analog electronics has kinda fallen by the wayside
As an embedded developer with over 30 years of experience, I couldn't DISagree more.
Especially if you deal in the world of real-time measurement and control, you will find that, for every microcontroller you place in a design, there will typically be 8 to 16 op-amp "sections" (usually in dual/quad packages) used as "buffers", active filters, etc., and several "passive" (analog) components. For example, to turn a PWM signal with 16-bit accuracy coming out of your microcontroller into an analog signal with a even just 12-bit accuracy (worst-case "ripple" being, of course, at 50% duty cycle), you need a minimum of a three-stage active Butterworth filter, requiring no less than 2 op amp sections, and several resistors and capacitors. Yes, you can use a D/A converter; but that usually isn't nearly as cost-effective, and usually carries its own group of voltage-reference ICs, passives to make the voltage-reference "stable" and "quiet" enough, plus op-amp output buffers, etc. All of those are ANALOG components.
Look at the catalogs of companies that make a good selection of both analog and digital semiconductors, like ST Microelectronics, or even better, Texas Instruments. Their analog offerings are as wide (and perhaps even wider) than their digital offerings. Ever wonder why that is? See the above.
I agree if you spend your time looking at Atmel, Cypress, Freescale or the like, you might get the impression that "analog is dead"; but nothing could be further from the truth. Heck, even Microchip has quite a nice selection of Analog, and Analog Interface, components. And companies like Analog Devices (and to a lesser extent, Maxim), have made an entire business model out of straddling that Analog/Digital "threshold".
So, as long as we continue to live in an an analog universe, there will always be the necessity for getting analog signals into, and out of, that DSP or microcontroller chip, or into/out-of that Data Acquisition and Control system. Period.
WOW! I don't think I've EVER seen that much truth in a CEO's statements. And he's right on, too. I have wondered what keeps RS going for years. Pretty much the only thing I go there for is audio adapters (which they continue to have a pretty good selection of; but even that is eroding). Oh, and I really like their concept with AC adapters with the interchangeable tips (would SOMEONE please explain why the world needs 20 sizes of barrel connectors?), although the adapters themselves are a bit overpriced (unless you shop carefully).
But other than that, they're pretty much dead to me. They used to have some fairly nice ribbon tweeters, too; but when I went looking for one to replace the hideous soft-dome tweeters I had to replace on my home stereo speakers when the original Philips domes died (whatever happened to all the MYLAR domes?!?), I found... NOTHING.
One thing you can do is check the RS web site, do a search and it can usually tell you whether any of the local stores stock something you can use. That way, you're leveraging their local inventory with the internet, you go to the store that has it and get it locally much sooner
Funny you should mention "leveraging their website".
Last night, I was trying to do JUST THAT, looking for some sort of power supervisor, or even an HC gate package I could use to fashion a reasonable Power-On-Reset circuit for a friend's Buffalo NAS (let's not devolve into a discussion of POR circuits, please! Suffice it to say, I figured out another way, ok?)
Oh, and the "Transistors & Analog ICs" Category is similarly laughable.
I have fond memories of going to Radio Shack to find components for some little project, or components to build some sort of weird audio adapter; but no more. Now, there's no choice but to go to DigiKey and Mouser, and figure out how I'm going to meet their minimum order requirements, when all I wanted was $5 worth of stuff. Actually, unless it has changed in the past couple of years, I have found that Fry's actually has a pretty respectable (by comparison) variety of electronic components. Heck, last I was in there (they are about 25 miles away, on the other side of town), they even sold stuff like soldering stations and (IIRC) and some high-end (Fluke?) multimeters and stuff.
(Apple doesn't count; because they have created their own OS).
Not really. They tried to create their own modern OS in the late 90's. Finally after spending many millions on the project, they gave up and allowed themselves to be taken over by NeXT instead. Then they slapped their gui-paint layer on top of UNIX like some fat chick going to the disco slaps pasty makeup on.
Since NeXTStep was already a GUI-based BSD/Mach "UNIX", what you REALLY mean is that Apple applied some cold-cream, wiped off the NeXT makeup, and THEN slapped on Mac makeup, LOL!
While I admit that that was the original plan, things didn't exactly work out that way...
At least Apple was willing to accept that they couldn't realize their overly-ambitious Rhapsody/Copland "Red Box, Blue Box, Yellow Box" OS. But even then, they were able to back-port much of that development back into MacOS 8 and 9, and even OS X (what do you think "Classic" mode was?). So, not nearly as much of that work was wasted as one would initially think.
As for being taken over by NeXT, that meme started because of so many NeXTStep/OpenStep engineers that were subsequently hired by Apple to work on the Rhapsody/NeXTStep integration that was to become OS X. But the simple fact of the matter is, Apple wrote the check, not NeXT.
Apple's developers don't seem to have the skill-set needed to create a robust multi-tasking OS. They concentrate more on 'style.'
No. They already had that in the form of A/UX, But it wasn't really suited for a consumer-grade OS. What the issue REALLY was that, Apple didn't have TIME to finish what they had started, and the intended project was frankly too ambitious for ANYONE to complete in a reasonable timeframe. At least Apple was smart enough to recognize that, and act accordingly.
One-button mice (yeah, yeah, we know that was in the past.) They're a company of marketers, where trademark-buzz like 'Quicktime' and 'Altivec' are the trump cards.
Shut up with the Evil Company scare tactics already. They are a company, they are trying to make money, serve customers AND protect their brand. Put those all in the same bowl, mix well, and then tell me if some compromises aren't necessary?
And I would also make the assertion that not only "Evilcorps" are hacked, but charities, squeaky clean companies, and little saintly grey haired grandmas are hacked. Apple/Sony/etc. aren't hacked because they are evil, they are hacked because they exist at all.
THANK YOU!
That is the most concise, insightful comment I have EVER read on the topic of Apple == The Evil One(tm)!
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings.
I did not say Google are not evil, I said Apple are evil.
I see. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? So, how does that address the valid point I made?
Yeah, EULAs always sound terrible.
But it's in there - therefore Apple CAN legally use it if they want to.
I heard your speculation the first time; no need to repeat it. However, I still challenge you to find a single instance of Apple exercising that right. Like all large companies, Apple has a legal department. A LOT of the time, companies let things go into a contract or EULA just to shut up their OWN legal team, with no actual intention of ever enforcing the language. And yes, that's what I am saying is what happened, here. And besides, the EFF case pretty much nullifies that language, anyway, doesn't it? So now what are you saying that "Apple could do"?
Again, the potential of doing it; but obviously Apple is just putting that in as a guard against an unforseeable "worst-case-scenario" threat.
Again, it's in there. Therefore they can use it if they choose to do so.
No they can't; per the EFF case. And I pointed that out, both in my original reply to your response to my original comment, and in this further reply, too.
Too bad, just like before, you aren't letting long-settled facts mitigate your rant. You do realize, of course, that that is a sign of mental illness...
Now, let's compare that with Sony, where it took the DoJ rattling its sabre for them to stop putting rootkits on their audio CDs.
DRM disappeared on CDs completely - because the record companies had to bow to company pressures.
WTF are you SMOKING, and can I have some, please?!?
The record companies had to bow to... WHAT?!? What "company" are you talking about?!? Or are you talking about "The Company" (as in the CIA), LOL?!?
The DoJ (actually, it was the DHS) made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to Sony that the user's computers WERE NOT THEIRS to install rootkits (or anything else) on. It wasn't "industry pressures", it was the threat of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION and GOVERNMENT REGULATION that moved them. That, and pressure from retailiers, who were getting sick and tired of handling more and more RETURNS for media that SIMPLY WOULD NOT PLAY in many devices.
But, my original comments still stand: Steve Jobs called for an end to DRM. And NOBODY forced him to do THAT!
Media companies do not want anyone to own anything because they want a regular payment, rental model. Apple facilitated that by allowing DRMed music to be sold through iTunes - yes, it made the record companies sign on but Apple made a huge amount of money from it - that's basically saying they were "in league with the devil".
But again, you have demonstrated that even when the facts are presented in rebuttal, you simply argue on and on and on.
They changed the DRM model because Sony's stupid rootkit fiasco brought it to the public attention, it became very unpopular and Apple had to backtrack. Period.
Oh, one final point. Do you not find it more than coincidence that Apple removed DRM from music downloads about the same time Amazon started offering DRM-free music. Yet Amazon are much smaller than Apple, wield less corporate power as a consequence, yet have never been *forced* to offer DRMed music. Explain that one.
> Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Nor are they a content company like sony is.
Are you actually DEFENDING Sony's rootkits HERE, on Slashdot?!? Wow! No wonder you posted AC!!!
> Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
Yeah, steve just loves those jailbreaks right? Its not like the appstore tries to prevent this or anything.
Huh? Citation, please!
> Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Apple tried very hard to prosecute people who develops and performs jailbreaks but where shot down by the courts. They also issue dmca takedown notices to any hacker community who would have the balls to inform people how to install or virtualize osx on a pc (Which is a 100% pure drm stye lockdown as a modern mac IS a high spec pc) regardless of wether they want to buy the software.
First, Apple had one opinion, the EFF had another. The Feds sided with the EFF. However, since then, Apple hasn't tried to do an end-run around that decision, like many Android Device manufacturers. No "fuses" in microcontrollers. No encrypted bootloaders. In short, no REAL effort to stop Jailbreaking. In the end, Apple respected the adversarial process. Doesn't make them evil. At all. In fact, quite the opposite.
As far as their prohibition against virtualizing OS X: As Apple has stated many, many, many times, they are a HARDWARE company. That is unabashedly they claim to make their money. Not from the sale of OS X. So, their prohibition against virtualizing OS X on non-Apple hardware is exactly in concert with their prohibition against installing it directly on non-Apple hardware. Their OS. Their rules. Doesn't make them evil, though. Just protecting their primary revenue stream, which is the sale of HARDWARE.
Besides, as pointed out in this article, it is quite possible to install OS X on, for example VMWare running under Windows 7, just like it is quite simple to install OS X on any number of hardware-compatible non-Apple computers. Apple says "Please". It does NOT run around like the Artist Now Again Known as Prince, (or the widow of Frank Zappa!), filing DMCA takedown notices of Hackintosh websites, or articles like the one above regarding installing OS X (illegally) on VMWare Server on Windows 7, let alone prosecute anyone who attempts to do so. Illegally.
> Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way
Osx is locked using drm to prevent it running in a virtual enviroment (Which really sucks for developers),
No it isn't. See above.
and iPod is most certainly an attempt of a locked in device that uses both drm and propriatary formats to faux competitive mp3 players. Only the competition forced them to abandon this strategy.
Anyone can CLAIM anything without proof. But I DO know that NOBODY forces Steve Jobs to do ANYTHING. And least of all, write an Open Letter decrying DRM, like this.
> Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
Ehh..What do you mean? And how does that compare to sony anyway???
> Now, let's compare the above to Sony.......
How does it compare to Sony? Sony COULD install Linux on its machines (Apple doesn't count; because they have created their own OS). But instead, they have embraced Vista, and then Windows 7. I can't find the article now, but both have so much DRM that, even after Vista shipped (which was LONG after there was a "driver stable" version available for developers) ATi couldn't even write a damned video card driver! I guess
"But first, the bricking. Was this done on purpose? Lam doesn't think so. Jacqui at Ars believes that the firmware was completed weeks ago, and the bricking is unintentional."
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Partially true. Apple did say this, and a Federal Court disagreed. Apple however, didn't appeal the decision, and unlike many Android device manufacturers, has not done an end-run around that decision by putting "fuses" in their microcontrollers, signed bootloaders, etc.
So, it seems that Apple had one opinion, and the Feds had another, but in the end, Apple respected the process. It sure seems like those other manufacturers are simply taking a disingenuous advantage of the fact that the lawsuit didn't name them, specifically, and that Android users (and curiously, the EFF) seem to be disinterested in pursuing the issue. Wonder why? Could it be that the EFF has an Anti-Apple bias? Nah, couldn't be!
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
Wow! Old story much?!? How long did you have to search for that one!?!
If you look at the article, you will see that that referred to the DEVELOPER PREVIEW PLATFORMS when Apple did the Intel Switch. The TPR protection did NOT make it into the actual RELEASE CODE. Obviously, Apple had a pretty strong interest in keeping their very-restricted Beta release OS protected. Let's see what that actually ended up being in the RELEASE code. A simple deleteable file and deletable kernel extension that says "Please Don't Steal OS X". Wow. Some DRM! This article refers to TPR on OS X as "The Myth That Won't Die." And of course, the very existence of Hackintoshes kinda belies strong TPM protection, doesn't it?
As I said: DISinformative. But his post is modded +5 Informative, and mine will be punish-downmodded, of course.
Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Maybe not. But they were summoned to the US Senate to answer questions on privacy concerns over what they track & why they track it unencrypted.
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings. Apple sent a vice-president in charge of software development. Google sent a lobbyist. Apple voluntarily has already taken steps, and has promised to take further steps, to reduce both the amount of "tracking data", and to encrypt what data the user's phone does store. What has Google done/promised (I honestly don't know on that one)? But don't let facts available for nearly two months stop your rant.
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
I think you need to read the last 2 lines about possibly denying sevice on this page.
Yeah, EULAs always sound terrible. But point to me one instance of Apple actually doing that. [Crickets]
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Again, the potential of doing it; but obviously Apple is just putting that in as a guard against an unforseeable "worst-case-scenario" threat. And again, please show me a single instance of Apple actually making good on any sabre-rattling. And didn't it get settled nearly a year ago that "Jailbreaking" was NOT illegal? Do you see Apple actively fighting that with signed bootloaders, security fuses, etc, like some Android Device manufacturers? So, your point, again?
Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way (they DO have to put up with SOME DRM due to pressures from "content providers"; but it is obvious they chafe against it).
Apple dropped DRM from iTunes about 2 years ago. It could be argued that they bowed to pressure from their user base after the Sony rootkit and CD DRM fuss. I have not come across a DRMed CD for some years now because of the stink DRM caused.
ANYTHING "can be argued". But at least Apple's CEO published an Open Letter publicly decrying DRM. Has Sony? Howabout Google?
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
I'm mainly a Linux guy, I'm still using XP for some stuff but haven't played with Windows 7 much beyond setting up some laptops for colleagues - therefore I'm no expert on it. However, I am not aware of any restrictions on Windows 7 that stop you running non-DRMed formats on it exactly as you can do on previous iterations of Windows. I am led to believe that it provides a *platform* for DRM, again probably bowing to the same pressures from the RIAA that you said it was perfectly okay for Apple to have done during the early days of iTunes.
When Apple was starting out with iTunes, NO ONE would have signed up without DRM, and you (and everybody else) knows it. Even when iTunes had DRM on music, it was the weakest DRM possible. Individual songs weren't DRMed, per se; only Playlists were copy-restricted. NOTHING (but trust) prevented the user from deleting the Playlist, and recreating it, thus garnering another seven (then five) copies of a particular song. And let's not forget that iTunes also allows creating an Audi
Way to go ElcomSoft!
Good to see hackers sticking it to the once hacker-originated Apple Computers Inc.
Sad to see that Apple Computers has become another catholic church style entity.
Wow! Up your meds, dude!
Regardless of your platform choice, are you REALLY lauding the efforts of hackers whose efforts will not hurt Apple, but rather only the unfortunate users of their products?
What about the people who have been handed an iPhone/iPad by their employer? Do they deserved to be hacked, too?
Perhaps its time for you to head to the nearest psychologist/psychiatrist. What you are experiencing is commonly referred to "Misdirected Anger", and is usually a sign of some OTHER significant "perceived wrong" you have suffered.
This is precisely what happens when you turn yourself into an "evil" company like Sony did and Apple are a long way through the process of doing - you will attract the hacker community and there will be thousands of people simultaneously trying to shame that company.
How in the HELL can you compare Sony to Apple like this?
Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way (they DO have to put up with SOME DRM due to pressures from "content providers"; but it is obvious they chafe against it).
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
No, but you're missing the point. You assume you have a safe platform, I can prove it (well, to the extent that I have to trust Kaspersky, but that's a different discussion).
Actually, it's not. If you assume that OS X can have a threat, then you must also assume that Kaspersky can fail to find the threat. The point being, there is no such thing as 100% assurance of security. And no, that this not just an academic point. It is THE point.
I am not a fanboy who takes everything from Apple as a message from God.
I take nothing as a message from God. Even messages from so-called God(s). I listen to my own experience. And in my decades of experience with Macs, and since running OS X since it was called Rhapsody, I have yet to have even the first inkling of a threat. I am not inexperienced in these matters, and I am here to tell you that, AFAICT, OS X seems impervious to internet attack. On the very box I am typing this on (which is also my main computer) I run an ftp server (with anonymous, read-only access that is published on a well-publicized website, and several private user accounts with R/W access). all running on the standard ftp ports, plus a streaming video server running on Port 80 (also linked-to from the same website), as well as ssh running on the standard port. My machine sits bare nekkid on the internet, on, 24/7/365, running those services since April, 2005. It gets attacked on a daily basis. In fact, it is probably getting attacked right now. None shall pass.
Me and my Safari browser have gone to some pretty seamy places on the internet. Nothing grabs hold of my browser, subverts its home page, causes pop-ups, or installs stuff. Period.
So, it isn't a matter of believing St. Jobs, it is a matter of believing my own eyes and log files.
I manage a friend's Mac mini that serves as his HTPC and SFTP gateway to his NAS while he's on the road. I checked out his "security" log files, all 16.5 MB of them! A ZILLION attacks on his ssl login. Not one authentication (that wasn't his or mine).
So yes, I am a little bit confident at this point.
As a matter of fact, being associated with Apple fanboys was one of the main barriers to using the platform..
That's a weak excuse, and you know it. You don't have to be "associated with" anyone, just because you choose to use the same OS. What an immature attitude!
"Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in/Library/Preferences/ or/Library/Application Support/"
Actually, no - it's worse. A radio application I once installed left residue ("rfx-server") that I manually had to dig out of the system.
As I said, an exception. I agree that the publisher of that app should have included an uninstaller. Most do, if they have stuff that runs as a kernel extension.
Growl is used by many apps - will that just uninstall without any warning then (not that I want to uninstall it, but I hope you see what I mean)?
Actually, I think that Growl HAS an uninstall feature. I must admit that I don't run it; because I hate annoying popups. Far too Windows-like, LOL! It must, though; because I remember having it, and then getting rid of it, and other than the.dmg I downloaded (and didn't bother to delete), it appears no where on my system. Ah, the.dmg has an Applescript that does the uninstall; so I would assume the answer is "yes".
You *assume* the BOM to be correct..
No, the Installer assumes the BOM to be correct. And if it isn't the file(s) that don't appear in the BOM simply don't get installed anyway. And in the case of a "Drag Install", all the dependencies are in the App Package. I agree that the App could then put some into the System, but I have neve
I run the 3 major ones (Linux, OSX and -now only occasionally- Windows), and only the Linux setup does not have any anti-virus and anti-trojan on it as it runs off read-only media. But on the Mac I have Kaspersky too. Not that it runs permanently, but I test anything that I'm interested in installing, and every so often I do a full check from an account with admin risks (my work account has no admin rights).
So, has Kaspersky ever found a MAC threat?
OSX doesn't have a decent uninstall mechanism.
Sure it does: Drag the Application to the Trash. Empty Trash. Done. That does it for all but the most instrusive of apps. Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in/Library/Preferences/ or/Library/Application Support/. Then the SAVVY Mac-users KNOWS where to look for, and TRASH those, too. Not that they can do anything, anyway. It's not like the DLL-Hell system of Windows "Do you want to remove [some DLL name you've never heard of]? It appears to be used by more than one program." That simply DOESN'T happen on OS X. Never did; never will.
Or, you can just use this. Found it in five seconds. Wotta whiner. SInce OS X "packages" have a BOM, uninstalling is a snap. There is also a command-line way to do it; but since this is FREE...
I have encountered both UAC and OS X's "GUI sudo" security measures. There is no comparison.
They might attempt to reach the same goals (user authentication); but there is a BIG difference in the "mental impact" between the two methods. With UAC, I never even GLANCE at the text in the dialog; I (and I am sure 99.99999999999% of other users) can't find the "Allow" button fast enough. It is processed as yet-another annoyance in an OS that CONSTANTLY generates annoyances. Quick! Click it! Make it Go Away! That is the only thing that "registers".
However, with OS X, even if you are running as an Administrator, you STILL have to TYPE IN your password. And, no matter how many times I have seen that dialog (I use OS X every day), it STILL makes me pause a second and think "Why?" Even when I'm expecting it, it still raises a question in my mind. And THAT is the biggest difference. That, and the fact that OS X doesn't constantly bombard the user with popups, bubbles, and other what-not. If you use Growl heavily, it can get annoying (which I why I don't use it); but even those don't REQUIRE attention (they go away after a few seconds). So, when that sudo dialog pops up, you know it is something that requires your attention, rather than your ire.
Another case-in-point as to why UAC is completely laughable. I was working on a laptop that a friend's relative had purchased at a pawn shop. It had Vista with UAC enabled. I thought: "Great! How am I going to change some of the system settings she wanted to change." No problem! When challenged by UAC, all I had to do was click "Allow", and Vista was MORE THAN HAPPY to let me do ANYTHING "secure". I couldn't change the password; but who gives a shit? Since I could do ANYTHING else, just by clicking that "Allow" button!
Wotta joke!
So, don't even try to compare OS X's sudo system with UAC. They aren't even in the same universe, security-wise!
It'd be hard for Apple to make it mandatory, but at the very least they could simply alter their warranty terms to exclude any system using software installed outside their Mac app store. They could cripple the OS for "security" reasons. They could lock you out of online services. They could do a number of things which may not make it mandatory, but pretty much force you to do as they say anyway.
And in the immortal words of the late, great George Carlin:
Need I remind people that a flashlight application with a hidden tethering subsystem went through the store?
First, that was malware, how?
Second, that was ONE. Name three others on a NON jailbroken iOS device. I think the only other one was waaaay back when, and it managed to change the wallpaper on Springboard. w00t.
As noted by many, the Safari exploit alone is an issue, but there are decidedly more.
Please name an OS that is over 2000 lines of code that doesn't have an exploit.
[Crickets]
jumped ship with system 7.5 ("Error type 11 has just occurred, please kiss your ass goodbye")
Boy did that make me shudder! I agree with you on the Error 11 bit (did you have a Performa 6400, or another system with a PPC 603e perchance? I nearly threw the Performa 6400 I had to maintain out of the window for the constant Error 11 issues). IIRC, it was an unfortunate motherboard memory bus-timing problem, as much as it was the OS. But, it's a shame you didn't hang on one more minor rev. System 7.6 pretty much eliminated the Error 11 problem. Oh, well...
Apple has become the Big Brother their ads once suggested they broke away from.
Let me say this: OS X is not iOS. The Mac is not the iPhone/iPad. Apple has some damned good reasons for their decisions with iOS. One only has to sample the constant parade of Android exploits to come to the realization that Apple really did make the right choice there.
However, no such pressure exists for OS X. Completely different markets, with completely different security needs. And Apple is quite smart enough to recognize that, and act accordingly.
So, stand down from Red Alert (or even Yellow Alert) : On OS X, Apple is tightening up their security quite a bit in Lion, and all so that Mac users can continue to enjoy the wide variety of software sources that they always have. The Mac App Store is "training wheels" for Apple Switchers; who, by and large, have no idea where to look for Mac applications, particularly those by small ISVs. It is NOT intended to be an "App Jail".
For example: dBm, dbV, dBW, dBSPL ("A" weighted, or "C" weighted) all are different.
What I believe you are referring to is the engineering axiom "A change of 3dB means a doubling (or halving) of power." While that is true, the EFFECT of that power change is not the same to the human observer.
For example, even a trained audio engineer would be hard-pressed to accurately QUANTIFY a 3dBm or 3dBSPL (A or C) change in level. They would be able to DETECT it; but most wouldn't say "Yes, that's a BIG difference." You're at a rock concert: The average level is 110dBSPL ("A" weighted). The next song is 113dBSPL on average (A weighted). People MIGHT notice; but NONE would not go from boogie-ing in the aisles to covering their ears and running. Therefore, perceptively, to the HUMANS, that 3dBSPL change "isn't that much."
But, as I pointed out, your entire argument is mooted by the fact that YOU were too stupid to include the "units", rather than simply a baseless quantity.
For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?
What "small tasks" are you trying to accomplish, that you can't find several Free (or nearly so) alternatives? I'm not being nasty, I'm just curious; because, with very few exceptions (decent scanning software being the one I can think of), most of the apps on my Mac are Freeware.
I have a few shareware apps that I have considered good enough to purchase (and/or couldn't find a suitable free app in the time I had to search), but (other than VueScan at $40), none have been more than $25, and most have been in the $5-20 world.
Plus, there are many, many projects on Sourceforge, MacPorts, and Fink that are simply OS X versions of Linux F/OSS projects that offer precompiled, installable binaries for OS X. OpenOffice/LibreOffice/NeoOffice, the Gimp, Audacity, XBMC, Azereus/Vuze, Adium, Eclipse, gcc, all come immediately to mind. And there are many, many more.
In fact, Sourceforge alone lists 12,616 results under the "Mac" platform. All free. All Open Source.
In addition, you might check out the highly popular Mac software aggregator, Macupdate.com. They have all types of software, including free apps and inexpensive shareware (as well as "commercial"), and the "license type" is clearly listed in the "search results", so you don't have to look through dozens of apps individually, just to find the "free" ones. I have no affilation with MacUpdate, but highly recommend it. C|Net also has a variety of Mac software, some free, some not. And there are others. Many others. I don't know about these sites, but Google-ing for free mac software, the following sites came up in the first few hits: http://www.freemacware.com/, http://opensourcemac.org/, http://www.applemacfreeware.com/, http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html. And that was just a few that looked interesting on the first search result page
Bottom line: If you can't find FREE OS X apps, you either have some severely corner-case application-needs; or are just not looking.;-)
The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy, have deep pockets and have been educated to open their wallet on command.
Not only am I an embedded dev. with over three decades of paid experience, and an Mac user by choice (although I have certainly been forced to use other OSes by employers); but I am finding in the past few years (notably after the switch to Intel), that the more a person ACTUALLY knows about computers and IT (rather than how much they hate Apple reflexively), the MORE likely they are to switch to OS X completely, or at least use OS X as their primary OS.
And, considering that I am typing this on my six-year-old G5 PowerMac (the only Mac I have ever bought "new"), I would say that, if it does exist, Apple's "education" to "open [my] wallet on command" has been pretty unsuccessful.
Shipping a locked an non-locked version is trivial. Its the equivalent of "Windows 7 Home Premium" and "Windows 7 Enterprise", or "Ultimate" as its known by most folk. OSX lost the server wars, so thats why its getting consolidated into the main OS.
Apple has actually figured out that, for every mega-corporation with racks and racks of blinking server lights, there are 10,000 small businesses and homes that need a few "server-y" functions; but without the baggage of a full-blown, rackmount server. That, and it is infinitely less expensive for Apple to package, inventory, and maintain ONE OS, than it is TWO (or in the case of MS, what is it? EIGHT, including the Server versions?). Especially when one of those versions (OS X Server) sells (and would, even if Apple had "won" the "server wars") but a fraction of the number of units as their "desktop" OS.
Apple is thinking in an efficient, non-customer-screwing way. Heck, except for the management tools, nearly all of the functionality of OS X Server was ALWAYS in the "desktop" OS, anyway, just not as easily configurable. This was pretty much a no-brainer for Apple, and I am really glad to see it!
Slashdot Mirror
Those of us who are lucky enough to live in range of a Frys have it made in the shade..
The Fry's here in Indianapolis is diagonally across town from where I live, about 25 miles one way. Mightaswell be in another city!
Thanks!
I knew about Sparkfun, but not the rest. And I thought that Sparkfun mostly sold kits and pre-built stuff.
That's what I get for getting into a DigiKey/Mouser mindset from ordering prototype parts for work stuff.
analog electronics has kinda fallen by the wayside
As an embedded developer with over 30 years of experience, I couldn't DISagree more.
Especially if you deal in the world of real-time measurement and control, you will find that, for every microcontroller you place in a design, there will typically be 8 to 16 op-amp "sections" (usually in dual/quad packages) used as "buffers", active filters, etc., and several "passive" (analog) components. For example, to turn a PWM signal with 16-bit accuracy coming out of your microcontroller into an analog signal with a even just 12-bit accuracy (worst-case "ripple" being, of course, at 50% duty cycle), you need a minimum of a three-stage active Butterworth filter, requiring no less than 2 op amp sections, and several resistors and capacitors. Yes, you can use a D/A converter; but that usually isn't nearly as cost-effective, and usually carries its own group of voltage-reference ICs, passives to make the voltage-reference "stable" and "quiet" enough, plus op-amp output buffers, etc. All of those are ANALOG components.
Look at the catalogs of companies that make a good selection of both analog and digital semiconductors, like ST Microelectronics, or even better, Texas Instruments. Their analog offerings are as wide (and perhaps even wider) than their digital offerings. Ever wonder why that is? See the above.
I agree if you spend your time looking at Atmel, Cypress, Freescale or the like, you might get the impression that "analog is dead"; but nothing could be further from the truth. Heck, even Microchip has quite a nice selection of Analog, and Analog Interface, components. And companies like Analog Devices (and to a lesser extent, Maxim), have made an entire business model out of straddling that Analog/Digital "threshold".
So, as long as we continue to live in an an analog universe, there will always be the necessity for getting analog signals into, and out of, that DSP or microcontroller chip, or into/out-of that Data Acquisition and Control system. Period.
Somebody's going to post this link. It may as well be me. Even CEO Can't Figure Out How RadioShack Still In Business.
WOW! I don't think I've EVER seen that much truth in a CEO's statements. And he's right on, too. I have wondered what keeps RS going for years. Pretty much the only thing I go there for is audio adapters (which they continue to have a pretty good selection of; but even that is eroding). Oh, and I really like their concept with AC adapters with the interchangeable tips (would SOMEONE please explain why the world needs 20 sizes of barrel connectors?), although the adapters themselves are a bit overpriced (unless you shop carefully).
But other than that, they're pretty much dead to me. They used to have some fairly nice ribbon tweeters, too; but when I went looking for one to replace the hideous soft-dome tweeters I had to replace on my home stereo speakers when the original Philips domes died (whatever happened to all the MYLAR domes?!?), I found... NOTHING.
Sigh.
One thing you can do is check the RS web site, do a search and it can usually tell you whether any of the local stores stock something you can use. That way, you're leveraging their local inventory with the internet, you go to the store that has it and get it locally much sooner
Funny you should mention "leveraging their website".
Last night, I was trying to do JUST THAT, looking for some sort of power supervisor, or even an HC gate package I could use to fashion a reasonable Power-On-Reset circuit for a friend's Buffalo NAS (let's not devolve into a discussion of POR circuits, please! Suffice it to say, I figured out another way, ok?)
ANYWAY, Here is what the Radio Shack website lists under the category Microcontrollers and DIGITAL ICs.
So, tell me: Just HOW does one "leverage" THAT???
Oh, and the "Transistors & Analog ICs" Category is similarly laughable.
I have fond memories of going to Radio Shack to find components for some little project, or components to build some sort of weird audio adapter; but no more. Now, there's no choice but to go to DigiKey and Mouser, and figure out how I'm going to meet their minimum order requirements, when all I wanted was $5 worth of stuff. Actually, unless it has changed in the past couple of years, I have found that Fry's actually has a pretty respectable (by comparison) variety of electronic components. Heck, last I was in there (they are about 25 miles away, on the other side of town), they even sold stuff like soldering stations and (IIRC) and some high-end (Fluke?) multimeters and stuff.
RIP, Tandy Corp. We hardly knew ye!
(Apple doesn't count; because they have created their own OS).
Not really. They tried to create their own modern OS in the late 90's. Finally after spending many millions on the project, they gave up and allowed themselves to be taken over by NeXT instead. Then they slapped their gui-paint layer on top of UNIX like some fat chick going to the disco slaps pasty makeup on.
Since NeXTStep was already a GUI-based BSD/Mach "UNIX", what you REALLY mean is that Apple applied some cold-cream, wiped off the NeXT makeup, and THEN slapped on Mac makeup, LOL!
While I admit that that was the original plan, things didn't exactly work out that way... At least Apple was willing to accept that they couldn't realize their overly-ambitious Rhapsody/Copland "Red Box, Blue Box, Yellow Box" OS. But even then, they were able to back-port much of that development back into MacOS 8 and 9, and even OS X (what do you think "Classic" mode was?). So, not nearly as much of that work was wasted as one would initially think.
As for being taken over by NeXT, that meme started because of so many NeXTStep/OpenStep engineers that were subsequently hired by Apple to work on the Rhapsody/NeXTStep integration that was to become OS X. But the simple fact of the matter is, Apple wrote the check, not NeXT.
Apple's developers don't seem to have the skill-set needed to create a robust multi-tasking OS. They concentrate more on 'style.'
No. They already had that in the form of A/UX, But it wasn't really suited for a consumer-grade OS. What the issue REALLY was that, Apple didn't have TIME to finish what they had started, and the intended project was frankly too ambitious for ANYONE to complete in a reasonable timeframe. At least Apple was smart enough to recognize that, and act accordingly.
One-button mice (yeah, yeah, we know that was in the past.) They're a company of marketers, where trademark-buzz like 'Quicktime' and 'Altivec' are the trump cards.
QuickTime was a groundbreaking suite of APIs (and they had to call it SOMETHNG), which was then shamelessly subsequently ripped off by Microsoft (with the help of Intel). Altivec is a Motorola (Freescale) trademark, not Apple's. In fact, Apple always referred to Altivec as the "Velocity Engine".
Shut up with the Evil Company scare tactics already. They are a company, they are trying to make money, serve customers AND protect their brand. Put those all in the same bowl, mix well, and then tell me if some compromises aren't necessary?
And I would also make the assertion that not only "Evilcorps" are hacked, but charities, squeaky clean companies, and little saintly grey haired grandmas are hacked. Apple/Sony/etc. aren't hacked because they are evil, they are hacked because they exist at all.
THANK YOU!
That is the most concise, insightful comment I have EVER read on the topic of Apple == The Evil One(tm)!
Mod parent +100 Insightful!!!
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings.
I did not say Google are not evil, I said Apple are evil.
I see. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? So, how does that address the valid point I made?
Yeah, EULAs always sound terrible.
But it's in there - therefore Apple CAN legally use it if they want to.
I heard your speculation the first time; no need to repeat it. However, I still challenge you to find a single instance of Apple exercising that right. Like all large companies, Apple has a legal department. A LOT of the time, companies let things go into a contract or EULA just to shut up their OWN legal team, with no actual intention of ever enforcing the language. And yes, that's what I am saying is what happened, here. And besides, the EFF case pretty much nullifies that language, anyway, doesn't it? So now what are you saying that "Apple could do"?
Again, the potential of doing it; but obviously Apple is just putting that in as a guard against an unforseeable "worst-case-scenario" threat.
Again, it's in there. Therefore they can use it if they choose to do so.
No they can't; per the EFF case. And I pointed that out, both in my original reply to your response to my original comment, and in this further reply, too.
Too bad, just like before, you aren't letting long-settled facts mitigate your rant. You do realize, of course, that that is a sign of mental illness...
Now, let's compare that with Sony, where it took the DoJ rattling its sabre for them to stop putting rootkits on their audio CDs.
DRM disappeared on CDs completely - because the record companies had to bow to company pressures.
WTF are you SMOKING, and can I have some, please?!?
The record companies had to bow to... WHAT?!? What "company" are you talking about?!? Or are you talking about "The Company" (as in the CIA), LOL?!?
The DoJ (actually, it was the DHS) made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to Sony that the user's computers WERE NOT THEIRS to install rootkits (or anything else) on. It wasn't "industry pressures", it was the threat of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION and GOVERNMENT REGULATION that moved them. That, and pressure from retailiers, who were getting sick and tired of handling more and more RETURNS for media that SIMPLY WOULD NOT PLAY in many devices.
But, my original comments still stand: Steve Jobs called for an end to DRM. And NOBODY forced him to do THAT!
Media companies do not want anyone to own anything because they want a regular payment, rental model. Apple facilitated that by allowing DRMed music to be sold through iTunes - yes, it made the record companies sign on but Apple made a huge amount of money from it - that's basically saying they were "in league with the devil".
Once again, iTunes is NOT, repeat NOT, a major PROFIT stream for Apple. This asinine meme simply HAS to die, along with your other ridiculous claim: ZOMG! the OS X Kernel is DRM'ed...
But again, you have demonstrated that even when the facts are presented in rebuttal, you simply argue on and on and on.
They changed the DRM model because Sony's stupid rootkit fiasco brought it to the public attention, it became very unpopular and Apple had to backtrack. Period.
Oh, one final point. Do you not find it more than coincidence that Apple removed DRM from music downloads about the same time Amazon started offering DRM-free music. Yet Amazon are much smaller than Apple, wield less corporate power as a consequence, yet have never been *forced* to offer DRMed music. Explain that one.
I agree that that gave A
As I said: DISinformative. But his post is modded +5 Informative, and mine will be punish-downmodded, of course.
Actually, the opposite is the case.
This is apple.slashdot.org, not the main domain. I wonder if they will ever disclose how much Apple paid to lease the subdomain.
Oh, I see... Now SLASHDOT is in on the CONSPIRACY!
LOL!
If that were the case, why have I seen the score on my original comment steadily go DOWN from 2 to 0 over the course of the past several hours?!?
Better put another layer on that tinfoil hat! The mind-control rays are OBVIOUSLY still leaking in...
> Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Nor are they a content company like sony is.
Are you actually DEFENDING Sony's rootkits HERE, on Slashdot?!? Wow! No wonder you posted AC!!!
> Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
Yeah, steve just loves those jailbreaks right? Its not like the appstore tries to prevent this or anything.
Huh? Citation, please!
> Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Apple tried very hard to prosecute people who develops and performs jailbreaks but where shot down by the courts. They also issue dmca takedown notices to any hacker community who would have the balls to inform people how to install or virtualize osx on a pc (Which is a 100% pure drm stye lockdown as a modern mac IS a high spec pc) regardless of wether they want to buy the software.
First, Apple had one opinion, the EFF had another. The Feds sided with the EFF. However, since then, Apple hasn't tried to do an end-run around that decision, like many Android Device manufacturers. No "fuses" in microcontrollers. No encrypted bootloaders. In short, no REAL effort to stop Jailbreaking. In the end, Apple respected the adversarial process. Doesn't make them evil. At all. In fact, quite the opposite.
As far as their prohibition against virtualizing OS X: As Apple has stated many, many, many times, they are a HARDWARE company. That is unabashedly they claim to make their money. Not from the sale of OS X. So, their prohibition against virtualizing OS X on non-Apple hardware is exactly in concert with their prohibition against installing it directly on non-Apple hardware. Their OS. Their rules. Doesn't make them evil, though. Just protecting their primary revenue stream, which is the sale of HARDWARE.
Besides, as pointed out in this article, it is quite possible to install OS X on, for example VMWare running under Windows 7, just like it is quite simple to install OS X on any number of hardware-compatible non-Apple computers. Apple says "Please". It does NOT run around like the Artist Now Again Known as Prince, (or the widow of Frank Zappa!), filing DMCA takedown notices of Hackintosh websites, or articles like the one above regarding installing OS X (illegally) on VMWare Server on Windows 7, let alone prosecute anyone who attempts to do so. Illegally.
> Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way
Osx is locked using drm to prevent it running in a virtual enviroment (Which really sucks for developers),
No it isn't. See above.
and iPod is most certainly an attempt of a locked in device that uses both drm and propriatary formats to faux competitive mp3 players. Only the competition forced them to abandon this strategy.
Anyone can CLAIM anything without proof. But I DO know that NOBODY forces Steve Jobs to do ANYTHING. And least of all, write an Open Letter decrying DRM, like this.
> Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
Ehh..What do you mean? And how does that compare to sony anyway???
> Now, let's compare the above to Sony... ....
How does it compare to Sony? Sony COULD install Linux on its machines (Apple doesn't count; because they have created their own OS). But instead, they have embraced Vista, and then Windows 7. I can't find the article now, but both have so much DRM that, even after Vista shipped (which was LONG after there was a "driver stable" version available for developers) ATi couldn't even write a damned video card driver! I guess
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-unlocked-iphones-will-brick-after-software-update-+-what-does-it-mean
From the linked article:
"But first, the bricking. Was this done on purpose? Lam doesn't think so. Jacqui at Ars believes that the firmware was completed weeks ago, and the bricking is unintentional."
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
http://news.cnet.com/apple-iphone-jailbreaking-violates-our-copyright/
Partially true. Apple did say this, and a Federal Court disagreed. Apple however, didn't appeal the decision, and unlike many Android device manufacturers, has not done an end-run around that decision by putting "fuses" in their microcontrollers, signed bootloaders, etc.
So, it seems that Apple had one opinion, and the Feds had another, but in the end, Apple respected the process. It sure seems like those other manufacturers are simply taking a disingenuous advantage of the fact that the lawsuit didn't name them, specifically, and that Android users (and curiously, the EFF) seem to be disinterested in pursuing the issue. Wonder why? Could it be that the EFF has an Anti-Apple bias? Nah, couldn't be!
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/05/08/01/0421248/Mac-OS-X-Intel-Kernel-Uses-DRM
Wow! Old story much?!? How long did you have to search for that one!?!
If you look at the article, you will see that that referred to the DEVELOPER PREVIEW PLATFORMS when Apple did the Intel Switch. The TPR protection did NOT make it into the actual RELEASE CODE. Obviously, Apple had a pretty strong interest in keeping their very-restricted Beta release OS protected. Let's see what that actually ended up being in the RELEASE code. A simple deleteable file and deletable kernel extension that says "Please Don't Steal OS X". Wow. Some DRM! This article refers to TPR on OS X as "The Myth That Won't Die." And of course, the very existence of Hackintoshes kinda belies strong TPM protection, doesn't it?
As I said: DISinformative. But his post is modded +5 Informative, and mine will be punish-downmodded, of course.
Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Maybe not. But they were summoned to the US Senate to answer questions on privacy concerns over what they track & why they track it unencrypted.
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings. Apple sent a vice-president in charge of software development. Google sent a lobbyist. Apple voluntarily has already taken steps, and has promised to take further steps, to reduce both the amount of "tracking data", and to encrypt what data the user's phone does store. What has Google done/promised (I honestly don't know on that one)? But don't let facts available for nearly two months stop your rant.
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
I think you need to read the last 2 lines about possibly denying sevice on this page.
Yeah, EULAs always sound terrible. But point to me one instance of Apple actually doing that. [Crickets]
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
It has put the mechanisms in place to do so in the future though.
Again, the potential of doing it; but obviously Apple is just putting that in as a guard against an unforseeable "worst-case-scenario" threat. And again, please show me a single instance of Apple actually making good on any sabre-rattling. And didn't it get settled nearly a year ago that "Jailbreaking" was NOT illegal? Do you see Apple actively fighting that with signed bootloaders, security fuses, etc, like some Android Device manufacturers? So, your point, again?
Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way (they DO have to put up with SOME DRM due to pressures from "content providers"; but it is obvious they chafe against it).
Apple dropped DRM from iTunes about 2 years ago. It could be argued that they bowed to pressure from their user base after the Sony rootkit and CD DRM fuss. I have not come across a DRMed CD for some years now because of the stink DRM caused.
ANYTHING "can be argued". But at least Apple's CEO published an Open Letter publicly decrying DRM. Has Sony? Howabout Google?
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
I'm mainly a Linux guy, I'm still using XP for some stuff but haven't played with Windows 7 much beyond setting up some laptops for colleagues - therefore I'm no expert on it. However, I am not aware of any restrictions on Windows 7 that stop you running non-DRMed formats on it exactly as you can do on previous iterations of Windows. I am led to believe that it provides a *platform* for DRM, again probably bowing to the same pressures from the RIAA that you said it was perfectly okay for Apple to have done during the early days of iTunes.
When Apple was starting out with iTunes, NO ONE would have signed up without DRM, and you (and everybody else) knows it. Even when iTunes had DRM on music, it was the weakest DRM possible. Individual songs weren't DRMed, per se; only Playlists were copy-restricted. NOTHING (but trust) prevented the user from deleting the Playlist, and recreating it, thus garnering another seven (then five) copies of a particular song. And let's not forget that iTunes also allows creating an Audi
From their FAQ:
Only relatively short and simple passwords can be recovered in a reasonable time.
But I thought that Bruce Schneier said that complex passwords were not any safer than short ones.
[Ducks]
Way to go ElcomSoft! Good to see hackers sticking it to the once hacker-originated Apple Computers Inc. Sad to see that Apple Computers has become another catholic church style entity.
Wow! Up your meds, dude!
Regardless of your platform choice, are you REALLY lauding the efforts of hackers whose efforts will not hurt Apple, but rather only the unfortunate users of their products?
What about the people who have been handed an iPhone/iPad by their employer? Do they deserved to be hacked, too?
Perhaps its time for you to head to the nearest psychologist/psychiatrist. What you are experiencing is commonly referred to "Misdirected Anger", and is usually a sign of some OTHER significant "perceived wrong" you have suffered.
Or perhaps, you're just an arrogant dick.
This is precisely what happens when you turn yourself into an "evil" company like Sony did and Apple are a long way through the process of doing - you will attract the hacker community and there will be thousands of people simultaneously trying to shame that company.
How in the HELL can you compare Sony to Apple like this?
Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way (they DO have to put up with SOME DRM due to pressures from "content providers"; but it is obvious they chafe against it).
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
Now, let's compare the above to Sony...
"So, has Kaspersky ever found a MAC threat?"
No, but you're missing the point. You assume you have a safe platform, I can prove it (well, to the extent that I have to trust Kaspersky, but that's a different discussion).
Actually, it's not. If you assume that OS X can have a threat, then you must also assume that Kaspersky can fail to find the threat. The point being, there is no such thing as 100% assurance of security. And no, that this not just an academic point. It is THE point.
I am not a fanboy who takes everything from Apple as a message from God.
I take nothing as a message from God. Even messages from so-called God(s). I listen to my own experience. And in my decades of experience with Macs, and since running OS X since it was called Rhapsody, I have yet to have even the first inkling of a threat. I am not inexperienced in these matters, and I am here to tell you that, AFAICT, OS X seems impervious to internet attack. On the very box I am typing this on (which is also my main computer) I run an ftp server (with anonymous, read-only access that is published on a well-publicized website, and several private user accounts with R/W access). all running on the standard ftp ports, plus a streaming video server running on Port 80 (also linked-to from the same website), as well as ssh running on the standard port. My machine sits bare nekkid on the internet, on, 24/7/365, running those services since April, 2005. It gets attacked on a daily basis. In fact, it is probably getting attacked right now. None shall pass.
Me and my Safari browser have gone to some pretty seamy places on the internet. Nothing grabs hold of my browser, subverts its home page, causes pop-ups, or installs stuff. Period.
So, it isn't a matter of believing St. Jobs, it is a matter of believing my own eyes and log files.
I manage a friend's Mac mini that serves as his HTPC and SFTP gateway to his NAS while he's on the road. I checked out his "security" log files, all 16.5 MB of them! A ZILLION attacks on his ssl login. Not one authentication (that wasn't his or mine).
So yes, I am a little bit confident at this point.
As a matter of fact, being associated with Apple fanboys was one of the main barriers to using the platform..
That's a weak excuse, and you know it. You don't have to be "associated with" anyone, just because you choose to use the same OS. What an immature attitude!
"Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in /Library/Preferences/ or /Library/Application Support/"
Actually, no - it's worse. A radio application I once installed left residue ("rfx-server") that I manually had to dig out of the system.
As I said, an exception. I agree that the publisher of that app should have included an uninstaller. Most do, if they have stuff that runs as a kernel extension.
Growl is used by many apps - will that just uninstall without any warning then (not that I want to uninstall it, but I hope you see what I mean)?
Actually, I think that Growl HAS an uninstall feature. I must admit that I don't run it; because I hate annoying popups. Far too Windows-like, LOL! It must, though; because I remember having it, and then getting rid of it, and other than the .dmg I downloaded (and didn't bother to delete), it appears no where on my system. Ah, the .dmg has an Applescript that does the uninstall; so I would assume the answer is "yes".
You *assume* the BOM to be correct..
No, the Installer assumes the BOM to be correct. And if it isn't the file(s) that don't appear in the BOM simply don't get installed anyway. And in the case of a "Drag Install", all the dependencies are in the App Package. I agree that the App could then put some into the System, but I have neve
I run the 3 major ones (Linux, OSX and -now only occasionally- Windows), and only the Linux setup does not have any anti-virus and anti-trojan on it as it runs off read-only media. But on the Mac I have Kaspersky too. Not that it runs permanently, but I test anything that I'm interested in installing, and every so often I do a full check from an account with admin risks (my work account has no admin rights).
So, has Kaspersky ever found a MAC threat?
OSX doesn't have a decent uninstall mechanism.
Sure it does: Drag the Application to the Trash. Empty Trash. Done. That does it for all but the most instrusive of apps. Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in /Library/Preferences/ or /Library/Application Support/. Then the SAVVY Mac-users KNOWS where to look for, and TRASH those, too. Not that they can do anything, anyway. It's not like the DLL-Hell system of Windows "Do you want to remove [some DLL name you've never heard of]? It appears to be used by more than one program." That simply DOESN'T happen on OS X. Never did; never will.
Or, you can just use this. Found it in five seconds. Wotta whiner. SInce OS X "packages" have a BOM, uninstalling is a snap. There is also a command-line way to do it; but since this is FREE...
Ever heard of UAC?
I have encountered both UAC and OS X's "GUI sudo" security measures. There is no comparison.
They might attempt to reach the same goals (user authentication); but there is a BIG difference in the "mental impact" between the two methods. With UAC, I never even GLANCE at the text in the dialog; I (and I am sure 99.99999999999% of other users) can't find the "Allow" button fast enough. It is processed as yet-another annoyance in an OS that CONSTANTLY generates annoyances. Quick! Click it! Make it Go Away! That is the only thing that "registers".
However, with OS X, even if you are running as an Administrator, you STILL have to TYPE IN your password. And, no matter how many times I have seen that dialog (I use OS X every day), it STILL makes me pause a second and think "Why?" Even when I'm expecting it, it still raises a question in my mind. And THAT is the biggest difference. That, and the fact that OS X doesn't constantly bombard the user with popups, bubbles, and other what-not. If you use Growl heavily, it can get annoying (which I why I don't use it); but even those don't REQUIRE attention (they go away after a few seconds). So, when that sudo dialog pops up, you know it is something that requires your attention, rather than your ire.
Another case-in-point as to why UAC is completely laughable. I was working on a laptop that a friend's relative had purchased at a pawn shop. It had Vista with UAC enabled. I thought: "Great! How am I going to change some of the system settings she wanted to change." No problem! When challenged by UAC, all I had to do was click "Allow", and Vista was MORE THAN HAPPY to let me do ANYTHING "secure". I couldn't change the password; but who gives a shit? Since I could do ANYTHING else, just by clicking that "Allow" button!
Wotta joke!
So, don't even try to compare OS X's sudo system with UAC. They aren't even in the same universe, security-wise!
It'd be hard for Apple to make it mandatory, but at the very least they could simply alter their warranty terms to exclude any system using software installed outside their Mac app store. They could cripple the OS for "security" reasons. They could lock you out of online services. They could do a number of things which may not make it mandatory, but pretty much force you to do as they say anyway.
And in the immortal words of the late, great George Carlin:
I might have brought my arrowhead collection... But I didn't!
Need I remind people that a flashlight application with a hidden tethering subsystem went through the store?
First, that was malware, how?
Second, that was ONE. Name three others on a NON jailbroken iOS device. I think the only other one was waaaay back when, and it managed to change the wallpaper on Springboard. w00t.
[Crickets]
Now, let's talk about Android's track record...
As noted by many, the Safari exploit alone is an issue, but there are decidedly more.
Please name an OS that is over 2000 lines of code that doesn't have an exploit.
[Crickets]
jumped ship with system 7.5 ("Error type 11 has just occurred, please kiss your ass goodbye")
Boy did that make me shudder! I agree with you on the Error 11 bit (did you have a Performa 6400, or another system with a PPC 603e perchance? I nearly threw the Performa 6400 I had to maintain out of the window for the constant Error 11 issues). IIRC, it was an unfortunate motherboard memory bus-timing problem, as much as it was the OS. But, it's a shame you didn't hang on one more minor rev. System 7.6 pretty much eliminated the Error 11 problem. Oh, well...
Apple has become the Big Brother their ads once suggested they broke away from.
Let me say this: OS X is not iOS. The Mac is not the iPhone/iPad. Apple has some damned good reasons for their decisions with iOS. One only has to sample the constant parade of Android exploits to come to the realization that Apple really did make the right choice there.
However, no such pressure exists for OS X. Completely different markets, with completely different security needs. And Apple is quite smart enough to recognize that, and act accordingly.
So, stand down from Red Alert (or even Yellow Alert) : On OS X, Apple is tightening up their security quite a bit in Lion, and all so that Mac users can continue to enjoy the wide variety of software sources that they always have. The Mac App Store is "training wheels" for Apple Switchers; who, by and large, have no idea where to look for Mac applications, particularly those by small ISVs. It is NOT intended to be an "App Jail".
re multimedia pros - I had a multimedia grad say "oh 3db isn't that much" err actualy it is :-)
Actually, it is YOU that fails.
Not to get too far off topic; but, dB, deciBels, is a COMPLETELY USELESS MEASUREMENT by itself, until accompanied by additional nomenclature.
For example: dBm, dbV, dBW, dBSPL ("A" weighted, or "C" weighted) all are different.
What I believe you are referring to is the engineering axiom "A change of 3dB means a doubling (or halving) of power." While that is true, the EFFECT of that power change is not the same to the human observer.
For example, even a trained audio engineer would be hard-pressed to accurately QUANTIFY a 3dBm or 3dBSPL (A or C) change in level. They would be able to DETECT it; but most wouldn't say "Yes, that's a BIG difference." You're at a rock concert: The average level is 110dBSPL ("A" weighted). The next song is 113dBSPL on average (A weighted). People MIGHT notice; but NONE would not go from boogie-ing in the aisles to covering their ears and running. Therefore, perceptively, to the HUMANS, that 3dBSPL change "isn't that much."
But, as I pointed out, your entire argument is mooted by the fact that YOU were too stupid to include the "units", rather than simply a baseless quantity.
For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?
What "small tasks" are you trying to accomplish, that you can't find several Free (or nearly so) alternatives? I'm not being nasty, I'm just curious; because, with very few exceptions (decent scanning software being the one I can think of), most of the apps on my Mac are Freeware.
;-)
I have a few shareware apps that I have considered good enough to purchase (and/or couldn't find a suitable free app in the time I had to search), but (other than VueScan at $40), none have been more than $25, and most have been in the $5-20 world.
Plus, there are many, many projects on Sourceforge, MacPorts, and Fink that are simply OS X versions of Linux F/OSS projects that offer precompiled, installable binaries for OS X. OpenOffice/LibreOffice/NeoOffice, the Gimp, Audacity, XBMC, Azereus/Vuze, Adium, Eclipse, gcc, all come immediately to mind. And there are many, many more.
In fact, Sourceforge alone lists 12,616 results under the "Mac" platform. All free. All Open Source.
In addition, you might check out the highly popular Mac software aggregator, Macupdate.com. They have all types of software, including free apps and inexpensive shareware (as well as "commercial"), and the "license type" is clearly listed in the "search results", so you don't have to look through dozens of apps individually, just to find the "free" ones. I have no affilation with MacUpdate, but highly recommend it. C|Net also has a variety of Mac software, some free, some not. And there are others. Many others. I don't know about these sites, but Google-ing for free mac software, the following sites came up in the first few hits: http://www.freemacware.com/, http://opensourcemac.org/, http://www.applemacfreeware.com/, http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html. And that was just a few that looked interesting on the first search result page
Bottom line: If you can't find FREE OS X apps, you either have some severely corner-case application-needs; or are just not looking.
The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy, have deep pockets and have been educated to open their wallet on command.
Not only am I an embedded dev. with over three decades of paid experience, and an Mac user by choice (although I have certainly been forced to use other OSes by employers); but I am finding in the past few years (notably after the switch to Intel), that the more a person ACTUALLY knows about computers and IT (rather than how much they hate Apple reflexively), the MORE likely they are to switch to OS X completely, or at least use OS X as their primary OS.
And, considering that I am typing this on my six-year-old G5 PowerMac (the only Mac I have ever bought "new"), I would say that, if it does exist, Apple's "education" to "open [my] wallet on command" has been pretty unsuccessful.
Shipping a locked an non-locked version is trivial. Its the equivalent of "Windows 7 Home Premium" and "Windows 7 Enterprise", or "Ultimate" as its known by most folk. OSX lost the server wars, so thats why its getting consolidated into the main OS.
Apple has actually figured out that, for every mega-corporation with racks and racks of blinking server lights, there are 10,000 small businesses and homes that need a few "server-y" functions; but without the baggage of a full-blown, rackmount server. That, and it is infinitely less expensive for Apple to package, inventory, and maintain ONE OS, than it is TWO (or in the case of MS, what is it? EIGHT, including the Server versions?). Especially when one of those versions (OS X Server) sells (and would, even if Apple had "won" the "server wars") but a fraction of the number of units as their "desktop" OS.
Apple is thinking in an efficient, non-customer-screwing way. Heck, except for the management tools, nearly all of the functionality of OS X Server was ALWAYS in the "desktop" OS, anyway, just not as easily configurable. This was pretty much a no-brainer for Apple, and I am really glad to see it!