Linux Mint Founder and lead developer Clement Lefebvre has announced that the next major release of his Ubuntu-based Linux distribution will feature the GNOME 3.0 desktop environment, which is expected to be finalised on the 6th of April. According to Lefebvre, unlike Canonical's Ubuntu, Linux Mint 11, code named "Katya", will not use Unity, instead opting for GNOME 3 "using a traditional desktop layout" without the GNOME Shell.

The Unity shell is being developed in-house by the Ubuntu developers and will be used as the distribution's default desktop, replacing the GNOME Shell in the upcoming Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" release – the latest development preview is Ubuntu 11.04 Alpha 2, while the final version is scheduled to arrive on the 28th of April, 2011. Lefebvre notes that Linux Mint users can optionally add Unity or the GNOME Shell themselves but it will not be included by default in Linux Mint 11, adding that "by default the desktop will look similar to the one we’re using at the moment".

Linux Mint aims to be user friendly and to provide a more complete out-of-the-box experience by including support for DVD playback, Java, plug-ins and various media codecs. It is currently the third most popular distribution on DistroWatch.com behind Ubuntu and Debian. The latest stable version of Linux Mint is version 10 from mid-November of last year.

See also:

• GNOME 3.0's first beta makes an appearance, a report from The H.
• Canonical releases Ubuntu 11.04 Alpha 2, a report from The H.
• Linux Mint 10 released, a report from The H.

(crve)

This may be where Ubuntu divides the community. I'll certainly recommend Mint over Ubuntu with Unity. they better hope I'm in the minority

That's gonna give the commercial players real competition. Lets hope it drives down prices generally. Consumer friendly pricing is very underrated

On March 31, Microsoft will stop supporting the beta version of Live Mesh. Users of the file synching service must manually upgrade to the full production Windows Live Mesh service or lose the data stored in their folders. This cloud service synchs files between multiple Windows machines and Macs, but because it doesn't support Linux, other services like Dropbox still have an edge.

Windows Live Mesh is part of Windows Live Essentials (and was originally the brainchild of Ray Ozzie, who left Microsoft on Dec. 30.) You can download just Windows Live Mesh or all of Windows Live Essentials and if you opt for the latter you'll get Messenger, Photo Gallery, Movie Maker, Windows Live Writer (an HTML editor for writing blogs), a Family Safety program, an e-mail program formerly known as Hotmail, an Outlook Connect that links your Hotmail to Outlook and Messenger, so you can see all three of these Microsoft-owned messaging services within Outlook.

Essentials also includes Messenger Companion which lets you see and comment on links in Internet Explorer shared through Messenger (rather than using Tumblr or Facebook I suppose?). It also downloads a Bing Bar search tool and, just for kicks, installs Silverlight.

To be fair, the 800-pound gorilla of free cloud apps, Google, does much the same thing, linking and integrating only to its own apps and collaboration tools and ignoring other options (such as Windows Live). The downside for Microsoft is that far fewer people are using Windows Live than are using Google's cloud apps -- and Microsoft increases the barriers to adoption in some subtle and not-too-subtle ways. Microsoft counts 500 million as Windows Live users thanks to users of Hotmail. (Just try and find someone to collaborate on a Word document in Windows Live ... I've tried, and now use Google Docs for that.)

Office Live includes some pretty good freebie versions of the company's desktop Office tools (including OneNote). BUT Microsoft removed the ability to synch these online files directly to desktop versions of Office 2003 and Office 2007 -- a functionality that once existed. Now only Office 2010 users can synch/collaborate their desktop files with the cloud via Office Live. Google stepped in to let 2003, 2007 and 2010 users synch with Google Apps -- though there are problems with the way Google went about it, too.

Likewise, Microsoft Fuse Labs offer a nifty Facebook application called Docs, for writing and sharing Office documents with Facebook friends (Word, Excel or PowerPoint). You can compose online or upload a desktop file. I use it to share gluten-free recipes with my friends. BUT, it isn't linked to Office Live, so there's no easy way to get your Facebook Word Doc into your Windows Live cloud and vice versa.

Microsoft has set a precedent for open connectivity in it's Essential suite of cloud tools: Windows Live Writer links to blogs hosted on non-Microsoft sites including Wordpress.com and Google's Blogger. Google is by far a bigger competitive threat than the entire Linux desktop OS community (especially given that Google is working on two of its own Linux-deriviate device operating systems, Chrome OS and Android 3.0 for tablets). But to make Live Writer useful, Microsoft was willing to acknowledge Blogger exists.

I have Windows Live and would use the sync tool except for the fact that I need to sync documents between my work Windows 7 computer, my "family room" Ubuntu Maverick Meerkat PC and with some other buddies some of which also use Linux. One of my favorite cloud apps is Windows Live Skydrive, which lets you store any kind of document in the cloud and access it from any other browser, even Firefox running on the Linux Ubuntu PC. I routinely upload Office files from work there and can edit them in the browser on the Linux machine at home.

But synch? It relies on Mesh for the sync function which doesn't support Ubuntu. So if I really need to make sure I have the file, Internet connection or not, Dropbox it is.

If Microsoft can support Blogger for Live Writer, and Mac for Mesh, why not just go ahead and acknowledge Linux and support it, too, in the cloud? The more Microsoft chases me to other cloud tools and products, the less reason I have not to ditch Windows altogether, an operating system I have used since I left DOS for Windows 3.1. I have no burning desire to move, but like many others, am slowly being lead away.

 

Looks like the tale of another disgruntled user, disgruntled with good reason too

Canonical, you're breaking my heart Planet gnome • by Vincent Untz • 1 hour ago • keep as unread • preview • visit site [Share on Google Reader] Gmail Twitter Facebook [M.582] [Instapaper] [Read It Later] Tumblr [more sharing options] [ like] [ save for later] Quoting code from Banshee: // We ask that no one change these affiliate codes. ALL (100%) revenue // generated by these affiliate IDs is sent directly to the GNOME // Foundation. The GNOME Foundation controls/owns these affiliate IDs. // Please help support Free Software through the GNOME Foundation! I've been resisting blogging or talking about this topic publicly, but I'm so frustrated with how Canonical dealt with the whole topic that I can't resist more... If you don't want to read my stuff, I encourage you to go read Zonker's articles about the story. Very short summary for those who didn't follow: the Ubuntu community decided to switch to Banshee as default music player. Canonical offers the Ubuntu One Music Store in the default Ubuntu music player to let people buy music online. Referral fees go to Canonical (as far as I know). Banshee comes with an Amazon MP3 Store plugin to let people buy music online. Referral fees go to the GNOME Foundation. with the switch to Banshee by default in Ubuntu, Canonical proposed two options to the Banshee developers: disable the Amazon MP3 Store plugin by default, or changing the affiliate code for the Amazon MP3 Store and giving 25% of the referral fees to the GNOME Foundation (the other 75% would be going to Canonical). Banshee developers chose to keep the money going to the GNOME Foundation, and to have the plugin disabled by default. a few days later, Canonical changed their mind and decided that the Amazon MP3 Store would stay enabled, and that 25% of all referral fees (Amazon MP3 Store and Ubuntu One Music Store) would go to the GNOME Foundation. There are a few things that are wrong with this story, and I've read a few things that made me wonder if some of the people standing for Canonical's decision in the comments I've read have a good understanding of everything (and maybe they do; everybody is entitled to his own opinions after all). It's worth pointing out first that I'm annoyed at Canonical, and not at Ubuntu, and my first two items below explain this: Money does not go to Ubuntu. It goes to Canonical. I'll start with that, because I feel this was neglected by most. I would be much less annoyed if the money went to Ubuntu instead of Canonical. This way I would know that the money would be used for Free Software; I would still not be completely happy (see other points below), but that would make me feel better. But it turns out there is no active Ubuntu Foundation (the Ubuntu Foundation does exist, but is nowhere near active or alive), which means there is no real way for Ubuntu, as a project, to collect money. The result is that we have no idea how the money will be used, in concrete terms; and this raises accounting questions. This is not an Ubuntu decision, this is a decision from Canonical. As far as I can tell, this decision was not discussed in any way inside the Ubuntu community, and I have serious concerns that such a decision that does affect Ubuntu is not taken by the Ubuntu community. I've added an agenda item to the next Community Council meeting (tomorrow, March 1st, at 21:00 UTC, in #ubuntu-meeting). To be blunt, though, I have absolutely no hope of open discussion there: I've yet to heard of anything that is agreed by the Community Council that goes against the interests of Canonical. I believe that is a serious flaw in the Ubuntu governance, and it's certainly not the first time this is highlighted. It is legal, but it is not necessarily right. Of course it is legal because of Banshee's license. Nobody is arguing about that. However, the will of the Banshee developers is to donate money to the GNOME Foundation. They've expressed this will twice: when they first chose to donate the money to the GNOME Foundation, and when they chose one of the two options proposed by Canonical. So Canonical's decision is explicitly going against the will of the developers. It is legal, but going against the will of the developers is definitely wrong. Releasing Banshee as free software doesn't mean Banshee developers don't care about how their software is changed or used. I've read several times that Banshee developers could simply have chosen another license to avoid this issue. That's an extremely dangerous slope: many free software developers choose a free software license because they believe in freedom and they believe that releasing their software under these terms will help improve the world in some way. That's our contribution to making the world a better place. We also believe that, usually, people will understand what we want to achieve and will respect that. Canonical's decision, and how it was taken, doesn't show any such respect. Should we stop contributing to making the world a better place because a company is doing things wrong? I don't think so. We should try to make that company a better citizen, and keep making the world a better place. Suggesting that we can simply choose a non-free license is suggesting that we stop trying to achieve our dreams. Sure, we could do that, but that's certainly not the right solution. A 75%/25% deal does not reflect what Canonical brings to Banshee. I've read this several times: people think it's actually a fair deal because Ubuntu does most of the job, by integrating Banshee in Ubuntu and by exposing it to many more users. I'm disturbed when I read this. The fact is that Ubuntu chose to adopt Banshee by default because it was the best solution. If it was the best solution already, then somehow, the Banshee developers did a hell of a great job and Banshee actually improves Ubuntu. And that part is certainly more than 25% of the whole job, isn't it? I mean, if that's not the case, then certainly Ubuntu would be shipping with something better already. Also, this way of thinking gets me wondering: do people seriously suggest that Ubuntu would exist and be successful without great upstream developers? The work done to build Ubuntu is integration. It is not easy, there's no need to argue about that and I know this because I work on a distribution. So I know it's far from trivial. But compared to actually writing the applications upstream... Most of the hard work lives upstream, and integration, while key, is "only" a small percentage of the work. Even the argument that Ubuntu will bring more users falls apart for me because Ubuntu brings more users to applications, but only because those applications themselves are great. Ubuntu can only bring something to the applications because the applications bring something to Ubuntu. No, a 75%/25% deal is not necessarily a better deal for the GNOME Foundation, money-wise. Several people mentioned that 25% of referrals fees of the plugin enabled by default is higher than 100% of referrals fees of the plugin disabled by default. How can we know? We can't. We simply don't know. I've heard that the Ubuntu One Music Store is... suboptimal, so I think it's also a fair position to assume that many people would have found on the web that there's a great Amazon MP3 Store plugin, and would have switched to it. It could therefore turn out that in the end, maybe, even if the plugin would have been disabled by default, it would have brought more money to the GNOME Foundation. Who's right? Let's be honest and agree that we don't know. No, even if it's a better deal money-wise, a 75%/25% deal is not necessarily a better deal for the GNOME Foundation. You know what? Please don't put words in the mouth of the GNOME Foundation, and leave the GNOME Foundation decide for itself. The GNOME Foundation is a non-profit organization and while the GNOME Foundation could use more money, it's certainly not the goal of the Foundation. As a past Foundation Board member, my informed guess is that most members of the GNOME Foundation would agree that respecting the will of authors is more important than money. If the GNOME Foundation decided to take a public position about what is best for itself, it could well be something as simple as "this deal is not in our best interests". I'm of course not saying this is the position of the GNOME Foundation since that's not my job, but I hope this helps people understand that more money doesn't make the deal a better one for the Foundation. There is now no way to make the money go to the GNOME Foundation. With the current decision, there is no way for the user to choose to leave the money to the GNOME Foundation. I've seen at least a comment from Jono suggesting that Banshee could distribute a new plugin for that. I can certainly understand that Canonical doesn't want to do that itself, but Ubuntu people could. Is there any reason that Ubuntu can't ship this small plugin (17 KB) itself, on the CD, or even in a package in the Ubuntu repositories? If people would do the job, would the package get accepted on the CD? I don't want to guess, so I'll leave the question open. The whole decision process is just alarmly broken. Canonical came with two options, and one was chosen by Banshee developers. There was some reaction in blog posts, news articles and comments about the two options, that were already negative about the proposed choice. And then Canonical came back with what I understand is a unilateral decision, that does not respect the previous explicit choice of Banshee developers. Sure, there's now 25% of the referrals fees from the Ubuntu One Music Store, but did some people really think that would make Banshee developers change their mind? How can this sound right? I'm sure I could go on and on, if I'd take more time, but I'm not sure it's worth it. If the deal was something like 25%/75% or even 50/%50, I think I'd feel a bit better but I'd still want the money to go to Ubuntu instead of Canonical, especially as Canonical did absolutely nothing to develop this Amazon MP3 Store plugin. I'd be surprised if the Ubuntu community would have no use for money that it could decide how to spend. The bottom line is that I'm highly annoyed. It's just yet another illustration that, even though some parts of Canonical care (or try to care) about upstream, in the end, what matters to Canonical is money. I'm even more annoyed because I have many good friends at Canonical, and that makes me not want to dislike their company. Canonical, you're breaking my heart: I thought you understood the spirit of Free Software, but you're just another normal company that is first going after money.

You Are Here: Home » Tech News » Apple Asks Security Experts to Analyze Mac OS Lion

Apple Asks Security Experts to Analyze Mac OS Lion

Posted by Mike Vang on February 27, 2011 // Leave Your Comment // Read 650 Times

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Apple offers the developer preview version of the Mac OS X 10.7 or Lion to security experts. In return the company is asking the bug researchers for feedbacks. The Lion preview is said to be sent to several Mac security researchers last Thursday.

Along with the preview version of the Lion there is a non-disclosure agreement that prevents any of the security experts to publicize any bugs they find. Apple is looking for feedbacks from the researchers and provided them an email address where they can send in the bugs of the new Mac OS X version.

This is the first time that Apple reached out to researchers before the official release of the OS. Charlie Miller, an analyst based in Baltimore, stated that the Mac OS X is an easier target than Linux or Windows. In the last three Pwn2Own contests, most vulnerabilities where found in Safari and Mac OS X. In this year’s Pwn2Own, Miller is set to look for vulnerabilities in Apple’s iPhone and Safari.

Some security experts stated that the Lion OS might include several improvements from the previous OS versions, such as full ASLR but there wouldn’t be any innovative features. ASLR is address space layout randomization. It is an anti-exploit technology that is able to randomly assign data to memory. Microsoft utilized it since its Vista OS and Apple used it partially for its Snow Leopard.

Apple hasn’t announced the official launch date and the retail price of the Mac OS X Lion and has gone on record to say that it will be available this summer.

You might also like

Apple OSX Lion Goes Pro – Small Preview
See, I told you that the Lion behind Apple logo meant something. But the Lion wasn’t the only center...

The Lion OSX Debate: What Do we Know, What we Don’t
Apple’s Lion is going to break out of that cage pretty soon. Raaaawwwrr… that’s one mean kitty...

Apple’s Divine Intentions for Back to Mac Event
Next week’s event at Apple is solely depended on Wednesday, the day when the company will unveil something...

Windows Security Software Is Resisted by New Exploit
There is a new exploit that resists the security software/antivirus in Windows and it comes as something...

Tags: Apple’s iPhone, Lion OS, Mac OS Lion, Mac OS X 10.7, Vista OS

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

They want to get the gen, but they don't want the researchers to get the kudos by publishing the results. So that's a great incentive for white hats, I don't think.

7) You cannot watch movies on Linux.

Whether or not someone can view a movie on the Linux desktop comes down to how it's being viewed. If you're looking for a way to "legally" view DVDs on your Linux desktop (in the U.S.), the Fluendo DVD Player addresses this nicely. If you're looking for Blu-ray support, it can be done, but not legally.

In my opinion the best way to enjoy video content with Linux is to stick to the TV set and a Linux-powered Roku box. This provides you with both Amazon's Unbox service in addition to movie services from Netflix.

Surely it really depends on whether you come under US or EU copyright law and my guess is, if you don't you're absolutely fine?