Slashdot Mirror

The links above, live:

Many Windows 10 Users Unable To Connect To Windows Update Service.

Windows 7 Users Who Installed January Update Report Network Issues; Some Say the Update Has Also Incorrectly Flagged Their OS License as 'Not Genuine'.

Windows 10 Will Reserve 7GB of Your Computer's Storage in its Next Major Release So That Big Updates Don't Fail.

Latest Windows 10 Update Breaks Windows Media Player, Win32 Apps In General

Microsoft Resumes Rollout of Windows 10 Version 1809, Promises Quality Changes.

Microsoft's Problem Isn't How Often it Updates Windows -- It's How It Develops It.

More links to stories showing that Microsoft is VERY poorly managed:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Windows 10 shows you ads while you are trying to work. But, at least at present, you may be able to stop at least some of the advertising: 7 ways Windows 10 pushes ads at you, and how to stop them.

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

Bill Gates still manages Microsoft: Two years ago, during a Jan. 17, 2017 discussion with Charlie Rose, Bill Gates said he spends "15 percent" of his time managing Microsoft. I interpreted that to mean that Gates is still extremely involved and very influential. Did Gates want the mess that is Windows 10?

From the transcript at that Charlie Rose web page:

08:42
"Bill Gates: I'm there about 15 percent of the time. And I get to work just on the R and D part, brainstorming with people, thinking, OK, how are we going to take this artificial intelligence and make it understand, help you use your time better. It's a very exciting time in software. There's five companies that are, you know, in a really strong position. Microsoft is leading in some really cool stuff so --"

It seems obvious that Bill Gates still has a huge amount of overall influence on the management of Microsoft, even if he mostly focuses on other subjects.

My understanding: Microsoft is an EXTREMELY poorly-managed company. I think much more attention should be given to that.

Microsoft trash talks Windows 10 LTSC -- again (Dec. 5, 2018)

Microsoft scrambles to limit PR damage over abusive AI bot Tay. (Nov. 30, 2017)

Guess what country sued Microsoft over abusive user data collection! -- Brazil (Apr. 28, 2018) Bad adjective: "beloved" Windows 10.

Apparently the present worsening management began with Ballmer-osis: Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)

But Microsoft was always abusive, apparently: 'Crush Them': An Oral History of the Lawsuit That Upended Silicon Valley. (May 18, 2018)

Bill Gates still runs Microsoft: Two years ago, during a Jan. 17, 2017 discussion with Charlie Rose, Bill Gates said he spends "15 percent" of his time managing Microsoft. I interpreted that to mean that Gates is still extremely involved and very influential. Did Gates want the mess that is Windows 10?

From the transcript at that Charlie Rose web page:

08:42
"Bill Gates: I'm there about 15 percent of the time. And I get to work just on the R and D part, brainstorming with people, thinking, OK, how are we going to take this artificial intelligence and make it understand, help you use your time better. It's a very exciting time in software. There's five companies that are, you know, in a really strong position. Microsoft is leading in some really cool stuff so --"

It seems obvious that Bill Gates still has a huge amount of overall influence on the management of Microsoft, even if he mostly focuses on other subjects.

Lately, Windows users are not allowed to know what Windows updates actually do. In the past, for example, users were pushed to Windows 10, without giving their permission. So, now Windows 7 customers will be paying for updates that may be abusive.

Some of the many stories about Windows 10 indicate deliberate abuse of customers:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

Having poor quality software makes more money for Microsoft!

Lately, Windows users are not allowed to know what Windows updates actually do. In the past, for example, users were pushed to Windows 10, without giving their permission. So, now Windows 7 customers will be paying for updates that may be abusive.

Some of the many stories about Windows 10 indicate deliberate abuse of customers:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

Two years ago, during a Jan. 17, 2017 discussion with Charlie Rose, Bill Gates said he spends "15 percent" of his time managing Microsoft. I interpreted that to mean that Gates is still extremely involved and very influential. Did Gates want the mess that is Windows 10?

From the transcript at that Charlie Rose web page:

08:42
"Bill Gates: I'm there about 15 percent of the time. And I get to work just on the R and D part, brainstorming with people, thinking, OK, how are we going to take this artificial intelligence and make it understand, help you use your time better. It's a very exciting time in software. There's five companies that are, you know, in a really strong position. Microsoft is leading in some really cool stuff so --"

It seems obvious that Bill Gates still has a huge amount of overall influence on the management of Microsoft, even if he mostly focuses on other subjects.

Some of the many stories about Windows 10:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

The NSA has a history of losing control of its tools and having them used by enemies of the US. It is not unreasonable that they may do so again.

Cyberattacks in 12 nations said to use leaked NSA hacking tool

They also have a history of trying to backdoor US technology.

Snowden: The NSA planted backdoors in Cisco products

Seriously. Start paying attention and thinking for yourself rather than whining "CITATION REQUIRED" whenever your worldview is challenged. You give AC's a bad name.

ERROR in my parent comment above: I'm tired. I need to take a nap.

There are many ways in which Microsoft is insufficiently managed, also.

I posted this before:

Some of the many, many stories:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

There is no way to justify Microsoft managers operating the company like that. If Microsoft had paid $100,000,000 for negative advertising, it wouldn't have gotten such extremely bad results, in my opinion.

Idiot reporters. Can't be bothered to try to understand a new technology, so they report on it using the only metric they already understand - speed. It's not about max speeds. That's kinda pointless as at 1.2 Gbps you'd blow through a 5 GB data cap in 30 seconds. Even at 140 Mbps you'd blow through 5 GB in less than 5 minutes.

5G isn't about improving your speed in the best case (though that can happen). It's about improving your speed in the worst case - when lots of people are trying to pull data from a tower simultaneously. The higher speed means each person's data download gets completed faster, meaning the tower is handling fewer simultaneous requests, meaning each individual request gets more bandwidth.

In addition, 5G adds MIMO. Rather than using one antenna to transmit and receive omnidirectionally, it uses multiple antennas and software to "aim" the antenna array like a phased array radar. Adding directionality means you can transmit to multiple devices over the same frequencies without the signals interfering because direction of the signal now matters, not just the presence of a signal. It's like communicating with point-to-point lasers instead of a sensor which just detects the total amount of light coming from all directions. Light signals being sent to other devices interfere with the latter, but not with the former.

What that boils down to is that 5G will minimize the impact of other people's use of the tower on the speeds you get. The max speed you experience may not be a substantial improvement over 4G. But the minimum speed you experience when the tower cell is crowded should be substantially better. You remember the iPhone demo which failed because there were too many WiFi users in the room? That's the kind of situation 5G solves.

"Microsoft is a cloud company, ..."

Cloudy thinking?

Microsoft seems to me to be extremely badly managed. Some of the many, many stories:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

There is no way to justify Microsoft managers operating the company like that. If Microsoft had paid $100,000,000 for negative advertising, it wouldn't have gotten such extremely bad results, in my opinion.

It is my opinion that Microsoft's mis-management and abuse is not reported sufficiently. Joking may help people adjust.

Microsoft is damaging customers and itself.

Some of the many, many stories:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

Backdoors don't just magically appear on their own. Someone at Cisco had to put them there. Someone at Cisco had to be told to put them there. It is impossible that Cisco didn't know these backdoors were there.

Exactly. And as per Snowden's revelations years ago. Cisco was pointed to as purposefully backdooring its products at the behest of the NSA years ago, and today they are suddenly on the side of the angels because they have graciously patched out a few of them?

Meanwhile, what has the NSA already installed on those systems through those backdoors? If they are getting patched out now, it's only because Cisco's keepers don't need it any more.

Well, you can, but it is a) one shot (it becomes worthless when discovered)

This is just a special case of the problem, how do you ever act on intelligence obtained covertly without giving away that you know it and how you know it. For example, the breaking of Enigma was, according to many, a "one shot" deal. How do you explain being in the exact spot where a naval attack was going to be without giving away we were reading their coded messages? Well, the allies found numerous inventive ways of doing just that.

This is literally the one thing that intelligence agencies have the most experience with.

b) causes extreme problems for the CPU manufacturer when discovered

Tell that to Cisco. They are still around and very much in business.

If you think that Cisco is the only one to ever have this done, you are hopelessly naive. On every side. Huawei has got themselves into trouble for it. Remember the digital photo-frame virus distribution of over a decade ago? That was just a proof-of-concept. Compromised chips are rampant.

SystemD:

Linux: Why do people hate systemd? (Jan 18, 2017 )

List of articles critical of systemd

Introducing SystemD without proper extended community discussion seemed to be a way for Red Hat to make money. Problems with SystemD? Pay Red Hat to help.

IBM:

What will be the effect of SystemD on IBM's reputation? Will SystemD damage IBM's reputation? Does IBM see SystemD as a way to make money? Will IBM be as socially dis-functional as Red Hat?

So, sadly, I"M guessing IBM will acquire and fuck up RHEL

I think the more accurate term is 'ramp up' not 'fuck up' - more and more Open Source is about vendor on-ramps.

Mod parent up!! However, that comment may, in some ways, be too kind.

Microsoft is poorly managed? Plenty of evidence.

Microsoft was badly managed 10 years ago.

Microsoft managers lack social ability. They have done ENORMOUS DAMAGE to the Microsoft brand name. That is my best understanding and opinion.

Some of the many, many reports of Microsoft managers thinking they can manipulate and control everyone, as though the managers are government dictators:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

A huge problem: A high percentage of people who work with Windows computers make more money if there are more problems with Microsoft and Windows. There is a conflict of interest.

Apparently Microsoft managers decided they would try to be like Google's Android. They apparently decided to try to gather information about everything, and try to sell that information. Most people with cell phones don't have the technical knowledge necessary to know if they are being abused.

Can a company be sued for supplying computers with Windows 10? If a company supplies Windows 10 computers to businesses and doesn't get a signed agreement from all business customers that the customers know Windows 10 allows Microsoft to gather data from their computers, the supplier could be the target of court cases, and possibly even go to prison. No business customers want Microsoft employees to have access to their company information. My opinion, shared by many others.

People working with desktop computers don't want to be distracted by ads. They don't want to try to learn new, complicated user interfaces.

"microsoft's system of 'ship first-fix later-never test' (SF/FL/NT)"

Microsoft is poorly managed. There is plenty of evidence for that:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

Microsoft managers lack social ability. They have done ENORMOUS DAMAGE to the Microsoft brand name.

Some of the many, many reports of Microsoft managers thinking they can manipulate and control everyone, as though the managers are government dictators:

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

A huge problem: A high percentage of people who work with Windows computers make more money if there are more problems with Microsoft and Windows. There is a conflict of interest.

Apparently, because desktop computer sales are slowing, Microsoft managers decided they would try to make Windows 10 like Google's Android. They apparently decided to try to gather information about everything, and try to sell that information. Most people with cell phones don't have the technical knowledge necessary to know if they are being abused.

Court cases? If a company supplies Windows 10 computers to businesses and doesn't get a signed agreement from all business customers that the customers know Windows 10 allows Microsoft to gather data from their computers, the supplier could be the target of court cases, and possibly even go to prison. No business customers want Microsoft employees to have access to their company information. My opinion, shared by many others.

People working with desktop computers don't want to be distracted by ads. They don't want to try to learn an new, complicated user interfaces.

This comment is my best understanding and opinion.

The language isn't named after the mathematician, though.
My first thought was Julia from Nineteen Eighty-Four, but that's not the case either. From an interview of one of the creators:

InfoWold: Why the name, Julia?

Karpinski: That's everybody's favorite question. There's no good reason, really. It just seemed like a pretty name.

I say this since I have never seen any proof that this and this has ever elimiated as a possiblity. Sourceforge killed itself three years ago and this is a opportunity to come back if they step in and make the needed changes to their infrastructure and policies.

Meanwhile...

https://www.cio.com/article/30...
https://www.infoworld.com/arti...
http://techrights.org/2017/04/...

Hardly 20 years ago.

Oh FFS, get a clue. MicroSoft is one of the largest contributors to open source software and even Bill Gates sings its praises now.

You mean like this https://www.infoworld.com/arti...

Of course the US knows that China could order their domestic corporations to put back doors in their products. They know from long experience just how easy it is to slip a back door into products and standards.

Thing is, if I were a US citizen, I'd far rather have a Huwei product. Actually, as a Canadian I think I still would rather own a Huwei. At least I can probably trust the NSA doesn't have its greasy mitts inside one of those (or, at least, there's a better chance of it). There are daily stories of strange and unusual things happening to people at the border because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some database has their phone as having been in close proximity to some person of interest to US intelligence and suddenly they are locked in a room with no phones, often no clothes, and definitely no recourse, until they cough up answers that US officials like.

Although the proposed rule does not mention Huawei by name, it would block federally subsidized telecommunications carriers from using suppliers deemed to pose a risk to American national security.

Oh yeah? So that means they're going to stop buying equipment from Cisco, right?

In 2010, Nancy Gohring reported in Infoworld, Ballmer bets Microsoft's future on the cloud.. "'Seventy percent of the 40,000 people who work on software at Microsoft are in some way working in the cloud,' CEO Steve Ballmer said Thursday at the University of Washington. 'A year from now, that will be 90 percent,' he said.... 'Our inspiration, our vision ... builds from this cloud base,' he said. 'This is the bet, if you will, for our company.'"

I think there was similar rhetoric years earlier than that.

The Microsoft "Kin" phones lacked features normally implemented locally on phones, and Microsoft said that was going to be fine because modern-day young phone users were comfortable with relying on the cloud....

You think Windows 7 isn't spyware?

https://www.infoworld.com/arti...

Government should not be playing favorites.

Maybe Governments should stop subsidizing the incumbents, even when the alternative is cheaper.

We all hate Google, but the AT&T and Comcast are worse, surely?

Because Windows 10 is the most secure OS ever. It is that simple. Really, if you wanted anything else, you are wrong.

Here you go. https://www.infoworld.com/arti... And there are lots more examples of Microshaft doing this with software patents.

Please do not conflate Free Software with a subset known as Open Source. Neither the original article, nor the summary mentions free software.

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

        The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
        The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
        The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
        The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

By your own definition, you mention only freedom 1. While many open source licenses provide this benefit (BSD, MPL), they also allow for the source code to be rolled into proprietary products (such as OsX). By guaranteeing freedom to downstream users, GPL maintains these four freedoms for all and forever.

None of this, by the way, has anything to do with monetizing the work.

Wake me up when the LS command can show hidden files and folders without crazy hacks that go away after you restart the terminal program.

Um, it's really hard, I know: Try typing "ls -a". See, done!

http://www.mactrast.com/2011/1...

Inet last I looked had a program called netinfo

macOS (OS X) hasn't used NetInfo in, well, in a VERY long time. Like TWELVE years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Apple was the first to make it fashionable to ban init

They didn't make it "Fashionable". They fucking INVENTED it (launchd) in 2005! And then Open Sourced it. But the FOSSies couldn't just accept a gift from Apple. They just HAD to go and fuck it all up. In a LOT of ways, the abomination that is systemd is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the entire F/OSS "Community".

BTW, macOS has been using launchd essentially trouble-free intstead of that retarded init since 10.4 (Tiger). IOW, WELL over a decade.

Read it and weep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All MacOSX is is a dumbed down GUI on top of a Mac kernel. It is not Unix like in spirit more than SystemD is.

"Dumbed-down GUI"? YOU write it!

Not Unix? Sorry. OS X/macOS has been a CERTIFIED Unix since at least 10.5 (around 2007), and maybe even before. Wake me when Linux of ANY flavor is a Certified Unix...

https://www.infoworld.com/arti...

In Unix everything is a text file so you can use the terminal tools. Not so in MacOSX.

In macOS, most config files are a flavor of xml, which is a flavor of text.

I know some people can run mysql under MacOSX but is it easy to install?

Yep. I found and used a one-click Installer that gave me an entire LAMP (well, XAMP) stack in just a few minutes.

Ah, here's one now...

https://www.macupdate.com/app/...

Next!

Is the XCode free?

Yep. Has been since OS X 10.0.0. They no longer include it on the Install Disc (but you can get it here) :

http://www.mactrast.com/2011/1...

Apple got rid of CUPS

Bullshit. Apple purchased CUPS in 2007, and STILL kept it Open Source!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

...Samba or rather a strange proprietary fork of Samba

Again, bullshit, at least sort of. Apple got rid of SAMBA because it had become a dumpster-fire of unmitigated proportions, and, because it became GPLv3, which Apple will not abide. They wrote their own SAMBA replacement, whiich, after a couple of revs, is stable enough and full-featured enough that they actually have DEPRECATED their own AFP sharing system in favor of SMB.

http://appleinsider.com/articl...

...a strange proprietary fork of [...], Apache...

I don't know about you; but this seems to be a standard version of Apache, and it shipped with macOS Sierra, which is still the current version of the OS:

https://medium.com/@JohnFodera...

And the version is ships with it (2.4.23) is also reasonabl

Even the summary already spells it out: "open source politics" as if that is bad.

If you read TFA, you will see that this phrase is a link to a story about a Node.js fork caused by an interpersonal issue. So avoiding "open source politics" makes a lot of sense in this context.

The obvious answer on how to survive on writing open source is to work for a large company that will pay you to do it. My first thought was:
- IBM
- Redhat
- Oracle

Doing a quick search on who are the biggest corporate contributors to open source software, the first thing that came up was this article: https://www.infoworld.com/arti...

IBM, Redhat and Oracle are also good choices - if you don't want to starve and you understand how the open source ecosystem works, go corporate.

> Oracle is a non-starter in any real system unless you've already been hooked into their eco system.

Some people actually care about their data.

If you care about your data, you won't use Oracle at all. I care about my data's security, and Oracle's licensing clause that they can come in and demand lots and lots of information is pretty much a deal killer.

A relevant article popped up on InfoWorld today: http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

google road to evil begins
http://techland.time.com/2012/...
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

google secretly embraces evil
http://time.com/4060575/alphab...

google realizes full power of the dark side
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
http://www.wired.co.uk/article...
http://www.computerworld.com/a...

RIP google privacy,ethics,trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You are completely unaware of the state of the IT industry, despite claiming to be gainfully employed IN that industry.

I'm a virtual ditch digger. I work in the lowest levels of IT. I'm not required to know "the state of the IT industry" and not knowing doesn't make me it halfwit.

Out of curiosity, why should I use an unpopular language like Perl when I'm already using its replacement Python?

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2607775/perl/perl-language-s-popularity-hits-all-time-low.html

Sure, this has some discussion of when Business/Enterprise customers can expect to see updates, but doesn't relate the "forced" aspect. Note that there is no statement that they can be avoided. There's wishy-washy wording in there. This, while older, has the verbiage I remember being finalized last year. Another story implying there's no stopping the upgrades, but, like you, I cannot find the original smoking gun that made me walk away from Win10 as a viable OS. That was over 2 years ago, and digging through thousands of google stories on "forced enterprise windows 10 upgrades" isn't what I am doing today.

Let's also not forget about this marketing-driven manoeuvre to try and get everyone onto Windows 10, which affects anyone running recent Intel or AMD hardware across several versions of Windows (W7, W8/8.1, Server 2008/2012 (w/ and w/out R2)). It also has erroneously affected some older CPU models. There is a third-party patch to work around this nonsense (which includes the disassembled and analysed code) -- https://github.com/zeffy/kb4012218-19. The downside is that it's likely to break every month and also will be flagged during an SFC scan, but it's all we've got right now.

This is exactly a reason *not* to enable automatic Windows Updates. Instead, to tech-savvy folks I recommend disabling automatic updates and do the process manually every few weeks, reviewing every single KB -- and waiting 2 weeks before installing them, as Microsoft in recent days has botched and re-issued them more times than I can count.

Relevant hack that works around this nonsense is here -- https://github.com/zeffy/kb4012218-19 -- but be sure to note that it's likely to break every single month and will be flagged during an SFC scan.

We no longer can rely on Microsoft to provide even a basic semblance of trust. What Linux/BSD users (of which I am one, as a systems administrator!) used to harp on about, re: Micro$oft and MS taking over people's PCs, has now become an actual reality. The Nadella era of Microsoft seems to be more about "renting" copies of Windows to users, rather than the age-old classic of buying the OS and using it as you see fit, with the software company providing updates that do solely what they're supposed to and nothing else. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually miss the days Ballmer was running the show.

I'm pretty sure Obama For America employed many, if not all the same tactics in 2008 election...

Why yes, look at MIT's Technology Review, the New York Times, and InfoWorld - again, another glaring example of a profound double-standard. When Team Obama did it, it was "ground-breaking", when Republicans employ similar tools it a nefarious plot to control the world!

Normally I'd agree with you but since you are trying to compare putting Obama in the White House to putting Donald Trump in the White House I'm going to have to disagree here. Obama, whatever you may think of him, at least had a multi digit IQ that allowed him to answer questions from reporters, skin that was too thick for his soul to be injured by Saturday Night Live skits and had a clear idea of which countries he had bombed. Trump on the other hand walks out of press conferences when he gets questions he does not like, launches twitter storms where he lambasts anybody who lampoons him and told a reporter he'd launched a missile strike on Iraq until the reporter corrected him and pointed out the strike was on Syria.... and those are just three sample of the highlights of what those bastards at SCL Group and their friends have saddled us with

Exactly - here are some of the links:

MIT's Technology Review
New York Times
InfoWorld

The Left seems to have forgotten how Obama won the 2008 campaign - look at MIT's Technology Review, the New York Times, and InfoWorld.

I'm pretty sure Obama For America employed many, if not all the same tactics in 2008 election...

Why yes, look at MIT's Technology Review, the New York Times, and InfoWorld - again, another glaring example of a profound double-standard. When Team Obama did it, it was "ground-breaking", when Republicans employ similar tools it a nefarious plot to control the world!

Most of the "discovered" malware is in APKs (where's the Appy App Guy?) that is on sources other than the Google Play Store. You have to want to be infected to be infected. Kind a like saying "My google was hacked" during the last few days, when the reality is, you "allowed" it to be installed.

Exactly. This is all security theater. Antivirus companies have for years done a lot of fearmongering in order to sell their product, just like home security system vendors have. What they don't tell you is just how irrelevant their products usually are.

Basically the only way to get malware on Android is doing the equivalent of parking a Lamborghini in a dark corner of a really bad neighborhood. The actual malware infection rate on Android is less than 1% overall (compared to 40% for PC users, and I wouldn't be surprised if IoT is even higher) and even then, it's only that high because a lot of Asian countries have banned Google Play, which means the users pretty much have to rely on pirate app stores.

Meanwhile, Android users who just stick to Google Play have a 0.15% infection rate, and when malware apps are found by Google's own internal scanning services, they get disabled from your device, so you don't need useless antivirus software.

> I'll never get some of you guys:
> * When an OS doesn't force the user to update, its a security risk.
> * When an OS does force the user to update, its an affront to freedom and choice.

Because there is MORE then just 2 choices:

* How many updates NEVER gave _any_ details on _exactly_ what they were doing other then some bullshit generic "Security updates" message.
* How many updates FORCED the user to migrate to Windows 10?
* How many updates had NOTHING to do with updates except add spyware?
* How many updates broke WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage)?
* How many updates broke Internet Explorer?

Who the fuck designs a program where you can only install the latest version??? If Microsoft wanted to pull its head out of their collective ass they could have:

* Clearly, communicated, in detail, EXACTLY what each and every update fixes.

But no, they didn't.

Microsoft has ZERO respect for its users.

So fuck'em.

> I'll never get some of you guys:
> * When an OS doesn't force the user to update, its a security risk.
> * When an OS does force the user to update, its an affront to freedom and choice.

Because there is MORE then just 2 choices:

* How many updates NEVER gave _any_ details on _exactly_ what they were doing other then some bullshit generic "Security updates" message.
* How many updates FORCED the user to migrate to Windows 10?
* How many updates had NOTHING to do with updates except add spyware?
* How many updates broke WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage)?
* How many updates broke Internet Explorer?

Who the fuck designs a program where you can only install the latest version??? If Microsoft wanted to pull its head out of their collective ass they could have:

* Clearly, communicated, in detail, EXACTLY what each and every update fixes.

But no, they didn't.

Microsoft has ZERO respect for its users.

So fuck'em.

Eh. The link may be to stackoverflow, but they could also have linked to wikipedia, youtube, infoworld or Joshua Bloch's Effective Java. Would you have classified those as "trendy techbro"?

Sometimes it's fraud. Take a good look at what happened in Massacusetts when they tried to insist on using software with an actual standard, which led them straight to OpenOffice. See http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

I was in Massachusetts, and the Microsoft led campaign against Peter Quinn was outrageous, hardball, fraudulent, smear campaign tactics typical to someone in Massachusetts who might have, for example, tried to bring Whitey Bulger to trial. (Whitey was protected by his brother, Billy, being the head of the Massachusetts Senate, and was directly protected as an informant by the FBI.) Sadly, this is the *real* world of Massachusetts politics.

Massachusetts politics is incredibly personal: Peter Quinn got handled very, very *personally* and was shocked that the correctness of his policies was overwhelmed by not only political insider lobbying, but by the certification of "OOXML" for Microsoft Office as an ISO standard. The level of ballot box stuffing and outright committee leader fraud that got OOXML approved as a standard was *stunning*: I would swear that Billy Bulger sent one of politcal hatchetmen along to teach Microsoft how it's done.

Your overall point make perfect sense, but it is possible this particular part could be modified a bit:

Additionally, in most cases it is better to protect and encrypt data on a per-account basis, for both technical and practical reasons. On a laptop, that means you encrypt the home directory, not the system. Multiple user logins have separate encryption, and one account can't access the encrypted files of another account. If you want to take it a step further, you can have a work account on the machine and a separate account for checking personal email, etc. Along with the obvious security benefits, that avoids having the browser or search engine auto-complete a URL based on *personal* browsing history in the middle of a presentation.

Given per-account security, a guest account with restrictions on it is quite feasible, and a theif would likely click the guest account.

Though take it with a grain of salt (it was funded by storage companies), according to this:

A full-disk-encrypted system comes at a greater TCO -- not just from the cost of the hardware and software needed, but the costs involved with provisioning and maintaining encrypted systems. But according to the study, the cost savings from reduced data breach exposure via loss or theft far outweigh the TCO.

While the total amount of estimated savings varied from country to country, the biggest difference found was in the United States. There, each $235 spent on an encrypted system yielded some $4,650 in projected savings. Germany had the smallest difference: $260 in TCO yielded $973 in savings.

The study did find that the benefits of hardware-based encryption are by no means uniform across all sizes of organizations. The larger the organization, the greater the benefit -- especially where the risks and costs of a data breach are also bigger.

Further, from a data security standpoint Full Disk Encryption (including the swap) is needed unless you can guarantee no program will ever store your data in it's executable directory, or somewhere else outside the Home directory.

RMS didn't "allow" software to run on Windows, someone ported it to Windows. (Kind of a big difference.)

You (or someone else) are free to pull the source and do a Windows port.

Like these guys did....

http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca...

In a dramatic demonstration, he and his colleagues use a laptop computer to hack into a car being driven by Stahl. Much to her surprise, they were able to take control of many of the car's functions, including the braking and acceleration.

Yeah that's, like, very credible. (Have you actually bothered to read the full thing?).

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22...

In a controlled test, they turned on the Jeep Cherokee's radio and activated other inessential features before rewriting code embedded in the entertainment system hardware to issue commands through the internal network to steering, brakes and the engine.

Translation: their commands were ignored or didn't even reach the intended systems. If they had actually managed to "disable the brakes", they'd probably mention it in a bit more than a vague subsentence like that.

http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

They also cause the steering wheel to jerk around by making the car think it's in reverse and activating the auto-park feature, and thanks to their hacks, the car's brake pedal ceased to work entirely.

Translation (if honest): at very low speeds, we can actually disable the brake pedal.
Color me impressed. I'm glad that car wouldn't be allowed on EU roads.

In fact, Valasek and Miller ask Greenberg to turn off the car after their speedometer prank, most likely to head off the car deploying its airbag when its speed drops rapidly from 199mph to the actual number, which the car would interpret as a crash.

That's a wild, and wrong, guess. That's not how airbags deploy.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech...

I honestly tried to watch the video but it's unclear which of the few dozens 3rd party javascripts to allow for it to actually play.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Not only does the computer weakness allow hackers to manipulate the locks and turn off the engine, it also enables them to cut the brakes. They can even take over the steering wheel if the car is in reverse

That sounds like the paragraph above re-digested.

https://www.ic3.gov/media/2016...

[disabling the brakes at low speed only] (paraphrased)

Meh.

Well, at least I have learned that American cars may actually have brake-by-wire, fair enough. In the developed world, there are safety requirements, like a redundant physical link between the brake pedal and the actual brakes, that has to work regardless of failure of one of the brake-supporting systems.