peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
MadGoat
Oct 7, 11:04 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
Donald you are fired As
Entrepreneur Donald Trump and
You#39;re fired!
Donald Trump says he is giving
#39;You#39;re Fired!#39; - Donald Trump
Donald Trump talked to Ryan
You#39;re fired! Donald Trump
Donald Trump said his two
Trump 2012- Obama You#39;re
Donald Trump Hires Lee
DONALD TRUMP DOLL SPEAKS
Donald Trump is obviously
“BP, You#39;re Fired!”
Donald Trump speaks to the
Donald Trump .
Donald Trump
joeshmo2010
Mar 18, 01:23 PM
I will always continue to use tethering with my unlimited. They will never make me switch and they can accuse all they want.
Erasmus
Oct 13, 04:09 AM
OK, does anyone know how well Matlab (7.1 I suppose) is threaded?
Have run some batch files linking 90 simulations in total, which took a few days of continuous running to complete. This is on a 2.x Ghz (Can't remember exactly) P4 at Uni. Could anyone tell me how much better a Kentsfield or dual Clovertowns would run Matlab? (only one application open at once, else its cheating) Would this change between running Matlab under OSX or XP?
Thanks in advance.
Have run some batch files linking 90 simulations in total, which took a few days of continuous running to complete. This is on a 2.x Ghz (Can't remember exactly) P4 at Uni. Could anyone tell me how much better a Kentsfield or dual Clovertowns would run Matlab? (only one application open at once, else its cheating) Would this change between running Matlab under OSX or XP?
Thanks in advance.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 07:34 PM
The equation has to be considered in its entirety.
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
Did they attack your reading comprehension skills too?
The meanies. :(
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:48 PM
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:06 AM
Because it isn't cool to support fat kids that are being bullied, just if you live an alternative lifestyle. That's the American way, pick out a tiny sect of society and lift it up on a mantle to bitch about while ignoring the bigger issue.
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
r.j.s
May 2, 11:26 AM
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
TEG
Sep 20, 12:19 PM
ya, seems unlikely the hard drive is for DVR functionality [as someone pointed out, there are no video inputs ont the device]... but the hard drive could prove useful in other ways.
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG
jeffgarden
Mar 18, 05:04 PM
Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
Patch^
Sep 12, 06:38 PM
I Can't see Apple adding a DVR (TV recorder) because they want you to buy TV shows, Movies and Music off iTunes not off the TV! lol. If they did, people would probably stop buying content off iTunes.
In the future I'm sure we will see more HD Content on the iTunes store and some other features :) i.e. When broadband speeds increase a bit more (HD content is huge! Ever tried watching a HD Trailer? lol)
Also I hope they change the code-name from iTv to something else because there is a Television network in the UK called ITV :O...could get confusing and possible lawsuits.
(sorry if all of this has been mentioned already)
In the future I'm sure we will see more HD Content on the iTunes store and some other features :) i.e. When broadband speeds increase a bit more (HD content is huge! Ever tried watching a HD Trailer? lol)
Also I hope they change the code-name from iTv to something else because there is a Television network in the UK called ITV :O...could get confusing and possible lawsuits.
(sorry if all of this has been mentioned already)
Doctor Q
Apr 8, 10:50 PM
Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".
Were they pushed or pulled?
Were they pushed or pulled?
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 09:27 PM
You are confusing yourself in a convoluted mess you've created. In fact, you are twisting everything to suit what you want.
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
There are standards and by that, certain pillars which must be recognised for someone to be regarded as a Muslim.
Put simply, if you break one of them, then you are not a Muslim.
I trust that this is simple enough for you to understand, and not talk about freedom? I feel as if you've been infringed by something in your childhood.
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Nuvi
Apr 13, 05:13 AM
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite. Unfortunately it seems that Apple is incapable of serving both media creators and media consumers at the same time. If Final Cut Pro X will truly be a single app then I wish they had separated the Pro apps division from Apple Inc. just like the they did with Claris / FileMaker Inc.
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite. Unfortunately it seems that Apple is incapable of serving both media creators and media consumers at the same time. If Final Cut Pro X will truly be a single app then I wish they had separated the Pro apps division from Apple Inc. just like the they did with Claris / FileMaker Inc.
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:36 AM
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
Eso
Mar 18, 07:19 AM
Additional tethering charge on an unlimited data plan: justified.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 01:50 AM
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
jhande
Sep 29, 03:35 AM
FWIW Tom Yager at InfoWorld had an interesting point (http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/09/27/40OPcurve_1.html) re the looming Core Wars (aside: I loved to play that :) and its still going on) that I fully agree with.
"If I had a vote, I�d have both vendors stop at four cores and focus on fat and fast busses that give those cores something to fill instead of something to wait for. AMD and Intel both face bus bottlenecks, and that�s the bane of multi-core. " - Tom
"If I had a vote, I�d have both vendors stop at four cores and focus on fat and fast busses that give those cores something to fill instead of something to wait for. AMD and Intel both face bus bottlenecks, and that�s the bane of multi-core. " - Tom
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
R.Perez
Mar 13, 06:52 PM
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
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.
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:53 PM
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.