Slashdot Mirror

I think that the tablet is basically just a specialized form of smartphone. These gadgets have been predicted to replace the personal computer, and things are moving in that direction with smartphone GPUs, wireless graphics, etc.

The writing's on the wall: laptops and PCs will be replaced by smartphones (and tablets) as everyday computing devices for most of the public.

The smaller the NAND flash process size the shorter the write endurance and data retention times. A 25nm NAND flash SSD will have a much shorter lifespan and hold data for a much shorter period of time than current 34nm tech. Does this mean that 2010 NAND flash SSDs will be better than 2011 ones? Well I guess that depends on how much you value reliability and longevity in your storage devices. Lower cost and shorter life is a win/win for the manufacturers. This limit on NAND flash technology has been known since the start. I don't see the big deal. Just stop at 34nm and work at other technologies that are faster or scale in size better. We usually think of larger process size as being better, but in this case it's not.

http://features.techworld.com/storage/3212075/is-nand-flash-about-to-hit-a-dead-end/?intcmp=ft-hm-m

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1492711

But we're not here to discuss if iOS devices are right for us. We're here to discuss whether Flash on the Android is the right decision or not. It's the Apple crowd wading in here telling us we're idiots for wanting the choice - most of us don't care that your devices are crippled, you paid your money, you took your (last) choice, so that leads me to ask why do Apple followers feel the need to evangelise every little decision that the company makes? Besides, a largely unscientific but at least empirically suggestive poll by InfoWorld earlier this year showed that 55% of iPhone users do want Flash.

What you're doing is taking your anecdotal evidence of not being encumbered by the lack of Flash and extrapolating that to somehow support the view that no iPhone user wants Flash, ignoring the fact that there are plenty who do. I'm happy that you don't personally need Flash, but why do you feel that denying the option to people who do want it is in any way fair? If 45% of people could only see black and white would you think it fair to disable all colours in the browser? Would you feel differently depending on whether you were in the 45% or the 55% maybe?

And I was wondering where all the spam I get in my gmail inbox was coming from.

No operating system is perfect, until recently only windows was targetted because of its very high market share. What do you think is going to happen now that OSX is reaching a sizeable portion of the market ? (hint http://news.techworld.com/security/5392/worlds-first-os-x-virus-hits-apple/ )

Remember how the current iphone os is exploitable by simply visiting a website ? Don't worry your OSX is going to need an antivirus soon too (they already exist actually)

Oh, and guess what's going to happen to your shiny computer when you start installing third party software to try and fix the problem : http://www.google.com/search?&q=osx+antivirus

Sorry you can't say that OSX antivirus is "not getting viruses in the first place". You might be able to mitigate the problems by being careful about prompts asking for your administrator password, by setting a reasonably strong root password and being careful not running code with elevated priviledge when you can avoid it. Which works equally well on any computer OS I know of

(and for the sake of it : I have 3 computers running winXP, OSX, and Ubuntu10.04, so yes, I actually have tried OSX before and still do, even though my main OS has been linux for the past year)

The EU has already imposed a standard that manufcturers have to adapt to if they want to sel their Warez in Europe..

What's convenient about electrical grid systems designed to fail? We've even had the East Coast power grid, which includes part of the midwest and Canada fall down, allegedly related to some idiot using Microsoft products in mission critical situations. We've also had extended air traffic shut downs for the world's 8th largest economy. But hey check out that spin. The headline says it's the fault of the flunky who needs to reboot the Microsoft "server" every few hours, rather than hanging up the criminals who replaced working systems with Microsoft products.

Secure systems are convenient: they work.

Again, you distort reality to fit your argument. I could claim that Apple has a monopoly in the Macintosh or OS X markets, but that's ignoring the competitive market. Mainframes compete directly with x86 servers, so you have to consider that as part of the market. There is plenty of competition in that market space, so IBM does not have a monopoly.

The EU took action against Microsoft because they held a true monopoly in the Browser and Desktop OS markets. In 2004, MS had 91% market share for IE. That has since declined significantly, but is still around 60%. Windows still holds onto greater than 90% market share.

From the TechWorld iOS4 multitasking article in the summary:

Waiting for a YouTube video to buffer over a 3G connection? It won't go anywhere unless you're staring at the loading screen.

Honestly, doesn't this also happen by default with applications on other mobile OS'es like Android, unless the developer specifies otherwise in the app's code?

From what I understand about the Android application life cycle under normal circumstances, once an Activity (the app's presentation layer, what you interact with) is completely obscured, the application's host process becomes a "background" process. Meaning, the app's Activities aren't visible and there are no Services running, thereby making the app's host process one of the first processes to be killed off so to allocate resources. (Service example: a media player running in the background while you're actively using another app). For an app's host process to remain in an active state, the app must have a running Activity, Service or Broadcast Receiver. In my following the Android dev tutorials, I've seen that only the Activity is absolutely required - Services and Broadcast Receivers are added only when you need them for your app to fulfill it's intended purpose.

So, in the case of buffering the YouTube video, if I were writing an Android app to do just that, I'd have to have explicitly created a Service to keep buffering the video while I used another app. If I didn't create a Service to keep buffering when the app's Activity exited the active state, then my app would do just what the article says - the app does nothing until I explicitly return to the app.

Am I missing something?

Meanwhile, they launched some half-baked plan to rewrite the whole thing in Java, while people were bailing from the site out of frustration.

The half-baked plan was to ditch the Java code and rewrite it in PHP, when it's pretty clear the main issue was the way they were representing hierarchical relationships in a SQL relational database (it certainly can be done, but it's easily done poorly).

Either way, it's an excellent example of desperate devs grasping at the straw of "language 'x' sucks, let's rewrite in language 'y'!" and then being disappointed when the switch doesn't spray magick pixie dust curing all their problems.

It's not my paranoia, it's the PRC's, and it's very real. We're talking about people who think that IBM's 'smarter planet' slogan is an insidious harbinger of undermining China's sovereignty.

If you're going to think that way, there's not much point in using Windows at all. Due to inherent flaws in Windows any access to a Windows machine can be subverted into root access, thus hackers are much more likely to target that known flaw than any hypothetical but unknown flaws in Opera.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3284
http://news.techworld.com/security/115456/windows-7-inherently-insecure-says-researcher/
http://www.anti-trend.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=1
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/20/1359237/Newly-Found-Windows-Bug-Affects-All-Versions-Since-NT?from=rss

So... His best bet would be to switch his sister and her husband using Opera (or Firefox, or Konqueror, or Chrome, or something else) on Ubuntu (obviously as a non-root user) or really any non-Windows OS.

My point was not that Android won't overtake the iPhone in popularity or technical merit, but to highlight the danger of using a one-off month to project for an annual rate. If the figure quoted was based on Feb or March it might have more credence. For that matter, Gartner doesn't exactly have a stellar prediction record.

That said, who is "Mainland China" exactly? Do you mean a/more-than-one PRC telecomms provider has forced Android for their own purposes? I'd hardly expect that to be as open the promise of Android is.

802.11n is compatible with all of the previous specs (a,b and g) even though they didn't all talk to each other. Mixed mode (2.4 and 5GHz to the rescue). Here are a couple links that should help explain (yes I know these are older but these should help get the idea across). http://features.techworld.com/mobile-wireless/2280/how-can-80211n-talk-to-all-worlds/ and http://www.pcworld.com/article/145098/new_80211n_routers_the_best_wifi_yet.html

I didn't mod it funny.

The problem is that Google created a system that needs to be updated, but is sold as an appliance. Appliances shouldn't need software updates.

Software updates for appliance-type devices are huge headaches. Do you send users a message "New updates are available for your computer", like Microsoft? Do you install them forcibly by remote control? What if someone is relying on their phone and an update fails? Who provides tech support?

"Agile" development for appliances is a recipe for user misery.

In practice (aka reality) OS X has never had a virus or worm. All known in-the-wild exploits to this day have required users to install something, many requiring administrative passwords. That is, all in-the-wild exploits have been trojans.

The Windows landscape is full of viruses and worms. Conficker is just one recent and ongoing example. Botnets are not only comprised mostly of Windows machines running IE, but apparently 80% viruses run in Windows 7 just as they did in previous versions of windows.

And you're repeating the idea that Windows of any stripe is more secure than Mac OS X with a straight face?

"It's time for a Security Enhanced Windows. The federal government has a batch of policies and registry settings people can adopt as templates for locking down workstations and servers. Now might be a good time to roll out a similar offering." - by symbolset (646467) on Tuesday November 03, @11:03PM (#29973298)

It's already been done 2x for the United States Armed forces symbolset (just shows how much YOU KNOW (not)), ask ForeDecker about that, or refer to these URL's:

US military gets its own secure version of Windows:

http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/2666/us-military-gets-its-own-secure-version-of-windows/

AND, they also got such a secured Windows issued their way, BEFORE THAT TOO, in 2003, to the US Armed forces, before... think, or LOOK, before you speak, symbolset. Learn a few things first, then, open your mouth... "m'kay"?

(Ask foredecker, our resident MS dev. mgr. here)

AND, for those lacking that (only the US Armed forces gets that)?

Well, there is the list by the gov't. that works well as symbolset notes, but iirc, One I wrote one is from FAR before it, circa 1997-2001 that was featured @ NTCompatible.com as their "Article #1" & was noted as "GOOD STUFF" @ NEOWIN forums, here as proof thereof (from 2001, when they finally discovered it) ->

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

I only FURTHER IMPROVED THAT GUIDE, which across the 20 forums it is currently on, has been rated "5/5 stars", or made an "Essential Guide", or "Sticky/Pinned Thread" and even got me PAID for winning PCPitStop's January 2008 "Article of the Month" no less for producing it.

Searching "HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP" online @ GOOGLE can show ANYONE proof of THAT much, as it "owns" nearly the "TOP 30 SPOTS" consecutively there.

An example thereof? OK:

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=954cd919a263e7fa80bd77a69a08b157&showtopic=2662

Where it is over 53,500++ views currently, in less than 1.5 yrs.' time online... & over 250,000++ views strong, with folks saying "Good stuff" or finding them NOT SHOWING ANY VULNERABILITIES or PENETRATIONS by malware in general even, IF they followed my security guide for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 (even VISTA onwards, to an extent) to the letter!

----

People such as THRONKA @ XtremePCCentral.com here stated, verbatim by he:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=29ca0dfc286bf1e7ff52028336149ce0&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff!"

----

Symbolset? You TALK OUT YOUR BEHIND, without knowing any facts...

(It tends to NOW make sense why you only make speculations that have already been done, and that you perform "adhominem attacks" on those that post valid points, and you avoid disputing or disproving those points, beacause you clearly do not know much about this art & science/field, period)

APK

P.S.=> Better luck next time, Symbolset (you pitiful ignorant adhominem attack utilizing TROLL) - lol! "too, Too, TOO EASY!"... and, the day YOU can show us you've done ALL

Here's proof of concept from 3 years ago, though: http://news.techworld.com/security/5392/worlds-first-os-x-virus-hits-apple/

Unless, of course, you accidentally set off the tilt bit.

Who the fuck is Thomas ? Gordon Moore himself has said that he thinks it can't continue.

here's an interesting link. I realise it's not a very popular CPU but this could be done to every single chip going out of a fab plant. Would it be that outrageous to think that someone in the design/fabrication process could sneak this onto the silicon without it being noticed? Or, if it was a state sponsored program then it definitely wouldn't get noticed.

Said Leader Technology attorneys, of course, would keep all of the gigabytes of Facebook source code completely safe and secure.

It is Win32/64 only. The whole story is here - http://news.techworld.com/security/3200665/skype-spy-trojan-escapes-into-wild/

If Comcast was really sending RST to both sides of a connection, they are merely copying what the Chinese already do. I am so proud that America is catching up with the rest of the world.

Here is an article debunking the claim as a load of crap, and the fact that nothing has come of this 'rainbow format' in the last three years tends to indicate they are correct.

Uuuhhhh....you Do know we are talking about a language controlled by MSFT who just now went out of their way to very carefully spell out that the EMCA parts and ONLY the ECMA parts are covered by their "do not sue" yes? Do you think that they went so far out of their way to cover ONLY the EMCA parts is to protect freedom and puppies?

Considering we are talking about the same company that just tried to bone TomTom and Linux over the FAT "patents" I think we have EVERY right to point out when MSFT purposely leaves a "gotcha" in the implementation. Last I looked one of the big selling points on Mono was to allow .NET apps to be deployed on non MSFT OSes, but as I think I have just demonstrated that there is NO way to do so without walking right into the MSFT patent minefield.

And if you want to write .NET so badly, why would you want to risk a MSFT patent lawsuit screwing Linux at a later date when you can just use Windows, which is what it is made for? It isn't like Linux has a shortage of programming languages that you can use absolutely free and don't have the sword of Damocles hanging over their head like Mono does. Do you think the Mono team is splitting it in two because they think it will be a fun way to spend six months? Nope, they are doing it because by MSFT's wording today we have seen that only the EMCA parts are "safe". And again, why would you want to risk seriously boning Linux at a later date like that?

I may be a Windows repairman, but I also believe in using the right tool for the job. Linux has been a good influence on MSFT (just see the 180 they did on XP and Netbooks when Linux started to gain ground there) and turning Linux into a potential patent bomb, especially when it means trusting a company whose own CEO has said in the past Linux infringes MSFT IP seems like the height of stupidity. Is .NET and Mono really so damned good that it is worth taking that risk? Really? Because from the amount of resistance I have seen there are many Linux users who would answer that question with a big fat NO! If MSFT truly believes they will not use their patents on .NET to crush Linux at a later date, then set the whole stack free. Otherwise it is just another patent timebomb just waiting to go off.

I'm all with you but it isn't exactly that easy. Some software packages to this day still require root access to the local machine even though the domain user is restricted and it is designed to run on a domain. QuickBooks used to be really bad with that but I don't think it is anymore. You also have the problem with approved sites being compromised and using browser exploits to defeat security limitations.

You also have the problem of some sites that don't even have a full time sysadmin. It's difficult to restrict US sticks and all if there isn't someone there to allow it when it's needed. I have used IPMI in the past but this gets tricky when you aren't there.

Your right though, those things should be considered and implemented. I try to set up proxy servers with access lists like Dan's guardian or something and redirect all zipped and executable downloads to a specific file where a script runs a virus scan on them before releasing it to the user. However, that is something easier accomplished at large sites more so then a 20 user site which the IT guy may be at it once every two weeks unless something goes wrong. I also just had an issue where an over priced app needed internet access and had no concept of networking so it wasn't able to grab the proxy settings from the workstation. It almost caused the entire proxy to go down until I figures out some IP-tables kung-fu where you can block all traffic except specifically allowed traffic and I basically had to set up a second network head.

The worse part about this was that I had the sales rep telling the owner we weren't smart for having the proxy in the first place, they are dangerous and we should get rid of it, to use a windows server instead. I won't give the name of the company, what the app did, or why the app needed to access the internet, but I ended up justifying the configuration by showing the PCI DSS standards and reminding the owner what it was like before we put the proxy in (he has kids supervising kids in the evenings, you can guess where that led to). He almost had me follow the rep's suggestion and rip the proxy out instead of insisting the app be fixed. The app wasn't fixed, I kludged a workaround in place, he uses it, and still and pays the annual license fee. It can be a real bitch implementing what you suggest- and yes, I agree with implementing it.

"Do you know what's easier to do than following any of those directions? Buying a fucking Mac." - by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) on Monday June 15, @09:37PM (#28343231)

Think so? MacOS X, once it started gaining more popularity, began to be attacked as well - proving the points I made in my "p.s." in my prior post you responded to!

APK

P.S.=> Here are 20 "evidences thereof", as to my statements above about MacOS X, being "virus/trojan/spyware/malware-in-general" prone, like ANY OS IS - thus, here we go:

A Worm for Your Apple:

http://www.beskerming.com/commentary/2007/07/18/222/A_Worm_for_Your_Apple

Another Mac Trojan/Fake Codec:

http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2007/11/another_mac_trojanfake_codec.php

Leopard Has More Holes than Spots:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Leopard-Has-More-Holes-than-Spots/

Mac OS X Exploit Rapidly Follows Patch:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Mac-OS-X-Exploit-Rapidly-Follows-Patch/

More Mac Vulnerabilities Than Windows In 2007?

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/18/170241&from=rss

OS X Still Open to Samba Vulnerabilities:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2141380,00.asp

A Little .Mac Security Flaw:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/12/16/0055211.shtml

Ancient Flaws May Leave Mac OS X Vulnerable:

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/01/26/2224236.shtml

Apple Clients Still Vulnerable After DNS Patch:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/01/1932258.shtml

Apple Still Has Not Patched the DNS Hole:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/28/2311240

Mac OS X Root Escalation Through AppleScript:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/18/1919224

Mac OS X Users Vulnerable To Major Java Flaw:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/19/2344239

Macs May No Longer Be Immune to Viruses:

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/05/01/0359225.shtml

OS X Leopard Firewall Flawed:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/30/188214

Two Trojans for MacOS X:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/06/25/0032226.shtml

Worm Threat Forces Apple To Disable Software?

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/03/1451217.shtml

Zombie Macs Launch DoS Attack:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/16/2327246

Third flaw hits Mac OS X:

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID=5429

(Want more? I can provide them, & a larger list for Linux over time also... as I said I could in my post to the "Pro-Penguin" pe

What's the business model?

http://epic.org/privacy/dnssec/
outlook is not good:

The pilot in Sweden has shown that top-level registrars are not willing to pay 50 euros a year for DNSSEC. The implementation of DNSSEC has proven to be pricely and it is difficult to develop an viable business model and pricing strategy. Sweden proposed a skimming strategy: setting the price high and lowering it to increase demand.

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=116607

A lack of customer demand for DNSSEC and the cost of deployment are two of the main reasons for operators either hesitating or choosing not to implement the technology in the near future, according to ENISA.

"My guess would be" - by Keruo (771880) on Friday May 01, @02:22PM (#27790545)

Something along the lines of this:

----

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it 'fun-to-do', via CIS Tool Guidance (&, beyond):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=205e8f8ebee94af1add5ec477faf8a70&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]

----

It's doable, w/ about 1-2 hours, TOPS, of your time, in order to "security-harden" a Windows NT-based OS of modern variety, yourself... that's how/why!

A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE THAT I KNOW IS NOT TRUE:

---

"The only problem is, you have to join the Air Force to get it."

----

SO - How do I know, besides my actually SEEING the results I have seen for myself, paying clients, friends & family?

Well, here is a quote from an end-user that applied that guide above in the 1st url I posted, as evidence thereof:

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=7de5812b7341873cc5e6ee9582f21bf9&t=28430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

THRONKA@xtremepccentral.com

----

Where even "normal end-users" can get results, like that, by taking 1-2 hrs. of their time, TOPS, to apply some settings given to they by CIS Tool (a multiplatform gauge/benchmark of std. industry-based best practices for each OS platform tested)

"Nuff said"...

APK

P.S.=> Following the security hardening guidelines provided by NIST can do very nearly the same thing, so, I imagine a lot of that & what is in the security guide I authored up there in the 1st URL in 2007-2008 is what has been applied to it (vs. the easily mass-deployed stock/oem std. model of XP most folks get)... and?

THE MILITARY HAS GOTTEN 'SECURITY-HARDENED BUILDS' OF WINDOWS, before (circa 2004 in fact), see here:

----

US military gets its own secure version of Windows:

23 November 2004

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=2666 [techworld.com]

----

& they have to, as you can all see, based on this report, yet again...

Makes sense though - because new exploits + vulnerabilities arise, & people LEARN HOW TO "GET AROUND" RESTRICTIONS, though, many times to their OWN dismay... apk

"Nothing can make Windows (or any other OS) completely secure if it's connected to a network" - by PapaSmurph (249554) on Friday May 01, @02:37PM (#27790805) Homepage

THE MILITARY HAS GOTTEN 'SECURITY-HARDENED BUILDS' OF WINDOWS, before (circa 2004 in fact), see here:

----

23 November 2004

US military gets its own secure version of Windows

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=2666

----

& they have to, as you can all see, based on this report, yet again...

Makes sense though - because new exploits + vulnerabilities arise, & people LEARN HOW TO "GET AROUND" RESTRICTIONS, though, many times to their OWN dismay!

SO, that "all said & aside", & what I quoted from you? YES - I'm inclined to agree!

(Albeit only IF a person doesn't have a "Security-Hardened" & FULLY (current) service pack + hotfix applied system, & ONLY on 1 grounds:

That being People Themselves... (I.E.-> People "break/bend rules", ALL THE TIME, & when it gets them in a jam? Then, they call for help, & complain about Windows etc. et al))

E.G.-> I have a pal named Jack that followed this guide I wrote, & he went from having 200+ malware infestations a week, down to maybe 1-2 a year now. He knows what did he in as well! (He has a "penchant for Pr0n", & he also used javascript almost indiscrimately/unlimitedly (is there such a word in the latter? lol) on every website he visits (this he has cut way, Way, WAY down on, & in turn, so did his infections also))...

Still, I have evidences of folks that CAN "follow rules" (for their own good no less), & I provide THEIR results (1 of them) below, for "contrast & compare" type scenarios vs. my buddies' experience above... This guide below, really works (&, you don't have to be in the US Military to get it, you can do it, yourself):

----

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it 'fun-to-do', via CIS Tool Guidance (&, beyond):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=205e8f8ebee94af1add5ec477faf8a70&showtopic=2662

----

It's doable, w/ about 1-2 hours, TOPS, of your time, in order to "security-harden" a Windows NT-based OS of modern variety, yourself... that's how/why!

A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE THAT I KNOW IS NOT TRUE:

---

"The only problem is, you have to join the Air Force to get it."

----

How do I know, besides my actually SEEING the results I have seen for myself, paying clients, friends & family?

Well, here is a quote from an end-user that applied that guide above in the 1st url I posted, as evidence thereof:

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=7de5812b7341873cc5e6ee9582f21bf9&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my ho

Old news: http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=2666 Secure windows versions w/ the NSA and US DoD working together have been the norm since just before Vista. The NSA actually has no specific guidance on any specialized config necessary to come up with a basic security profile for Vista/Win 7 (other than patches) More info can be found by googling USAF SDC

Spoken like a true 'hit it with a bigger hammer' mentality if I've ever heard it. Stay away from my servers, stay away from my internal organs, and stick to the ditches of Windows-workstation-maintenance where you belong.

People like you cause airliner crashes, Warships to become impotent, and ATC to shutdown for 3 hours endangering millions.

There are those who belong in enterprise, and there are those who do not. Know which you are, those on the other side of the tracks sure as hell do.

and they do:

Click here to read an article about the software used for air traffic

you may see this as proof of your point, but ask yourself this question, why aren't they using macs?

here is a link explaining what TLER is and why it should only be used in raid setups.

http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featureid=1019

You guys remember this?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061126-8288.html

See also:

"Can you get 256Gb on an A4 sheet of paper? No way!"

http://www.techworld.com/storage/news/index.cfm?newsid=7432

Overall, it was a scam. But the idea of somehow using a durable physical medium seems pretyy good, no?

PS: OK, this doesn't solve the OPs original question.

NAT is not a permanent solution

Nice try but pure fabrication. NAT, aka private address space, is not going away. Telcos/ILECs blocked NAT when IPv6 was being developed and have since then spent a lot on marketing IPv6 without NAT/rfc1918 as a solution too all our problems. In so doing they have delayed the adoption of IPv6 by many years. How much longer will their transparent opposition to IPv6 NAT delay the inevitable? That is the question. No, we are not going to assign public IP addresses to every network-enabled computer and other device. And no, we are not going to implement IPv6 until NAT is fully supported. This is the reality that those who claim, falsely, that NAT is not a solution, are trying to ignore.

Sadly, due to telco/ILEC influence there is not likely to be a single IPv6 NAT implement for several years. When it does happen, and it will, there is likely to have already been multiple IPv6 NAT implementations which network programmers will have a hard time reconciling. The problem is vendor lock-in, which astroturfing ILECs cannot achieve without blocking NAT, and in the process 'owning' all of your IP-enabled devices.

See also
  http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072109-nat-housley-qna.html
  http://www.techworld.com/networking/features/index.cfm?featureid=4167
  http://archives.devshed.com/forums/networking-100/security-gain-from-nat-top-5t-2323463.html

Here's where I would go with a useful link. "Duplex" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means in this context. The use of this term bare is misleading, as perhaps the marketing person who invented the meme intended to be.

"FYI, SAS full duplex means that one channel can be used for data traffic and the other channel can be simultaneously used for command traffic. Both channels cannot be simultaneously used for data. So when Mr Batty says 6Gb/s is available and that's 4x SATA I, he is technically correct, but end users will not see 4x performance."

If you can't sell on the features, it's ok for some people to make stuff up when they're selling. But not us, here, ok? Let's be honest with one another here around the water cooler.

Since when is Microsoft an industrial company?

Since services like S&P began to define it as an industrial.

It was a rhetorical question. There is some irony when Microsoft is considered an industrial leader when the primary objective of their programing staff seems to be to generate legal work. Don't make a better browser, make one that employs every protocol in an arbitrarily improper manner, then embed it into the OS so it's difficult for the typical user to avoid.

Microsoft employs 94,000 people. It owns or leases 677 sites world-wide, 29 million square feet of real estate. It has subsidiaries in every country from A to Z. The programmer is never going to dominate the headcount in an organization that operates on such a scale.

Well no kidding, my point is that the term "industrial" makes one think of a brick-and-mortar assembly line, while Microsoft does more lobbying and bribing than coding.

You do not have to bully anyone to produce drivers for the OS that has 90% of your potential market - and Apple has a lock on damn near 10% of what remains.

Since when does 90% of Microsoft's target market use Vista? Many Windows users who were very skeptical of Vista (and rightly so) are still using XP on their X86 boxes, such as myself. And how dare you exclude Linux from that figure on /.!

And perhaps you do not recall the difficulty people had when trying to use their peripherals with Vista even after the major online retailers had stopped offering XP pre-installed in favor of Vista, no doubt at Microsoft's insistence. The drivers came a lot slower than anticipated, or not at all.

Apparently open office was "downloaded" 3 million times.

Ok... let's take a look at those numbers. There are about 1 billion PC's in use today:
http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9119

About 90% of which are windows installed. Most windows machines come bundled with office, so almost that entire number has office on it. Additionally, office is the single most widely used application for OSX, which has about 7% market share:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/01/01/mac-os-x-market-share-sets-new-record-at-the-end-of-2007

so very *conservatively* speaking, there are about 800 to 900 million office installs out there. And I'm basically throwing out a couple hundred million just on the assumption I've made *some* kind of error.

Now, my bet is that a good fraction of major open office users on windows have already upgraded their install, so that 3 million number is probably within an order of magnitude of the total install base. I'll give open office the benefit of the doubt and say that they have 10 times as many users as have already upgraded; however, I'll say right now that I doubt that number is that high.

So, heavily weighting the numbers in favor of open office, I still only come up with 30 million open office users to 800 million MS office installs.

So open office has, being very optimistic in open office's favor, 3 or 4% the number of MS office users?

Now the stupid slashdot summary says:
"As one commentator noted, when it comes to a choice between almost identical software (e.g. Microsoft Office and OpenOffice), price is the determining factor."

Uh, whatever. I guess the software isn't "almost identical." Moron.

90% of the documents I get passed are in MS office format, and those documents can be "rendered" by open office, but then they will without exception look like shit.

That means that open office can't even *read* the documents I want to read. How does that make it a competitor for MS office? Why are people who don't know what the word "open source" means going to throw out software they already own to use software that doesn't do the job any better?

They aren't. They haven't. They won't.

I'm glad there *is* OO.org, because if I don't have a copy of office on hand, which is kinda rare, I can still layout a basic document.

However, I've got to say, it must be depressing to spend so much effort working on software that isn't going anywhere.

See this quote with this article.

Well it's certainly being talked about:
here
here
here
and here

I could be wrong on this and probably am, but isn't wireless-N just 2 wireless-G channels bonded together? If this is accurate then the tech exists. It just may not exist in an easily digestible capsule. Although the bonded G channels would be through the same device so maybe using 2 different devices would be the problem......

You might read this article.

This might help too....

Will Businesses Skip Windows Vista Altogether?

Corporate Americaâ(TM)s rejection of Vista

Microsoft may allow businesses to skip Vista, go direct from XP to Windows 7

Businesses could skip Vista for Windows 7

This seems like an assertion bordering on wrecklessness to me.What evidence is there that MS had no intention to support the ISO OOXML?

From the article:

His big beef is the ODF standard needs to have some formula definitions added??? So add them to the standard! Somehow I think the actual formulas, at least the financial ones, are already defined in some other standard, maybe not an ISO standard, but a standard somewhere. I just can't believe CPA's make up their own formulas. (OK, honest CPA's.) And since these formula's are standard somewhere else already, then OpenXML should have the same formulas.

"But what if there are different standards for the same financial function?" you ask. Well, then have a flag to pick which one is used as part of the function call. If OpenXML doesn't do this then ODF can make claims that Excel is not suitable for financial calculations. Actually, from the comments above, I'd say that is already the case. "...output varies by version and service pack of MS Office." does not inspire confidence in me for one.

The author also seems to think having OpenXML as a standard will provide anyone and everyone the complete specs to the standard. From what I've read, this isn't the case so far, and I doubt MS is anxious for that to happen. Get it approved, yes, but describe it in enough detail that anyone else could fully implement it, no.

As it is, Microsoft will not commit to supporting the standard. According to Brian Jones, a Microsoft manager who has worked on OOXML for six years: "It's hard for Microsoft to commit to what comes out of Ecma [the European standards group that has already OK'd OOXML] in the coming years, because we don't know what direction they will take the formats. We'll of course stay active and propose changes based on where we want to go with Office 14. At the end of the day, though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. ... Since it's not guaranteed, it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement."

"Last week, ScanSafe's Landesman drew a link between the security breach at UK-based Fasthosts and the site hacks, saying then that the domains ScanSafe had found infected had, or had recently had, a relationship with Fasthosts."

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=11184

It's not a software flaw according to Landesman. Its stupid admins not changing passwords or with a lingering delayed infection from the initial theft.

OK, I was wrong about the Fast Track, but that was not my point. The point was that it took a long time in OASIS to prepare ODF.

The article in question says Office 2007 does not fully follow OOXML. Bugs they are not.

Brian Jones has said that Microsoft is not committted to OOXML http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featureid=3685&pagtype=all

A friend just pointed me to this set-up and I'm fairly happy for home:

DLINK DNS-323
Two SATA bays. Can slide in the drives w/o tools.
Print server (USB)
Can run in RAID0, RAID1, or JBOD (I chose RAID1).
web interface for config.

I bought two 512Gb WD drives which were on sale for $119 each.

Some peculiar behavior if you really want a secure system: passwords couldn't include non-alpha chars!? And it didn't allow spaces in the WORKGROUP name for the samba mount, which isn't an MS requirement.

But for home use where you're already considered secure and not so worried about multiple users, I find it great having one giant /Storage that the whole network can access.

The reviews on Amazon are love/hate, I think for the above reasons. Probably not be the best set-up for an office or in The Wild.

Random review here: http://www.techworld.com/storage/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=469

The key point here is that you can get the best performance/watt around from ARM chips. AMD's Geode series has a 1.5-watt Geode LX900 (600MHz) and a 0.9-watt Geode LX800 (500MHz) (link). Note: AMD's site rates these at higher power (2.6W and 1.8W respectively) here.

ARM chips have always been more efficient than X86 chips and always will be due to CPU architecture and the way that every instruction is encoded. Each ARM opcode has got a 4-bit conditional field that governs whether that opcode is executed or not. In an IC, you've got quiescent power (always there from the moment you switch on) and dynamic power. Dynamic power comes from switching transistors on and off. If an instruction isn't executed, there is less switching and less power consumption.

With a "save the planet through electronic design" attitude, I'd love to see a large proportion of X86 desktops replaced with ARM-based machines. Especially when you consider that saving even 1 Watt per PC scales to many thousands of megawatts , especially when you see how many PCs are in use now.

As ARM CPU speeds increase beyond the point where you can have a modern, complex OS and good office software running at a comfortable speed to the user, isn't that a goal worth aiming for? The practical sides of that dream are daunting. I'd be naive to think that the world will port its software just because it's a good idea to save electricity where possible. A fresh start would be bigger than Haiku in it's ambition. Is it worth it? I'd like to think so. What's 10 years of OS and application development that could make a good dent in global power consumption that would last forever?