ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Sheesh, where does the OSX 10.2 developer tools CD install gcc to, or under what name? The older dev tools gave me a compiler. Grumble.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:09 AM
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
Thanks for the kind words...Im just taking what MacVault is saying in context.
I dont believe (and if he is...Im 100% against his post. So forgive me folks if you thought I meant otherwise) that he's advocating death for gay youth...but rather a gay lifestyle will result in eternal death/damnation/etc as it conflicts with the scriptures he cited. I encourage folks to read my other posts (especially early pages) to get an idea of my own personal opinion. Stay well friend!
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
Thanks for the kind words...Im just taking what MacVault is saying in context.
I dont believe (and if he is...Im 100% against his post. So forgive me folks if you thought I meant otherwise) that he's advocating death for gay youth...but rather a gay lifestyle will result in eternal death/damnation/etc as it conflicts with the scriptures he cited. I encourage folks to read my other posts (especially early pages) to get an idea of my own personal opinion. Stay well friend!
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:28 PM
Hate to say it, but I agree... I've got an old P4/2.8 running MCE2005 with a TV tuner and while not outputting the highest quality video, it's fulfilling the role of what I want in my living room; namely, a digital recording device for TV content that can also play back DVDs and downloaded content. It'd be a plus if I actually used the computer but I'm a Mac man suffering the Windows solution for something that Apple hasn't fully provided me yet...
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
ranviper
Apr 12, 10:04 AM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Actually the mac dock id essential the same as the windows start menu. The difference is you can put it essentially anywhere on the screen (use an app called deeper to help with this) and you can have as many apps as your heart desires. Folders and stacks as well. AND, you say out of site? Hide the dock. Easy.
Mac OS also has the recent items and "alt" tab and such. Command usually takes place of alt and/or control in mac os however. Or the apple key on older keyboards. Cheers.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Actually the mac dock id essential the same as the windows start menu. The difference is you can put it essentially anywhere on the screen (use an app called deeper to help with this) and you can have as many apps as your heart desires. Folders and stacks as well. AND, you say out of site? Hide the dock. Easy.
Mac OS also has the recent items and "alt" tab and such. Command usually takes place of alt and/or control in mac os however. Or the apple key on older keyboards. Cheers.
pianodude123
Sep 26, 05:57 PM
And the wait for 8 Core Mac Pros and Merom MacBook Pros/MaBook is on ;)
Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing :cool:
at least the educated do not....
Well...it's amazing that now every dual core computer is obsolete, and every single core computer is like an Apple II compared to this.
Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing :cool:
at least the educated do not....
Well...it's amazing that now every dual core computer is obsolete, and every single core computer is like an Apple II compared to this.
CQd44
May 2, 08:56 AM
"Huge" threat.
About as huge as most windows ones!
About as huge as most windows ones!
Reach
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:36 AM
Nicely said. Even if you can output the iPod/iPhone/iPad video to a TV, it doesn't matter. The games are 99c for a reason! The app store is FULL of rubbish, as you rightly point out.
In my opinion Lego Harry Potter on the iPad was the definitive version on any platform, and superb on through the 2 onto the big screen.
In my opinion Lego Harry Potter on the iPad was the definitive version on any platform, and superb on through the 2 onto the big screen.
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 02:52 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Since when is Acer an enterprise player and Lenovo not?
Since when is Acer an enterprise player and Lenovo not?
Rt&Dzine
Mar 24, 07:06 PM
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
4God
Jul 14, 02:27 PM
Power supply at the top? Blah! :mad: I hate the power supply on the top, not that
it would keep me from purchasing a new MacPro though. ;)
it would keep me from purchasing a new MacPro though. ;)
balamw
Apr 14, 07:11 PM
It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
This is generally true, but there are other subtle differences. Some of the provided utilities in Linux are GNU versions of the same utilities provided in Mac OS X. They sometimes can have different command line options than other versions. Fortunately you can install the GNU versions from MacPorts easily.
e.g. the Mac OS version of ls has an option "-@" which is not implemented in the GNU version for Mac OS specific extended attributes, and the GNU version implement verbose options like: --recursive instead of -R.
B
This is generally true, but there are other subtle differences. Some of the provided utilities in Linux are GNU versions of the same utilities provided in Mac OS X. They sometimes can have different command line options than other versions. Fortunately you can install the GNU versions from MacPorts easily.
e.g. the Mac OS version of ls has an option "-@" which is not implemented in the GNU version for Mac OS specific extended attributes, and the GNU version implement verbose options like: --recursive instead of -R.
B
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
iCole
Apr 6, 10:54 AM
I've switched in 2007 just because i was curious. No regrets but these are the things that I still think are annoying:
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
- Dragging a folder with the same name in a location with a folder with the same name overwrites it. Windows merges. I prefer merge.
- Making screenshots. Altho i prefer to have more options to make a screenshot on mac, I just can't freaking memorize the keyboard shortcuts to make one. I always have to google them.
- I also prefer the tree structure of windows explorer. I want to be able to drag something from one folder to another one without having to open either 2 finder windows or waiting for the folders to open by themselves. Drag and drop in MacOS is awesome btw but I would've loved the tree structure.
- resizing windows on only one side. (gets fixed in Lion, so yippie) What were they thinking? Maximize i don't mind. Its silly anyway to maximize a window on a 27 Incher ;-)
- If you install a program in the programs folder, and want to try and find it again: What I do is just sort them by date. But that doesn't always work. Also, the programs folder is a mess.
- Viewing/deleting files in/modifying/... zipfiles without having to extract them first. In windows, I could just mess around in zipfiles or rars with files. If someone has a good app for that, let me know ;-)
- Dragging a folder with the same name in a location with a folder with the same name overwrites it. Windows merges. I prefer merge.
- Making screenshots. Altho i prefer to have more options to make a screenshot on mac, I just can't freaking memorize the keyboard shortcuts to make one. I always have to google them.
- I also prefer the tree structure of windows explorer. I want to be able to drag something from one folder to another one without having to open either 2 finder windows or waiting for the folders to open by themselves. Drag and drop in MacOS is awesome btw but I would've loved the tree structure.
- resizing windows on only one side. (gets fixed in Lion, so yippie) What were they thinking? Maximize i don't mind. Its silly anyway to maximize a window on a 27 Incher ;-)
- If you install a program in the programs folder, and want to try and find it again: What I do is just sort them by date. But that doesn't always work. Also, the programs folder is a mess.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 10:46 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
Scooterman1
May 5, 01:08 PM
Dropped calls on AT&T are just a thing that you learn to tolerate. Even in our Houston area, where signals are strong on 2 iPhones, my wife and I drop calls each day in her 30 minute drive home. It seems to happen in the same areas so it may be when the calls get handed off to a different tower.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:46 AM
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
steebu
Oct 25, 10:24 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon?
Thomas2006
Oct 14, 10:52 AM
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited.
Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 05:03 PM
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
Isn't that the same thing google said with the nexus one?
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes:
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
Isn't that the same thing google said with the nexus one?
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes:
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 02:21 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
balamw
Apr 16, 09:39 AM
I received my refurb iPad 1 yesterday and was very impressed with how Apple packages their refurbs. Nice!
You would be more impressed with the regular retail packaging. It's like what they use or refurbs, but even more Apple-like.
B
You would be more impressed with the regular retail packaging. It's like what they use or refurbs, but even more Apple-like.
B
Ryth
Apr 28, 09:39 AM
Isn't this misleading? It says 'shipped' not 'sold' so I assume basically it's a bogus report. You can ship all the crappy tablets you want..doesn't mean they sold.
lilo777
Apr 20, 08:56 PM
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar