CONFIRMED: WIndows 8 0-day security BREACH, a certain Tim Black from MN has reported that he was able to log in as Administrator in a Thinkpad laptop he had bought just one hour before. The hack consists in introducing the password that he had previously defined!

GROUNDBREAKING: we have received an unconfirmed as of yet report that one-year Ubuntu user Jane Leary in Corpus Christi was able to root a RHEL system with all security patches installed: the process is involved but includes entering a "password" that one knows into a "login" prompt. Redhat has not yet replied to this incident.

STOP THE PRESSES: people who have lost all sense of actually owning the things they buy and are used to being prisioners in their little wall gardens are apparently so surprised that there are devices in which one can install whatever one likes that they have started reporting this as "1337 hackery". Some of them have posted their surprise on iTunes and on former technology-savy site /. (not to be confused with the one form the 90's).

PS: this is why most people actually buy Nexus devices: not specifically by their specs, simply because the concep of having to go out of their way to install stuff on something that cost them money is absurd.

extremely gross porn

I remember voting against a filter some time ago. One of the reasons was that "extremely gross porn" is not something consensual. A picture of a naked women having a baby, is it "gross porn"? Many would actively deem it so. Which is why this whole thing sounds to much like a first step towards self-censorship in the name of cultural relativism. Who will define what is porn and what is relevant?

Mind you, this different approach is valid between Europeans and North-Americans, let alone when talking about... others. Why not also consider additional content as "extremely gross"? Once it is done for "porn", whatever that means, the door is opened for everything else.

My position is not that porn should be in wikipedia. But images that are relevant to an article should be maintained if there is an agreement that they add value to it. Porn is but a red herring used to get the foot in the door.

>Actually, NEXTSTEP was written in Objective C, w/o using gcc

NeXTSTEP used gcc. They did try not to use it and asked from a special exemption IIRC, but ended up not having another choice. This is where the Objective-C original support in gcc comes from.

>gcc would not have been necessary in creating Darwin and OS-X either

What would the alternative be? When Darwin appeared and OSX was "ported" from NeXT the only compiler that could be used was gcc.

>But after GCC was moved to GPL3, not just Apple, but other organizations, like FreeBSD, started Clang and are moving to it,

I think that he move to a non-GPL compiler more to do with the GPL in general and less with the specific version. It might eventually have accelarated it in some situations, but overall the issue was always with having a GPL component. not with the specific version. Also consider that at least part of the reasons are technical: Apple needed an Objective-C frontend to LLVM, and Objective-C is not a priority for GCC (and the GCC codebase is also far from easy to change).

What IBM needs to do now is make a new version of DB2 that's fully software-compatible with the Oracle API

See here and here for example.

Having said that, and while it is a worthy and very valuable feature, there is more than compatibility in play when trying to pitch a change in DB engine.

they can't upgrade to the newest multi-core processor hardware because Oracle's licensing costs are so expensive.

Not only that, but Oracle applies modifiers according to the processor type. This is in principle not something odd: it makes sense to differentiate per CPU type given the sometimes staggering difference in terms of processing capacity (IBM does the same with the PVU-based pricing). However, given the Oracle acquisition of Sun this could mean that Oracle will tilt the modifiers even more (last time I checked Sun cores had a 0.25 modifier value, the lowest of the lot).

Two Andy Gorams, there's only two Andy Gorams!

(rather exotic for a US audience, but worth checking out)

Hello,

Initial "disclaimer", I work in IBM. I'll try however to be balanced, especially since I'm more interested in clarifying a few points than in engaging in some sort of competitive bashing.

For the record though I'll say that I like Solaris and business imperatives apart Sun is/was a company that interested me.

IBM's offerings with their overpriced hardward,

Really depends on how you do the math. Individual systems can be more expensive, but then again they generally do a lot more in terms of processing power. Of course, "processing power" can be again measured in multiple ways, which is why you'll find a lot of contradicting information. One thing to bear in mind though is that, for example, the IBM Power Blades are quite competitive, being similarly priced as the ix86 ones. The higher you go in terms of vertical capacity of growth, the pricier it is, but that's the same in all vendors.

ancient lineage

I'm not sure what you're intending to say here, most Unix vendors have an ancient lineage (Solaris itself is a BSD/System V mix, a bit like AIX). If you're referring to a supposed lack of innovation, well, POWER6 still has the edge in terms of processing power and POWER7 is just around the corner (IBM won the DARPA bid against Sun btw). AIX 6 introduces a lot of new stuff which you are probably not aware. I'm not sure how is the Sun situation in terms of chip manufacturing. I know about the highly threaded CPUs, etc, I am just commenting on the possible perception that looms in the air with the Oracle acquisition.

how about a free x86 version, IBM? no, then fuck off!

While I understand that it would be interesting in general terms, it doesn't matter in terms of judging the fitness of the OS for the market we are talking about.

After that, I have a hard time figuring out why anyone would favor IBM's LPARs over the much more efficient, and easier to manager Solaris 10 Zone offering.

They are quite different concepts though.... a LPAR is for most purposes a separate server, with a level of isolation that exceeds Solaris zones. They don't even compete in the same area. A critical problem in the Solaris kernel that is supports 10 Containers will mean death to all of them (correct me if I'm wrong). You can do whatever you want to an LPAR that it won't affect any other LPAR. This with the added benefict of dedicated OR shared hardware, dynamic CPU and RAM entitlement via policies, etc, etc. It behaves a bit like z/VM.

The only comparison with Solaris zones are WPARs, Workload Partitions, introduced with AIX 6. They share a global kernel and behave in a similar way to Solaris Containers, give or take. They are lighter in terms of creation, etc, but with less isolation. I'm sure that there are arguments pro and against each of them, but in terms of use they can be compared. Not so with LPARs.

Don't get me started on HP

HP-UX is a solid UNIX OS. Of course, it isn't as "sexy" as Solaris (like AIX also isn't I guess), but again what matters for most is if it's stable and manageable. HP also has different virtualisation offerings (nPars, which work at the physical level a bit like Sun Domains IIRC, vPars which are lighter weight and share the same hardware, IVM which is sort of like VMware in Itaniu, etc). I always was an admirer of the Alpha architecture, and respected PA-RISC. In personal terms I don't especially like Itanium, *but* this is a personal thing.

Ever heard of ZFS or DTrace?

Quite interesting features. I especially like DTrace.

I will disclose that I am a three-time ex-Sun employee/contractor who has also seen inside the belly of IBM. Solaris will bury AIX. And you can take *that* to the SAN and store it!

Well, we're both a product of our surroundings I guess :) I disagree that Solaris will "bury" AIX of course. You might enjoy Solaris more - that's quite reasonable - but in the end this things are more about the business sense they make than anything else (and I'm not saying that Solaris doesn't make business sense).

C-h f visual-line-mode
----
visual-line-mode is an interactive compiled Lisp function in
`simple.el'.

(visual-line-mode &optional arg)

Redefine simple editing commands to act on visual lines, not logical lines.
This also turns on `word-wrap' in the buffer.

It is even right there on the menu (Options->Line Wrapping...->Word Wrap).

No need to be so touchy... you said:

If you have any clue in the health field, low fat hasn't gone anywhere.. simply for the fact that it is so calorie dense. Fat should be probably at most 30% of your calorie intake.. I'm at 25% right now, which puts me at 69g of fat

Which reinforces what I said: all the people I knew that were into the "low fat" thing had an aim of consuming less that 5% of fat. Ideally, no fat at all, since in their minds eating fat was what made them fat. Now, you said that 30% is much lower than a typical diet. Well, in *my* experience people tend to consume way much more carbs than fat, even the ones who eat poorly. Of course that junk food is likely to screw up with all the macros, including fat.

I bodybuild,

So do I, sort of. So, I won't comment on the rest of that paragraph, you obviously have your diet sorted out. But bear in mind that I was not talking *about* you, but in terms of the "general" public. People that bodybuild or spend any decent amount of time in the gymn are by definition not the ones who need this sort of advices. You can go on a keto diet, or on a fat-rich diet, be "overweight" in terms of BMI (calibrated for people who don't do muscle training), etc. and most likely you will be better than 90% of the population. You are also much more likely to be well informed about things and get past the nutrition fads aimed at people who like to believe that in one month they can lose those 20kg without any effort at all.

It's not extreme, I have a prefectly healthy diet,

Again, not talking about *you*. The "low fat!" stickers do not target people who know they need X calories per day when bulking and X calories when cutting, but mostly the ones who are not satisfied with their weight and that think that eating 1000 cals of "no-fat" cookies is better than eating a slice of bread with a bit of butter. The same sort of people who cut on the sugar for their coffee and then proceed to eat a "no fat" chocolate mousse, etc.

It's not people's income that's the driving force; it's simple laziness and whining about "oh, it won't TASTE as good without the fat." But it's no more expensive to eat healthy than it is to eat unhealthy (actually, its probably the other way around.. prepared food is worse healthwise, and more expensive), and it doesn't have to cost anything to exercise.

I agree with you. Most of it is laziness, although compounded by by the type of job 8and work hours) that people have. Nothing insurmountable though.

Yes, total calories matters. Watching your fat is still important though, BECAUSE IT HAS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CALORIES OF CARBS OR PROTEIN.

True, but that doesn't mean that the parent post wasn't correct. The "low fat" fad is indeed a 90's thing, where everyone would prefer a "fat free" snack with hundreds of carbs that would end up as fat anyway. After that came the "low carbs" fad, rinse and repeat.

Total calories matters, and assuming that the daily total is under control it is not at all unhealthy to have a daily fat percentage of around 20-30% of total calories. Not all fats are created equal, of course, but even the much maligned saturated fact plays a role in a balanced diet. For men, for example, it plays a key role in testosterone production and thus muscle building, etc.

I'm not saying you are not correct in whatever you eat, if it works for you. Just that extreme fat concern is something that is typical of those "wonder diets" that do not work for most of the people.

The Mediterranean Diet can reach more than 30% of total calories from fat. The total calories balance is ultimately what matters, and nothing short of mild "starvation" (i.e. consuming less than what is expended) reduces *body* fat. Exercise is key here, and this relates to the topic: low income people are also less inclined to physical exercise, be it because of the number of work hours or some other reason. Add to that the fact that most jobs nowadays are not physical in nature and it becomes very hard to avoid getting fatter and fatter.

It does seem a little strange that IBM is acting surprised, though. By all accounts they had exclusive rights to negotiate with Sun for a set period of time, and they let that period elapse. What did they expect? Maybe they didn't believe Sun would be able to leave the table and arrive at a firm deal with a different suitor so quickly, but that seems a little foolish on their part, if it's true.

I'm not really privy to the minutae of this things, but didn't the exclusive rights period ended very recently? As I see it - and I'm asking for your input since you apparently know what you're talking about - this means that Oracle initiated and closed the deal after the IBM negotiations ended, since "exclusive rights" would lead me to believe that they couldn't be negotiating at the same times... if so, saying that McNealy "knew" of the Oracle way out can lend itself to insinuate that the "exclusive negotiation period" wasn't that exclusive after all.

I would appreciate any comments.

Isn't Portugal's current prime-minister (Jose Socrates) notorious for his close association with everything Microsoft?

Not that I know of... I mean, not more than the usual, most people that are indifferent to computers don't even have an idea that it is a big deal and that there are people that they it so seriously.

And isn't he currently at the center of a national scandal involving serious corruption charges?

Well, yes, but even if I'm not even a supporter of the Government that doesn't mean much, the whole thing has a certain electoral flavour to it.

And didn't his government recently try to sell the notion that the Intel Classmate they are introducing into public schools is a "portuguese invention"?

Yes. Which is of course false. Although parts of it are indeed locally sourced and the Linux distribution that comes with it is also local.

Anyway, this sort of report does not surprise me one bit...

Me neither. Unfortunately it is something quite common. In a way it's worse that one doesn't even need to explain it by using explicit wrong-doing and intervention as an excuse.

I wouldn't go so far... I interpreted what another poster said (a thoroughly enjoyable post I might add) as the "gate" designation being stretched because most of the Portuguese audience didn't even knew about the existence of this Vortal issue.

There were some "-gate" scandals, but it is generally reversed for big things with huge public impact (I remember São Bento-gate and Angolagate, for example).

Still, bloody annoyance. It always sounds forced, bordering on plain silly.

$ emacs -nx

This is not a different binary, simply a flag.