Slashdot Mirror

Wow, Double Space. I have hazy memories now.

A class with a variable and a get/set property for every control you want to get the data from. The IPropertyChangedNotification interface that needs implementing. The binding declarations in XML! Horrible.

You know you don't have to do all this, right? If you want to fetch values directly from controls, you can - TextBox.Text etc is still there.

Even if you do data binding, you don't need "a class with a variable and a get/set property for every control". Quite obviously, a single object can cover several controls, and for simple dialogs, that object can be the dialog itself - just declare the properties on it and bind to them (set DataContext to RelativeSource.Self in XAML, and you're good to go). Furthermore, you don't need a separate backing variable for a property; C# has auto-properties of the form "int Foo { get; set; }" since version 3.0 of the language - that's 5 years ago. You don't need INotifyPropertyChanged, either - you can force-refresh specific controls if you want.

LINQ is a bad thing anyway - its a classic case of making everything look like a nail, once you have a C#-shaped hammer.

LINQ is just syntactic sugar for sequence comprehensions combined with the optional ability to do runtime metaprogramming on it. Fundamentally, there's nothing different there from the classic map/filter/fold. What exactly is bad about it?

Another fine example is when they end support for an OS, they remove everything from their website that would be of any manual help to you. It's Microsoft's policy to Hook you and force you to upgrade by removing even the most basic self-help. You guys should know that by now, really.

Really?

lord no, not the convoluted, bloated, slow mess that is WPF. Even MFC was better for coding GUIs than that. Sure, its more powerful, but the hoops you have to jump through to make it work! A class with a variable and a get/set property for every control you want to get the data from. The IPropertyChangedNotification interface that needs implementing. The binding declarations in XML! Horrible.

C# has more libraries in one place than C++ has, which makes people think its got more of them. The trouble with C++ is that, apart from Boost, all the library support is scattered all over the web. (I kinda with the best libs would be merged into Boost sometimes). So if you use WCF, you could use WWS or gSoap instead (both of which are considerably faster and less "magic"). If you want websockets, try libwebsockets etc :)

LINQ is a bad thing anyway - its a classic case of making everything look like a nail, once you have a C#-shaped hammer.

So anyway, sure C# is easier to break into, everything laid out for you in an easy-to-see way. C++ is just more powerful, only you have to do a little searching to find out what is available.

Using the free Windows software from Microsoft, it is trivial for me to stitch many photos together to make a stunning panorama photo. For example I once sat and made one while a boat pulled in to dock alongside me, to pick up a few passengers and then it pulled away. I probably shot about a dozen photos during this short time, all the while the boat was directly within my panorama. The resulting photo looks amazing, like there's 3-4 boats, (with the same people!). In fact I think I had to shoot quickly to achieve such a result, because otherwise the boat would have been erased completely from the 'landscape'.

Was the water static background? I certainly had no tripod as I swept the camera around me as I shot each frame, while seated on the dock.

It is amazing what effects interpolation math and a computer can achieve.

https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/

Rumors have it that Durango will make extensive use of C++ AMP which has far better support from the AMD Radeon crew than NVidia.

The only practical widespread surveillance they could pull off is somehow infecting everyone's computers with malware.

http://windows.microsoft.com/windows

Your point is?

I have a MacBook Pro r3.1 and can walk into an Apple store and get support at the Genius Bar for it. I have Snow Leopard 10.6 on it, along with Ubuntu 12.04, and I can upgrade the OS to Mountain Lion if I wanted.

Which you might want, if you find that the answer you get at the Genius Bar is "OK, that's a bug we fixed in {10.7.x, 10.8.x}, that's about all the help we can offer". Yes, the Genius Bar may listen sympathetically to your problem report, but the advice they offer might be "you'll have to get a newer OS if you want that problem fixed".

And, no, this isn't different from some other OSes, and I'm quite aware of that, so "butbutbut Ubuntu!" or "butbutbut Windows!" is not a sensible riposte. However, if you want security updates for your OS version for a long period of time, you might get more of that with Windows, as Microsoft are offering "Mainstream Support" for Windows 8 until 2018, or an Ubuntu LTS release, as Canonical has April 2017 as the end-of-life date for 12.04.2 LTS. Ubuntu "STS", not so much, as the end-of-life date for 12.10 is April 2014 and the claim is that the end-of-life date for 13.04 will be October 2014. If Apple continue their every-year release strategy and their "software updates for the current release, security updates for the previous release" policy, you'll get security updates for two years for each release, which is more like the non-LTS versions of Ubuntu than the LTS releases or Windows.)

(Oh, and I'm a Mac user, and have used OS X to work on stuff such as this. Note, BTW, that, after those slides came out, we went with running a single automountd in a global session, but mounts are done by subprocesses that are, in various release-dependent ways, attached to the session that provoked the mount.)

now suddently we won't be able to able to use RC4 anymore, but TLS v1.2 and up aren't available in IE8 (XP)

Show users of IE on Windows XP a countdown timer in days, hours, minutes, and seconds until the planned end of support for Windows XP. "Microsoft has announced that on April 8, 2004, it will stop providing security updates for your PC's operating system. In the meantime, we recommend accessing our web site using Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox web browser. [ Get Chrome ] [ Get Firefox ]"

assuming you've got a Mac and licenses for the various Windows distributions you want to test.

My point is that that is a financially expensive assumption: $650 for a Mac mini and about $500 for Windows 8 OEM, Windows 7 retail, and Windows XP retail. Prior to Windows 8, OEM System Builder versions of Windows were not licensed for installation on a computer other than the one they shipped with.

It is a real shame that they don't have all of those available in one place... oh wait! http://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/download/details.aspx?id=11575 Then again, if you're making anything IE6 compatible now a days, you should be shot.

Can't wait to see the OS that made Miguel de Icaza move to OS X

Here you go. Enjoy...

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/home

A decently managed XP box could do the same. Hell a well managed 95/98 box could keep highish uptimes as well.

You could not keep 95/98 up more than 49.7 days : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641

I still can't remote individual apps on Windows without resorting to hacks with rdp, or buying into Citrix. That seems so strange in a networked world where people remote apps all the time in their browsers, in a manner of speaking.

Uh, then what's TS RemoteApp?

"The downside to AdBlock is that is only works within your web browser." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, @08:03PM (#43134101)

First of all, this is the BIGGEST "downside" to AdBlock:

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

Hosts are the 1st thing your IP stack queries on webbound requests -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/172218

(Thus, since the IP stack is already loaded by the OS @ bootup & on requests by client programs - guess what? Hosts make adblock REDUNDANT & WASTEFUL also! )

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblock means you had BEST know your javascript, perl, & python (iirc as to what languages are used to make it from source)).

& more... as a tiny 'sampling' & proofs thereof!

---

* You must have missed that list, I posted it in my last post you replied to...

APK

P.S.=> In case you hadn't noticed, there's 10 more things that are 'downsides' to AdBlock vs. custom hosts files...

... apk

Hosts ARE superior to AdBlock - & on several levels I invite anyone to disprove me on them, listed below in fact.

Here's how I generate them, easy as apple pie, from 12++ reputable sources for custom hosts file data online:

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

Which, if you read the list of what it can do for you as an end user of the resulting output it produces listed in the link above, you'll understand how/why...

"It's as strong as steel, & a 3rd of the weight" - Howard Stark from the film "Captain America"

---

Especially vs. competing alternate 'solutions', noted below in AdBlock/Ghostery & yes even DNS servers, next, as 'examples thereof'...

Solutions that used to be good & I even recommended them in security guides I wrote up over the decades now -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=ka3yUKzxB-6_0QHLroCQCA

That did extremely well for myself (and users of them), for Windows users, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" purposes - the BEST THING WE HAVE GOING vs. threats of all kinds, currently!

(Not anymore though, & certainly NOT far as AdBlock's concerned especially, not after this):

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

Hosts are the 1st thing your IP stack queries on webbound requests -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/172218

(Thus, since the IP stack is already loaded by the OS @ bootup & on requests by client programs - guess what? Hosts make adblock REDUNDANT & WASTEFUL also! )

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblock means y

Hosts ARE superior to AdBlock - & on several levels I invite anyone to disprove me on them, listed below in fact.

Here's how I generate them, easy as apple pie, from 12++ reputable sources for custom hosts file data online:

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

Which, if you read the list of what it can do for you as an end user of the resulting output it produces listed in the link above, you'll understand how/why...

"It's as strong as steel, & a 3rd of the weight" - Howard Stark from the film "Captain America"

---

Especially vs. competing alternate 'solutions', noted below in AdBlock/Ghostery & yes even DNS servers, next, as 'examples thereof'...

Solutions that used to be good & I even recommended them in security guides I wrote up over the decades now -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=ka3yUKzxB-6_0QHLroCQCA

That did extremely well for myself (and users of them), for Windows users, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" purposes - the BEST THING WE HAVE GOING vs. threats of all kinds, currently!

(Not anymore though, & certainly NOT far as AdBlock's concerned especially, not after this):

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

Hosts are the 1st thing your IP stack queries on webbound requests -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/172218

(Thus, since the IP stack is already loaded by the OS @ bootup & on requests by client programs - guess what? Hosts make adblock REDUNDANT & WASTEFUL also! )

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblock means y

Hosts ARE superior to AdBlock &/or Ghostery on several levels I invite anyone to disprove me on them, listed below in fact.

Here's how I generate them, easy as apple pie, from 12++ reputable sources for custom hosts file data online:

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

Which, if you read the list of what it can do for you as an end user of the resulting output it produces listed in the link above, you'll understand how/why...

"It's as strong as steel, & a 3rd of the weight" - Howard Stark from the film "Captain America"

---

Especially vs. competing alternate 'solutions', noted below in AdBlock/Ghostery & yes even DNS servers, next, as 'examples thereof'...

Solutions that used to be good & I even recommended them in security guides I wrote up over the decades now -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=ka3yUKzxB-6_0QHLroCQCA

That did extremely well for myself (and users of them), for Windows users, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" purposes - the BEST THING WE HAVE GOING vs. threats of all kinds, currently!

(Not anymore though, & certainly NOT far as AdBlock's concerned especially, not after this):

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

Hosts are the 1st thing your IP stack queries on webbound requests -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/172218

(Thus, since the IP stack is already loaded by the OS @ bootup & on requests by client programs - guess what? Hosts make adblock REDUNDANT & WASTEFUL also! )

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblo

I'm not suggesting that this article represents the totality of the situation, then or now. But, yes, I do think that what the article says happened, did actually happen.

I'm going to go with "yes". If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

A brief article from.... 1998. How much of it do you think is still correct?

For that matter, how much of it was true even back then? The lawyers can argue all they want, but the fact that IE has a modular engine is well-documented on MSDN, and anyone who actually dealt with it for embedding etc knows it for a fact. Admittedly, I don't know if mshtml.dll and shdocvw.dll was around in 1998, but it was certainly there by the time of IE6. I believe it was IE4 that actually introduced a proper separation complete with a public, documented API for the hostable browser control.

I don't see anything in the article pertaining to default browser or ShellExecute. Again, you can just go read the docs for it, or even try it for yourself on a Win95 install in a VM, and see what browser it launches. Or you can trust me that it works the way I've described, and that it was introduced in WinNT 3.1 (i.e. even before Win95).

A brief article from.... 1998. How much of it do you think is still correct?

For that matter, how much of it was true even back then? The lawyers can argue all they want, but the fact that IE has a modular engine is well-documented on MSDN, and anyone who actually dealt with it for embedding etc knows it for a fact. Admittedly, I don't know if mshtml.dll and shdocvw.dll was around in 1998, but it was certainly there by the time of IE6. I believe it was IE4 that actually introduced a proper separation complete with a public, documented API for the hostable browser control.

I don't see anything in the article pertaining to default browser or ShellExecute. Again, you can just go read the docs for it, or even try it for yourself on a Win95 install in a VM, and see what browser it launches. Or you can trust me that it works the way I've described, and that it was introduced in WinNT 3.1 (i.e. even before Win95).

Once winDOS has finally died its much deserved death

"WinDOS" either on August 24, 2001 or on July 11, 2006", depending on whether "death" refers to "a version of Windows not using the code base derived from the old DOS-based Windows became available for general consumers" or "support for the last version of Windows using said code base ended". It's all NT-based now (except for WinCE, although Windows Phone 8 is apparently NT-based as well).

Once winDOS has finally died its much deserved death

"WinDOS" either on August 24, 2001 or on July 11, 2006", depending on whether "death" refers to "a version of Windows not using the code base derived from the old DOS-based Windows became available for general consumers" or "support for the last version of Windows using said code base ended". It's all NT-based now (except for WinCE, although Windows Phone 8 is apparently NT-based as well).

Well, fuck you. Of course its possible to have a rendering engine separate from the browser. But if MS had any separation I never noticed it.

Your technical ignorance is staggering - why do you even believe yourself to be qualified to hold this discussion if you don't know the basics of how it works? Google mshtml.dll for starters.

Either the full IE popped up and then often made itself the default browser, or nothing worked.

As GP noted, there isn't, nor there ever was, anything in Windows itself that caused this behavior. The documented and recommended way to open URLs since Win95 has been ShellExecute, which will always use the browser that user has specified as the default one. The problem is that people don't read the documentation, and instead cobble hacks from what they know, such as CreateProcess("iexplore.exe").

And I must say half a billion in fines seems rather steep.

They made eighteen BILLION dollars profit in a single quarter last year. That's one 150th of their annual profits. That's equivalent to a speeding ticket for normal human beings.

I'd say it was too low. How about half a quarter's profits? After all, fines are to deter certain behaviors, and I don't see one out of one fifty in any way any kind of a deterrent, and in fact would be more of "just the cost of doing business". I'm sure their "mistake" earned them far more revenue than half a billion. I expect MS to do the same thing again with the same lame excuses.

Get your facts straight dude, IE is not freeware but requires you have a M$ windoze license. And those cost $$$. On top of that Micro$oft as a corporation was pretty close to practically OWNING the internet at one point as almost all web pages didn't follow the standards but IE shenanigans and so only worked in M$ IE.

See e.g. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-MY/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/end-user-license-agreement

MSDN also has user-contributed notes for most doc pages (e.g. open this and scroll to the bottom). They do get used occasionally, but not all that often.

Used to be that their URLs were nice, short and made sense. Then they rewrote everything and broke all the URLs just so they could do some weird frame in a frame nonsense that went against most web UI standards.

Here's a typical MSDN URL as of today:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.file.exists.aspx

Problem is, they only work like that for .NET. All Win32 stuff still looks like hashed titles.

i use 10zig thin clients running windows embedded for all the instructors at the cosmetology school i administer. you can load basic software onto them and then lock the flash. a simple reboot sends it back to the way you set it up. http://www.10zig.com/product/hyper-v_microsoft_remotefx/ you can also use SteadyState, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=24373 this sets the computer into a kiosk mode where a simple reboot puts it back to the snapshot.

Google does have a similar position. They have stated this numerous times. What neither MS nor Google do is completely remove your record, but they both scrub certain data out of it; Google refers to it as anonymizing it, I believe.

I dropped a whole bunch of links above, but for the lazy:
http://advertising.microsoft.com/windows-live-hotmail

Through innovative ad technologies and rich media formats, Hotmail showcases your brand in a clean, uncluttered environment that gives your message supreme visibility to a targetable, web-savvy audience.

http://advertising.microsoft.com/WWDocs/User/en-us/Advertise/Windows%20Live/Hotmail/HTOMAIL.pdf (yes, theres a typo in their pdf filename)

Reach people with an active interest in your industry and business by targeting commercial email in users’ open inbox windows.

Reach productive people in and out of the office with text links integrated into documents in Microsoft® Office web apps.

I like how theyre inserting text links into your web apps without actually scanning them.

This isnt new, either.

Google does have a similar position. They have stated this numerous times. What neither MS nor Google do is completely remove your record, but they both scrub certain data out of it; Google refers to it as anonymizing it, I believe.

I dropped a whole bunch of links above, but for the lazy:
http://advertising.microsoft.com/windows-live-hotmail

Through innovative ad technologies and rich media formats, Hotmail showcases your brand in a clean, uncluttered environment that gives your message supreme visibility to a targetable, web-savvy audience.

http://advertising.microsoft.com/WWDocs/User/en-us/Advertise/Windows%20Live/Hotmail/HTOMAIL.pdf (yes, theres a typo in their pdf filename)

Reach people with an active interest in your industry and business by targeting commercial email in users’ open inbox windows.

Reach productive people in and out of the office with text links integrated into documents in Microsoft® Office web apps.

I like how theyre inserting text links into your web apps without actually scanning them.

This isnt new, either.

What do you suppose Microsoft means when they tell advertisers,

Through innovative ad technologies and rich media formats, Hotmail showcases your brand in a clean, uncluttered environment that gives your message supreme visibility to a targetable, web-savvy audience.

Now what do you suppose they mean by email users being "targetable"? That they just guess what is relevant to you?

Or from their "Hotmail One sheet" (PDF Link)

Reach people with an active interest in your industry and business by targeting commercial email in users’ open inbox windows.

Oh, i see, theyre not scanning email as it comes in, theyre just monitoring email that you open.

Reach productive people in and out of the office with text links integrated into documents in Microsoft® Office web apps.

...And somehow theyre inserting text links into your web apps without actually scanning them.

Face it, Microsoft wants to be able to accuse Google of being a giant, friendly dataminer while practicing the exact same stuff, sans the solid record and history of trustworthiness. So given that they both scan what youre doing to advertising, who do you trust more? MS, who implies they dont gather any info, or Google who is up front about it?

What do you suppose Microsoft means when they tell advertisers,

Through innovative ad technologies and rich media formats, Hotmail showcases your brand in a clean, uncluttered environment that gives your message supreme visibility to a targetable, web-savvy audience.

Now what do you suppose they mean by email users being "targetable"? That they just guess what is relevant to you?

Or from their "Hotmail One sheet" (PDF Link)

Reach people with an active interest in your industry and business by targeting commercial email in users’ open inbox windows.

Oh, i see, theyre not scanning email as it comes in, theyre just monitoring email that you open.

Reach productive people in and out of the office with text links integrated into documents in Microsoft® Office web apps.

...And somehow theyre inserting text links into your web apps without actually scanning them.

Face it, Microsoft wants to be able to accuse Google of being a giant, friendly dataminer while practicing the exact same stuff, sans the solid record and history of trustworthiness. So given that they both scan what youre doing to advertising, who do you trust more? MS, who implies they dont gather any info, or Google who is up front about it?

Mod parent up, and it wasn't until recently they added a "Add Community" section for comments which for some reason they decided wasn't important enough to put on most older documentation.

For example:

What's New in the .NET Framework 4

Note the obvious lack of any sort of scoring at the bottom in the comments.. You may find something useful there at a glance, but Microsoft would do itself a big favor by allowing voting on comments by registered accounts (as you see in stack exchange) and putting the damn comment section on EVERY documentation page they have.

I loved the VAX/VMS documentation. It was complete and it was accurate. I loved the original Inside Macintosh documentation; it interesting because it was complete, accurate, and _knowledgeable_. It took helpfully opinionated stances, like "Usually, you will set this argument to nil," or "Returns an integer value of 0 or 1. Only the Shadow knows why it is an integer rather than a boolean."

A couple of years ago I needed greyscale images, nothing fancy but using color was just silly, and wasted over a day trying to get Microsoft .NET PixelFormat.Format16bppGrayScale to work. It kept throwing exceptions and I was just going nuts, unable to figure out what I was doing wrong. Eventually I Googled, and found three-year-old forum postings explaining that Microsoft had never implemented that functionality. But in three years, they couldn't be bothered to remove it from their symbol tables or to update their documentation to at least indicate that it was "reserved for future implementation" or something.

Look for yourself: the online documentation still shows it as available. "The pixel format is 16 bits per pixel. The color information specifies 65536 shades of gray."

Mac OS X is just as bad. The so-called documentation looks and feels as if it were automatically built from header files.

Forum postings and crowd-sourced chatter is great--it's where I learned what I needed to know about PixelFormat.Format16bppGrayScale--but it's not a substitute for documentation. And, by the way, neither is sample code--it is valuable in show what works--or worked at the time it was written--but it does not show you the limitations or the boundaries, and nobody takes any responsibility for its future accuracy.

Example: DefaultOverLoadAttribute -- "Indicates that a method is the default overload method" Wow, that's informative! And of course they don't give ANY links as to what the purpose of including this was, or saying when to use it

I commonly will have questions on Stackoverflow asking for help understanding what the hell MSDN is trying to say. For instance this question It's a question asking "MSDN says this, but I see this. Why?" with the answer boiling down to "MSDN is very misleading"

Or there is crap like DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached "here's a hint at what this does..." oh, btw, there's a magic naming convention we're not going to explain at all HAR HAR HAR

Example: DefaultOverLoadAttribute -- "Indicates that a method is the default overload method" Wow, that's informative! And of course they don't give ANY links as to what the purpose of including this was, or saying when to use it

I commonly will have questions on Stackoverflow asking for help understanding what the hell MSDN is trying to say. For instance this question It's a question asking "MSDN says this, but I see this. Why?" with the answer boiling down to "MSDN is very misleading"

Or there is crap like DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached "here's a hint at what this does..." oh, btw, there's a magic naming convention we're not going to explain at all HAR HAR HAR

Minor rant, but look at the "InConnectionString Argument" section (which I can expand/collapse [useless] but can't link directly to, which is annoying) of this page. Try to read their grammar for a connection string. Confused yet? There are line breaks that have completely disappeared, causing words to merge together (e.g. "connection-stringattribute" should be "connection-string" with "attribute" being on a new line). I filled out the little "did you find this helpful" thing at the bottom of the page explaining the problem a year ago, and it hasn't been fixed. Dumping half-assed documentation on the web and not fixing (reported!) errors wastes the time of each individual developer that has to read/decipher it. The PHP online documentation is one of the most useful ones I've found, largely because it allows users to add comments/examples that make things clearer. Microsoft does the opposite -- not only can users not add to it, but the improvements that users suggest (through the "did you find this helpful" thing) are ignored. Perhaps all of the useful information is on StackOverflow because Microsoft doesn't allow it to be added to their own documentation.

More generally, it should be easy to bookmark pages (URLs should NOT break, even when new versions are released!) and sections within pages so it is easy to refer back to important things, as you could with paper documentation. Documentation for each function/object should link back to an overview that explains how it fits into things, and it should link to examples that show how all of the arguments (not just one special use case) works. Documentation should explain any differences between new/old behavior of any function/object because not everyone is developing for the latest version of the OS or development platform. And, just to beat a dead horse, users should be able to submit improvements/clarifications that actually get used.

Opting out usually doesn't mean they stop tracking you, they just stop showing you personalized ads.

MS opt out page, for example, clearly states:

In addition, opting-out does not stop information from being collected. However, neither this information nor any information collected from you in the past will be used for displaying personalized ads. Microsoft may continue to deliver non-advertising content that is personalized for you, such as the news articles that are displayed on MSN and the results that appear when you search for software updates.

AFAIK Bing / MS Mail (whatever its called now) has historically scanned email in the same way as google

And you would be wrong.

Here is Microsoft's statement on what Outlook does not do:

Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately. Just like the postal service sorts and scans mail and packages for dangerous explosives and biohazards, Outlook.com scans your mail to help prevent spam, gray mail, phishing scams, viruses, malware, and other dangers and annoyances. Microsoft and its email services, including Outlook.com, Hotmail, and Office 365, do not use the content of customers’ private emails, communications, or documents to target advertising.

http://www.scroogled.com/OurPosition

This has been Microsoft's position since at least 2010.

Microsoft does target ads through tracking cookies, like Google, yes. But they offer, like Google, a nice way to opt out of this. This site shows all the information they have on you and a centralized way to opt out of it all: https://choice.microsoft.com/en-US

As for Bing, one of the nicer points of its privacy policy over Google is this statement:

We store search terms (and the cookie IDs associated with search terms) separately from any account information that directly identifies the user, such as name, e-mail address, or phone numbers. We have technological safeguards in place designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data and we remove the entirety of the IP address after 6 months, cookies and other cross session identifiers, after 18 months.

http://www.microsoft.com/privacystatement/en-us/bing/default.aspx

I don't believe Google has a similar clause in their privacy policy.

Finally, it's worth remembering that Google earns 96% of their revenue from advertising. They are an advertising company and thrive on delivering relevant ads to you. When it comes down to it, when the choice is between your privacy and their company, your interests will always lose.

AFAIK Bing / MS Mail (whatever its called now) has historically scanned email in the same way as google

And you would be wrong.

Here is Microsoft's statement on what Outlook does not do:

Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately. Just like the postal service sorts and scans mail and packages for dangerous explosives and biohazards, Outlook.com scans your mail to help prevent spam, gray mail, phishing scams, viruses, malware, and other dangers and annoyances. Microsoft and its email services, including Outlook.com, Hotmail, and Office 365, do not use the content of customers’ private emails, communications, or documents to target advertising.

http://www.scroogled.com/OurPosition

This has been Microsoft's position since at least 2010.

Microsoft does target ads through tracking cookies, like Google, yes. But they offer, like Google, a nice way to opt out of this. This site shows all the information they have on you and a centralized way to opt out of it all: https://choice.microsoft.com/en-US

As for Bing, one of the nicer points of its privacy policy over Google is this statement:

We store search terms (and the cookie IDs associated with search terms) separately from any account information that directly identifies the user, such as name, e-mail address, or phone numbers. We have technological safeguards in place designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data and we remove the entirety of the IP address after 6 months, cookies and other cross session identifiers, after 18 months.

http://www.microsoft.com/privacystatement/en-us/bing/default.aspx

I don't believe Google has a similar clause in their privacy policy.

Finally, it's worth remembering that Google earns 96% of their revenue from advertising. They are an advertising company and thrive on delivering relevant ads to you. When it comes down to it, when the choice is between your privacy and their company, your interests will always lose.

...MS says Outlook.com does not scan emails...

Microsoft is very grateful that you paraphrased what they actually said. You see, they actually do scan Subject headers, but not the body itself. But they don't mention that in their campaign and they're very happy that you assumed that they weren't scanning your email at all. But they are.

And Microsoft is certainly profiling you. Here's what they say:

"The extraordinary profile and behavioral targeting on Hotmail, combined with customizable advertising packages and Rich Media solutions, enable you to connect with your audience at the point of influence."

And I'd assume if you didn't want any computer (not people) scanning (not reading) your emails, I'd assume you didn't want a computer tracking your profile/search history. But that's exactly what Microsoft does.

How can Bing scan personal email?

Perhaps I was not clear. Bing datamines; thats its entire purpose. MS owns Bing, and also owns Hotmail (now Outlook). Historically, Hotmail ALSO served email-relevant ads, as does yahoo and basically everyone. Google simply was the first to do so.

Perhaps Outlook does not now, but that hardly changes the gross hypocrisy of it all.

How can Bing scan personal email?

Perhaps I was not clear. Bing datamines; thats its entire purpose. MS owns Bing, and also owns Hotmail (now Outlook). Historically, Hotmail ALSO served email-relevant ads, as does yahoo and basically everyone. Google simply was the first to do so.

Perhaps Outlook does not now, but that hardly changes the gross hypocrisy of it all.

I've linked to this in the past, but the privacy statement on the scroogled web page clearly states that they have the right to do exactly what Google is doing.

"We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising."

http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx

I don't know what definition Microsoft used to make that claim, but Microsoft does provide targeted ads. Perhaps MS doesn't look at the content of the messages but analyzes who it was from? I have no idea but they do use their Internet power to deliver targeted ads. From Microsoft:

"Available for all brand campaigns running on Microsoft media properties including MSN, Windows Live Hotmail and Messenger, display ad targeting ensures that campaigns maximise their frequency and exposure for the most relevant audiences at the most relevant time."

http://advertising.microsoft.com/online-targeting-audience

Is Microsoft working under the theory that (since they have other profitable areas of business, and Google basically doesn't) it will be wholly worth it if the can salt the earth under both Google and their own advertising efforts?

Or are they making the best of a bad situation by advertising the inferiority of their analytics capabilities as a privacy feature?

Or are they simply hoping that mutually applicable accusations will stick to whoever they are made against first?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463119.aspx

THIS SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS." MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, AS (1) TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS SPECIFICATION, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; (2) THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR (3) THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, OR OTHER RIGHTS.
MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS SPECIFICATION.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463180.aspx

Microsoft Windows Authenticode Portable Executable Signature Format Specification
Revision 1.0
Note: This specification is provided to aid in the development of certain development tools for the Microsoft Windows platform. However, Microsoft does not guarantee that it is a complete specification in all respects, and cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of publication. Microsoft reserves the right to alter this specification without notice.
Microsoft will grant a royalty-free license, under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to any Microsoft patent claims (if any exist) that Microsoft deems necessary for the limited purpose of use in software tools to generate digital signatures and in EFI firmware to verify the signatures, each exclusively in Portable Executable and Common Object File Format images.
Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this specification may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, modified or used in a derivative work, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the express written permission of Microsoft.
Microsoft may have intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this specification. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Microsoft, the furnishing of this specification does not give you any license to any intellectual property rights, and no other rights are granted by implication, estoppel, or otherwise.

So, of course Microsoft would love to put code implementing parts of the PE spec into the Linux kernel. You can't even read the spec without agreeing to a license. They don't guarantee you the chance to use any patents that encumber the spec without paying royalties, even though they promise those fees will be fair and unbiased.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463119.aspx

THIS SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS." MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, AS (1) TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS SPECIFICATION, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; (2) THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR (3) THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, OR OTHER RIGHTS.
MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS SPECIFICATION.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463180.aspx

Microsoft Windows Authenticode Portable Executable Signature Format Specification
Revision 1.0
Note: This specification is provided to aid in the development of certain development tools for the Microsoft Windows platform. However, Microsoft does not guarantee that it is a complete specification in all respects, and cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of publication. Microsoft reserves the right to alter this specification without notice.
Microsoft will grant a royalty-free license, under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to any Microsoft patent claims (if any exist) that Microsoft deems necessary for the limited purpose of use in software tools to generate digital signatures and in EFI firmware to verify the signatures, each exclusively in Portable Executable and Common Object File Format images.
Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this specification may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, modified or used in a derivative work, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the express written permission of Microsoft.
Microsoft may have intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this specification. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Microsoft, the furnishing of this specification does not give you any license to any intellectual property rights, and no other rights are granted by implication, estoppel, or otherwise.

So, of course Microsoft would love to put code implementing parts of the PE spec into the Linux kernel. You can't even read the spec without agreeing to a license. They don't guarantee you the chance to use any patents that encumber the spec without paying royalties, even though they promise those fees will be fair and unbiased.

"I'd suggest allowing one to add single addresses but the program doesn't give an end product." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Thursday February 28, @01:32AM (#43031803) Homepage

When you are in the "NORMALIZE" tab, RIGHT-CLICK on the list produced (it will allow SINGLE entries on the right-click popup menu)... & it also allows FINDING ones you would like to pull out there, too (as a 'side-note' here).

So, essentially?

Use RIGHT-CLICKS popup menus in it, & they are ALL OVER it!

In fact - they mirror MOST of the normal MAIN MENU items & add some, by specific tabs you're currently in, with functions specific to those tabs on their display lists, by right-clicks on them, using the popup menus specific to them that come up on rightclicks!

---

"So I was wrong." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Thursday February 28, @01:32AM (#43031803) Homepage

It happens - think I am NEVER wrong? Well, lol, I rarely am (lol)... but, it happens here too @ times!

(Mistakes HELP YOU, help yourself - you rarely forget their 'lessons' is why... ah, yes - nothing like a GOOD "PUNCH IN THE SKULL", eh? Lmao!).

---

"but at the time a tabbed HOSTS file didn't work in two separate XP systems; a spaced HOSTS file did. I quit using Hostexpert years ago as it did indeed disable my HOSTS file at the time." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Thursday February 28, @01:32AM (#43031803) Homepage

I believe you - I don't KNOW if I mentioned this or not, but I will now (MS changes hosts file functionality @ times, & I got into a HUGE debate/argument & WON IT (he conceded my point in fact, regarding blocking addresses possible) with their then VP of the "Windows Client Performance Division" here about 1 of them):

I found an issue in hosts files after 12/09/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" in VISTA onwards (Windows 7 &/or Server 2008 r2 + beyond)!

Where hosts files could no longer use the faster to load into memory 0 blocking "ip address", an analog to a DROP request in a firewall pretty much (due to smaller files resulting) & faster to parse line-by-line as well (via the tcpip.sys built-in DNS resolver loading hosts & referencing it, FIRST, before anything else by default -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/172218 ).

Fact is - FIRST: I reported this to Microsoft during their "Engineering Windows 7" blog, here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true&PageIndex=3#comments

In addition to THAT?

Here on /., I literally also got their VP of the "Windows Client Performance Division" to concede my point that using 0 as a blocking "IP address" is superior

(Faster/more efficient)

Especially vs. the 6 characters-per-line larger & slower 0.0.0.0 even (worse yet, vs. the larger by 2-8 characters per line to parse loopback adapter address of 127.0.0.1) & that it would be slower, to LOAD & PARSE that larger custom hosts file result, ala his words quoted next below:

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"Of course, larger files take longer to load." - by Foredecker (161844) * on Wednesday December 09, @10:34PM (#30384666) Homepage

FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918

---

Quite a bit faster results happens with smaller blocking addresses noted below, due to smaller filesize for looped programmatic reads by the IP stack of the hosts file, & NOTICEABLY SO!

(As it's linearly related to t

OS's have matured and there's not much reason to upgrade anymore for.

But have commercial off-the-shelf proprietary desktop operating systems matured to the point where they no longer need security updates?

we will likely not move past Win7 till after my retirement even longer in the future.

Windows 7 support ends on January 14, 2020. Do you plan to retire before then, or does your company plan to open its network to intrusion through holes that will inevitably be disclosed on January 15 of that year?