Terje said: "No, they have not. Unix default user security is a joke compared to what has been in Windows since day one. That is why you have things like SELinux etc. On the other hand, bad Windows developers, with Microsoft as a prime example, have nullified the security efforts of the OS by virtually mandating all software run by privileged users, but this is not a Windows problem as much as it is a problem with application developers (who have used Microsoft as their example).

It's hard to know what you're considering to be "windows" and "Day one". If we're talking about common desktop versions of Windows (3.0, 3.1, 98SE, ME, NT, 2k, and XP home or Pro) then it seems like your "day one" probably starts with NT at best. I can't really speak to server versions of Windows but for the common user versions MS has gone kicking and screaming down the security road precisely because they knew that users would complain and then turn things off.

To be fair though, Unices started from a strong security position and I don't think they've been pushed forward as much as Windows. Windows had farther to go and has probably had a more steady momentum over the last decade, starting at the bottom as they have. Nowhere to go but up.

But anyway, the more general point is that, no, not all things originate in Windows and then make their way to Linux and OSX. That's absurd. There has been a certain amount of commerce in ideas between all OSes and their graphical environments and I don't think one can credit any of them for being the sole originator of everything.

Rob

They both work, and I have good reason to use both.

I also use both every day. One is better this way, the other is better that way.

The Ford/Chevy religious part of it does annoy me. If the Ford didn't cost 3x the Chevy, I'd ignore this conversation.

If the Ford didn't cost 3x the Chevy, I'd ignore this conversation.

???

You might argue that the parts for the cheapest home-built PC could be had for one third of an equivalent performance factory-built and tested Mac, in SOME cases.

But an editing-worthy Mac laptop is usually about the same price as a PC ditto (many examples have been posted here since the beginning of the year even), and a rockin' Mac Pro can usually be had for less money than the equivalent PC workstation (for example, many reports online talk about Dell sales reps instantly taking 25% off their workstation prices when confronted with Mac Pro competition, but the Mac Pro was still less expensive...).

Of course there will always be people who buy $400 laptops on sale at Staples and claim their machines work great for editing their home videos. That's a different need, and they are well served by the mass market.

Terje

You are using QT for what? Encoding? I would hope not. Sure, watching a .mov on a PC with QT is fine. Well, sorta. QT doesn't use DirectX for display which means that it doesn't take advantage of video card specifics which makes it by far the worst movie player on windows for formats supported by other players.

Admittedly I gave up on QT as an encoding solution some time mid last year, but that isn't that long ago. Essentially, if I could encode a movie at all, it would be excruciatingly slow, but 99% of the time QT would crash early on. I have also never been able to make QT encode 16x9 DV AVI to the appropriate aspect ratio, but that may be user related, given that I spent most of my time trying to get QT to actually stay up for 3 minutes.

I don't remember multi-CPU in Windows before OS X offered it. When was this?

Windows XP is based on Windows 2000 core and before that Windows NT. Windows NT supported multiple CPUs from day one. So Windows, as we know it today, has always supported multiple CPUs. Some people think that Windows XP and 2000 are descendants from Windows 95/98, but NT/2000/XP/Vista share about as much code with 95/98/ME as does OSX.

I am also a dual Mac/PC user, and since my company now has changed it's policy on which laptops we can get, I will be getting a Mac laptop this fall. Not a fanboy at all, just correcting misconceptions.

It's hard to know what you're considering to be "windows" and "Day one". If we're talking about common desktop versions of Windows (3.0, 3.1, 98SE, ME, NT, 2k, and XP home or Pro

Well, this is where you get off wrong immediately. Windows XP has nothing at all in common with Windows 3.1, 95 and 98. XP is in fact not an upgrade of 98 and as I say in another posting, shares about as much code with 98 as it does with OSX.

The Windows family of operating systems comes in two very distinct lineages, and they share almost no code at all.

Windows 1.0 - 3.0 (generally ignored by the market), 3.1, 3.11 - 95, 98, ME - STOP
Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 2000, XP, Vista The former line is what is called real mode Windows the latter is protected mode (over simplified).

So, when you are on Windows XP or Vista today, "day one" means Windows NT 3.1, which was the first 32 bit, protected mode version of Windows. It was based mainly on OS/2 and work done at DEC. The line of operating systems that started with MS DOS, expanded into Windows 3.1 through ME doesn't exist any more.

I can't really speak to server versions of Windows but for the common user versions MS has gone kicking and screaming down the security road precisely because they knew that users would complain and then turn things off.

The "server versions" of windows as you know it today differ not at all in this respect from the non-server versions. Windows NT, which is what you are running on your PC, has had full security built in from day one, and this security is vastly superior to the security built into must Unices. Please note, I am a big Unix bigot, and I have been using Linux since version 0.97. That doesn't mean that everything Unix is good though. File management is terrible. Security is (by default) abysmal.

Unix security, default, has no more granular way of doing security giving read, write and/or execute permissions on a user, group or everybody level. This is significantly less than one would consider minimum file security today. There are a number of other issues, but going into detail here would be taking it too far.

BTW, I consider Linux a great piece of software and also one of the greatest tragedies to befall the computer world. It basically is a 1970s operating system with modern features crafted on in a hap-hazard fashion. The computer world should have moved on to micro-kernels, managed code, journaling file-systems, automatic version control of files (DEC had this in the 1980s for goodness sake) etc. One of the main reasons the world has not moved on from the 1970s is that academia fell in love with that abhorrent, terrible, beautiful, efficient piece of junk OS that is Unix.

To be fair though, Unices started from a strong security position

Not even close to true. All major operating systems before Unix, including Multics, the bastard parent (if you can imagine the concept) of Unix had far superior security the day Unix was born. Unix was meant to be simple. Academically easy to study as a way to learn about operating systems. Unix wasn't intended as a secure, production-quality, open-access operating system. All that had to be crafted on later, at great cost and difficulty.

Windows (as in Windows NT, the only version of Windows to have any form of security, and the parent of the version of Windows you are running now) went back to proper ideas and did a lot of it a lot better from the get-go. When the first version of what is now Windows XP/Vista was born it had better security features than many Unices have out of the box today. The problem was that Microsoft application developers never understood what Windows NT was all about, and the way they developed applications made it necessary for all users to run with Admin privileges. That is always a bad idea.

no, not all things originate in Windows and then make their way to Linux and OSX

I don't think anyone ever claimed they did. In fact, I would go as far as to say that nothing ever originated in neither Windows, Unix nor Macintosh. They are all either re-hashes of older ideas or bastardizations of better ideas. Well, some things "originated" in Unix. such as the ideas that everything is a stream of bytes, but that wasn't a very good idea to begin with.

>>>>But an editing-worthy Mac laptop is usually about the same price as a PC ditto (many examples have been posted here since the beginning of the year even), and a rockin' Mac Pro can usually be had for less money than the equivalent PC workstation (for example, many reports online talk about Dell sales reps instantly taking 25% off their workstation prices when confronted with Mac Pro competition, but the Mac Pro was still less expensive...).<<<<<

Such unbelieveble nonsense, that I'd proved to you at least twice last year. You behave like Dell is the only company selling pcs, when in fact you can have better stuff for less than Dell, and much less than Apple.

Here we go again, today's prices.

A 17" 1920x1200 Sager with 2.5 ghz processor, 7200rpm, 200ghz HD, 2GB of memory and 8700nvidia card is $750 less than a Mac book pro equivalent with a weaker video card ( 8600).

For the price difference you could add the xtreme processor at 2.8 ghz and double the memory, or you could upgrade the card to Quadro, , double the memory, add a bigger hard disk, or add 8800nVidia, double the memory and still have money left over with any of those options.

Apple doesn't even give you any of those processor or video card options.

"For example Dell" means that this is one of many.

Computerworld found overall cost parity between Macs and the equivalent PC models from brand name manufacturers (not home-builts or white box machines from the local bakery).

Sometimes the Macs were less expensive, sometimes the PCs, overall it was a wash.

They analyzed both hardware and software costs, and explained the results in very good detail, the software here, and the hardware here.

They also confirmed my impression that in some areas there is a wider selection of software for Macs than for Windows PCs.

In the end, they recommended forgetting the religious wars and just looking at your own true needs, then seeing which one fits best.

In related news, IBM researchers are testing workplace use of Macs:

"A one-size-fits-all client computing platform no longer provides IBM's global employees with the flexibility to innovate and be productive while containing IT expenses. Many parts of the business will remain on Windows XP. Some will migrate to Linux. There are some requirements for Mac."

Funny in a way for the creator of the "IBM PC," but great that they have an open mind about it.

That's better than what social scientists are saying about the majority of people today; that most people have no interest in fact finding, instead seeking out only "pundits" who confirm their already strongly held prejudices, er, beliefs.

>>>that most people have no interest in fact finding, instead seeking out only "pundits" who confirm their already strongly held prejudices, er, beliefs<<<<

You seem to describing yourself.

I went to apple.com and sager site, took me 2 minutes to look up the prices ( customized to match them hardware wise ) and Sager is $750 less than a Mac ( Macbook pro $2850, Sager $2100 )

>>>Sometimes the Macs were less expensive, sometimes the PCs, overall it was a wash.<<<

Again, NO IT's not a wash. I just gave you an example where SAME HARDWARE ( even better by a video card ) on pc side cost $750 less.

That is the whole point. YOU HAVE CHOICES, you do not have to buy an overpriced PC, and Sager is as good as any. You are paying reasonable prices for top hardware.

>>Computerworld found <<<

Again, Computerworld are morons.

Go to Sager website and price it yourself.

>>>>In the end, they recommended forgetting the religious wars and just looking at your own true needs, then seeing which one fits best.<<<<

Again, that's all fine. If anybody wants to use a Mac go for it, but do not post nonsense such as Macs just work, pc's do not, and Macs are not more expensive because those statements are ( as you say ) strongly held prejudices, er, beliefs.

That's all I ask.

>>>Sometimes the Macs were less expensive, sometimes the PCs, overall it was a wash.<<<

If you think one example disproves that Macs are sometimes less expensive, sometimes more, I rest my case.

Sager is as good as any [...] top hardware.

If you say so.

I'm not familiar enough with Sager to see how it compares with brand name computers such as Apple that has been rated #1 for customer service and support for many years.

...do not post nonsense such as Macs just work, pc's do not., and Macs are not more expensive

I never have said that Macs just work and PCs do not, and I never will. I disprove that every day that I am working with them side-by-side.

I have said that Macs are not always more expensive.

You said one counter example was enough to disprove a statement that Macs were sometimes less expensive.

How about you just pick your favorite example from the several provided by Computerworld?

Oh, sorry, I know. They're morons.

After all, if they don't agree with you, they must be morons.

Terje,

I don't think there was any confusion on the Windows version bit, which was why I assumed you must be starting with NT. So we were on the same page there, it's just that you hadn't said what page you were on yet.

By "since 0.97" I'd guess you're talking about kernel versions, since there's no such thing as a Linux 0.97.

You're right that many linux distros defaulted to having services running that shouldn't and they weren't all secure by default. You're also right that Linux is very long in the tooth at this point, and that it's been a favorite in higher education circles.

This OT subthread to an OT comment originated in a post by PixelStuff, who observed that "It seems much more like the ground breaking technologies are developed for Windows first and then if successful, ported to Mac or Linux."

The security thing is kind of like beating a dead horse. The truth of it is that security is useless if people circumvent it to make their lives easier, and that tendency happens in any current OS. People tend to run things as Root in all three OS's. You cure that through better design.

Rob Mack

People tend to run things as Root in all three OS's.

No. You have to jump through hoops to run as Root in OS X.

Many but not all Mac OS X users run as Administrators, even though unlike with Windows, you don't have to.

OS X Administrators have limited privileges, and are asked to give the root password every time they want to do something hardcore.

(*FLAME OFF* I'm aware that a very small number of apps can run under Power User privileges in Windows XP, and with limited User privileges you can even play Solitaire).

(And I also really appreciate how OS X handles software installs. Having to enter the root password every time you install an app or a program update is more secure than Windows XP's "gee, I don't mind if I do," or Windows Vista's way too frequent interruptions for everything, that become so annoying that people tune out or turn off the warnings.)

I knew I was going to get flack for using the word Root so generically.

What apple is doing sounds similar to sudo (or runas in windows). These are both better solutions than just running as root or administrator, which was once a big temptation if you wanted to burn CDs in linux. The current method of making major changes (in Ubuntu) requires you to enter a password, but without the password you don't usually have enough permissions to totally fubar a system.

I don't particularly care for Vista's system of "just say yes" but that's probably a tradeoff for being asked constantly. One thing I always thought they were unclear on was what should be a user preference and what should be a global setting.

When the shop here first converted the media100 systems to OSX there was a lot of frustration with this new idea of permissions. I don't really remember whether the editors just decided to run as root or as whatever apple calls priviledged users, but I do remember that they wanted to disable the whole thing. It was hard for me to make the case that it was a bad idea but it didn't matter too much because the owner of the company had finally had enough of Apple (they were unreliable supporters of m100 hardware) and we soon moved off the island.

I think your last point pretty much hits the mark on the issues of user rights and priviledges. If the implementation is too obnoxious people will find a way to turn it off. I have to say I've not been inclined to try to bypass things in Ubuntu, but I also haven't logged in as an unpriviledged user.

Rob

>>>I never have said that Macs just work and PCs do not, and I never will. I disprove that every day that I am working with them side-by-side.
I have said that Macs are not always more expensive.<<<

That part was a general obseravation (you did not say mac's just work, pc's do not ), but others here mention it.

You did say that Macs were equally priced, and that's ridiculous.

One example of quality pc that's much cheaper ( like Sager ) is enough. Just because some pc manufacturers sell them close to the price of Macs is meaningless.

Sager 5793 model ( which I have ) is based on Clevo 570RU.
I mention it because I have it, so I know how good it is, and the consensus is, that is pretty much the best 17" laptop you can buy.
But, it's not the ony one. ASUS has models that are also much cheaper than Macbook Pros, while having same specs.

When you buy a Mac, you have no choice, but to buy it from Apple.

The above mentioned Clevo can be bought from Sager for $2000+ and the exact same machine can be bought from VoodoPC or Alienware for $3000 or $4000, the only difference is the paintjob, logos, and Alienware switches to their lid.

Now it's up to you to decide. Is Voodo PC paintjob and logo or Alienware lid worth the extra $1000?

Bottom line is , you have a choice.

And yes, Computerworld are morons, because you have to know these things before writing about computers. Who knows who writes that nonsense. I remember a review by CNET, where they said ( and I'm not making this up ) "this laptop is good overall, but may be slower than competition because it has no processor or RAM". They were talking about a barebone ASUS, which obviously comes without those, you have to buy them separately and install yourself. I still have no explanation for that one, other that they have computers somehow writing reviews based on specs they input or their bot finds by surfing the web.

"Sager is as good as any [...] top hardware."

Sager manufactures some of the best laptops in the industry ( they are sold to a lot of the high end laptop producers ).

Dave

I have set up my tutorial on how to run Vegas 5 under DarWine on Mac OS 10.4.11

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=590103

It links to my blog.

By "since 0.97" I'd guess you're talking about kernel versions, since there's no such thing as a Linux 0.97.

There was, way back when... At the time there was only one Linux and it was released occasionally by Linus with Usenet postings. There was only one version scheme and it was the kernel version. If you want to try out the leanest, meanest and must fun version of Linux ever released, try this: http://oldlinux.org/Linux.old/

I'd recommend starting with 0.97 since it was the first one that made installation etc a "breeze" - all is relative :-)

You're right that many linux distros defaulted to having services running that shouldn't and they weren't all secure by default.

It doesn't really have anything to do with what services are run, how they are protected, what settings your firewall has etc. It has to do with the fact that Unix security is an ancient, and extremely limited, way of thinking about security. Since things have to be somewhat backwards compatible, that means that it is very difficult to craft modern security features, things that are available in many other operating systems, onto any version of Unix.

A modern operating system typically uses what is called role-based security. Generally this allows for far more granular, and much more manageable, security features. Not going in to features here, but the end result of a good role-based security system is that you can give users very granular access to whatever features they need in the OS and in applications without compromising general OS security. In Unix, by default, you do not have this ability at all. A user can either run a piece of software or not. If he runs the software it does run, by default, with that particular users privileges. If you need to give the software additional privileges, you only have one real option under Unix, and that is to give it all privileges using the suid bit.

Now, that means that software on (default) Unix can run as either of the following users: nobody, the regular user or superuser (root). There is no granularity beyond that. Since some functions requires higher privileges than regular user, the only way you can do it is by giving the software superuser privileges. That is highly insecure. In other operating systems you have far more options than that. In fact, in a well designed OS, running with full privileges should almost never be necessary.

People tend to run things as Root in all three OS's.

This is probably mostly correct for Windows. I'd hope it is not correct for Linux, but you never know. I never log in as root on any of my Linux systems. In fact, I have made it impossible to log in as root on all of my Linux installations. This isn't really a realistic option on Windows, but that is not because of lack of Windows security but bad MS application development. It seems to have been improved with Vista, but I am not running that on a regular basis until it has become stable, which is probably in Windows 7.

Here's a very competent article by Digital Film Tree's Zed Saaed that describes in some detail the FCP workflow used on Forbidden Kingdom:

The Forbidden Kingdom: Jackie Chan. Jet Li. FCP.

...with production and post in China, Korea, Australia, and multiple locations in the US. Here's a look at how they put it all together with FCP, Xserve, XML, Color, file-based workflows..

This level of production is not for Vegas currently, and I'm certainly fine with that.

It would be ridiculous for SCS to invest the enormous resources it would take to make Vegas able to perform at this level, and I don't think they could get anyone else to pay for it.

The funny thing is that Apple got dragged into this, kicking and screaming, by top editors who were getting seriously fed up with Avid's monopoly attitude at the time.

Viva Vegas for everything else (whenever it is able to do the job)!

>>>It would be ridiculous for SCS to invest the enormous resources it would take to make Vegas able to perform at this level, and I don't think they could get anyone else to pay for it.<<<

It's ridiculous to suggest that Vegas can't already handle it. At least the TV show part. I've worked with Betacam, HD footage shot with different cameras, and it ended up on TV, and I know there are people who edited movies with Vegas, so obviously it can be done. Not only that , but you can do your entire soundtrack without leaving Vegas.