Microsoft Windows and other operating systems have a configurable option to attach to any available network. This is used to make it easier when you stop at a wi-fi hotspot where it is allowed to utilize the connectivity. For someone to be convicted of this, it seems to me that you would have to prove that the user knew what he/she was doing and had an intent to steal the connectivity, and not just a misconfiguration of the wireless client software. Several times my notebook has connected to my neighbor's access point. I immediately switch to my own. Becaue it is the right thing to do. Eventually I fixed my configuration so it would ONLY use my access point.
I think it is necessary for people to secure their access points if they don't want others to use them. It is not that hard to do. Encryption is easy to enable. Disabling SSID broadcasting is a good start. I went around the neighborhood and spoke with my neighbors that had open routers about locking them down, for their own sakes.
I america, we presume not guilty until proven guilty. If a person has their own wireless access point hooked to their DSL or broadband, and they happen to connect to a neighbor, it is most likely an accident. If they don't have their own access point, and they are using the Internet, they are either ignorant aboujt where connectivity comes from, or they are stealing. I used to keep an open zone hooked to a spare DSL line, until file sharing abuse spoiled it for those neighbors that I was trying help out.
Its not about the hardware architecture. It is about the binary compatiblity standard that is used to define how objects and executables work so that unix programs, for instance, can run on different versions of Linux (with a little luck). It also has to do with creating a run time envoronment that allows debuggers to operate. Automatic variables (on the stack) are a clever was to create short term allocations for temporary use (like within the scope of a routine. C++ uses this extensively when you instantiate classes instead of using "new".
I admit that code nees to be written with security in mind. But Microsoft's Trusted Computing solution is not the answer.
I use both Macs and PCs. Recently I decided to discontinune using Windows and switch to Linux and Mac OS X. I dislike Microsoft so at first I liked the ads.
It kind of goes with the terratory that in an ad, you potray your product to be better than the competition. But here is the way I see it.
The PC guy is frumpy, kind of a nerd, has trouble expressing himself, and is an older looking fellow.
The Mac guy looks younger, more physically fit, and has lots of snappy comebacks and one liners.
I have trouble relating to either of them. I am 52 years old, so I have trouble relating to the younger Mac guy. It seems to me that the ad is targeted at younger people in their teens or twenties.
What might have more impact would be two people of similar age and build. The PC guy can be uptight and worried about viruses, and focused on Microsoft products and details, The Mac guy can be focused on how the Mac can be used for lots of fun purposes as well as serious business uses. The Macs are expensive and have to be more than toys.
Anyway, I feel its hard for me to identify with the Mac guy because he is so much younger and has an attitude. Some young people with atitudes make me uncomfortable. The smugness bothers me. It looks to me like the Mac guy is a "fanboy". He acts as if the Mac is better, "Because", and doesn't have to back up his position with facts. More substance would help the ad make more of an impact.
I also think the ads miss the mark. A PC running Linux is a wonderful thing. A PC running Windows is a waste of the hardware. I think the ad might be more to the point if they renamed the PC guy, a Windows Guy. That would be more to the point. I think that is my most important criticism. It isn't so much that Macs are better than PCs. It is more like Windows is a lousy operating system and any other operating system running on PC hardware would be an improvement.
Also, the new Intel based Powerbooks are PCs. Given that, the ad is off target. Also, what I liked about PowerPC based Macs was that they were RISC (reduced instruction set) machines, and as such tended to be more efficient (each clock executed one instruction). The PCs, build with Intel or compatible processors are CISC machines where an instruction would take as many clock cycles are were required, therefore less efficient. Considering that, a certain degree of pride in the PowerPC Macs was justified (IMHO). With the advent of Intel based Macs, the ad would have to have two avitars. A PC guy and a PC guy. That would reduce the power of the message. More correctly they would need a Windows PC guy and a Mac OS X PC guy.
As I traveled the world, I came to understand that being understood is the goal of communication, In Japan when you are looking for your neighborhood, knowing the symbol for your town helps you get home. In England, they spell things in unusual ways and the easiest way to get along is to interpret it as humor.
That said, there is slang, and there is grammer and spelling. As we get older we learn both the slang and the more formal writing and speech patterns. I try to spell things correctly and use good grammer. Some times my fingers foul up, and I hope the people reading understand what I was trying to say.
Just because people can understand, that doesn't mean they want to. If you write and speak clearly, people are more apt to understand you. I was really upset about the ebonics being taught in school. I cannot keep people from using slang in their personal lives, but if they write clearly in english, people now and in the future, will understand what they were trying to say.
I think that in a school where reading, writing and speaking are taught, a test verifies that the student has mastered the material, which includes spelling and grammar. Accepting slang on tests is an ineffective way of confirming those skills. The whole idea degrades the purpose of school. Attending school and learning to speak and write prepares you for the business world where you are judged on the basis of how you communnicate.
I hyope they are kidding, because if they are not, I will loose a lot of confidence about the future.
Back when Microsoft was busy stealing the GUI design from Appple, they joined the CUA crowd on the basis that the CUA guidlines made the user feell more comfortable. The menu bar that would have a File/Exit and File/SaveAs made the user feel like he would be able to get around ok in a new software package.
In the latest version of Internet Explorer, the menu bar has dissapeared. The same is true of the new Office suite. The user is made to feel very uncomfortable and must learn the new applications entirely from scratch. When I tried to use the new Office suite, I was completely lost and functions as simple as saving a file became a mystery.
As far as I can tell, Microsoft's new position is that they don't need CUA any more because they know what is easiest for the users, and inherent familiarity with the application is no longer important.
Several days ago I made the decision to discontinue use of my Windows machines and focus on my Apple and Linux/Unix boxes. So far I have been very happy and while I will keep a Windows box around in case a client insists I do something on Windows, I would really rather never see Windows again.
I read yesterday that Mi9crosoft is declaring that with Vista, you will no longer need anti-virus software. All this time we have had to buy anti-virus software because of problems in the Windows code. I have resented it from the start. Over the long term, I have paid more for Anti-virus software than I have for Windows. I hope Symantec/Norton have enjoyed my money all these years, but as each of my systems running Windows starts complaining about needing Norton renewals, I will reload the operating system with Linux (probably ubuntu) and keep my credit card in my pocket.
I too standardized on Red Hat and I bought my copies at CompUSA and purchased service contracts for all my servers and workstations. A while later I received the "end of support" email indicating that two months later when my support contracts were expiring, Red Hat would no longer be supporting my installations because they were going off into the "Enterprise" market. That really pissed me off and I haven't trusted them since. I standardized on their product and paid up, and for my trust, I got what was coming to me. Now they are getting theirs from Oracle, Ha Ha Ha.
After the Oracle announcement I downloaded the Oracle "Unbreakable" Enterprise Linux and had to try four hard disk configurations before I found one that would boot after installation. ubuntu-6.06.01 LTS never did that to me. I think given a chance ubuntu will do well. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
Thank You!!
I spent about a week reading the ECMA documents, and the fluffy web pages about ECMA. The descriptive pages explicitly state that the
documents contain material covered by Patents held by ECMA member companies and that they have agreed to RAND or the materials
would not have been accepted into the standards.
I have been trying to tell people about this ever since I read it. No one wants to believe me. IANABCL but IMNSHO and FWIW the ECMA docments
are nothing more than a Troll Trap, provided in convenient PDF format.
I have been waiting patiently for the S*** to hit the fan. I emailed the FSF about this months ago and they never replied to me.
Your point is well taken and I back you up all the way.
If Microsoft has promised not to sue Novell for Patent Infringement, that makes it ok for Novell to use Mono (written off ECMA documents). This would give Microsoft a.NET runtime on Linux. If this is the point of it all, it wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft throws in some help finishing up the mono class libraries so that Microsoft will be able to ship applications written for.NET onto the Linux platform. I am having a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Since I have heard that major portions of their new operating system are written using their own.NET technology, how hard would it be for Microsoft to put their GUI on top of Linux? I thiknk I am going to be sick.
I have been trying to explain that for months. The ECMA documents contain Microsoft Patented information.
Software packages written off the ECMA documents infringe. Period.
If you take the job you will enjoy, you will be a happy and motivated worker. They will notice you and promote you because you are doing well in your job. You will be too busy having fun to watch the clock and worry about how fast you will advance monetarily. I would give almost anything to be in your shoes. If I could be working and happy with my employer, that would change my whole life around. It sounds to me like the perl job would be kind of a family shop, and in the Microsoft shop you would have to compete with so callled software engineers popping out of the Microsoft University. Obviously the smaller job will be more innovative, and you will have more opportunnity to be visible for your efforts. As the Microsoft shop get squeezed by market pressures, your job security may suffer. In the over competitive Microsoft shop, you would be wagged around trying to force the Microsoft technology into the shape you need. In the other shop, you can write what you need. The experience at the smaller shop is multiplatform and will look good on your resume, and the smaller shop works with technologies that don't become obsolete every two years. Make the right choice.
I am surprised that Novell didn't choke when they swallowed Digital Research. They fought tooth and nail with Microsoft over the life of their new child DR-DOS.
If people were on the fence about Novell, the stink of Microsoft night be enough to push them off in any other direction.
The latest version of ubuntu 6.10 was an unfortunate situation. Admittedly it needed more work before release. Anyone not happy with it should really go back and try ubuntu-6.06.01 and they will find that it installs flawlessly. I have been extremely happy with it on a number of platforms.
At the time Novell bought Suse, I had a lcense from Novell to try all their software, but Novell's verswion of Suse was one or two versions back from what I could buy at CompUSA. I just couldn't see using obsolete software.
I just tried out Oracle's Enterprise Linux (or is it Red Hat's Linux?). I had major trouble installing it. The install failed a number of times, and not from bad media. I finally got it working, but it was much more trouble than ubuntu.
To make matters worse, when Microsoft tries to add features to its OS, it gets attacked by companies who provide these functions as third-party vendors. This includes the antivirus and firewall companies, a few of which are threatening to sue Microsoft on the same grounds as the old antitrust case.
I find it hard to believe the author could even say these words with a straight face. This quote is functionally similar to, "Well Officer, he assaulted my fist with his face, and now my fingers are really black and blue."
Work for talented programmers will never end.
Really? Do you really think that? I know lots of talented programmers that are suffering financial
destruction because of outsourcing. If you say that because you have plenty of work today, I
wish the best for you tomorrow because when you can't find the work any more, your life dries up.
The ECMA script documents contain Microsoft Patented technology, and if you use te documents, you have to license the technology from Microsoft for Money. ECMA is a patent troll trap, BEWARE.
You are correct, but when I get a terminal window open and I am at the command line, it is my FreeBSD experience that gives me the knowledge to type file management commands, edit files, write and compile programs... I don't relate to the Mach kernel much because there is so much FreeBSD and GNU between it and me. I own some audio editing software for my Mac because I am a musician, and I valued that put of the Macs capabiities. I own Soundtrack (from Appple) and Deck and Peak (From BIAS). There are some limitation to the Mac I just live with. For instance I don't go to msnbc.com wanting to watch viseos because I refuce to load Microsoft Media Player on my Mac. I have some values. I don't do black magic, and I don't load Microsoft code on my Mac.
I agree. The Mac is a fine development workstation. And BBEdit is an asset to a programmer's kit. I started using it for Python programming and my productivity shot right up. Wow!
Beyond that, if the GNU compler collection doesn't have what you need, write it...:-)
I just heard an hour long rant from Larry Ellison about Oracle's Unbreakable Linux. During the speech he had a high ranking Googleite come forward and praise Oracle's support and th new Unbreakable Linux support plan and prices. He said that Google has 150,000 servers. I can see why Google might want to use Larry's ripped of version of Red Hats Enterprise Linux. If I had 150,000 servers, I would prefer a free download and $100/year/server service contract. That would be only 15 million dollars a year to have the entire Google server farm under support contract. Just call Uncle Larry if anything goes wrong.
Recently I had a tantrum and pushed my PC off my desk. Not really but I put it somewhere else and got out my iMac. I have been very happy every day since I did that. I still use Linux and Unix also, FreeBSD and ubuntu. But after I put the Mac back up, I found BBEdit, and was very happy to find a Mac OS X port of Google Earth. I really like Google Earth. Microsoft wishes they had Google Earth. I wouldn't have been happy giving Earth up, and it alone is not worth going back to the PC.
What the Mac has going for it is Apple's polish on top of FreeBSD's heritage of Unix stability and power, Oh and the thousands of applications. I don't think the Apple is "better" than a good version of Linux. I think it is about the same. I like both, after all, under the hood they are similar.
Wait a minute; you don't trust Microsoft with your URL path, but you trust them enough to censor the internet for you?
No I don't trust them to censor the Internet for me. If I wasn't clear about that, I apologize.
Who do you think you are? If people don't fall on their knees and bow before the great Microsoft, you resort to name calling?
Some people just don't feel like doing it the Microsoft way. That's why there are alternative operating systems and browsers, thank the gods.
I am just kind of tired of being wagged around by Microsoft. I don't think Basic is the ultimate programming language either.
I really do appreciate that you took the time to explain how the phishing filter works. I didn't freak out, I just got the willinillies.
I am still not comfortable with the idea even from an efficiency point of view, that would slow down my web accesses, effectively doubling the latency for any web accesses not in Microsofts white list. Latency plus lookup time for each url. Do you see where the processing load of phish processing for all ie7 users in the world could bog things down globally if Microsoft didn't provide enough processing power at the lookup point. I have yet to be convinced that Microsoft can handle it, especially if they are using their own software to handle the lookup.
I don't think my idea about the URL hashing was that far off, at the very least they could resolve the url to an IP number which could be kept on the black list. What is wrong with that?
That might have the effect of causing trouble for an ISP who was hosting a phishing site, but that would motivate them to shut down the phishing site and appply for clemency from Microsoft.
I think giving Microsoft the ability to unilaterally block ie7 access for all internet users to a site is a lot of power, don't you think? Do you think it should be subject to some kind of neutral judgement, perhaps a court order. I think that is a lot of power.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess this guy hasn't been to the market lately I can't feed myself for $100 a year, much less a village.
Microsoft Windows and other operating systems have a configurable option to attach to any available network. This is used to make it easier when you stop at a wi-fi hotspot where it is allowed to utilize the connectivity. For someone to be convicted of this, it seems to me that you would have to prove that the user knew what he/she was doing and had an intent to steal the connectivity, and not just a misconfiguration of the wireless client software. Several times my notebook has connected to my neighbor's access point. I immediately switch to my own. Becaue it is the right thing to do. Eventually I fixed my configuration so it would ONLY use my access point. I think it is necessary for people to secure their access points if they don't want others to use them. It is not that hard to do. Encryption is easy to enable. Disabling SSID broadcasting is a good start. I went around the neighborhood and spoke with my neighbors that had open routers about locking them down, for their own sakes. I america, we presume not guilty until proven guilty. If a person has their own wireless access point hooked to their DSL or broadband, and they happen to connect to a neighbor, it is most likely an accident. If they don't have their own access point, and they are using the Internet, they are either ignorant aboujt where connectivity comes from, or they are stealing. I used to keep an open zone hooked to a spare DSL line, until file sharing abuse spoiled it for those neighbors that I was trying help out.
Its not about the hardware architecture. It is about the binary compatiblity standard that is used to define how objects and executables work so that unix programs, for instance, can run on different versions of Linux (with a little luck). It also has to do with creating a run time envoronment that allows debuggers to operate. Automatic variables (on the stack) are a clever was to create short term allocations for temporary use (like within the scope of a routine. C++ uses this extensively when you instantiate classes instead of using "new". I admit that code nees to be written with security in mind. But Microsoft's Trusted Computing solution is not the answer.
I use both Macs and PCs. Recently I decided to discontinune using Windows and switch to Linux and Mac OS X. I dislike Microsoft so at first I liked the ads. It kind of goes with the terratory that in an ad, you potray your product to be better than the competition. But here is the way I see it. The PC guy is frumpy, kind of a nerd, has trouble expressing himself, and is an older looking fellow. The Mac guy looks younger, more physically fit, and has lots of snappy comebacks and one liners. I have trouble relating to either of them. I am 52 years old, so I have trouble relating to the younger Mac guy. It seems to me that the ad is targeted at younger people in their teens or twenties. What might have more impact would be two people of similar age and build. The PC guy can be uptight and worried about viruses, and focused on Microsoft products and details, The Mac guy can be focused on how the Mac can be used for lots of fun purposes as well as serious business uses. The Macs are expensive and have to be more than toys. Anyway, I feel its hard for me to identify with the Mac guy because he is so much younger and has an attitude. Some young people with atitudes make me uncomfortable. The smugness bothers me. It looks to me like the Mac guy is a "fanboy". He acts as if the Mac is better, "Because", and doesn't have to back up his position with facts. More substance would help the ad make more of an impact. I also think the ads miss the mark. A PC running Linux is a wonderful thing. A PC running Windows is a waste of the hardware. I think the ad might be more to the point if they renamed the PC guy, a Windows Guy. That would be more to the point. I think that is my most important criticism. It isn't so much that Macs are better than PCs. It is more like Windows is a lousy operating system and any other operating system running on PC hardware would be an improvement. Also, the new Intel based Powerbooks are PCs. Given that, the ad is off target. Also, what I liked about PowerPC based Macs was that they were RISC (reduced instruction set) machines, and as such tended to be more efficient (each clock executed one instruction). The PCs, build with Intel or compatible processors are CISC machines where an instruction would take as many clock cycles are were required, therefore less efficient. Considering that, a certain degree of pride in the PowerPC Macs was justified (IMHO). With the advent of Intel based Macs, the ad would have to have two avitars. A PC guy and a PC guy. That would reduce the power of the message. More correctly they would need a Windows PC guy and a Mac OS X PC guy.
As I traveled the world, I came to understand that being understood is the goal of communication, In Japan when you are looking for your neighborhood, knowing the symbol for your town helps you get home. In England, they spell things in unusual ways and the easiest way to get along is to interpret it as humor. That said, there is slang, and there is grammer and spelling. As we get older we learn both the slang and the more formal writing and speech patterns. I try to spell things correctly and use good grammer. Some times my fingers foul up, and I hope the people reading understand what I was trying to say. Just because people can understand, that doesn't mean they want to. If you write and speak clearly, people are more apt to understand you. I was really upset about the ebonics being taught in school. I cannot keep people from using slang in their personal lives, but if they write clearly in english, people now and in the future, will understand what they were trying to say. I think that in a school where reading, writing and speaking are taught, a test verifies that the student has mastered the material, which includes spelling and grammar. Accepting slang on tests is an ineffective way of confirming those skills. The whole idea degrades the purpose of school. Attending school and learning to speak and write prepares you for the business world where you are judged on the basis of how you communnicate. I hyope they are kidding, because if they are not, I will loose a lot of confidence about the future.
Back when Microsoft was busy stealing the GUI design from Appple, they joined the CUA crowd on the basis that the CUA guidlines made the user feell more comfortable. The menu bar that would have a File/Exit and File/SaveAs made the user feel like he would be able to get around ok in a new software package. In the latest version of Internet Explorer, the menu bar has dissapeared. The same is true of the new Office suite. The user is made to feel very uncomfortable and must learn the new applications entirely from scratch. When I tried to use the new Office suite, I was completely lost and functions as simple as saving a file became a mystery. As far as I can tell, Microsoft's new position is that they don't need CUA any more because they know what is easiest for the users, and inherent familiarity with the application is no longer important. Several days ago I made the decision to discontinue use of my Windows machines and focus on my Apple and Linux/Unix boxes. So far I have been very happy and while I will keep a Windows box around in case a client insists I do something on Windows, I would really rather never see Windows again. I read yesterday that Mi9crosoft is declaring that with Vista, you will no longer need anti-virus software. All this time we have had to buy anti-virus software because of problems in the Windows code. I have resented it from the start. Over the long term, I have paid more for Anti-virus software than I have for Windows. I hope Symantec/Norton have enjoyed my money all these years, but as each of my systems running Windows starts complaining about needing Norton renewals, I will reload the operating system with Linux (probably ubuntu) and keep my credit card in my pocket.
I too standardized on Red Hat and I bought my copies at CompUSA and purchased service contracts for all my servers and workstations. A while later I received the "end of support" email indicating that two months later when my support contracts were expiring, Red Hat would no longer be supporting my installations because they were going off into the "Enterprise" market. That really pissed me off and I haven't trusted them since. I standardized on their product and paid up, and for my trust, I got what was coming to me. Now they are getting theirs from Oracle, Ha Ha Ha.
After the Oracle announcement I downloaded the Oracle "Unbreakable" Enterprise Linux and had to try four hard disk configurations before I found one that would boot after installation. ubuntu-6.06.01 LTS never did that to me. I think given a chance ubuntu will do well. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
I think I have heard something like that before, maybe in lord of the rings.
Thank You!! I spent about a week reading the ECMA documents, and the fluffy web pages about ECMA. The descriptive pages explicitly state that the documents contain material covered by Patents held by ECMA member companies and that they have agreed to RAND or the materials would not have been accepted into the standards. I have been trying to tell people about this ever since I read it. No one wants to believe me. IANABCL but IMNSHO and FWIW the ECMA docments are nothing more than a Troll Trap, provided in convenient PDF format. I have been waiting patiently for the S*** to hit the fan. I emailed the FSF about this months ago and they never replied to me. Your point is well taken and I back you up all the way.
"Alia keeps pace with the storm"
If Microsoft has promised not to sue Novell for Patent Infringement, that makes it ok for Novell to use Mono (written off ECMA documents). This would give Microsoft a .NET runtime on Linux. If this is the point of it all, it wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft throws in some help finishing up the mono class libraries so that Microsoft will be able to ship applications written for .NET onto the Linux platform. I am having a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Since I have heard that major portions of their new operating system are written using their own .NET technology, how hard would it be for Microsoft to put their GUI on top of Linux? I thiknk I am going to be sick.
I have been trying to explain that for months. The ECMA documents contain Microsoft Patented information. Software packages written off the ECMA documents infringe. Period.
If you take the job you will enjoy, you will be a happy and motivated worker. They will notice you and promote you because you are doing well in your job. You will be too busy having fun to watch the clock and worry about how fast you will advance monetarily. I would give almost anything to be in your shoes. If I could be working and happy with my employer, that would change my whole life around. It sounds to me like the perl job would be kind of a family shop, and in the Microsoft shop you would have to compete with so callled software engineers popping out of the Microsoft University. Obviously the smaller job will be more innovative, and you will have more opportunnity to be visible for your efforts. As the Microsoft shop get squeezed by market pressures, your job security may suffer. In the over competitive Microsoft shop, you would be wagged around trying to force the Microsoft technology into the shape you need. In the other shop, you can write what you need. The experience at the smaller shop is multiplatform and will look good on your resume, and the smaller shop works with technologies that don't become obsolete every two years. Make the right choice.
I am surprised that Novell didn't choke when they swallowed Digital Research. They fought tooth and nail with Microsoft over the life of their new child DR-DOS. If people were on the fence about Novell, the stink of Microsoft night be enough to push them off in any other direction. The latest version of ubuntu 6.10 was an unfortunate situation. Admittedly it needed more work before release. Anyone not happy with it should really go back and try ubuntu-6.06.01 and they will find that it installs flawlessly. I have been extremely happy with it on a number of platforms. At the time Novell bought Suse, I had a lcense from Novell to try all their software, but Novell's verswion of Suse was one or two versions back from what I could buy at CompUSA. I just couldn't see using obsolete software. I just tried out Oracle's Enterprise Linux (or is it Red Hat's Linux?). I had major trouble installing it. The install failed a number of times, and not from bad media. I finally got it working, but it was much more trouble than ubuntu.
To make matters worse, when Microsoft tries to add features to its OS, it gets attacked by companies who provide these functions as third-party vendors. This includes the antivirus and firewall companies, a few of which are threatening to sue Microsoft on the same grounds as the old antitrust case. I find it hard to believe the author could even say these words with a straight face. This quote is functionally similar to, "Well Officer, he assaulted my fist with his face, and now my fingers are really black and blue."
Work for talented programmers will never end. Really? Do you really think that? I know lots of talented programmers that are suffering financial destruction because of outsourcing. If you say that because you have plenty of work today, I wish the best for you tomorrow because when you can't find the work any more, your life dries up.
The ECMA script documents contain Microsoft Patented technology, and if you use te documents, you have to license the technology from Microsoft for Money. ECMA is a patent troll trap, BEWARE.
You are correct, but when I get a terminal window open and I am at the command line, it is my FreeBSD experience that gives me the knowledge to type file management commands, edit files, write and compile programs... I don't relate to the Mach kernel much because there is so much FreeBSD and GNU between it and me. I own some audio editing software for my Mac because I am a musician, and I valued that put of the Macs capabiities. I own Soundtrack (from Appple) and Deck and Peak (From BIAS). There are some limitation to the Mac I just live with. For instance I don't go to msnbc.com wanting to watch viseos because I refuce to load Microsoft Media Player on my Mac. I have some values. I don't do black magic, and I don't load Microsoft code on my Mac.
I agree. The Mac is a fine development workstation. And BBEdit is an asset to a programmer's kit. I started using it for Python programming and my productivity shot right up. Wow! Beyond that, if the GNU compler collection doesn't have what you need, write it... :-)
I just heard an hour long rant from Larry Ellison about Oracle's Unbreakable Linux. During the speech he had a high ranking Googleite come forward and praise Oracle's support and th new Unbreakable Linux support plan and prices. He said that Google has 150,000 servers. I can see why Google might want to use Larry's ripped of version of Red Hats Enterprise Linux. If I had 150,000 servers, I would prefer a free download and $100/year/server service contract. That would be only 15 million dollars a year to have the entire Google server farm under support contract. Just call Uncle Larry if anything goes wrong.
Recently I had a tantrum and pushed my PC off my desk. Not really but I put it somewhere else and got out my iMac. I have been very happy every day since I did that. I still use Linux and Unix also, FreeBSD and ubuntu. But after I put the Mac back up, I found BBEdit, and was very happy to find a Mac OS X port of Google Earth. I really like Google Earth. Microsoft wishes they had Google Earth. I wouldn't have been happy giving Earth up, and it alone is not worth going back to the PC. What the Mac has going for it is Apple's polish on top of FreeBSD's heritage of Unix stability and power, Oh and the thousands of applications. I don't think the Apple is "better" than a good version of Linux. I think it is about the same. I like both, after all, under the hood they are similar.
Wait a minute; you don't trust Microsoft with your URL path, but you trust them enough to censor the internet for you? No I don't trust them to censor the Internet for me. If I wasn't clear about that, I apologize.
Who do you think you are? If people don't fall on their knees and bow before the great Microsoft, you resort to name calling? Some people just don't feel like doing it the Microsoft way. That's why there are alternative operating systems and browsers, thank the gods. I am just kind of tired of being wagged around by Microsoft. I don't think Basic is the ultimate programming language either.
I really do appreciate that you took the time to explain how the phishing filter works. I didn't freak out, I just got the willinillies. I am still not comfortable with the idea even from an efficiency point of view, that would slow down my web accesses, effectively doubling the latency for any web accesses not in Microsofts white list. Latency plus lookup time for each url. Do you see where the processing load of phish processing for all ie7 users in the world could bog things down globally if Microsoft didn't provide enough processing power at the lookup point. I have yet to be convinced that Microsoft can handle it, especially if they are using their own software to handle the lookup. I don't think my idea about the URL hashing was that far off, at the very least they could resolve the url to an IP number which could be kept on the black list. What is wrong with that? That might have the effect of causing trouble for an ISP who was hosting a phishing site, but that would motivate them to shut down the phishing site and appply for clemency from Microsoft. I think giving Microsoft the ability to unilaterally block ie7 access for all internet users to a site is a lot of power, don't you think? Do you think it should be subject to some kind of neutral judgement, perhaps a court order. I think that is a lot of power.