1) The author talks about 'complexity', but all software is complex, the number of people who understand the countless abstraction layers that exist in a typical piece of modern software can be counted on one hand (a closed fist). I suspect by complexity, the author means usability
2) Usability is not specifically an F/OSS problem - it is a software problem. There's a lot of crap software out there, that the vast majority of people never see (because it costs money). However, many people do see free / oss as it's (generally) availalbe free of charge.
I do take the authors point that for a user to effectively maintain their freedom, free software must be usable.
Yeah, I 'might' envy the crew if I wanted to belong an eco-terrorist organization!
Oh dear God, "eco-terrorist" huh? I guess you're one of those people who believe pirating music (or smoking marijuana you grew in your own garden) funds terrorism, or pretty much any other knee-jerk response to something the current administration dislikes that's labelled terrorism.
If there's anything sadder then someone unfairly being labelled a terrorist, its the general public's willingness to repeat it ad-nauseum until everyone starts to accept it.
I can see no mention of the actual license in the press release (or anywhere on the mindstorm site for that matter).
Lego saying its Open Source is all well & good, but that means nothing. It may not be an OSI approved license - but even if it is, the differences between BSD - style "open source" licenses and gpl style "open source" licenses is huge.
And as for the other part of your theory, if it's so damn easy to "port" security threats from Windows to other Intel-based operating systems,
Its all about intel assembly hacking. The linux community got hit by a helluva lot of worms about 5 years ago - they've become less complacent since & the mac community will have to do the same.
I've seen the OS X roadmap - and just before they run out of names, they merge with Ubuntu for release 10.04 'plentiful pussy' (the most beautiful release):-D
IE users can (and probably will) add Google to the search list, just as they can (and probably don't) add MSN to Firefox's list. There's really no ground for a complaint here, unless you want to complain about the core isue of a browser being bundled with the OS in the first place.
Except:
1) Google doesn't control which search engines are added to Firefox's 'alternate engines' list MS does control which search engines are added to (or removed from) their list)
2) Firefox doesn't have a dominance in one market & are using that dominance to extend into another market (hurting both markets overall & reducing competition in the long run).
Google didn't complain much when Safari came out with a Google-only search box.
Why should they? They're not going to complain about something that benefits them are they?
The real question is if Apple or Google did anything wrong, by forcing users to use Google. While I think its probably limiting for Apple's customers, I can't see how it relates to an anti trust complaint.
I mean - how is either Apple or Google extending into a new market, leveraging their dominance in another market? I don't see it, but I do see it for Microsoft.
What exactly is OSX, a fancy GUI based on the free distro darwin - which is a bastardised form of BSD. So, your point is, linux community is now more proactive, so that includes OSX then ?!?!?!?
Errrrrr, BSD is not part of the linux community.
OS X is based on Mach kernel, with some userland taken from freebsd.
I'm a little dubious here - the lead of this project, Semir Osmanagic says (from abc)he sees astonishing similarities between the structures and Mexican pyramids dating back to about 200 AD, which also come in pairs, one believed to represent the Sun and the other the Moon.
How can he know that with so little excavated? And his foundation has the rather fortean-timesish name of "Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation"
I'm interested in you claim that an OS X engineer said not to fill your disk beyond 60-70% for the system to work best. Can you provide any backup links for that?
Hmmmmn, you're quite right - it's been some time since I tried UFS, however, as Apple has fixed the problems I originally noted, they've also introduced new problems
(and as others in this thread have noticed, it doesn't play well with legacy apps)
hmm, just like all those expensive linux distros that have been littered with viruses ever since they cost $0 to install.
I know it's a little too much to expect you to read the article, but perhaps you should have read the comment you replied to - particularly the paragraph:
A few years ago, linux users were complacent the way mac users are now. A few worms, a few defacements, a few embarressed, burnt users & now the linux community is more proactive about threats. That has yet to happen in OS X land.
Those who write exploits, which gives them a sufficiently large botnet, are not in it for the money. Is that what you're saying? Because, that doesn't seem logical to me.
No - that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the people who write exploits are often different to the people who criminall use the exploits.
With a UFS-formatted volume, you may have the two "My File" files in the same location as well as other similarly named files -- "My file," "MY file," "My FiLe," "my File," and so forth.
You can permanently customize a hard disk volume name when using Mac OS Extended, but not (currently) when using a UFS-formatted hard disk volume. For more information, please see article 106191: "Mac OS X 10.0: Startup Volume Is Named '/' Instead of 'Mac OS X'"
The main advantage for HFS+ users (I mean who's really going to need a 16,000,000 Gigabyte file) would be the introduction of journalling beyond metadata (and even this is unlikely to be useful to most people).
Re:Not to disagree with you...
on
OpenBSD 3.9 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Not to disagree ith you but I'm a longtime Ubuntu user (since Jan 2005) and I'd like to ask: what, among the things you've listed, couldn't have been done without Linux?
Go to the Ubuntu packages pages & search for openbsd Two pages of results! And that's barely scrathing the surface.
Furthermore, as someone else in this thread mentions, openBSD audits their code more thoroughly prior to inclusion in their system. Many packages used in Ubuntu (apache, x.org, etc etc etc) have bug fixes contributed back from the openBSD port.
You're thinking I'm saying that openBSD can do something linux can't - I'm not really, its more like openBSD is the cranky old uncle of the free-unix family, telling all the youngsters to lock their doors & not walk around at night:-)
Contributions will help all opeating systems.
on
OpenBSD 3.9 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As always your contributions help to continue the devlopment of this great opeating system."
That sentence about should read:
As always your contributions help to continue the devlopment of all opeating systems.
Apple's security relies on openSSH, Microsoft service's for Unix are openBSD tools, there's traces of it all over linux. In short openBSD has made everyone's lives better - you should contribute to openBSD if you're a computer user of any sort!
Thanks Theo - for releasing your work under a BSD license, you've allowed us all to benefit from it.
Slashdot Mirror
1) The author talks about 'complexity', but all software is complex, the number of people who understand the countless abstraction layers that exist in a typical piece of modern software can be counted on one hand (a closed fist). I suspect by complexity, the author means usability
2) Usability is not specifically an F/OSS problem - it is a software problem. There's a lot of crap software out there, that the vast majority of people never see (because it costs money). However, many people do see free / oss as it's (generally) availalbe free of charge.
I do take the authors point that for a user to effectively maintain their freedom, free software must be usable.
What would be the hardest part about designing a camera to go 1000m deep?
The pressure is around 100 times greater then at the surface. Thats around 1500psi.
It's a considerable engineering challenge - but the video didn't really seem to go into that....
Yeah, I 'might' envy the crew if I wanted to belong an eco-terrorist organization!
Oh dear God, "eco-terrorist" huh? I guess you're one of those people who believe pirating music (or smoking marijuana you grew in your own garden) funds terrorism, or pretty much any other knee-jerk response to something the current administration dislikes that's labelled terrorism.
If there's anything sadder then someone unfairly being labelled a terrorist, its the general public's willingness to repeat it ad-nauseum until everyone starts to accept it.
What all slashdotters really want to see is a giant squid - not Gavin's toys.
And I have one for you. Giant Squid in its Natural Habitat
Seriously, youtube has an interesting video of a largish humbolt squid and a dissection of a real giant squid at the London Natural History Museum.
Oh - and a Coral Cache Mirror in case Gavin's video dies.
Better watch out, or the apple Boy-Army will be out for u.
;-)
Don't you worry - I am very respectful of the Whiney Mac Fanboys
I can see no mention of the actual license in the press release (or anywhere on the mindstorm site for that matter).
Lego saying its Open Source is all well & good, but that means nothing. It may not be an OSI approved license - but even if it is, the differences between BSD - style "open source" licenses and gpl style "open source" licenses is huge.
Anyone know what the license actually is?
Indeed.
I emailed bigdaddy sometime ago to let them know the link was broken, but it looks like someone's asleep at the wheel.
Here's my link to the press release
And as for the other part of your theory, if it's so damn easy to "port" security threats from Windows to other Intel-based operating systems,
Its all about intel assembly hacking. The linux community got hit by a helluva lot of worms about 5 years ago - they've become less complacent since & the mac community will have to do the same.
WHy don't you reply to this guy - his point was better then mine.
But in answer to your question - java runs on alpha, so it will run just fine. uTorrent will not.
uTorrent is doing exactly what you should do - use the platform library rather than reimplementing everything yourself.
And that's why uTorrent is stuck on one platform, while azureus runs everywhere.
The win32/aqua APIs are only useful if you want you software to only run on a single platform.... forever.
I've seen the OS X roadmap - and just before they run out of names, they merge with Ubuntu for release 10.04 'plentiful pussy' (the most beautiful release) :-D
IE users can (and probably will) add Google to the search list, just as they can (and probably don't) add MSN to Firefox's list. There's really no ground for a complaint here, unless you want to complain about the core isue of a browser being bundled with the OS in the first place.
Except:
1) Google doesn't control which search engines are added to Firefox's 'alternate engines' list MS does control which search engines are added to (or removed from) their list)
2) Firefox doesn't have a dominance in one market & are using that dominance to extend into another market (hurting both markets overall & reducing competition in the long run).
Google didn't complain much when Safari came out with a Google-only search box.
Why should they? They're not going to complain about something that benefits them are they?
The real question is if Apple or Google did anything wrong, by forcing users to use Google. While I think its probably limiting for Apple's customers, I can't see how it relates to an anti trust complaint.
I mean - how is either Apple or Google extending into a new market, leveraging their dominance in another market? I don't see it, but I do see it for Microsoft.
What exactly is OSX, a fancy GUI based on the free distro darwin - which is a bastardised form of BSD. So, your point is, linux community is now more proactive, so that includes OSX then ?!?!?!?
Errrrrr, BSD is not part of the linux community.
OS X is based on Mach kernel, with some userland taken from freebsd.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
People still use Classic? I haven't used the Classic environment since 10.0 shipped.
Thanks for that! Super-helpful.
Nothing like being told you don't need to do something you're doing.
I'm a little dubious here - the lead of this project, Semir Osmanagic says (from abc) he sees astonishing similarities between the structures and Mexican pyramids dating back to about 200 AD, which also come in pairs, one believed to represent the Sun and the other the Moon.
How can he know that with so little excavated? And his foundation has the rather fortean-timesish name of "Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation"
There's a far better (and longer) article at the art newspaper.
You can also the have a look at the photos of the hill (scroll down) in this bosnian forum (yup, looks like a pyramid).
That's an interesting post - thanks for that.
I'm interested in you claim that an OS X engineer said not to fill your disk beyond 60-70% for the system to work best. Can you provide any backup links for that?
Hmmmmn, you're quite right - it's been some time since I tried UFS, however, as Apple has fixed the problems I originally noted, they've also introduced new problems
(and as others in this thread have noticed, it doesn't play well with legacy apps)
I know it's a little too much to expect you to read the article, but perhaps you should have read the comment you replied to - particularly the paragraph:
Those who write exploits, which gives them a sufficiently large botnet, are not in it for the money. Is that what you're saying? Because, that doesn't seem logical to me.
No - that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the people who write exploits are often different to the people who criminall use the exploits.
Does that seem logical to you?
HFS+ is subject to fragmentation (but Apple, like MS, provides no tools to help you deal with it)
Yes, OS X allready has UFS, but according to Apple: (unfortunately, zfs would not fix many of these issues)
Have a look at wikipedia's Comparison of file systems page to see the difference between ZFS & HFS+.
The main advantage for HFS+ users (I mean who's really going to need a 16,000,000 Gigabyte file) would be the introduction of journalling beyond metadata (and even this is unlikely to be useful to most people).
Not to disagree ith you but I'm a longtime Ubuntu user (since Jan 2005) and I'd like to ask: what, among the things you've listed, couldn't have been done without Linux?
:-)
Go to the Ubuntu packages pages & search for openbsd Two pages of results! And that's barely scrathing the surface.
Furthermore, as someone else in this thread mentions, openBSD audits their code more thoroughly prior to inclusion in their system. Many packages used in Ubuntu (apache, x.org, etc etc etc) have bug fixes contributed back from the openBSD port.
You're thinking I'm saying that openBSD can do something linux can't - I'm not really, its more like openBSD is the cranky old uncle of the free-unix family, telling all the youngsters to lock their doors & not walk around at night
As always your contributions help to continue the devlopment of this great opeating system."
That sentence about should read:
As always your contributions help to continue the devlopment of all opeating systems.
Apple's security relies on openSSH, Microsoft service's for Unix are openBSD tools, there's traces of it all over linux. In short openBSD has made everyone's lives better - you should contribute to openBSD if you're a computer user of any sort!
Thanks Theo - for releasing your work under a BSD license, you've allowed us all to benefit from it.