Slashback: Safety, Transmissions, Breakage 160
A soft spot on the Apple?MacXGuy writes: "I recently obtained by free 10.1 upgrade from the Apple Store in the Mall of America. After installing it on my Titanium PB-G4 XFree4.1 (http://www.mrcla.com/XonX/) no longer works. (I'm definitely not installing it on my Dual 800 G4 until a workaround is found.)"
Since most of the stuff I've heard about the 10.1 upgrade has been positive to the point of suspicion, I wonder if anyone else has experienced similar upgrade quibbles with it.
Another good reason for a complex infrastructure. PhantomHarlock writes "New York City officials requested and got what's left of Metricom to re-activate the wireless network in the area surrounding the World Trade Center. Rescue and cleanup crews are using the network to coordinate and access death certificates filed online. Only one rooftop transmitter had been destroyed, the other four are still intact."
Even when you're right, you're wrong -- as the fine print clearly shows. An anonymous reader points to column in InfoWorld about interpreting the overlapping, contradictory and sometimes funny EULAs that accompany Microsoft products. Microsoft certainly isn't alone in that regard either -- ever read a EULA you thought was totally fair, unambiguous, and satisfying? Mr. Anonymous writes: "This was amply illustrated last week after I mentioned here that the EULA (end-user license agreement) for FrontPage 2002 contains a term prohibiting use of the software in connection with a site that disparages Microsoft or its online services. I love it."
The only place to hunker is a well-connected bunker. severn2j writes: "It seems that AL Digital's nuclear bunker (posted on /. a few weeks ago), has paid off for them in light of the attacks on the U.S. So much so that they've got another one."
And for all your fair-use needs ... An Anonymous Coward writes "Maybe lyrics.ch is going down now, but most of its content and even more is available from LyricsDot which is not going to close."
Good to hear. Amateur song transcription really isn't such a bad thing, except when you consider most of the songs.
MacXGuy is lying (Score:1, Troll)
Perhaps he tried to install Yellow Dog and that is causing his machine to stop working?
Not the hardware (Score:2, Informative)
I don't need to mention that XF86 4.1 is software, not hardware, do I?
Re:MacXGuy is lying (Score:1)
Re:MacXGuy is lying (Score:1)
Re:MacXGuy is lying (Score:1)
Re:MacXGuy is lying (Score:1)
Re:MacXGuy is lying (Score:3, Informative)
I'm running XDarwin 1.0a3 successfully with Mac OS X.I. (Dual headed on a PowerBook G3 no less!) I had a little bit of problem, but it was easily fixed. OS X replaces the BSD subsystem, so I had to go back into the system tcsh login and add
A friend with an iBook had to reinstall XDarwin 1.0a3 to get it to work again.
Good Hunting!
Raph
Re:MacXGuy is lying (Score:1)
If you go into the XDarwin application's preferences and force it to load a keymap from a file, it'll work again.
The problem is that XDarwin defaults to loading the keymap from the kernel, but the underlying API went away in 10.1 (as it really should have).
10.1 breaks things (Score:5, Informative)
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:2, Informative)
I installed it today, and it broke Apache, because I'd installed the Apple WebSharing update, which seems mighty odd.
It also went ahead and installed an older build of PHP over my existing one.
But, the problems werent that huge. A simple edit Apache edit and a rebuild of PHP and everything was up and running again.
Other people may well have more problems with stuff like C and Perl though, until they start using Developer Tools 10.1 - a whole bunch of modules have been renamed, and GCC seemed to be all screwed up until Dev tools 10.1 was installed.
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:4, Informative)
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:1)
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:1)
isn't gcc included with the developer tools or does BSD use it's own compilier?
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:2, Insightful)
So my hunch is that they want to expunge the GNU stuff they can avoid, and deal with what they can't.
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:1)
They probably don't want Stallman harping at them to call it 'Apple GNU/MacOS X' or something.
If you want wget, throw the ports collection onto your OS X box and install it. I've never seen an operating system that actually comes with wget, so Apple's moves here aren't putting them below-par.
Just an inconveniance, is all.
--Dan
*Ahem* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:*Ahem* (Score:2)
Re:*Ahem* (Score:1)
itachi
Re:*Ahem* (Score:1)
Apple is trying to hide how much changing they needed by using a small increment number. 10.5 would've been more appropriate.
I think they broke the apache install that comes with OS X. Probably a config file issue, but I don't have my own copy of 10.1 to verify yet.
Breaking of X on X doesn't surprise me, I don't think it was intentional. But I don't think they worried about it either.
Kevin
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:2)
Gee, they mustn't have been very good hacks, were they?
Our application runs just fine after the update. Blame failing applications on poor QA, or hacked-up, non-kosher workarounds for things that were not quite working with prior versions of OS X.
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:1)
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:1, Troll)
Yes, some HACKED PIECES OF SOFTWARE may not work under a new kernel. When you put a new Linux kernel in, does every HACK you've put in work? No. Most people who are getting 10.1 now are people who are going through a lot of effort to get it, and most would not mind updating other questionable pieces of software to insure compatibility. On the whole, 10.1 blows 10.0.4 out of the water.
"If you haven't seen them publicized, it's because you're not looking on Mac boards, but they're there."
Duh. Because people like you love griping about every little thing. Look at it as a whole. When you install XP, will you gripe about the fact that your hacked version of Everquest will not run on it, or try to find a native version of what you can?
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:1)
He said they were hacked up drivers. He didn't say that Apple had been remiss, or that 10.1 was inferior, or that anybody's mother wears Army boots, just that some things had trouble, and that if you hadn't heard about them it was 'cause you weren't looking in the right places.
He might even have been making a suggestion there, pointing out that the traditionally helpful Apple user community might have useful insights. Apparently the traditionally defensive Apple user community doesn't.
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:3, Informative)
Re:10.1 breaks things (Score:2)
of course if you have the new dev tools (free from ADC) you can compile the driver yourself from the wirelessdriver sources at http://sourceforge.net/projects/wirelessdriver (you'll also need the IOPCCardFamily headers from darwin to compile it)
10.1 Is So Great That... (Score:2, Funny)
[Microsoft] Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday October 02, @05:30PM.
On the bright side, at least I use Linux :-)
Re:10.1 Is So Great That... (Score:2)
Cut Apple some slack. Both of these issues are with third party software, and have nothing to do with the fundamental "goodness" of the OS. The exact same issues exist in the Linux world.
IIRC, Apache, Sendmail, and Bind have had a couple of security holes crop up in the past. Plus I guarantee that every time there's a major kernel upgrade it breaks a few programs. That's not a bad thing, it's just the price of progress. True, you don't see this kind of thing as often with Linux, but Linus isn't pushing out kernel upgrades at the frantic pace that he used to.
I'm not worried about it. Holes will be plugged, bugs will be fixed, and software will be rewritten. OS X is just going through some of the growing pains that other systems (like Linux) went through earlier.
bunker (Score:5, Funny)
I can use terrorism fear, point to the governments overreaction for validation, I'll make a fortune! If they don't buy from me I'll report them annonymously as terrorist via the web!
if only Mcarthy had the web
Re:bunker (Score:2)
He probably wouldn't have been as affective on the web. From what I understand (I wasn't alive back then) the Senate hearings took place on national television, and everyone tuned in to watch. If your name was mentioned you were immediately thought a hard-core, selling the US out, Communist.
IMO, over the internet, and now with network TV, he wouldn't have such a forum to work in. He wouldn't be the ONLY news story, and networks wouldn't be able to talk for to long about him. (The Florida election thing only lasted for a few weeks/ months, and that was to elect the President.) He'd probably start big and soon be relegated to a background role, eventually falling out of the public's eye.
(Assumed all our tech was just transposed to his era. Just guess work.)
Re:bunker (Score:2)
re: the new McCarthy (Score:2)
Re:bunker (Score:1)
I'm sure he would be. Probably not as effective though.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?affective
Re:bunker (Score:1)
Yea, well, if these folks [sitcomsonline.com] are ANY indication of life "back then" (I'm only 28...), I seriously doubt the Web would've been used much at all...
Bunker's real importance: Growing Hosting Center! (Score:2)
Also, there have been whole ecologies of businesses around them, like companies providing dedicated managed computers in colo spaces, and companies providing shared hosting on the managed computers, and companies paying shared-hosting companies to market more shared hosting (either through legitimate business or pyramid scams), and ASPs running applications on the dedicated managed computers used by the shared-hosting customers as well as providing services to non-web-based business out in the real world, and spam hunting businesses trying to protect you from the pyramid-spammers selling shared hosting, and content provider businesses using the dedicated hosting to serve content to shared-hosting customers or other dedicated hosting customers, and billing companies providing billing services for those Internet businesses that actually can bill somebody, and advertising services trying to get the various hosting users to carry their ads.
Disclaimer: some of the folks who run The Bunker and also Havenco on Sealand are friends of mine, and my employer's also in that business, but I'm not speaking for any of them.
"Oh Dad, Poor Dad" - Wow, Blast from the past! I was in that play in high school summer theater, a few decades ago, playing "Dad", the corpse
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:1)
Just REAL damn dirty...
Re:WTF? (Score:1)
EULA Question (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, it covers them from being sued for faulty software. But is it really a threat to users who "missuse" their products?
Re:EULA Question (Score:1)
So now, all they have to do is show a typical install of the program, bring out your computer with the software fully installed, and say "See, the normal steps are thus, and he has it installed.".
It's circumstantial, but that's all they would need. And then you get stuck with the legal bills, eh?
Re:EULA Question (Score:2)
Re:EULA Question (Score:1)
I think they would need more. They would need to prove that the software was installed by normal means, and that whatever protections weren't removed (without my knowledge) before I installed it. In the case of FrontPage and their no M$ disparagement policy, they would also have to prove that the person who was using it was the person who installed it.
I don't think they could do any of this without an admission on my part.
Redundancy in the net/points of failure (Score:4, Interesting)
But since the commercialization of the Internet, has this objective been swept aside for the pursuit of mere growth? How vulrenable as single points of failure are places like MAE-East, MAE-West, etc where the major backbones peer together?
Now, since the Net is mission-critical for a lot of businesses, might we need to ensure that it is survivable against such attacks, such as from terrorism?
Could anyone really say the Internet is still robust to the failure of a few nodes? Any real study been done the graph-structure of the net?
Much of that redundancy went out the window... (Score:4, Interesting)
But since the commercialization of the Internet, has this objective been swept aside for the pursuit of mere growth? How vulrenable as single points of failure are places like MAE-East, MAE-West, etc where the major backbones peer together?
Much of that redundancy went out the window due to two factors:
The move from a generalized net (most sites talk to a random minimum of two others, the routers figure out the shortest route) to a backbone-plus-ISPs with lots of fixed routing and most sites as singly-connected leaves.
If you lose (all) your connection(s) to your ISP, or your ISP loses any single-point-of-failure or all N of a set of n-points-of-failure between you and the backbone, you're cut off. Running an ethernet cable to a neighbor's LAN that's still connected via another ISP will not get you the packets that were trying to reach your IP address.
Your ISP's connection with the rest of the backbone might have some nice self-healing characteristics. So the net-of-ISPs might still have that kind of survivability. But your packets are at the mercy of your ISP's survival and internals. (And if you're paying home rather than business rates I bet your ISP didn't spend many bux to make things redundant on their way to you.)
With the explosion of hosts the full routing tables are now WAY too big to be held in every router on the net. So we can't go back to the old style even if we wanted to - or at least not without a LOT of engineering.
Re:Redundancy in the net/points of failure (Score:3, Funny)
The Backbones do Private Peering with each other (Score:2)
If you're more realistically paranoid than that, look at the number of root domain servers. There's been recent discussion about what they're doing for security and reliability, mainly worrying about crackers disrupting the databases. (Beyond, of course, the bigger problems are the relationships between ICANN, NSI, the UDRP, disgruntled postmasters, etc.
Re:Redundancy in the net/points of failure (Score:1)
This is different from what they had for Circuit Switching back in the early 60s.
They found a natural benefit to packet switching as it tried to find routes, that you could disconnect nodes, and still get data through.
There is hardly any single point of contact on the internet. There are multiple major backbone providers, and if one gets taken out, I don't think any traffic would have a problem getting through.
However, if we're in the middle of a nuclear attack from some rogue nation... I don't think Joe Buttfuck in Poduca, Kentucky is really going to care whether his ebusiness site is selling his koscher pigs feet.
Uhh (Score:4, Interesting)
If there's one thing the Slashdot crowd has figured out, it's to not count one's chickens before they've hatched.
As soon as the Harry Fox Agency [nmpa.org] gets wind of this, I'm sure they'll go after this new variant with just as much zeal.
However, since it appears as though the site truly IS hosted in Russia (rather than having a North American-based site with a
[ 8 ]
RIPE whois query for www.lyricsdot.ru (195.34.224.76):
inetnum: 195.34.224.0 - 195.34.224.255
netname: AOR2-1-NET
descr: Lipetsk regional network
country: RU
admin-c: AOR2-RIPE
tech-c: AOR2-RIPE
rev-srv: ns1.lipetsk.ru
rev-srv: ns2.lipetsk.ru
rev-srv: ns.vrn.ru
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: AOR2-MNT-RIPE
changed: aor@takthq.lietsk.su 19980321
source: RIPE
route: 195.34.224.0/19
descr: Lipetsk Regional Public Network
origin: AS8570
mnt-by: AOR2-MNT-RIPE
changed: aor@takthq.lipetsk.su 19971207
source: RIPE
person: Alexander I Ostankov
address: JSC "Lipetskelectrosvyaz"
address: Lipetsk regional NIC
address: 5, Plekhanova str.
address: SU-398000 Lipetsk, Russia
phone: +7 0742 470909
phone: +7 0742 470916
fax-no: +7 0742 744823
e-mail: aor@lipetsk.ru
nic-hdl: AOR2-RIPE
mnt-by: AOR2-MNT-RIPE
changed: aor@takthq.lipetsk.su 19981223
source: RIPE
Re:Uhh (Score:3, Funny)
However, since it appears as though the site truly IS hosted in Russia (rather than having a North American-based site with a .RU address), it just might stick around for a while after all!
Unless the maintainers decide to come visit the U.S. to participate in a Def Con convention.
What HO America? (Score:1)
What do you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not really suprised by 10.1 breaking X. In order to get the speed increases that I've been hearing about, they probably had to retouch darn near everything all the way down to the kernel level. That includes the BSD layer, so I wouldn't be surprised if anything written at that level has problems. Even Apple's own dev tools that came with 10.0 are broken.
While losing X is irritating, I have a hard time getting angry at Apple. OS X was a real dog, and they absolutely needed to get performance up to snuff. Besides which, I'm sure that this glitch will be corrected shortly. Until then, you can get by with Aqua. It's not that bad. :)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:1)
(FWIW/FYI I'm using an iBook 366/Firewire)
Project Builder 10.0.1 breaks upon upgrading, you just need to reinstall it to get it working again
Complex infrastructures aren't always that good (Score:5, Interesting)
The same could have been done with the wireless freenets [slashdot.org] that was mentioned a few articles ago.
Redudancy is good. Too much redundancy is bad.
Re:Complex infrastructures aren't always that good (Score:1)
Hindsight is 20/20.
-1 (Redunant) (Score:1, Redundant)
You said : "Redudancy is good. Too much redundancy is bad."
You should have said: "Redundancy is good. Too much redundancy is redundant".
Why people miss the easy ones I'll never know.
Soko
Re:-1 (Redunant) (Score:1)
I hope we all see the irony there.
Uhhh... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Bunker offers the ultimate in protection from a myriad of attacks including; crackers, terrorist attack, electro-magnetic pulse, HERF weapons, electronic eavesdropping and solar flares.
That seems kind of confusing to me that it offers protection against electronic eavesdropping, as doesn't the building need to connect to the "outside world" somehow? As long as a single line filled with data is coming out of the building, it isn't protected fully. Now if they could secure the lines all the way to uhh, the end user's house...THEN it would be superior.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:1)
...and solar flares. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:1)
Sounds much better IMHO
Re:Uhhh... (Score:1)
Unless of course the end user is not the end user they think is there, or the end user is an undesirable... securing an entire communications channel is no simple task!
Read the Alice and Bob after Dinner Speech [conceptlabs.co.uk] (http://www.conceptlabs.co.uk/alicebob.html) for a beautiful summary of the issue.
not a matter of data connection (Score:1)
I know intelligence services claim they own the technology to do just that.
So, it's not a matter of connection, it's a matter of electromagnetic shielding.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2)
XFree 4.1 needs to be post 1.0a2 (Score:5, Informative)
I still have trouble if I lose a connection to a remote X machine, or if I kill XDarwin. In that case, I seem to have trouble starting a new X session, it complains that it cannot connect to a socket and that another XDarwin might be running.
Re:XFree 4.1 needs to be post 1.0a2 (Score:1)
Fear (Score:1, Offtopic)
EULA Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS is inserting into its licenses, conditions of approved content, then they may well be stepping on the jurisdiction of the judge.
There is a certian right to protect the IP rights of a work, which is limited to the use of the work and derived copies. This means that MS can restrict the production and distribution of copies of their work.
There is also the certian right of association of "good name". This means, that if I write on some subject, then I can have you disassociate your work against mine. This was done, for example with Karl Marx and the "survival of the fittest". In the present context, it means the use of MS logos on sites that disparage MS.
But one can not prevent one from using a companies works, legally acquired, to fight against a company, as long as the product is not identified.
The licence as provided is not aimed at the protection of abuse of the intellectual property it covers, but to cover other IP not implied in the license. That is, the licence implies that you should protect IP that you are not being given special access to. It might be interesting to test this role of restraint in court, especially since the annual license thing has been deemed rental in Germany, with the implied restriction of owner (ie MS) fixes.
The other thing is that judges might not take kindly to other people dishing out punishment for crimes that they decide punishment for. For example, if I were to create a hate site, and such a site were legal, than MS could still punish me. If the judge decides it were illegal, than the judge punishes me, and this is all I should pay, not an additional punishment from MS.
What the EULA also grants, by undefined terms "hate, porn", is that they can control content. And for this control of content, they might also be leaving themselves open to the legal content of sites [... by acting as an editor, you become responsible for content ...]
Re:EULA Issues (Score:3, Informative)
That MS has overstepped the steps necessary to protect the unauthorised reproduction of its licenced IP, and the misuse of its trademarks, should be regarded as a threat to the freedom of speech.
Next, they will be saying you can't use their compiler to compile a competing wordprocessor, or any product that competes, replaces or interferes with their extant or potential products. Well.
XF86 10.1 problem is easy... (Score:5, Informative)
"The Bunkers" Threats.. (Score:2, Interesting)
'It is not just terrorists that companies should be worried about. The biggest threat is anti-capitalists. They aren't going to go away. They've seen the hysteria and how capitalists go weak at the knees.
WTF is that about? I consider myself an anti-capitalist (living in a capitalist world, damnit) and so do some of my friends.. but why on earth would be want to break in and destroy computers or launch nukes on them? For gods sake we are geeks!
XDarwin v1.0a3 Works Fine with MacOS X 10.1 (Score:1)
It works just fine on my setup...
This is a job for Super Geek! (Score:3, Insightful)
I note that the ricochet network is only guaranteed to the end of October. It shouldn't be that difficult to get a free network up and running to cover the site by then (even if it has to be powered by car batteries [statpower.com]!).
Re:This is a job for Super Geek! (Score:2)
For those who don't know, Ricochet modems can operate in three modes. The first is similar to 802.11b's "infrastructure" mode, where the modems all report to the Metricom network. The second mode is "hayes emulation", where one Ricochet modem can directly dial another, independent of Metricom's repeaters (as long as they're within range, which is quite long!). The third mode is "Starmode", similar to 802.11b's "ad-hoc" mode. The IP-over-Starmode drivers have been part of the Linux kernel since 1.x, the package is called STRIP [stanford.edu] and it's worth looking into.
802.11b has pathetic range. Better antennae are directional, which isn't suitable in this situation. For this reason, I'm going to suggest keeping the Ricochet modems in service, just flipping them into Starmode so they can operate on a geek network, rather than Metricom's network.
Yes--The Perforce EULA is Excellent (Score:2, Interesting)
An EULA that I thought was fair. (Score:5, Interesting)
Does any one else remember that?? I don't have a copy of it any more.
Adrian
Re:An EULA that I thought was fair. (Score:5, Interesting)
By saying "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that this software may be used by any number of people, and may be freely moved from one computer or location to another, so long as there is no possibility of it being used by more than one person at a time. Just as a book can't be read by two different people in two different places at the same time, neither can the software be available for use by two different people in two different places at the same time without Borland's permission (unless, of course, Borland's copyright has been violated)."
emphasis in original text, typos added by me
the bloodthirsty license (Score:2, Funny)
The following is an ACTUAL copy of the first two pages inside a manual
for a product called EASYFLOW.
This is where the bloodthirsty license agreement is supposed to go,
explaining that EasyFlow is a copyrighted package, sternly warning you
not to pirate copies of it and explaining, in detail, the gory
consequences if you do.
We know that you are an honest person, and are not going to go around
pirating copies of EasyFlow; this is just as well with us since we
worked hard to perfect it and selling copies of it is our only method
of making anything out of all the hard work. For your convenience
EasyFlow Is distributed on a non copy-protected diskette and you are
free to do what you want with it (make backups, move from machine to
machine, etc.) provided that it is never in use by more than one
person at a time.
If, on the other hand, you are one of those few people who do go
around pirating copies of software, you probably aren't going to pay
much attention to a license agreement, bloodthirsty or not. Just keep
your doors locked and look out for the HavenTree attack shark.
Honest Disclaimer
We don't claim EasyFlow is good for anything - if you think it is,
great, but it's up to you to decide. If EasyFlow doesn't work: tough.
if you lose a million because EasyFlow messes up, it's you that's out
the million, not us. If you don't like this disclaimer, tough. We
reserve the right to do the absolute minimum provided by law, up to
and including nothing.
This is basically the same disclaimer that comes with all software
package but ours is in plain English and theirs is in legalese.
We didn't really want to include any disclaimer at all, but our
lawyers insisted. We tried to ignore them but they threatened us with
the attack shark (see license agreement above) at which point we
relented.
DON'T LOSE THE MANUAL
That's right; don't lose this manual. Especially don't lose it before
you have read this page. Why are we telling you this? Isn't it obvious
that you shouldn't lose the manual?
That's what we thought. Then we started getting all these calls from
people saying "Hi! I'm Joe Blow and you've never heard of me, but I
bought a copy of EasyFlow from FlyByNite Software and now I can't find
the manual... will you send me a new one free?".
At first we were nice guys and went along with this. Then we started
getting a bit more hard nosed about it; after all it is trivial to
copy the disk but the manual involves somewhat more work. Now we had
to agonize over each request and try to distinguish between the
genuine unfortunate ("the dog chewed it up") and the merely
unscrupulous looking for free software.
So what does everybody else do? We phoned the local Chevy dealer and
told them we had misplaced the engine out of our new Camaro; that call
didn't get us much useful information. Well
We called Borland and gave them a song and dance about losing our
Turbo Pascal manual; they said to mail a letter to their "Lost Manual
Review Committee". Wow! What a good idea. So we immediately rushed
out and set up our Lost Manual Review Committee. The Committee meets
once a month. They don't send out many replacement manuals, but they
seem to do a lot of howling, rolling around on the floor and saying
things like, "Oh wow - listen to this one".
Don't lose the manual.
Replacement manuals are available without going through the Committee
for US$147.95 each.
Re:An EULA that I thought was fair. (Score:1)
Does any one else remember that?? I don't have a copy of it any more.
Then it seems like it was used exactly like a book -- I have lost countless books borrowing them to friends and losing them in the process.
- Ismo
10.1 Breaks Newton Toolkit (Score:1)
"Unknown Error"
Upgrade from earlier X versions at your own risk.
10.1 breaking things. (Score:2, Informative)
PC Gamer / Computer Gaming World (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, catch 22.
Oracle's doing the same thing... (Score:1)
The seal on the back of the sleeve read as follows:
"Notice: By opening this envelope you agree to be bound by the Oracle Technology Network development license agreement contained inside."
(Actually, the notice was all in caps, but I don't want to offend the Gods of the lameness filter.)
Not knowing whether the license agreement requires the forking over of my firstborn, or a requirement that I never again code in anything but FORTRAN IV, the seal remains unbroken and the CD-ROM remains unused.
If anyone has the actual text of the license agreement inside the sleeve (brave soul!), I'd love to see what it says.
Complexity is usually bad... (Score:1)
-Derek
XFree4.1 does work on OS X 10.1... (Score:4, Informative)
Really Great EULAs (Score:3, Funny)
Its quoted as saying "you will reccomend this game to all your friends and say it is the best game ever made" and many more suspicious terms...
wireless net benefits (Score:1)
EULA Madness (Score:1)
NOTICE
BY OPENING THIS ENVELOPE YOU AGREE TO
BE BOUND BY THE ORACLE TECHNOLOGY NETWORK
DEVELOPMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT CONTAINED INSIDE.
So I have to agree to the agreement before I can see it? Who thought this would be a good idea?
-1 Redundant (Score:1)
Using FrontPage = embarrassing = disparaging to Microsoft
Hopefully they'll add this clause in the IIS EULA soon.
Hexley (Score:2)
Why mess with OSX and XFree86? (Score:1)
Why do people constantly and apparently do want to mess with OSX and get rid of Aqua by replacing with XFree86? An Apple computer is hardware *and* UI. Why don't people just use NetBSD or some BSD of Linux on the Mac and forgo messing with Apple and OSX if they want to use XFree86? Most/all people including myself use a Macintosh and OSX to *specifically* get AWAY from Linux+XFree86 or BSD+XFree86. What you are doing is just trying to make OSX into Linux...Why? Why don't people just leave OSX and Apple alone and let them do what needs to be done to make OSX the best desktop OS on the planet/market? I understand that Darwin is the only OS that actually works perfectly on Apple's hardware...but why mess with Aqua, the Apple window server, and everything that goes along and ties into that? Why not just create a distribution that is Darwin+XFree86 on your *own* and stop screwing with Apple and OSX? This is *not* a troll, I am asking something very serious to the people at XonX and Slashdot. People use Mac to get *away* from traditional Unix windowing systems, simply because they basically suck in more ways than one. Apple is trying something new to Unix...Better/best windowing technology on the planet combined with a perfect/nearly perfect GUI. Why bring all of the crud/crap of *old* Unix like XFree86 along with it. It feels more like a plague from Linux/Unix than *any* sort of blessing to keep bringing in the old to try adn replace the new...and albeit immensely better. Some old things are absolutely excellent...aka BSD and some things are terrible...aka XFree86 and all of the bloated/crap libraries that most modern Linux apps require such as Gnome libs.
Re:About the Bunker (Score:4, Funny)
Re:About the Bunker (Score:4, Funny)
Simple. If you are under ground you do not have to fear pasty white people trying to throw Ritz, Saltines, Townhouse or other flat crunchy breadlike foodstuffs at you.
gosh, that's not what I said at all (Score:1)
Actually, I quite like OS X on my iBook, though when I use the iBook, I keep it in system 9 most of the time anyhow, just because of the extra overhead that X takes up.
I will probably put on X 10.1, but probably when a bug-fix version comes out. Not for any specific bugs, just because I tend to be conservative about upgrading.
For the same reason, I haven't tried any of the various Linux-for-PPC distros on it yet, but I do plan to; Mandrake on my iBook would be pretty nice
Why not lighten up, eh?
timothy
Re:gosh, that's not what I said at all (Score:1)
Put it on, its GOOD
Heh, with it your iBook will be faster than it is with 9.1
(well, maybe
its close anywho
Re:gosh, that's not what I said at all (Score:2)
Re:reinstall XDarwin 1.0a3 (Score:1)
Re:Nuclear proof hosting? (Score:1)
It's kinda like people who buy Ferraris. You can't really do 170 MPH on the road... and even if you could, traffic would stop you from getting that fast. So why do people buy them? To show off. It's kind of a personal marketing, if you will. Completely useless in the long run, but it makes you look kewl now.
Re:Nuclear proof hosting? (Score:1)
Re:Nuclear proof hosting? (Score:1)
This way at least one mirror of debian will survive the horror of nuclear destruction. The mutant cockroaches who take over after us, will need a powerful operating systems.