Slashdot Mirror

Years ago when I first set up SSL it was a pain in the neck. Installing third-party certs was a painful process with little, outdated docs on how to do it with Apache, but what was worse was I also had to set up self-signed certificates and that was an even more painful process because the documentation was so sparse there might not have been any. webmin didn't help much either, so I had to do a lot of searching and some reading of code in the supporting projects to figure it all out. Once I knew what needed to be in place it was fairly straightforward but getting their was a major pain in the neck. It's not so much a matter of a complicated process, but what directives do I need to add to .conf files?

I wrote a howto for myself so the process could be repeated. I should have completed the howto for public consumption but being self employed there is never any time for that kind of thing.

At this point the docs should be much better - at least I hope they are.

Windows was a little easier but not much. Sure, it's point-and-click, but when you have to click around in 38 different dialog boxes (Yes yes I know, 38 is an exaggeration), you'll be wish you could just do it all from the command line. The process on Windows is easily as complicated as on Linux, in fact slightly more so once you understand the steps. Fortunately Microsoft released a tool for making creation/installation of SSL certs a much easier process. Check out these sites:

http://www.visualwin.com/SelfSSL/
http://www.somacon.com/p42.php
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=80a1b6e6-829e-49b7-8c02-333d9c148e69&DisplayLang=en

In later versions of Windows they have made it a heck of a lot easier. In 2008 it's a breeze - you don't even need to download any resource kit tools to make it easy.

It's definitely possible. You can add CA's willy nilly to any install. This feature is present to allow companies to have self signed certificates used by their employees. You just need to have a server online that it contacts for the CA verification. You can check the list yourself and compare it to what it should be at:

http://www.microsoft.com/security/

It will take some digging but it's in there. What's scary is that a hostile pc maker could replace the stock IE with their own that has hardcoded CA's which aren't visible by checking the list in IE... This would be tough to do though with the regular updates that MS does, unless they coded up a rootkit too, which hid the actual executibles from the update process and swapped the malware back in after the update.

Unlikely, but possible... The only way to be sure is to build your own PC and install "Genuine" media, which could be tampered with too, since it's packaged and printed overseas. Someone at Microsoft would catch on to that though, I hope.

It's on Microsoft's FTP servers now:
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/deskapps/games/public/AAS/Hover.EXE

(Usual disclaimers about running random binaries go here...)

pthreads-win32 is excellent, but regrettably, LGPL licensed. It's interesting to note how complex it has to be to give you POSIX semantics --- pre-Vista win32 threading primitives are fundamentally flawed.

Vista, on the other hand, gives us brand-new innovative 21st-century Microsoft technologies like condition variables.

Granted, this isn't cheap, but our data isn't either.

Microsoft bought Danger for half a billion dollars. Current estimates of the value of this data are roughly... half a billion dollars, plus a little. There's little doubt that in addition to destroying the entire value of the acquisition they've created a connection between "Microsoft", "Danger" and "data loss". In their release T-Mobile isn't being shy about tying those things together. Not good. That's going to have impacts even for some completely unrelated cloud-based products like Azure.

Somebody's about to get a really awkward performance review.

http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/casestudy.aspx?casestudyid=4000002990 Just FYI

I can only think of one thing to add to this, MS has put their foot in the market too with Games for Windows Live. So it's not like there is any lack of competition.

A few days ago I received my confirmation to host a Windows 7 Launch Party. I’m very excited and I’m now in the process of getting it all planned out. If selected, you were given several options for a party theme and I ended up choosing the Family Friendly Fun theme. I chose the 24th for my party, which also happens to be my birthday. Hey, that is how we geeks roll! They are using houseparty.com to coordinate the activities, but I’m going to use Windows Live Calendar and e-mail to coordinate most of my party. I’m not quite sure what type of party supplies they are sending, so I’m anxiously awaiting that package to arrive. Regardless, it’s going to a be a fun time to hang out with family and friends, and share tips and information about Windows 7. If you are hosting a Windows 7 party, what are you doing to prepare?

That is because Photoshop selection tools plainly suck. Look up grabcuts.

Grabcuts is what this tool uses.

I received my package yesterday and it had everything mentioned in the article plus balloons, streamers, and a few more goodies. Sounds like their package wasn't complete.

The way we're going to do it is I'll install a temp copy of 7 on my laptop, show a few things I know, and then let my guests play with it. We're also hosting a BBQ, playing some GH, RB, Wii Sports, and just plain chilling out.

I'm still undecided on whether to raffle off the single goodies (e.g. playing cards) or do some kind of trivia game: what kind of car was BG driving when he got hauled for the infamous mugshot?

After everyone's gone home I'll simply put my production hard drive back in the laptop and start using with my copy of Windows 7 Ultimate. :)

All in all, it should be a good time just getting together and hanging out.

I'm guessing windows 2000 isn't one of the operating systems that will be patched?

You're guessing wrong.

For details and a full listing of the affected software:
Microsoft Security Bulletin Advance Notification for October 2009 [Oct 8]

I was about to bitch about the submitter/moderator not RTFA, but it turns out, the article doesn't mention it either, so I'll clarify instead: thirteen updates are being released which together address thirty-four security vulnerabilities of varying severity across varying products (ten of which are targetted at Windows). So, that's NOT thirteen flaws (plenty more actually), just thirteen updates, some of which (all?) address multiple flaws in the particular system they are targetted at. Of course, this is just the advance notification, so full details about how many vulnerabilities each update addresses and the general information on them won't be released until the patches are next Tuesday. I think it's also worth nothing (although the summary of course neglects to mention it) that the good aspect of these updates are both major zero-day exploits (targetting IIS & SMB 2.0) are patched with these updates.

And while I'm posting, why does Slashdot insist on linking to shitty tech magazine articles (poorly) summarising the raw and accurate data straight from Microsoft? Seriously, I'm not sure if it's some sort of aversion to linking to MS, but they're the ones doing the patching, so it follows that they have the best, newest, most accurate data on them, and they'll likely be the first to provide updates on their content. These articles are just summarising what Microsoft has published on their various web-sites, and being a summary, they provide a lot more information and raw data:

Microsoft Security Bulletin Advance Notification for October 2009
October 2009 Bulletin Release Advance Notification

Extended support hasn't ended just yet.

No, we don't need more awesome operating systems, we need alternatives to "awesome". Try here

>The SysInternals guys wrote a nice article about it once, I think, but I can't find it any more. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897446.aspx "Hidden Registry Keys". I enjoyed running Reghide back then.

Open Source Silverlight: http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/06/18/moonlight-open-source-silverlight-on-mono/

MS Office: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

Now what *I* find weird is that apple can lock their phones to specific networks, restrict any and all apps they want to on phones and also limit the OS that should run on any x86 hardware to only hardware they make as well as fail to make their software run on other platforms in which many cases even Microsoft makes its software run on Apple (which Silverlight does thank you, as well as office thank you..)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.string.aspx has a nice little warning under the heading "Strings and Embedded Nulls" about what the API's coders should have done to prevent these mixed string types from causing security holes...

'This proposed measure ensures that PC manufacturers will continue to be able to install any browser on top of Windows and make any browser the default. It also ensures that PC manufacturers and users will be able to turn Internet Explorer on and off '

And with 'search' going to be directly embedded into the applications, the 'choice' of browser is going to become moot.

If the CapiCom.dll version 2.1.0.2 is what we are are talking about, you can get it in a Security Update for CAPICOM (KB931906) here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=CA930018-4A66-4DA6-A6C5-206DF13AF316&displaylang=en

Publicly, MS says that CAPICOM will stay 32-bit and will NEVER release a 64-bit version and that no further versions will be released. They want you to use .NET's cryto stuff, instead.

You can, however, get CapiCom.dll version 2.1.0.3 (November 8, 2008, 3:15:16 PM) from Office 2007 Service Pack 2. This is mentioned at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/970357.

If someone know how to test for this bug but needs help to get this DLL out of the service pack file, I will gladly help.

(Posting this will now kill my 7 mod points I moderated to this story alone, so I hope this is indeed what we are talking about.)

If the CapiCom.dll version 2.1.0.2 is what we are are talking about, you can get it in a Security Update for CAPICOM (KB931906) here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=CA930018-4A66-4DA6-A6C5-206DF13AF316&displaylang=en

Publicly, MS says that CAPICOM will stay 32-bit and will NEVER release a 64-bit version and that no further versions will be released. They want you to use .NET's cryto stuff, instead.

You can, however, get CapiCom.dll version 2.1.0.3 (November 8, 2008, 3:15:16 PM) from Office 2007 Service Pack 2. This is mentioned at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/970357.

If someone know how to test for this bug but needs help to get this DLL out of the service pack file, I will gladly help.

(Posting this will now kill my 7 mod points I moderated to this story alone, so I hope this is indeed what we are talking about.)

Define "crap".

The first ASP.NET site I developed was an internal engineering timesheet app for an IT company. It was standard practice to cut & paste scripts and code into the "notes" field for other engineers to reference later. The default ASP.NET behavior is to DENY such form submissions, which is just retarded, as code in a text field is... still text.

I had to turn the 'security check' off, because if you use parameterized SQL statements together with correct use of HTML encoding, then scripts or code in text fields presents zero risk, but Microsoft's dirty hack of a security check breaks basic functionality. It randomly causes actions to fail with a security error, when nothing other than text manipulation is going on.

Think about how pathetic that is: Would you expect, say, Notepad.exe to give you an "Access Denied" error message if you used it to edit a javascript file?!? Would you ship a user application that as a feature throws meaningless messages in the face of the user if they accidentally enter some magic sequence of characters?

At first, I thought ASP.NET was nice, but my opinion dropped several notches when I saw this config option: PagesSection.ValidateRequest Property

I love the blurb: "...determines whether ASP.NET examines input from the browser for dangerous values" (emphasis mine). Are you kidding me? It's text! Microsoft considers plain text dangerous now? What next? Threatening colors? Risky sounds?

The fact that there's a config entry like that at all is just sad beyond words. It tells me that Microsoft so utterly failed to get ASP.NET right, that they had to layer a filthy hack on top to make it the slightest bit secure.

This is part correct, part wrong, and part outdated. In particular, branching by itself never blocked inlining, though complexity that results out of it may. Loops (i.e. any branching instruction that is potentially iterative - as there's no if/else or do/while/for on IL level) are not inlined. The detailed list is here, but note that this is pre-SP1.

JIT inliner was made more aggressive in 3.5 SP1, and will, in particular, inline methods with struct parameters.

"You can create files and registry entries with \0 in them, and then none of the user-mode tools will be able to modify or delete those,"

None of the *STANDARD* user-mode tools, yes. But there's a SysInternals tool which can nuke 'em.

(As for the ASP.Net issue, yeah well, whether to HTML Encode should be a property of the data-binding. It's sometimes approprate and sometimes not. Same as you may want to bind a 'decimal' to a label, but you want to control the formatting so it looks like a currency value - whether to HTML Encode should be set likewise.)

I find it humorous how quickly so many want to bask in the glow of this, using it as proof of something, when I'm fairly certain that it was discarded as proof of nothing when the LSE first went the .NET route.

Well, someone certainly thought LSE was proof of something, why otherwise would they have bragged about it? Now that that bragging has been shown to be moot surely you can understand this modest amount of schadenfreude?

I find it humorous how quickly so many want to bask in the glow of this, using it as proof of something, when I'm fairly certain that it was discarded as proof of nothing when the LSE first went the .NET route.

Well, someone certainly thought LSE was proof of something, why otherwise would they have bragged about it? Now that that bragging has been shown to be moot surely you can understand this modest amount of schadenfreude?

A generic list, even if it is array based, is going to be on the stack an array of pointers to other points of the stack and the heap.

If you use STL, then std::vector will also allocate its backing store array on heap.

On the other hand, if you use C#, you can use stackalloc to get a stack-allocated, non-GC-tracked array.

Managed .NET arrays (not stackalloc or unmanaged heap allocated) will still be slower because there are bound checks for element access (though JIT can eliminate them sometimes when it sees that they can never fail).

Mutable generic collection classes are even more slow, because they also have safeguards to do things like throwing an exception if you get an enumerator for a collection, then remove an item from that collection, and then try to move the enumerator (whereas in C++, doing same thing for a vector would just render all active iterators invalid, and their use would lead to a crash at best, and silent data corruption at worst). This is achieved by storing a "version number" for a collection (just as plain int) which incremented it on every insertion/removal - and which enumerators check against every time you move them. Naturally, this increment happening on every insert also slows things down.

If you're trying to shave run time on complex functions down to sub millisecond times, I would expect that bounds checking, type safety, and thread safety are low on your concerns.

Curiously enough, C# lets you drop both bounds checking and type safety to exact same extent as plain C, with corresponding performance gains.

It should also come as absolutely no surprise that a C++ pointer based linked list running native locally on the OS performs faster than a .Net Generics List running as CLR in the .Net run-time environment.

What do you mean by "performs faster"? Iteration? Indexing? Insertion at front? Insertion at end? Removal? This is a surprisingly vague statement...

I can bet you $1000 that System.Collections.Generic.List<int> will significantly outperform std::list<int> on indexed access on lists of significant size, for example, simply because the former is array-backed, and the latter is a doubly linked list. This is just to show how meaningless your comparison is.

Now, yes, if you write idiomatic C# code for a linked list (using GC heap allocated objects and tracked references), it will be slower than equivalent C++ code because of all the safety checks (like null checks). But, of course, you can also use C# raw pointers and structs to write exact same code you would write for a linked list in C, and that would work just as fast (since it would compile to pretty much the same native code in the end).

From what I understand, it was the app that sucked. Why is this then a stinging indictment of the platform?

Because Microsoft used the app and its supposed superiority in the area it was deployed as a major case study in the strength of the Microsoft programming and platform components used in the implementation: the products called out in their case study include the .NET Framework, Windows Server, SQL Server, Visual Studio .NET, Microsoft Operations Manager, ASP.NET, and Visual C# .NET (I may have missed some.) A quote: "In a highly competitive environment, the London Stock Exchange is gaining a considerable cost advantage over its competitors by using the .NET Framework and Visual C# .NET." (source: Microsoft.)

If it says something about the platform when you are getting the sale (because it outperforms the preceding implementation), then it also says something about the platform when the Exchange looks to replace you with something that outperforms your implementation.

the LSE track record on technology is either funny or shameful, but certainly I would count them picking your system as an "endorsement" of the same order as being Bernie Madoff's accountant...

Perhaps you see it that way, but Microsoft clearly disagrees.

Why is this news? Sun/Solaris dominated the high-end financial sector for ages...any exchange/trading house/equity firm/etc that is using Windows is insane IMHO.

Its news because, in fact -- whether or not it was "insane" to do so -- the London Stock Exchange was relying on Windows, .NET, and other Microsoft products: "As part of its strategy to win more trading business and new customers, the London Stock Exchange needed a scalable, reliable, high-performance stock exchange ticker plant to replace its earlier system. Roughly 40 per cent of the Exchange's revenues are generated by the sale of real-time information about stock prices. Using the Microsoft® .NET Framework in Windows Server® 2003 and the Microsoft SQL Server(TM) 2000 database, the new Infolect® system has been built to achieve unprecedented levels of performance, availability, and business agility. Launched in September 2005, it is maintaining the London Stock Exchange's world-leading service reliability record while reducing latency by a factor of 15. Its successful implementation, with support from Microsoft and Accenture, shows the London Stock Exchange's leadership in developing next-generation trading systems." (source: Microsoft.)

Hehe:) For those that are interested, they still have a InfoElect case study from 2006 posted on their site, which I believe was the the precursor to TradElect.

Portable?

"Portable" means "architecture independent". If you speak of platforms, then, between .NET and Mono, pretty much every desktop platform is covered, and the APIs are exactly the same.

You'll also find that C# doesn't do code generation at all, its the tools around it. Similarly, we've had lexx and yacc for so long I've forgotten how they work, but I know they too are code generation tools.

Since you reference lexx/yacc, it's apparent that you misunderstand what I mean (or perhaps I wasn't clear enough). I was talking about dynamic code generation - the kind that is done at runtime. You're right that C# doesn't do that, .NET framework does, via expression trees, dynamic methods, and System.Reflection.Emit (though there is some language support for expression trees in C# that makes things easier).

The point is that in C#, I can construct an expression tree from nodes describing high-level operations, then call Compile on it, and get what is essentially a function pointer to IL code that will be JIT-compiled to native code upon first invocation, just as any other method. Alternatively, I could use DynamicMethod class to generate IL directly.

It really is fairly powerful technique, and is used often by .NET itself; for example, regular expressions can be compiled to efficient hardcoded state machines that way. It also works for dynamically loaded XPath queries and XSLT transforms.

In C++, you have some options. You can of course just invoke the compiler at runtime, but that is a separate process which will have to be started for every new batch of dynamically compiled code - that's very slow and inefficient. There's Tiny C compiler, which lets you compile C code at runtime, but it supports very few architectures. There's GNU Lightning, but that one is very low-level - it is effectively just an architecture-independent assembly language, but the primitives are pretty close to metal.

Portable?

"Portable" means "architecture independent". If you speak of platforms, then, between .NET and Mono, pretty much every desktop platform is covered, and the APIs are exactly the same.

You'll also find that C# doesn't do code generation at all, its the tools around it. Similarly, we've had lexx and yacc for so long I've forgotten how they work, but I know they too are code generation tools.

Since you reference lexx/yacc, it's apparent that you misunderstand what I mean (or perhaps I wasn't clear enough). I was talking about dynamic code generation - the kind that is done at runtime. You're right that C# doesn't do that, .NET framework does, via expression trees, dynamic methods, and System.Reflection.Emit (though there is some language support for expression trees in C# that makes things easier).

The point is that in C#, I can construct an expression tree from nodes describing high-level operations, then call Compile on it, and get what is essentially a function pointer to IL code that will be JIT-compiled to native code upon first invocation, just as any other method. Alternatively, I could use DynamicMethod class to generate IL directly.

It really is fairly powerful technique, and is used often by .NET itself; for example, regular expressions can be compiled to efficient hardcoded state machines that way. It also works for dynamically loaded XPath queries and XSLT transforms.

In C++, you have some options. You can of course just invoke the compiler at runtime, but that is a separate process which will have to be started for every new batch of dynamically compiled code - that's very slow and inefficient. There's Tiny C compiler, which lets you compile C code at runtime, but it supports very few architectures. There's GNU Lightning, but that one is very low-level - it is effectively just an architecture-independent assembly language, but the primitives are pretty close to metal.

Portable?

"Portable" means "architecture independent". If you speak of platforms, then, between .NET and Mono, pretty much every desktop platform is covered, and the APIs are exactly the same.

You'll also find that C# doesn't do code generation at all, its the tools around it. Similarly, we've had lexx and yacc for so long I've forgotten how they work, but I know they too are code generation tools.

Since you reference lexx/yacc, it's apparent that you misunderstand what I mean (or perhaps I wasn't clear enough). I was talking about dynamic code generation - the kind that is done at runtime. You're right that C# doesn't do that, .NET framework does, via expression trees, dynamic methods, and System.Reflection.Emit (though there is some language support for expression trees in C# that makes things easier).

The point is that in C#, I can construct an expression tree from nodes describing high-level operations, then call Compile on it, and get what is essentially a function pointer to IL code that will be JIT-compiled to native code upon first invocation, just as any other method. Alternatively, I could use DynamicMethod class to generate IL directly.

It really is fairly powerful technique, and is used often by .NET itself; for example, regular expressions can be compiled to efficient hardcoded state machines that way. It also works for dynamically loaded XPath queries and XSLT transforms.

In C++, you have some options. You can of course just invoke the compiler at runtime, but that is a separate process which will have to be started for every new batch of dynamically compiled code - that's very slow and inefficient. There's Tiny C compiler, which lets you compile C code at runtime, but it supports very few architectures. There's GNU Lightning, but that one is very low-level - it is effectively just an architecture-independent assembly language, but the primitives are pretty close to metal.

Wow... it really *is* fun making absolutist statements without any backing for your claims!

I know! And you completely don't understand it like the other guy! Here, I'll give you a hint: why does Microsoft promise not to hurt you?

But why was this attack needed when Mono is trying to split itself into "Guaranteed, patent free components" and "Gray areas"?

The Patent Free parts are covered by the legally Binding Microsoft Community Promise

Some parts of it:
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is complian....
To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification.

Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?

A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies.

Microsoft's commitment is legally binding.

Right, they've committed themselves to not sue fully compatible implementations of ECMA 334 and 335. That's far from all of .Net and the "fully compatible" clause means it violates the FSFs freedom 1, the freedom to "change it to make it do what you wish".

Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.

You've not actually looked at the detail of that patent covenant, have you? Microsoft's "Community Promise" only covers compatible implementations of the .Net CLI and C#, i.e. ECMA 334 and 335. That doesn't cover all the other libraries that real .Net apps use or allow you to make your own weird non-compatible version of .Net.

On those grounds it's clear to see why the FSF is campaigning against Mono / .Net.

I don't know--the same one where people clamor for an eight year old OS?

One thing to note is that you generally don't use library C side-by-side unless C's developer intended you, as they're usually the ones to provide the manifest that's used to refer to the library.

Global variables you'll have two copies of. But in general, you raise a salient point -- library C must be explicitly designed so that two versions can be loaded in the same process. Microsoft actually provides guidelines on how to get there: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374238(VS.85).aspx

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com]!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com]!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com]!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual

No, they can't trademark the word "SciFi" since it's a common term

Yeah, that would be rediculous. That would be like a trademark on windows.

FYI, Microsoft already follows this model (with Office, which is Microsoft's other main cash-cow).

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/FX100487411033.aspx?pid=CL100571081033 (weird URL, but it points to the Office dowload page - explicitly mentions that it's a trial copy, but it's fully functional within the time limit and all you need to do to unlock it is enter a license key).

Well, Microsoft expects you to pay for a retail license if you build your own computer, but most people still buy an OEM version.

And I quote from Microsoft's OEM partner center website: http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentPage.aspx?pageid=563841

"Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being resold to another party."

"OEM System Builder Software
Must be preinstalled on a PC and sold to another unrelated party...
Cannot be transferred from the PC on which it is preinstalled...
Must be preinstalled onto a new PC using the OPK."

Even though your MS comment was humorous, the reality is that MS actually is in the cloud computing business: http://www.microsoft.com/online/default.mspx

It's becoming a huge part of MS's strategy. And as someone who works with customers to move to cloud services, I can also confirm that it is much easier to move your data to the cloud (both to MS and Google's clouds) than it is to move the data back. There are ways to move data back out, but most of what I've seen / used have been manual. For example - you can always export your Outlook data to a PST and re-import it to an Exchange mailbox. So it's possible, but not pretty.

When was the last time any Office application didn't brake file compatibility with previous versions.

Once again, for all of you people who just can't be helped to do any research on Office format compatibility:

You can download the Office Compatibility Pack for free and install it on any version of Office all the way back to Office XP. This will let you read the Office 2007 formats. Office 2007 itself can save in the Office 97-2003 format, in addition to a variety of other formats.

There's a lot of legitimate complaints you can make about Microsoft, but the one you can never really make is that they ignore backwards compatibility. Microsoft, in fact, goes to considerable lengths to maintain backwards compatibility -- more than they ought to, some might say.

Indeed. A stanard Windows DLL is not quite the same thing as an assembly, and as far as i know only assemblies have ever been "side by side." If you're doing plain old C++ on Windows, sxs doesn't enter into it, because side by side is a feature of the .net runtime.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. Microsoft is using the term "assembly" to refer to both managed and native DLLs since XP was released (which is before the first version of .NET was even out). Specifically, when you write a manifest file for your binary - which is something that first appeared in XP - you use the <assembly> element as root.

Also, SxS is quite specifically designed to work with native assemblies (for managed, GAC takes care of it).

Here is the reference:

Side-by-side (SxS) assemblies allow applications to specify which version of a system DLL or classic COM component to use, such as MDAC, MFS, MSVCRT, or MSXML.

Of course this all still has very little relevance to TFA, as they'd have troubles either way, SxS or not. The only difference is that with SxS they get a clear error report - "This program requires DLL version X.Y.Z" - while without it, they'd just get random crashes (or worse yet, silent data corruption) because of broken ABI between two versions of the binary.

Datacentre edition? What The F@#% are you talking about? There are three versions of Windows 7 for sale: Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate. It's a Desktop OS, you dipshit, not a server OS.