Google is profitable. I don't know how profitable, since they're privately held and they don't say. But given that they are in the black, I don't see how one could say they're "on the verge of dying," unless one knows something I don't.
About smart displays. I sit at an xterm all day, every day, doing my systems administration work, and it seems fine to me. I can't say what it would be like with a more "office-y" workload, though.
This page is quite partisan, but if it's accurate, your claim doesn't hold water:
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html
As for the boycott stuff, well, it's true: Apple technology is proprietary, and Apple can be quite... proprietary about it. That doesn't offend me, but it's a matter of taste.
As someone pointed out, this device passes the Grandma Test. Do any of the other MP3 devices do that? (I haven't tried them, I don't know; I'm asking seriously.) If not, then this *is* a breakthrough, but in the realm of design, not technology.
Sort of. Apple does not explicitly support X11, but Mac OS X has all the necessary interfaces, and XFree86 runs fine on it. It seems to me that if porting X11 apps to Aqua were all that simple, more of them would have been ported by now.
XDarwin is just a front-end to XFree86 for Mac OS X. X apps on Mac OS X interoperate with *each other* just fine, they just don't integrate with Aqua and Aqua apps at all.
I agree with you that this seems to be a step in the right direction, though I haven't tried it yet.
Lots of misinformation attached to this article. Quartz will display anything sent to it by a client application. The usual clients are Aqua applications and the Aqua window manager, but XFree86 can act as a Quartz client as well. That's how rootless X11 on Mac OS X is done. See the XonX project page for more on this.
Assuming you have your facts straight, the court felt it would be unconstitutional for *the government* to limit non-commercial speech in that context. RBLs are a measure taken entirely by private entities. The government is not involved. Therefore, the First Amendment is unlikely to be applicable.
In my opinion as a systems administrator (and, incidentally, contributor to EFF), you guys have lost the plot when it comes to spam.
RBLs, databases of open relays in particular, are excellent tools for preventing spam. They are content-neutral and are designed only to penalize systems that misconfigure their mail servers. I have seen numerous instances where customers or employees of organizations with misconfigured systems have successfully applied pressure to management to get the mail systems configured correctly.
Remember, there are often business pressures to maintain an open relay. Management doesn't understand the issue, so they're reluctant to expend resources on it. Customers balk at use of SMTP AUTH or POP-before-SMTP. The pressures, in short, point to a tragedy-of-the-commons type of situation.
Open relay databases change the balance of pressures. They enable victims of spam to provide feedback to the organizations that maintain open relays, telling them: if you don't stop enabling others to consume my resources without permission, then your ability to communicate with others will be negatively affected. They enable victims of spam to act as a bloc.
Example.com, my employer, enables our customers to use or not use MAPS' "RSS" open relay database at their discretion. Example.net, a site for which I volunteer, uses the ORDB open relay database for all users, for many reasons; but only after determining that the consensus of the users was for such a measure. [Domain names were changed here because I felt like it. They were real in the email I sent.]
Your suggestion of a boycott of spamvertised products is quite naive. The cost of advertising through spam is so low that it takes very few sales to recoup.
Your suggestion that the Constitution of the USA is relevant to RBLs also seems weak to me. Private entities are not generally bound by restrictions on the behavior of governments. As an owner and operator of network equipment, I have the right to deny others the ability to use that equipment to send advertisements at my expense. I'll refrain from quoting the hackneyed line about freedom, fists and noses, but you get the idea.
What is "insightful" about this? How does it contribute to anyone's understanding of spam, anti-spam measures, freedom of speech, and the interaction between these entities? Moderators, care to speak up? Anyone?
You're clueless. Mach only provides very low-level services -- thread scheduling, memory management, and not a heck of a lot else. The BSD layer includes such things as filesystems, networking, and user management.
(Obviously Apple wrote the HFS+ support themselves, but it goes in the BSD layer nonetheless.)
> I think this is kinda retarded, too. Every time
> I see OS X, I think to myself "Oh Es Eks" but
> when I say it aloud, I convert it to "Ten". It
> takes a few seconds of processing time.:)
If you've used the system, you know that that's quite appropriate.
Sure they are. What are you, asleep? Just read the front page of Slashdot, right now, and read the story about MSN and Qwest. Or the other one about MS saying that the problem isn't their buggy software, it's people talking about how buggy their software is.
I swear, some people post like they just aren't paying any attention.
Has anyone heard of this great old technology called ISDN? It's always-on, faster than a modem (with significantly lower latency), and best of all, it's available right now from your friendly local telco monopoly.
Due to network effects, it's likely that there would be one or few dominant home operating systems anyway. But without monopolistic practices, they'd have to actually compete, instead of coasting.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is profitable. I don't know how profitable, since they're privately held and they don't say. But given that they are in the black, I don't see how one could say they're "on the verge of dying," unless one knows something I don't.
Five billion or five times two to the 30th power? Inquiring minds want to know!
About smart displays. I sit at an xterm all day, every day, doing my systems administration work, and it seems fine to me. I can't say what it would be like with a more "office-y" workload, though.
Who, me? You've got the wrong guy, I *like* my one-button optical mouse.
This page is quite partisan, but if it's accurate, your claim doesn't hold water:
l
... proprietary about it. That doesn't offend me, but it's a matter of taste.
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.htm
As for the boycott stuff, well, it's true: Apple technology is proprietary, and Apple can be quite
As someone pointed out, this device passes the Grandma Test. Do any of the other MP3 devices do that? (I haven't tried them, I don't know; I'm asking seriously.) If not, then this *is* a breakthrough, but in the realm of design, not technology.
Apple *licensed* the interface from Xerox.
Ay yi yi.
...
If eye were yeux, I'd watch it with the puns
I expect Apple to totally dominate the four-armed nerd market.
Methinks it's time someone replaced the aluminum foil liner in his hat, it's wearing thin.
Sort of. Apple does not explicitly support X11, but Mac OS X has all the necessary interfaces, and XFree86 runs fine on it. It seems to me that if porting X11 apps to Aqua were all that simple, more of them would have been ported by now.
XDarwin is just a front-end to XFree86 for Mac OS X. X apps on Mac OS X interoperate with *each other* just fine, they just don't integrate with Aqua and Aqua apps at all.
I agree with you that this seems to be a step in the right direction, though I haven't tried it yet.
Lots of misinformation attached to this article. Quartz will display anything sent to it by a client application. The usual clients are Aqua applications and the Aqua window manager, but XFree86 can act as a Quartz client as well. That's how rootless X11 on Mac OS X is done. See the XonX project page for more on this.
Assuming you have your facts straight, the court felt it would be unconstitutional for *the government* to limit non-commercial speech in that context. RBLs are a measure taken entirely by private entities. The government is not involved. Therefore, the First Amendment is unlikely to be applicable.
I wouldn't, because I know I'd lose. If you work in the U.S.A., you might be well-served by reading up on employment law a little bit.
In my opinion as a systems administrator (and, incidentally, contributor to EFF), you guys have lost the plot when it comes to spam.
RBLs, databases of open relays in particular, are excellent tools for preventing spam. They are content-neutral and are designed only to penalize systems that misconfigure their mail servers. I have seen numerous instances where customers or employees of organizations with misconfigured systems have successfully applied pressure to management to get the mail systems configured correctly.
Remember, there are often business pressures to maintain an open relay. Management doesn't understand the issue, so they're reluctant to expend resources on it. Customers balk at use of SMTP AUTH or POP-before-SMTP. The pressures, in short, point to a tragedy-of-the-commons type of situation.
Open relay databases change the balance of pressures. They enable victims of spam to provide feedback to the organizations that maintain open relays, telling them: if you don't stop enabling others to consume my resources without permission, then your ability to communicate with others will be negatively affected. They enable victims of spam to act as a bloc.
Example.com, my employer, enables our customers to use or not use MAPS' "RSS" open relay database at their discretion. Example.net, a site for which I volunteer, uses the ORDB open relay database for all users, for many reasons; but only after determining that the consensus of the users was for such a measure. [Domain names were changed here because I felt like it. They were real in the email I sent.]
Your suggestion of a boycott of spamvertised products is quite naive. The cost of advertising through spam is so low that it takes very few sales to recoup.
Your suggestion that the Constitution of the USA is relevant to RBLs also seems weak to me. Private entities are not generally bound by restrictions on the behavior of governments. As an owner and operator of network equipment, I have the right to deny others the ability to use that equipment to send advertisements at my expense. I'll refrain from quoting the hackneyed line about freedom, fists and noses, but you get the idea.
What is "insightful" about this? How does it contribute to anyone's understanding of spam, anti-spam measures, freedom of speech, and the interaction between these entities? Moderators, care to speak up? Anyone?
Sheesh!
With a name like "Culp", he was born to be blamed.
Re the porting of Mac OS X, it's nice to see that *some* people in the open source world understand the economics of Apple, Inc.
You're clueless. Mach only provides very low-level services -- thread scheduling, memory management, and not a heck of a lot else. The BSD layer includes such things as filesystems, networking, and user management.
(Obviously Apple wrote the HFS+ support themselves, but it goes in the BSD layer nonetheless.)
> I think this is kinda retarded, too. Every time :)
> I see OS X, I think to myself "Oh Es Eks" but
> when I say it aloud, I convert it to "Ten". It
> takes a few seconds of processing time.
If you've used the system, you know that that's quite appropriate.
Sure they are. What are you, asleep? Just read the front page of Slashdot, right now, and read the story about MSN and Qwest. Or the other one about MS saying that the problem isn't their buggy software, it's people talking about how buggy their software is.
I swear, some people post like they just aren't paying any attention.
Has anyone heard of this great old technology called ISDN? It's always-on, faster than a modem (with significantly lower latency), and best of all, it's available right now from your friendly local telco monopoly.
;-)
What a load of crap.
No, seriously.
Due to network effects, it's likely that there would be one or few dominant home operating systems anyway. But without monopolistic practices, they'd have to actually compete, instead of coasting.
Why put your cache on the other end of a slow IDE or SCSI bus from your CPU when you could put it on a fast system bus?
If you're updating the platters in the background, then you're using the memory as a write-behind cache.
Now explain to me how this is different from using main memory as a VM cache in unix?