Slashdot Mirror

[Source]

Also observe that Office 2007 isn't affected. Obviously MS is doing something right in the next generation of their products.

While that may be the case, users will **HAVE TO PAY** for this "next generation" product and implied protection against such attacks.

Obviously, the days of opening up a document without the spectre of having a system wide issue are long gone! What a shame...

Incase anybody's interested, the prices are as follows:

Microsoft Office Ultimate 2007 New! $679/$539
Microsoft Office Professional 2007 $499/$329
Microsoft Office Small Business 2007 $449/$279
Microsoft Office Standard 2007 $399/$239
Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007 $149/NA

[Source]

Do not fear, I work for the important security team that just place the extensive documentation on the web site. Please click for the more information.

That's why the Windows XP Security Guide is distributed a .doc...

That's why the Windows XP Security Guide is distributed a .doc...

> 'not open or save Word files,'
Do they call it "The Evolution of Microsoft Office"?

> To help you understand more about the merits of Microsoft Office 2003, we are preparing the new series of FREE training courses for you.
TRAINING COURSE - RULE#1: Don't open or save Word files!

> It's time for an evolution! Act now to take the Microsoft Office 2003 Training Courses and get rid of your current backward office!
TRAINING COURSE - RULE#2: Since you cannot open/save your documents... get rid of your current backward Office!

More Office tips and tricks: http://www.microsoft.com/hk/office/officetips/defa ult.mspx

Perhaps you should try using advertising facilitation software and find out more.

'The Sims 2' pukes if its download folder is not BOTH on the 'C' drive and in the user's 'Documents and Settings' folder. Simply relocating the folder via windows registry changes is not adequate.

Fixing the "safety problem," as you call it, would involve an increase in execution time.

That's a common belief, because the safe languages we have now are mostly inefficient ones, but it's wrong. Subscript checking is cheap if done right, in the compiler with appropriate optimization, because most subscript checks can be hoisted out of inner loops. This was done in a British Pascal compiler in the 1980s, but I don't have the reference handly.

The problem in C and C++ is that there are too many cases where the compiler doesn't even know how big an array is, so the compiler can't check. If you try to do subscript checking in collection classes, the checking is inefficient because the compiler doesn't know enough to optimize it.

Here's the general idea of how to do it right:

float sumarray(size_t n, float tab[n]) /* C99-type array size notation */
{ float sum = 0.0;
for (size_t i=0; i<n; i++)
{ sum += tab[i]; }
return(sum);
}

That code implies a test for i < n at tab[i]. That would seem to add overhead. But if we allow the compiler to hoist checks upwards, that test floats to the top of the FOR statement. We then have the test of the FOR statement, i < n. So we have "i < n implies i < n, as the test, which symbolically evaluates to TRUE at compile time and can be eliminated. The compiler can thus this do this subscript check with zero overhead.

That's how you get safety without overhead.

Certainly there are situations where the checks can't be performed entirely at compile time, but usually, they can be pulled out of an inner loop by standard compiler hoisting and strength reduction techniques. So the overhead is quite low in code hot spots, where it matters.

Note the syntax float sumarray(size_t n, float tab[n]). That's C99 variable array syntax. Instead of writing float tab[], or worse, float* tab, you actually give the array length. This doesn't cost anything, because the length isn't actually being passed. It just tells the compiler where the length information is to be found, should it be needed.

At a call to sumarray, checking is also possible. Consider

float tab nums[1000];
...
float tot = sumarray(tab, 1000);

I've suggested that C99 array syntax be generalized to give parameters the scope of the entire declaration, allowing float sumarray(float tab[n], size_t n), where n is referenced before its declaration. This allows standard C idioms like int write(int fd, char buf[n], size_t n).

Microsoft R&D is working in this direction for C#. Check out the "Spec#" effort. The trouble with C++ is that the language is so broken that you can't use such technologies.

We had much of this technology working in the early 1980s, but machines were too slow back then to tolerate the compile times. With the 3000x improvement in CPU speed since then, that's no longer a problem.

While MSFT's XNA initiative is still in early stages they're starting to deliver stuff that could help address the high cost of video game development. Right now the platforms and tools for game development are complex and immature. The goal of XNA is to provide a framework and toolset that will greatly speed development and...ultimately...provide a common framework for video games across both XBOX and Playstation. They have a tool available now for hobbyhists but I think they're eventually planning on releasing a toolset for professional developers. Some details are at http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/XNA/default.aspx .

Incorrect. XPE can have a GUI if you want it to. A first-timer can build an XPE image with a GUI and an Explorer shell in about 300 megs - and that'd include IE. You used to be able to download XPE yourself, but now you have to send for a CD, or you have to get access from your OEM license.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/downloads/xp/de fault.aspx

... with the best IDE, period. Microsoft Visual Studio, Express Edition. DirectX is also a free download along with many hours of free video and online training sponsored by Microsoft. (I'm not a shill but I don't stand for inaccuracies)

Surely MS would just look at XP Embedded, rather than reading the retail box system requirements of their current OS and saying "oh wait, it needs 1.5GB of disk space..."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/windowsxpembedd ed/default.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Embedded

32MB of RAM, 32MB of storage space on CompactFlash is all it "needs", and a ~200MHz processor.

Running it on the OLPC would be a breeze.

The latest developments in XPLite now see clean installations of Windows XP in under 350MB and Windows 2000 approaching less than 200 MB (excluding paging file) with much smaller memory requirements! These sizes are obtained simply by running XPLite/2000Lite on a fresh install of windows. Enterprising developers should easily be able to strip out additional log files, INF files and unused drivers to reduce the footprint by another 50MB or so. If your goal is to run a dedicated task in as little storage as possible - then look no further than XPlite.

Exactly. And this is why:

Compare that with things like this:

See also: Straw man

Why wouldn't they just try to run some variant of Windows Fundamentals on them?

I'd very much like a decent object-oriented statically typed language designed with Design by Contract methodology in mind. My hopes are that C# will get there eventually, since Anders Hejlsberg mentioned in one of his interviews that DbC, while not on the top of the list, might be there eventually.

WPF/E

Except that in a separate covenant they agreed not to sue anyone using the Office XML spec.

More information here. Basically it's an irrevocable agreement to not sue you over patents, provided that you do not sue them over any patents as well. This actually applies to a variety of web services specifications, the VHD format (Virtual PC's hard drive format), as well as Office 2003's XML format and Office 2007's formats. Also note that Office 2007 file formats have been submitted for Ecma standardization. You can read a final draft here.

Except that in a separate covenant they agreed not to sue anyone using the Office XML spec.

More information here. Basically it's an irrevocable agreement to not sue you over patents, provided that you do not sue them over any patents as well. This actually applies to a variety of web services specifications, the VHD format (Virtual PC's hard drive format), as well as Office 2003's XML format and Office 2007's formats. Also note that Office 2007 file formats have been submitted for Ecma standardization. You can read a final draft here.

"If you don't like Novell's contributions, don't accept them; if you think Novell is trying to get OpenXML into OO.o so MS can sue RedHat for patent infringement, think again. I doubt OpenXML is any more patent-ridden than the .doc format, or that there aren't any patent violations in the Linux kernel or OO.o already."

In fact, Open XML should be far more acceptable to the open source community, as Microsoft has already promised not to sue anyone who implements Open XML, long before the Novell/MS deal. See http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx.

Microsoft license

...you'll find that Microsoft lists a number of BSD licenses and authors, such as Luigi Rizzo, who wrote the IPFW firewall now used as part of Windows (as well as in MacOS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD and elsewhere). However, if the GP's claim was right-- that someone removed the copyright statement entirely from FreeBSD code, that would be a crime per 17 US 506(d):

US copyright law

...nothing gives one the right to alter or remove an existing copyright statement, unless of course you are the author or have the right to do so.

OK, enough FUD, time for some cold hard facts:

Open XML is *NOT* proprietary See for yourself: http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45-M.h tm

ODF is *JUST* as patent encumbered as Open XML is.

The owners of both ODF and Open XML do not and will not collect royalties (both have published a covenant not to sue)
Sun: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.ph p
MS: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
Non-Legalese Explanation: http://www.bakernet.com/NR/rdonlyres/CC54A6B6-79E8 -4E0D-B290-C836D5F70867/0/OpenXML.pdf

To implement either standard, a developer need not accept any kind of licensing agreement whatsoever.

A user, using software that implements either standard, does not have to accept any licensing agreement that covers the either respective format's standard.

Thanks for playing :)

To whoever rates comments this person is ignorant of Microsofts new programmer ecosystem. Including offering fully featured Express Editions of Visual Studio by language. So again RTFM ID10T: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/ default.aspx

Some Linux user wrote: Put it this way - if someone offered you a moderately featured family sedan for free, would you turn it down because you'd rather buy a formula 1 car that can go 80mph faster? ## So let me get this straight you want me to use a semi finished (inferior) product when I can download a finished one for the same price. Hmm let me think here. http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/ default.aspx .... NO. The express editions have all the feature you care about. They just don't let you integrate with enterprise grade project management features such as Team System or use 3rd party plugins. For 95% of academic users this is a non-issue.

I'll concede that MSDN is a very nice collection of CDs, but I'd trade those CDs for source code any day of the week. On that note, the Linux stack has a wealth of documentation ... but at your local book store.

MSDN is not just a nice collection of CD's - it's all available on-line, and free as in beer. No ads, and it works well in Firefox! That's more than you can say for high-quality documentation for any other platform. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I personally find the CD collection inferior because you have to update it. Fortunately, the MSDN integration in Visual Studio also uses the on-line MSDN if the sought information is not available locally.

Now, on that note, typically, the architects, developers, and testers you're referring to wouldn't know what to do with source code if it hit them in the head. They represent the lower ranks of the tech profession. Those of us who work in pushing the envelope of new technology almost unanimously reject MS products because they are far too contraining.

That's a pretty unfair and ignorant way to look at people who use Visual Studio. Not only are you ignoring the fact that the most commercially successful pieces of software ever conceived - Microsoft Windows and Office - were developed in Visual Studio by people who certainly do not deserve to be called "the lower ranks of the tech profession" (well, some of them perhaps), you are also ignoring the many other companies who have created successful products developed using Microsoft's tools. I work at such a company, and we are in fact pushing the envelope of new technology in our market. While I would not call Microsoft's products perfect, they have been instrumental to our success.

If your tools constrain you, you may be using the wrong ones; or you may be using them incorrectly. I think you have to try very hard to fail at using Visual Studio.

Impact to the user's computer. With Windows Installer deployment, applications often rely on shared components, with the potential for versioning conflicts; with ClickOnce deployment, each application is self-contained and cannot interfere with other applications.

Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Redistributable Package

I agree that Microsoft does have a very nice development approach, but to claim that ClickOnce is comparable to todays HTML/Javascript applications is really reaching. Corporate Users will likely have this ability (once the organization deploys .NET 2.0 runtime), but expecting Windows Live or Yahoo to give up on the AJAX binge for ClickOnce deplyoments is not likely. ClickOnce is more like Java Web Start. We've had that technology for years now, but for some reason, these web apps persist.

IE has a feature called a "conditional comment" which is perfect for this.

<!--[if IE]>
<a href="http://getfirefox.com">Get Firefox</a>
<![endif]-->


Any normal browser will treat the whole thing as a comment (which it is) while IE will render the html inside.

Microsoft provides it here (without support) http://support.microsoft.com/kb/841290

Actually the minimum sytem requirements are pretty low, and I could run it on my over 6 year old laptop. It's just the Aero interface that requires all the extra hardware. Minimum requirements 800MHz CPU, 512 MB RAM, SVGA, 20GB HD with 15 GB free, CD-rom drive.

I'm not sure what the correct foot shooting analogy is but with Win2K and NT you could install a cracked version and it worked the same as the uncracked version.

With XP you can install a cracked version, and you get updates, something Microsoft took some time to clarify. For a while, it was hard to install the service packs, until Microsoft wrote a helpful article on how to change your product key. Given that key generators are widely available, this was Microsoft effectively conceding that cracked installs could be have the service packs installed.

But you can't download stuff from microsoft unless you validate your install as genuine. The Genuine Advantage detector keeps getting cracked and patched all the time though. So at the moment, the advantage you get from actually buying the software is rather slight. They also show no sign of persuing the owners of cracked installs who get automatic updates. They persue companies ruthlessly, but home owners seem to be exempt.

But it's easy to imagine that they plan to gradually increase the advantage you get from having a legal copy of the OS, without actually stopping the cracked versions from working over night.

...but if you've got Windows Media Player, I can embed a script in Microsoft's .asx format and have WMP serve up whatever sort of mischief I can code up, cleverly hidden in an audio or video media file. Supposedly Microsoft has been paying attention to the issue, but just between you and me I wouldn't have your bank's login page open in IE while playing any unfamiliar .asx or .asf files:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/828026

* * * * * *

Adobe Illustrator is a programmer's idea of how a graphic artist should work. CorelDraw is a graphic artist's idea of how a programmer should code.

Considering Windows 2000 will continue to receive security updates through July 2010, I can't think of anything.

In addition to what other posters mentioned,you can also use Live Meeting

Let's start with some facts:

Vista's *six* SKU's are sold in various states of disabledness. For example, if you want to use a DVD burner, you must upgrade. Hmmm,.no matter the version of XP you could use a DVD burner... That's just one of many restrictions.

Let's move to your clearly uninformed question: "Is there some magic mechanism which disables your ability to play unencrypted content?"

Why, yes there is! The latest WMP phones home to MS when you play a song and catalogs your content. When the inevitable OS reinstall happens and you attempt to play the same songs you get some bad news. It seems it's okay to play the music on that "other" OS install, but not this one. You agree to this when you click-through licenses. Here's a link to a guy that experienced it. http://www.bandddesigns.com/blogger/arch/002942.ht ml
Here's Microsoft's SDK http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/wmpsdk11/mmp_sdk/glossary.asp Search the term "component enforces those rights." on the page.

Now, Microsoft and their media friends are taking away your right to first sale as secretly as possible. Vista will help them meet that end very nicely. Set top boxes and a variety of media subscription models will help greatly as well. Add in dragging some children into court and consider it done.

I assure you, this is only the beginning. Please consider using another OS that ensures your current freedoms. Many Linux distros are good,

I'm sure the above-average PHB senses this anyway. Which is part of the reason the Vista uptake will be so slow.

Xcopy alternatively xxcopy if you're nasty.

Stuff too big? Pipe it into an archiver.

Seriously, proprietary backup applications have been obfuscating and fucking up what these have been doing for years reliably for 99 percent of users.

My USB recovery tool is Vista WinPE

You can get it from the WAIK :
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=c7d4bc6d-15f3-4284-9123-679830d629f2&Displa yLang=en

This is what an annual 7 Billion Dollars of R&D money gets you? Sheesh.

This is what an annual 7 Billion Dollars of R&D money gets you? Sheesh.

This is what an annual 7 Billion Dollars of R&D money gets you? Sheesh.

This guy wrote the piece the VERY DAY it was released!!! He has no numbers, facts, ro anything else to go by.

If you watched Steve Ballmer's keynote you would see quote a few fortune 500 companies ALREADY begining their upgrades
http://www.microsoft.com/business/launch2007/defau lt.mspx

Why does slashdot post this crap? Oh wait thats right. Nevermind.

What about the PS3 makes it worth more than the XBox 360?

PlayStation 3: Sony provides Other OS Installer, its official way to install other operating systems. For instance, I've seen a video of starting Fedora on a PS3 on YouTube. If you have Fedora, you have all the games that come with Fedora, and if they support joysticks, they will work with SIXAXIS. Total price: $500 for PS3 console.

Xbox 360: Microsoft plans to provide XNA Creators Club, its way to run .NET on your Xbox 360 console. Microsoft plans to make it available by subscription only, costing $100 per year, and it will require Windows XP (thus shutting out people who still use an older computer from the Windows 2000 days or who jumped ship for Linux after Windows 2000). Total price even for people with a recent Windows PC: $400 for Xbox 360 console plus $500 over the life of the console.

You do know that Microsoft has a Compatability Pack for Office 2000-2003, right? It adds support for the new formats.

Microsoft has released the conversion tools (to be used within existing versions of Office, not as standalone viewers) on their download site, or the Office site. I can't see a way to directly link to the update, as it is country dependent and some updates may require validation (surprise, surprise).

Microsoft has released the conversion tools (to be used within existing versions of Office, not as standalone viewers) on their download site, or the Office site. I can't see a way to directly link to the update, as it is country dependent and some updates may require validation (surprise, surprise).

Basically, the new formats (docx, xlsx, pptx) are a zip archive containing a bunch of XML files. The old format dates back to Office 97.