I'd just like to stand up here and say that I've been stoned on antihistamines. I mean, everything from slightly floaty to completely immobile. And no, I don't take them recreationally, this is just what I've noticed when I've taken them for legit reasons.
This does not constitute an opinion on the veracity of Ms. Feiss's claim.
Where Microsoft really falls down is the client side. Their addiction to "convenience" (doing things behind the user's back) and active content has made Outlook, Word, and IE into very tempting targets for crackers. Now, you could say that they're tempting targets due to their popularity, and you'd be right, but the design philosophies behind them have made them vulnerable in ways that they shouldn't be.
If the convention were widely enough accepted to be useful, then some spammers would stop using it. And some desperate ISP would serve them, and we'd be right back where we started.
Did you hear about the statistician ...
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 2
... who drowned in a lake that was only three feet deep on average?
Press schmess. The press has exactly zero power to enforce restrictions on Microsoft. The Court needs to do that, either on its own initiative or in response to a request from the DoJ or the States -- right?
I don't need a lawyer to tell me that open-source advocates know how to make noise. It would be nice to know what sorts of violations are likely to be addressed by the Court and what sorts will require intervention from the states or the DoJ. I'm particularly curious as to the distinction between provisions that the states will enforce vs. those that the DoJ will enforce.
Larry, in your answers, you repeatedly assert that "we" should watch Microsoft carefully for settlement violations, presumably because we can do something about it if we catch any.
It's the latter that I'm dubious about. Don't violations have to be pursued by the Justice Department? In the current political climate, what are the chances of that ever happening?
The proliferation of categories is pretty silly, but...
this is a unix-focused site to some extent. And Apple ships more unix than any other manufacturer. So it stands to reason that we'd talk about them here.
My personal experience has been that unless I use Classic, 192MB is sufficient. Which is not to say that more isn't better -- I can sometimes use all 512MB on my own Mac. And mileage may vary by workload.
I play it cool, and dig all jive That's the reason I stay alive...
Cool to find another Hughes fan on Slashdot.
As for that book, it spends too much time on basic unix stuff like what a here document is. As a friend of mine quipped, it should be called "Unix for Mac OS X Users".
Man, that would be great. I could find out when my milk is rotten without getting a noseful of rotten-milk odor, and instead of dumping it down the sink, I could just "rm" it.
And how many times have I wished I could grep my apartment for, say, my keys?
It depends what you're trying to measure. If you're looking to see which overall solution has more bang for the buck, then sure. But the author was probably aiming to compare operating systems, in which case using different hardware would introduce a raft of unrelated variables.
I like not worrying about IRQs. I know it's not the biggest deal in the world, but I just don't miss 'em.
I don't particularly miss ISA slots, RS232 serial, or floppy drives, either -- I know I don't reap any benefit from their absence, but it gives me warm fuzzies not to look at that stuff when I'm not at work.
You should check out the rc system that comes with NetBSD 1.5 (and will come with FreeBSD 5). It's similar to SysV rc, but instead of making the dependencies implicit in the numbers in the script names, they're encoded explicitly at the beginning of each script.
These scripts also pull in a common set of sub- routines, so instead of having everybody define their own start and stop routines, you just set a couple of variables and let the system do the rest. The routines can be overridden with one's own when more control is needed.
Mac OS X uses a similar scheme. Within a few years, monolithic rc is going to be nothing but a bad memory in BSD-land.
The installer could be slicker, but once you've used it a couple of times, it is pretty straight- forward, and it's actually pretty cool in that it supports installs from CD, DVD, FTP, NFS, and I think local filesystem, though I've never tried that one.
Everybody raves about the Ports system, so I won't go on about it, but it is really quite good. And the combination of cvsup and make as system updating tools is quite good too. I updated today to the latest stable code using just a couple of short, simple shell scripts that I put together.
People talk a lot about FreeBSD's lack of hardware support, but in practice, it's not something I notice. I've only once found myself with a computer I couldn't install FreeBSD on, and it was weird, with the CD-ROM and modem both attached to the sound card. And if I'm actually buying hardware, I just check the hardware compatibility list before I buy. It's not a big deal at all.
It's impolitic and rude to say "Linux sucks", especially when what you mean is "I see no reason to switch to Linux from FreeBSD."
I've been a FreeBSD weenie since 1996 and I get totally frustrated when I try to use Linux. But I'm not going to disrespect the Linux community by tossing schoolyard insults at Linux. It's just not necessary.
Does the open source community have anything that does what Rendezvous does, but better? Sun tried with JXTA, IIRC, but I don't think it caught on.
Even if you were right, what exactly is unfair about Apple keeping their good stuff to themselves? What is it with Linux weenies that they think people can pay software developers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and then give away the results? Are you mad because Apple uses free software? I have news for you: they abide by the licenses of that free software. BSD developers *want* commercial entities to adopt and improve upon their software, even if the result isn't open source -- that's why they use the BSD license.
Slashdot Mirror
Crap. Microsoft breaks the law. Repeatedly,
consistently, unapologetically, with serious
consequences.
I dunno, it looks like it worked for her pretty well. :-)
I'd just like to stand up here and say that I've
been stoned on antihistamines. I mean, everything
from slightly floaty to completely immobile. And
no, I don't take them recreationally, this is just
what I've noticed when I've taken them for legit
reasons.
This does not constitute an opinion on the veracity
of Ms. Feiss's claim.
I believe NYC pays more in taxes than it gets in
spending.
I sincerely doubt that anyone would attempt to pay
you to visit California or anywhere else.
Where Microsoft really falls down is the client
side. Their addiction to "convenience" (doing
things behind the user's back) and active content
has made Outlook, Word, and IE into very tempting
targets for crackers. Now, you could say that
they're tempting targets due to their popularity,
and you'd be right, but the design philosophies
behind them have made them vulnerable in ways that
they shouldn't be.
Iaberven, you are my new hero.
If the convention were widely enough accepted to
be useful, then some spammers would stop using it.
And some desperate ISP would serve them, and we'd
be right back where we started.
Now you're talking. Do you think the DoJ can
actively hinder the states in their efforts to
get the court to enforce the settlement?
I think IOS is taken.
Press schmess. The press has exactly zero power
to enforce restrictions on Microsoft. The Court
needs to do that, either on its own initiative or
in response to a request from the DoJ or the States
-- right?
I don't need a lawyer to tell me that open-source
advocates know how to make noise. It would be nice
to know what sorts of violations are likely to be
addressed by the Court and what sorts will require
intervention from the states or the DoJ. I'm
particularly curious as to the distinction between
provisions that the states will enforce vs. those
that the DoJ will enforce.
Larry, in your answers, you repeatedly assert that
"we" should watch Microsoft carefully for settlement
violations, presumably because we can do something
about it if we catch any.
It's the latter that I'm dubious about. Don't
violations have to be pursued by the Justice
Department? In the current political climate,
what are the chances of that ever happening?
The proliferation of categories is pretty silly, ...
but
this is a unix-focused site to some extent. And
Apple ships more unix than any other manufacturer.
So it stands to reason that we'd talk about them
here.
Maybe if you stopped compromising the working
classes, you'd have an easier time of things.
Your use of Marxist terminology with no apparent
understanding of what's behind it is appalling.
My personal experience has been that unless I use
Classic, 192MB is sufficient. Which is not to say
that more isn't better -- I can sometimes use all
512MB on my own Mac. And mileage may vary by
workload.
I play it cool, and dig all jive ...
That's the reason I stay alive
Cool to find another Hughes fan on Slashdot.
As for that book, it spends too much time on basic
unix stuff like what a here document is. As a friend
of mine quipped, it should be called "Unix for Mac
OS X Users".
Of course it's unethical. Next!
Yeah, that would make sense.
Man, that would be great. I could find out
when my milk is rotten without getting a noseful
of rotten-milk odor, and instead of dumping it
down the sink, I could just "rm" it.
And how many times have I wished I could grep my
apartment for, say, my keys?
It depends what you're trying to measure. If
you're looking to see which overall solution has
more bang for the buck, then sure. But the author
was probably aiming to compare operating systems,
in which case using different hardware would
introduce a raft of unrelated variables.
I like not worrying about IRQs. I know it's not
the biggest deal in the world, but I just don't
miss 'em.
I don't particularly miss ISA slots, RS232 serial,
or floppy drives, either -- I know I don't reap
any benefit from their absence, but it gives me
warm fuzzies not to look at that stuff when I'm
not at work.
You should check out the rc system that comes
with NetBSD 1.5 (and will come with FreeBSD 5).
It's similar to SysV rc, but instead of making
the dependencies implicit in the numbers in the
script names, they're encoded explicitly at the
beginning of each script.
% head fsck
#!/bin/sh
#
# $NetBSD: fsck,v 1.2 2001/06/18 06:42:35 lukem Exp $
#
# PROVIDE: fsck
# REQUIRE: localswap
These scripts also pull in a common set of sub-
routines, so instead of having everybody define
their own start and stop routines, you just set
a couple of variables and let the system do the
rest. The routines can be overridden with one's
own when more control is needed.
Mac OS X uses a similar scheme. Within a few
years, monolithic rc is going to be nothing but
a bad memory in BSD-land.
FreeBSD doesn't lack "ease of use".
The installer could be slicker, but once you've
used it a couple of times, it is pretty straight-
forward, and it's actually pretty cool in that it
supports installs from CD, DVD, FTP, NFS, and I
think local filesystem, though I've never tried
that one.
Everybody raves about the Ports system, so I won't
go on about it, but it is really quite good. And
the combination of cvsup and make as system
updating tools is quite good too. I updated today
to the latest stable code using just a couple of
short, simple shell scripts that I put together.
People talk a lot about FreeBSD's lack of hardware
support, but in practice, it's not something I
notice. I've only once found myself with a
computer I couldn't install FreeBSD on, and it was
weird, with the CD-ROM and modem both attached to
the sound card. And if I'm actually buying
hardware, I just check the hardware compatibility
list before I buy. It's not a big deal at all.
It's impolitic and rude to say "Linux sucks",
especially when what you mean is "I see no reason
to switch to Linux from FreeBSD."
I've been a FreeBSD weenie since 1996 and I get
totally frustrated when I try to use Linux. But
I'm not going to disrespect the Linux community
by tossing schoolyard insults at Linux. It's just
not necessary.
Does the open source community have anything that
does what Rendezvous does, but better? Sun tried
with JXTA, IIRC, but I don't think it caught on.
Even if you were right, what exactly is unfair
about Apple keeping their good stuff to themselves?
What is it with Linux weenies that they think
people can pay software developers hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year and then give away the
results? Are you mad because Apple uses free
software? I have news for you: they abide by the
licenses of that free software. BSD developers
*want* commercial entities to adopt and improve
upon their software, even if the result isn't
open source -- that's why they use the BSD license.