very hard to stop people executing something thats sent to them by someone they know - but for other vector methods, perhaps people should consider an IM client that doesn'tincludeactiveX
Anyway, mildly interesting, the worm makes no attempt to hide iteself with a "You are beaten, it is useless to resist" desktop paper (!) and music on startup (from TFA) Worse still, music starts to blare out of your PC. Not just any old music - bad music. Bad looped music, with screeching guitars and awful drum n' bass beats.
But not to worry XP SP2 users, you're protected.... again from TFA:
Some "good" news, however - SP2 seems to prevent this music from playing in the background.
A highly customizable UI is not necessarily a benefit. I sometimes happen to think about the end-user ease of use, but it doesn't seem to be the case of some of the slashdot crowd, who can't seem to account for different uses than theirs. A standardized (if not locked-up) UI is a good thing for the basic end user.
Hmmmmn, I said some people prefer a highly customizble GUI (not that one is better then the other for all users). Obviously the ask slashdotter is one of them, 'cause they specifically asked for linux
Dear God, if you had happened to actually read the whole article, you would have noticed that the guy actually thought about buying a MacBook.
Yes, he considered buying one and then decided against it, then specifically asked for linux
Some people prefer the pain that it is to reboot to Windows or use another machine for performing such common tasks as using photoshop and powerpoint... Some other prefer OS X to Linux for its ease of use, standardized UI, and excellent popular software availability.
OK - but the ask slashdotter specifically asked for linux
macs run osx AND windows AND linux, so my post is absolutely in topic.
No, your post is not even slightly on topic. The poster consider a macbook, decided against it, then specifically asked for linux. Macbooks are not a particularly good option if your primaril want to run linux and windows, as you pay for hardware that you will not get to use.
finally, if my comment is so useless, how useful is yours ??? my guess is that you are just another frustated mac-hating windows & linux techie... c'mon buy a mac, stop pricking us and finally use a really decent computer !
My comment at least served as a reminder to other readers, that if you want a laptop, specifically to run linux, that a macbook is not a good choice.
Oh - and I own a mac (an old one, so the linux support is quite good). WTF do you think I have this username?
Finally, most of your post is a defense of OS X. Noone was attacking it, just pointing out that it doesn't belong in a thread about linux
This is going to sound tautological, but that's because Mac users don't use AutoCAD.
Indeed. It does sounds tautological - and incorrect. Mac users don't use Autocad because they can't use autocad. It used to be on the mac (and was very popular amongst architects), but got discontinued when Apple moved to PPC.
We use VectorWorks [nemetschek.net]. The common mistake PC users make is forgetting that if a Mac won't run a particular application
I think you mean to say can't run a particular application.
Oh - and PC stands for Personal Computer, which is precisely what a mac is (especially these days, you can run windows on a mac & os x on a beige box), why don't you just call them mac & windows (this is a technical forum after all)
And when it is, it's usually Mac-only.
*snort* Vectorworks aint mac only - you find the vast majority of mac only software is made by Apple. (but I agree that it's often superior to the windows version).
That's ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing about the phrase "open source", linguistically, which implies anything like what you have said.
*sighs* whatever dude, I've shown you a link from the guys who popularised "open source" as a phrase, how about you show us a link to someone credible who shares your opinion of open source's definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Follow the advice of the manufacturer and install a firmware password. Then it WON'T be useless.
Horsecrap. The firmware password is trivial to get around - you can just add Ram & remove it. Bam. Done.
Honestly. OSV is SLOW compared to native. No one wants slow.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Incorrect. Anyone who's ever run os x in a vmware window will tell you that it's quite snappy (maybe 90% of normal system speed). And that's without any vendor support.
*snort*
Not bad! I think for extra points you should have bought up speculation that Apple closed the OS X kernel to ease the future transition to the Vista kernel.
And of course, no modern anti-apple troll should be complete without reference to Apple's 'betrayel' of PA semi
No, I made a presumption that someone living in China who chose a Chinese pseudonym and domain name might, somehow, support China.
But that just shows your stupidity. Would you think someone with a cuban name & spanish language site supports Castro? How about someone with an American sounding name with an English language website - are they automatically Bush supporters?
There are thousands of Chinese living all over the world, covering the full spectrum of political opinions. The fact that you assume Chinese language==Support for China just shows that you need to get a passport & go & see a bit of the world.
(As an aside, is it just me, or is calling someone "dude" in an argument a pretty clear sign of rhetorical capitulation? Just an observation.)
Can you explain what you mean by that extraordinarily stupid statement?
I've made it very clear that I don't support most of the actions taken by the current administration. However, I still feel that it's inappropriate (and rude) to hold all Americans responsible for this. Such accusations, directed at certain other ethnic groups, would be labelled racism or bigotry.
Whatever dude. I hold the citizens of democratically elected governments responsible for their governments actions, no matter what race they are.
You're misinterpreting the point of my original argument. It's not "still more human rights than China," but rather "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." And at this point in our global development, we all pretty much live in the same house.
But the O.P. did not make any statement of support for the Chinese government. Did he?
Thank you!
:-( I got not one of the +1 Funny modifiers that I am always 'fiending' for.
At least someone got the joke. I mean, +5 informative
Individual citizens, therefore, cannot always be held accountable for the actions of their elected officials.
Many people hold you collectively accountable for the reelection of a man who has consistently lied to you.
(Furthermore, your assertion that a country of 100 people immediately becomes a democracy as soon as the 51st person gets the right to vote seems rather silly.)
My assertaion was that a country where only white, male landowners can vote is not a "modern liberal democracy". Modern democracy has been a gradual process, I think NZ was the first country to achieve it.
and most of us would never have supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place had we not been flat-out lied to by Bush.
The whole world got lied to by bush - only America believed him tho' - because of attitudes very similar to the one you're displaying. It can be boiled down to 'my country, right or wrong'.
. As such, I don't think his background is outside of the scope of the argument, and (aside from that Happy Meal comment, which you have to admit was kind of funny), I don't think I stepped outside of the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
Aceptable discourse? Whatever dude - the fact is you made presumptions about the OP that criticism of America==support of China. That is stupid.
And unless you're wearing clothes made in your local village, eating only locally-grown food and working for a small, local business with no connections outside your country, you're also complicit in a lot of this. Does your government have trade relations with the United States? Why haven't you done something to stop them? You're responsible for what they do, after all.
The difference between you & me is that I do not defend my government when they're in the wrong. You are (with your "US, still more human rights then China" argument)
Now I've gotten my joke in, for those too lazy to install the firefox bugmenot extension here's the article text:
Gonzales Says Prosecutions of Journalists Are Possible
The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."
"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."
"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."
Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and "communications intelligence activities."
Those laws are the basis of a pending case against two lobbyists, but they have never been used to prosecute journalists.
Some legal scholars say that even if the plain language of the laws could be read to reach journalists, the laws were never intended to apply to the press. In any event, these scholars say, prosecuting reporters under the laws might violate the First Amendment.
Mr. Gonzales said that the administration promoted and respected the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment.
"But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."
Mr. Gonzales sidestepped a question concerning whether the administration had been reviewing reporters' telephone records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.
"To the extent that we engage in electronic surveillance or surveillance of content, as the president says, we don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," he said. "And obviously if, in fact, there is a basis under the Constitution to go to a federal judge and satisfy the constitutional standards of probable cause and we get a court order, that will be pursued."
Look at the OP's name and website, then get back to me.
Are you saying that because he lived in china for a while, anything critical he says against the US automatically means that he thinks the (positive) reverse about China?
No, you're not familiar with your countries history, if you were, you would not have said:When it is perfectly clear to most of the world, that America is still supporting some real bastards in the middle east (not to mention an illegal nuclear power).
Chances are you live in a country whose system of government is based on the one we first implemented. I'd also imagine you're enjoying not living under a Kaiser or a Fuhrer, something for which the United States is largely responsible.
1) The first democratic country was New Zealand. Prior to that, there was no democratic nation (as less then 50% of the population could vote).
2) I live in a country that's enormously grateful for the Marshall plan, no doubt about it, that was a good thing for the world (thanks to your grandfather's generation)
3) Why do you have to bring up WWII? 'cause you have not fought any wars where you were clearly in the right since?
The OP said something that I found offensive about Americans, while quite clearly trumpeting his association with China. I felt obligated to point out the hypocrisy there. That's where the China connection came from.
Incorrect. The OP said something that you found offensive about Americans, and you looked at his website and jumped to the conclusion that he was chinese. You couldn't attack his argument, so you attacked what you thought he was instead.
It's called reading between the lines...
Bullshit. It's called a knee jerk reaction to criticism.
Criticism of your country is not the same as endorsement of your percieved enemies.
In other words, this piece of software is useful only to:Oh, and anyone tempted to quote the following from the faq at me:1) Bypassing the firmware is also trivial on Apple machines - all you have to do is add some Ram, and boot
2) Noone has a firmware bios password.
Oh, and last thing - again from the FAQBullshit. If they could do that, they would be selling that, not their little toy spyware app.
That's ridiculous. My aim was to point out the hypocracy in the OP's statement.
Are you stupid? The OP didn't say anything positive about China.
Regardless, I love my country and its history,
Its good to love your country, but I really think you need to read more of your history.
and I'm getting really tired of having to answer, as an American, for the actions of my government.
I'm afraid that if you live in a democracy - you do have to answer for your government. You are responsible for your government's actions.
It's understandable, I suppose, but hearing it from someone who seems so eager to embrace Chinese culture strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
The OP made no positive statements about China. A criticism of the US is not the same as an endorsement of your opponents.
I find it hard to believe that they don't, so this punishment is not for the computers being manufactured in China, rather for the company not being US owned anymore. In other words, it's fine for the Chinese to do the manufacturing, but it has to be Americans making the real money (and again, this sort of chauvinism is pretty common & not unexpected, but it would be nice for the US to be a little more honest about its motivations).
Erm, why didn't you link to an actual definition?
Oh, 'cause there they don't have one
Got any more 'credible' sources for us?
I mostly agree with your post - and you put things well, but:*
:-)
and yes, I would like selinux to have a regional accent (and maybe even talk)
That regional accent will have to be Chuck Norris (yes, he has his own region).
Seriously - I think you're quite right, but I suspect that will just make (and again, this presumes MS & Apple have something similar in their OSes) the worms smarter, and take longer to gain highest priviliges.
When people are executing untrusted code locally, it's really hard to stop it 100% of the time.
*everyone must preface their posts with this phrase in this thread
I mostly agree with your post - and you put things well, but:
:-)
Probably not, because the typical default access for a linux user is unprivileged (I've been working intensively in the linux environment, and I'll bet I've not been logged in as a privileged user (i.e., root) more than two or three times a year during that span).
I'm not sure how long user privilege separation is going to continue to be the great protection it is now, once the majority of desktop users have it. Consider a single user desktop with privilege separation (linux, vista (supposedly) or os x):
1) Malware downloaded & executed by dumb user.
2) Malware sets itself to start at that user's privileges when the user logs in.
3) Malware can do many things at malware level at least when user is logged in (including periodically checking its update server for local privilege escalation exploits it can run).
We're about to enter an age of smarter malware, that takes its time getting root, and keeps a low profile (maybe a little keylogging here or there) until it does... you read it here first
It's very hard to stop people executing something thats sent to them by someone they know - but for other vector methods, perhaps people should consider an IM client that doesn't include activeX
Anyway, mildly interesting, the worm makes no attempt to hide iteself with a "You are beaten, it is useless to resist" desktop paper (!) and music on startup (from TFA) Worse still, music starts to blare out of your PC. Not just any old music - bad music. Bad looped music, with screeching guitars and awful drum n' bass beats.
But not to worry XP SP2 users, you're protected.... again from TFA: snigger....
A highly customizable UI is not necessarily a benefit. I sometimes happen to think about the end-user ease of use, but it doesn't seem to be the case of some of the slashdot crowd, who can't seem to account for different uses than theirs. A standardized (if not locked-up) UI is a good thing for the basic end user.
Hmmmmn, I said some people prefer a highly customizble GUI (not that one is better then the other for all users). Obviously the ask slashdotter is one of them, 'cause they specifically asked for linux
Dear God, if you had happened to actually read the whole article, you would have noticed that the guy actually thought about buying a MacBook.
Yes, he considered buying one and then decided against it, then specifically asked for linux
Some people prefer the pain that it is to reboot to Windows or use another machine for performing such common tasks as using photoshop and powerpoint... Some other prefer OS X to Linux for its ease of use, standardized UI, and excellent popular software availability.
OK - but the ask slashdotter specifically asked for linux
macs run osx AND windows AND linux, so my post is absolutely in topic.
No, your post is not even slightly on topic. The poster consider a macbook, decided against it, then specifically asked for linux. Macbooks are not a particularly good option if your primaril want to run linux and windows, as you pay for hardware that you will not get to use.
finally, if my comment is so useless, how useful is yours ??? my guess is that you are just another frustated mac-hating windows & linux techie... c'mon buy a mac, stop pricking us and finally use a really decent computer !
My comment at least served as a reminder to other readers, that if you want a laptop, specifically to run linux, that a macbook is not a good choice.
Oh - and I own a mac (an old one, so the linux support is quite good). WTF do you think I have this username?
Finally, most of your post is a defense of OS X. Noone was attacking it, just pointing out that it doesn't belong in a thread about linux
This is going to sound tautological, but that's because Mac users don't use AutoCAD.
Indeed. It does sounds tautological - and incorrect. Mac users don't use Autocad because they can't use autocad. It used to be on the mac (and was very popular amongst architects), but got discontinued when Apple moved to PPC.
We use VectorWorks [nemetschek.net]. The common mistake PC users make is forgetting that if a Mac won't run a particular application
I think you mean to say can't run a particular application.
Oh - and PC stands for Personal Computer, which is precisely what a mac is (especially these days, you can run windows on a mac & os x on a beige box), why don't you just call them mac & windows (this is a technical forum after all)
And when it is, it's usually Mac-only.
*snort* Vectorworks aint mac only - you find the vast majority of mac only software is made by Apple. (but I agree that it's often superior to the windows version).
That's ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing about the phrase "open source", linguistically, which implies anything like what you have said.
*sighs* whatever dude, I've shown you a link from the guys who popularised "open source" as a phrase, how about you show us a link to someone credible who shares your opinion of open source's definition.
That said, the Zen doesn't play AAC, seriously?
Nope, and it doesn't play ogg either, it does play wma, so I guess it's one proprietary codec up (wma) & one down (aac).
Why does everyone say it's more "featureful" than the iPod?
Because it's got more features? (Not that more features is neccessarily a good thing, but I would like a radio on my ipod....)
Why? Are you fiending? =)
:-)
Nope, just so I can understand the sort of valley girl lingo that the AC I replied to was using