Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP To Block Use Of "Troublesome" Drivers
The document details how XP will automatically download the latest drivers for your hardware from the windows update site, and more worringly, XP will reguarly update the list of blocked drivers from the site. Quote from the document:
   "On a related note, Windows XP provides the ability for Microsoft to receive crash dump data on specific drivers (i.e. when a user receives a blue screen, we upload that information for further analysis). When Microsoft reporting systems indicate crashes have exceeded a certain threshold, Microsoft will notify the Vendor that the device is being considered for the blocked driver list. If reports pass an even greater threshold, we will then flag that specific version of the driver as needing to be blocked."
Boy, The site that uploads that crash dump data (and whatever else it snags...) better have a lot of bandwidth... ;-) As The Register points out, this brings back memories of how Microsoft killed Caldera DR-DOS by deliberately crashing Windows 3.1 if you were running on DR-DOS -- for no reason other than forcing you to use MS-DOS."
Note: according to this article, the change does not prevent Black Ice or other programs from running per se -- but it does require them to use updated versions tailored for XP.
This is just another method to determine what things are installed on your computer. They couldn't get away with HD scan uploads, so now they upload what's installed on your computer - but only when it crashes.
I realize this is blasphemy to say this, but I seriously doubt Microsoft would be stupid enough to risk the fallout that would occur if people's crash dumps were anything more than anonymous.
There is just no way in hell they are going to have your computer send them anything more than the crash dump and system configuration data. Not your personal data.
I know you paranoids will think of a million different ways that Microsoft can try to tie this data to you personally ("They can record my IP address," "They can match up my name and location to caller ID," etc). But the fact is, the watchdogs are going to be all over this, and it would be suicide for them to try it.
As an example, whenever you are setting up Windows Update, they make it very clear that they are only sending system configuration data (which you can view), and not anything personally identifiable. They realize people are paranoid about that, and when the screen first loads, it says something like "checking your system configuration -- this is done without sending anything to Microsoft."
They are dumb, but not stupid.
"And like that
The entire justice system can't touch MS
How did they win their recent case against MS?
but they will be afraid of watchdogs
Microsoft has repeatedly been bitten by watchdog groups, and often changes their behavior because of it. Apparantly you need an example. How about the recent Smart Tags issue? Everyone got in a tizzy, and Microsoft pulled it, even though I feel the problem wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.
MS has a monopoly and they can do whatever they damned well please. They have 30 billion in cash for chrissake they can buy the entire congress and have change left over to buy the president. Oh I forgot they already bought the president and the attorney general nevermind
Uhhhh yeah. ok.
"And like that
Yes, despite what the most vocal MS critics say, NT is quite stable, third party drivers do kill it.
Infoworld published a Microsoft study into the causes of NT 4.0 failures. "3rd Party drivers" and "Internal failure" were about equal as the two greatest sources of failure. As someone who saw a few bleu screens in the SP1 through SP4 days, this jibes with experience.
Obviously Microsoft's approach has been to reduce both those causes with the much more stable W2K OS and a enhanced driver certification program.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
It is such a stretch of imagination to believe that Microsoft could improve the APIs that are used to "access windows internals" so that it's simply not possible to "cause instability on XP"?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
For those who didn'tt know: the entire PC sector is counting on XP to pull it out of the year long tech wreck. By PC sector I am refering to: INTC, AMD, MU, GTW, DELL, CPQ, etc. XP seems like a huge gamble for MS, either it will be a great success, or an awful failure. Considering MS history, it is hard to believe that anything from MS will be a failure - no matter how bad it sucks. But, I keep hearing people say that they want no part of XP.
Hey, I used to write Linux kernel code for a living. I've seen a driver crash all over the place. Multiple times. And you know what? Linux kept on ticking. It's easy to handle a driver crash. Just write the oops to the log device and return from the driver as if nothing happened. Of course, you can't do that when your memory protection has failed (or is non-existient) and the bad driver just scribbled all over your stack...
A driver under Linux is a module. If the module fails, it fails; the scheduler continues to run, and therefore so does the rest of the system. It's not a very pretty way to handle a screwup, but a system complex enough to handle it prettily is gonna be such a resource hog I wouldn't want it. But it does get handled.
As for the wags that say Linux is not a desktop operating system, tell that to my wife, who's been running Red Hat and Mandrake for the last four years. Or better yet, tell it to the Germans, who just threw out Microsoft in favor of SuSE. (And then there's all the folks running OS X, which we all know is just BSD with a nice GUI... and looks a helluvalot like Solaris and CDE...)
Microsoft is simply doing what it has done for years: describe anybody who has a chance of competing with them, ususally due to a better product, as "troublesome" or "incompatable" or "unstable" and then rewriting critical parts of the operating system to, er... prove their point. I liked DR DOS, and still haven't forgiven M$ for their treatment of it back in the day.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Putting all the anti-Microsoft BS aside, this really is a pretty good idea - they just need an opt-out option. I wouldn't mind MS telling me that the driver I'm about to install has crashed 4 trillion machines - but I reserve the right to go ahead and install it anyway.
I wouldn't have thought they'd have faked three videos presented as evidence in a Federal court, either.
It's called "Don't buy the fscking software!" I take every opportunity to encourage people to do the same. Right now, my winbox runs only those programs I haven't had the time to port (yet). I see no need to buy a piece of software which breaks my firewall.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
"We've been working closely with Microsoft - BlackIce is widely used inside Microsoft - in order to make sure it works well," Rob Graham, founder of NetworkIce told us.
My question is how much is microsoft actually comming up with themselves and how much are they hacking away from the opensource community? I heard that Active Directory is just bind with a microsoft twist to it. Is IIS just apache tweeked to hell and back?
Microsoft is combining a firewall with WindowsXP but did they actually write it or is it just ipchains? Is there any way we would ever really know if microsoft is using open source (GPL) code for their commercial purposes?
Yeah, a lot of kiddies and black hats all around the world must have been thinking about that the second they read the article, but you can BET Microsoft will have thought of it: they'll ask for your id key, or worse, your Passport id, before letting you submit crash dumps and download stuff. The former would make sense, since it also contains info about your hardware. Anyway, in both cases, you'll have to auth yourself in a way that will let MS know who you are. :)
This could also be a way for them to check that you didn't crack the product activation key, for what we know... The sad thing is, it is actually a good idea they had, but they're severed their own reputation so badly over the years, that whenever they come up with something new, people all other the world immediately assume they'll use it for Evil Purposes. The SmartTags weren't that bad, in themselves, for example (go see a screenshot of them, they don't really deface sites); we just assumed they'd be put to their worse possible use. I don't know if we were right to do so. It's just not possible to trust Microsoft.
Ah well. I'm sure the aforementionned kiddies will find a way to exploit the update server anyway. I mean, it's such a big entry point for such a variety of data, there has to be a buffer overflow somewhere in there. And God bless XP users once the kiddies fiddle with the central driver database!
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
If you read the article, you'll see that the mechanism
blocks drivers which crash the system frequently
as determined by the crash dump reports sent to MS.
Clearly, if you write your driver so it crashes the
system all the time, it will be blocked. So stop
complaining that you are "denied market share" and
write a better driver. What, do you think you are
entitled to be installed on every Windows machine just
because your software is free?
Microsoft to prevent users from installing certain device drivers.
Oh Great! One more product edge taken down by marketing idiots!
Do they get a clue why their product is so popular?
People are worried about all the worms and viruses slowing down the internet? If every time Windows PC's blue-screen, the data is uploaded to MS, it will slow to a crawl.
Does Linux bitch when I install my decidedly non standard Sound Card driver for my Aureal?? Nope! So Windows should not either.
Gorkman
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Don't know about ZoneAlarm, but BlackIce isn't free. It costs $40.
Still no reason to buy Bill's Bogus Journey, though. Although the idea of using ZoneAlarm to prevent Microsoftware from phoning home every time I crashed it (by using java?) does have some appeal :)
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Actually we should blame MS - it was a deliberate decision on MS's part to put speed over stability - ie to put the video etc. drivers into the kernel level in NT4 onwards, for increased speed as the expense of them being able to bring down the whole OS if they crashed.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
After about the umpteenth million time that I've successfully used ZoneAlarm to block out some adware, or some s'kiddie trying to r00t my winbox, I'm what you'd call satisfied. Sure, That program causes some instability, but that's nothing compared to what would happen if my computer were a zombie. Presumably Microsoft expects me to trust their firewall to block out adware? Or to actually be secure? No thanks. XP is one "upgrade" this user won't be wasting time/money on.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Sure, it might block programs to cause Windows to crash, but it could also be used to block software MS just doesn't want you to run. They've done things like this before. Because MS feels safer with Dubya's administration, I won't be surprised if they do even nastier things to competition than they did in the past. I expect them to try to kill off all non-MS operating systems by replacing TCP/IP with their own.
When I buy a PC, I should be able to install whatever software I want, period. If I'm dumb enough to install software that is known to make my OS crash repeatedly, so be it. It is MY box. I'm responsible for what happens to it. If we give away that responsibility to MS, then we're also giving them the ability to further steal away our freedom of choice.
And it won't be any more secure than what we have in place. If anything, stupid email viruses and exploits will be even more damaging than before, because now EVERYONE will have the exact same system setups. And each time one of these attacks takes place, Microsoft can charge everyone for the update.
Oh, and let's call this new Internet/Software Control system "RapeNet," since that is what it is going to do to each and every computer user.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes...and Win2K shares its roots with WinNT but is not WinNT. Windows NT 3.x laid the groundwork, registry, ntfs, accounts, services, events, hal...etc. NT 4.x added the familiar interface and rudimentary multimedia functions, increased drivers...etc. 2K added plug and play, USB firewire, file encryption...etc. And now XP adds the Luna interface, registration locking, driver blocking...etc.
It all depends on what you define as code base. To me, Win2K and XP are no more different from NT4 as Windows 98SE and ME are different than 98. Basic updates and add ons that could have easily been added as an incremental release.
I'm still pissed as hell I had to upgrade stable bloat-free NT4 servers just because I needed to access a USB accessory...there's is absolutely no reason why MS couldn't have done USB support in NT except for the fact they would sell less 2K!
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Zone Alarm has ALREADY been updated to be XP compatible. BlackICE will be updated before the end of next week to be compatible.
This is a Good Thing(tm) for MS to do. If they KNOW that a certain driver is bad then why shouldn't they prevent you from making an obvious mistake. Why would you WANT to be able to add in a known bad driver? You actually fault MS for this? I applaud them - I say: FINALLY!!
If we trusted them this might not be so bad. They ARE trying to make the end user expereince better. they are trying to say that drivers that are certified to work will be allowed.
The problem is though...we really do not trust them. I like MS and I don't trust them.
On the bright side though, this seems more like a hardware issue. Except for mice/keyboards/joysticks there isn't a wholelot of hardware MS sells. Thats not to say though that they wouldn't blackball a competitor of a favored hardware manufacturer that pays them a little extra cash to get their hardware/driver certified.
It seems to me that if what it takes to pass the test is out in the open, and it really is in MS's best interest to do that, there shouldn't be a p[roblem. I have always said that the reason why MS seemed so unstable was because the device drivers and the devices really didn't play well with Windows despite the Windows certified logo.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
You don't see the problem? Its Microsoft doing this. Here are a few questions for you:
(1) Has Microsoft's behaviour, in the past, shown that we can reasonably expect that we can trust Microsoft to NOT abuse this feature to diss or shut out competition?
(2) Looking at the general trend that this feature is most likely to go, can we expect that a similar feature could, in future, be used to block competing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H, uh, I mean, unstable applications?
(3) In the case of Linux, not only can we most likely expect the entire process to be open and transparent (i.e. so we'll know who is getting blocked and why), but with Linux you can always just rebuild the source with the 'feature' disabled. Now, in the case of Microsoft, can we expect fully open and transparent access to the database of blocked drivers (and in future applications), and can we expect to always be able to disable this feature easily?
Not everything is black and white. Just because the same feature is there, doesn't make it the same issue.
From the document:
One of the valuable prevention features that have been added to Windows XP is the ability to block users from installing a particular version of a driver. Since the release of Windows 2000, Windows has had the ability to block installation of a driver through a Setupapi.dll check of known problem drivers. Windows XP adds the capability to update the list of problem drivers from Windows Update. Windows Update, independent of the access mechanism described above, automatically downloads this information.
Read that...the list of drivers is controlled by a DLL that is updated by Microsoft. The information is automatically updated.
If a user with administrative privileges has the device installed (or plugs an external peripheral into the PC), they will receive a balloon popup in the taskbar indicating that the driver has known problems and will not be loaded. When a user clicks on the balloon or notification icon, Help and Support Services will provide information on where to get an updated driver if information is available. Driver blocking is independent of whether the device is signed or not (i.e. Microsoft will block signed drivers that are known to have problems).
So yes you are correct...it will be possible for 3rd parties to add in their own drivers...the catch being that Microsoft still retains control over them...even if they are signed (which most unofficial drivers aren't). All MS has to do is add the driver (probably DLL information?) to their list of "problem drivers" and they will be blocked.
I don't know bout you...but that sounds like a perfect setup for MS to break practically any application they want at will on millions of PCs in a heartbeat. Brrrr.
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Are you incapable of thinking long-term? Just because something is voluntary now doens't mean it will always be. New Microsoft features are almost always voluntary - they're usually voluntary only until people have gotten used to the idea. Then either they become involuntary, or the process of opting out is made overly-complicated and obscure, so that most people just give in anyway. Think man.
Who cares if they lost? They lost before and all they got was a slap on the wrist. This court is going to do the same thing. They are utterly immune from any and all pressures from the govt. MS is above the law. If you need proof take a look at the trial. For most people tampering with evidence is a crime for MS executives there is zero punishment for evidence tampering. Same with witness tampering, intimidating witnesses, and of course lying under oath.
BTW if you think smart tags are gone you are really stupid.
War is necrophilia.
Well thank god we have Microsoft to solve all our problems so us morons don't have to deal with them. I'm done putting peoples' rights over the rights of a for-profit business. I want passport and hailstorm, I want my news handpicked by MS-spinsters before I wake up, I want my computer tailored to MS's idea of what I should be using it for, I want my car fixed before I even knew it was broken, and when I become utterly vacant of dignity and turn to suicide as a last resort, I want hailstorm tobe able to notify the authorities when I purchase a noose. Now, please bend over.
Software vendors don't "access Windows internals" because programmers want to--it takes a lot of time to do so. They do it because Microsoft's APIs are insufficient and poorly thought out. Microsoft has profited handsomely from this because third parties have managed to figure out how to make that pitiful platform do things Microsoft never had the sense to design APIs for. Without third party vendors doing this, Windows would be nowhere. Now that Microsoft has finally copied enough from other vendors, their system doesn't quite need such enthusiastic third party software vendors anymore.
It's also a question of architecture: except for a very limited set of hardware drivers, there is no reason why the installation of anything should either be prohibited or cause instability. (Linux doesn't get this right either, but it is considerably better than Windows.)
The biggest problem with this is, though, that, whether it is sensible or not, Microsoft is driven by the profit motive, and for them to be able to exclude vendors from the market and force them to submit to certification procedures is a great way of controlling their market and increasing their profits. That is, even if there is some weak justification of this action in terms of profits, it is still highly suspect, and should be.
This isn't about being intrinsically "anti-Microsoft". The company has been found to be a monopolist, and it is rightfully subject to this kind of scrutiny and suspicion. Microsoft needs to tread extra careful in ways other companies don't have to, and instead the company is still giving consumers, software vendors, and regulators the finger.
(Incidentally, your characterization of blocking "only current versions of the drivers" is incorrect. I suggest you take the time and actually read the document at Microsoft's site describing their policies.)
That Bill Gates as borg icon you see on top signifies the topic "Microsoft".
While I agree that the whole article should probably be labeled "Flamebait" designed to increase hits, you can always block articles about MS out by going to your user info and clicking "Customize Homepage". Check on "Microsoft" and you won't see any articles about the company again.
The problem, of course, is that you will also miss out on the important stuff like the final resolution of the DOJ case and also that Slashdot editors frequently post thinly veiled flamebait about Microsoft under other topics.
Mmmm.. Donuts
For my firewall needs, I went with Darrel Reed's IPFilter on an old Sparc5. As a single purpose box, it more than fills the need to protect my Windows desktop machines at home. Here in the office, I went with Netscreen, a relatively cheap, but powerful firewall, VPN, and remote access solution.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
According to the The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty the correct terminology is derived from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Prefixes for binary multiples. So as you can see, the correct term would actually be one mebibyte (1 MiB = 220 B = 1 048 576 B). It is suggested that in English, the first syllable of the name of the binary-multiple prefix should be pronounced in the same way as the first syllable of the name of the corresponding SI prefix, and that the second syllable should be pronounced as "bee."
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
yeah, basically the only way the operating system can crash is if an expcetion raised in a thread running in kernel mode is unhandled. this leads to a BugCheck (aka blue-screen). however, sometimes a kernel thread can cause the OS to hang if it's running at a particular interrupt level and doesn't yield, or otherwise prevents user threads from running (maybe by holding a mutex when it shouldn't). bad driver code is the most common cause of problems on any operating system and I'm sure that this move by Microsoft is just them trying to improve the percieved stability of their OS. The problem with writing drivers is that often the code is specific to one version of the OS. I'm not surprised that vertain driver no longer run correctly on XP. I woudln't want to upgrade to XP and find that I get a blue-screen on boot just because I had some bad driver installed. Maybe the win2k versions of the ZoneAlarm drivers work fine on XP, if so this is a bad move on Microsoft's part, but I wouldn't be surpised of they need updating to a newer version.
I want to know exactly how people know that "most of the instability I've had with windows was due to bad 3-rd party drivers."
--or--
"Most of the instability I've had with windows was due to windows."
Got friends?
I MUST disagree with you. You should see my ZoneAlarm logs of people port-scanning me, trying to make a connection on every port.
I am not a systems administrator, and although I try, I do not neccessarily have the knowledge needed to completely lock down my various systems.
ZoneAlarm fills two important needs:
1. Prompt me when incoming connections have been denied on some port. (Lets me know I have an open port, also, it's nice to know when you're being hit so you can do something about it if it gets really bad)
2. Lets me know when spyware has been installed on one of my systems, because the first time it gets installed, I get a prompt when it tries to 'phone home'. I can then deny the connection and go uninstall it.
I want to KNOW what internet traffic is coming IN and OUT of my system. ZoneAlarm fulfills that need, for $0, and deserves praise.
I can imagine someone flooding Microsoft's 'Crash Dump Servers' with loads of fake dump info making Microsoft take action on disallowing that application to run!
First one to make Windows XP NOT ALLOW OFFICE XP TO RUN --->!!WINS!!
LFS. Have you built your system today?
Something tells me that this is the first step towards creating a 'closed shop', whereby NO software, not even application-level, can be installed or run unless it has M$'s approval.
Goodbye small independent software developers - if you can't afford the hassle and expense of MS$'s Certification Program, or if you don't toe the party line with MS$'s marketing agendas, then you'll find that your software is barred from Lose-dows XP.
Another possibility is that unknown software might be severely restricted in what XP allows it to do - for instance, non-certified programs may be strictly forbidden from all but the most basic access to the Internet.
And it's only a matter of a couple of years before you won't be able to buy a legal copy of Win2k, Win98 etc - it'll be WinXP or nothing.
Don't be surprised to see mandatory updates of XP which include blocked websites, blocked protocols etc.
I hope that the masses migrate to Linux, and that WinXP fails to recoup its development costs.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
I'm sorry I'm not 3l33t3 d00d downloading warez versions of XP. I'm certainly not following the beta process of an OS I have absolutely no intention of installing even when it's final. So, stick your ego ....
WinXP has been in beta for awhile now, someone in the local shop has been testing a prerelease version for the past month. In Microsoft's big package of fun software you can get for $500/year, the latest one the local shop got included WinXP (arrived this week).
So, don't start flaming people who have actually researched and used an OS that a vast majority of us will probably come in contact with over the next few years. Some of us can't support a Linux only setup, there are end users, and customers, with software sometimes going back years, and specialized equipment with windows only support. Hint: Linux may be nice, but it doesn't work everywhere, for everyone.
(Oh, replace "Linux" with your operating system of choice. The argument doesn't change.)
Just another evolved monkey with a keyboard!
Ahh. It would be So Cool if microsoft actually blocked blackice and zonealarm. Preferrably blocked each new version, with each new update of windows.
.. well .. normal people with windows (or newser linux distros) really have their computers pretty damn closed down when they buy'em. If they open things up - they really don't need a firewall to "double-check" everything for them.
/sub7 victims, but only _after_ they've been stupid enough to run the fscking trojan in the first place. NOrmal rules of conduct on computers really says that they SHOULD NOT RUN PROGRAMS THEY DO NOT KNOW.
.. well .. I don't know why they do it -- either they are stupid or they are bought out by the "personal-fw-industry".
The "personal firewall" industry is a full-of-crap industry created by the media. There is absolutely NO NEED for a person to install a 'personal firewall'. There is a small set of rules he should follow to be safe from email-viruses, trojans and "crack attempts".
The firewalls prevents crack attempts, and preventes outgoing connections on non-allowed ports from non-allowed software. The first
The "firewall" may prevent them from becomming netbus/back orifice
The entire 'personal-firewall' industry is a mediahyped hystery that really shouldn't exist. Its an industry that is all about creating 'fear' in the normal citizens, and the SO CALLED "security consultants" that recomends that you should install personal firewalls
Personally I just shake my head when I hear about stupid lusers that has actually INSTALLED such things.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Since when did it become the responsibility of the OS to insure that third party software / drivers work adaquately? Clearly this is a ploy by Microsoft to wrestle even more control from third party vendors.
I've been using Windows on the desktop (more out of necessity than anything) for several years. But I am *not* going to upgrade to XP. No sir. I'm going to jump ship to the only other viable desktop alternative: Mac OS X.
All they will do is drive people to dual boot their machines to Linux for those purposes. Anyone using "SMR, DivX ;-), 3ivx, M$MPEG-4" are probably good enough with computers to handle the dual boot. So just keep MS for the MS approved games, and start using Linux for everything else. Eventually the games will follow.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
I another thing I dunno is how to turn off this "feature" in windows....
Well, the thing is you can't turn this feature on or off... it's automatically running all the time in the back ground. And actually, it looks like it's geard to reducing the number of "unstable" drivers on your system. This may or may not be a good thing(tm), however, they did not mention in their reference document exactly how they are going to validate these "crash dumps" that will be sent back to them. They will need to validate these dumps somehow, or else you'll get a new kinda of DoS attack... one where a bunch of computers are crashed purposefully to generate dumps that seem to indicate that a particular driver is faulty. Then MicroSoft blocks this driver from ALL the installed XP user base and Wammo! Driver DoS :)
BTW, I copyright that idea.... erm, yeah, whatever. ;) Cheers!
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
This is so typical of some Slashdot submitters. Any news about Microsoft is mangled into something bad about the company, regardless whether this really is the case or not.
/dev/ files changed between some version of Linux. Microsoft preventing this software from installing is like having different plugs for 220 V and 9 V devices so you won't plug your shaver directly into a high voltage outlet.
In this case, only CURRENT versions of these programs are blocked, because they access Windows internals which causes instability on XP. They just need to be adjusted to work with XP correctly. Just like some
People who badmounth a company (whether it be Microsoft or another) using information like this as an argument should either shut up or be sued and punished for spreading mis-information.
It's a perfect example of double standards: when Windows crashes this is always the fault of Microsoft, not of bad drivers or programs which access Windows internals, while in fact they often are (especially video drivers). When Microsoft tries to do something about it, it's suddenly only done for promotion of their own firewall software.
Make up your mind. If you are against Microsoft for monopoly reasons or anything else, that's your right. But mangling any piece of information to something negative only hurts the credibility of the anti-Microsoft camp.
Agreed. It has gotten to the point that I no longer trust their technology solutions, because of all of this enhancement in ther marketing and monopoly functionalities.
Let me repeat this. I do not trust their technology. I do not trust their marketing. There is the old joke revisted: How can you tell when an MS exec tells a lie? Answer: [fill in the blank]
Many MS geeks live inside a microsoft world depicted by microsoft marketing. Imagine the vaporware presentations they give the staff about the new technology coming out 5 to 10 years down the road! No wonder they go OOO and AHHH. But it is vaporware all the same. MS probably lies to thier staff as much as they lie to us. They got to keep the vision alive, sell the microserfs on the long term dream enough to get get 5 or 10 years of juicey code out of them before they burn out.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Los Angeles, CA February 20, 2003
Think you're safe just because you never open an email attachment, like your computer savvy friends have told you? This is not the case any longer. Software on your computer, software that you have paid hundreds of dollars of your hard-earned cash for, can be disabled on your system, even if you never check your email with it.
You may ask yourself, How is this possible? Well, it seems to be the result of a Half-Baked[tm] feature integrated into the new Microsoft Windows XP Operating System that was designed to prevent the installation of error-prone software on your computer has been subverted by hackers to deny services to computers users on a massive scale.
This technology works by maintaining a list of "good", meaning Microsoft-approved software titles. If a program is not on the list, it cannot run on your computer. Fine enough, but the software ran on my computer yesterday, you might say. The clincher is this, an application that is believed to cause too many errors can be removed from the list, thus rendering it unusable. The hackers authoring this worm have targetted certain software titles, and introduce new computer codes into those titles, causing those titles to create system errors during their use.
cat
bug in slash?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
The last thing that MS wants is for the user to see a bunch of pop-up warnings each time XP and MS servers talk to each other to validate/snitch registration information.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
...because I can't wait to see something like KERNEL32.DLL or NTDLL.DLL getting blocked. Then again it probably has a "if M$ then ignore", if not they'd never get the beta out the door. Disclaimer: Using win2k here, and from my personal experience, next to a crappy ISDN card driver, most BSODs happen because of M$ internal drivers.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I mean. what is WinXP? it's taking a very good and successful product with good features, and put some "meat" around it to grab more marketshares. For most of us, everything new XP has to offer we know how to install the equivalent on win2k... switching from Win2k to winXP is simply an interface upgrade (which can be done also with windowsblind(?) or similar).
Question is, is there a good reason for a win2k user to upgrade (downgrade I should say) to XP? XP seems so much more restrictive WIHTOUT giving any new features that can't be match with 3rd parties software. It's not an OS for most of us who like to mess around with hardware or software and betas. It's meant for the home user that is running 98/ME and wants to upgrade, THAT guy is gonna see a shitload of improvements.
Yes there's a professionnal version as well... I know... do you really think it's gonna be a major seller? heck they didn't expect win2k to sell that much, why did it sell that much? Games support/directX, Stability, speed, dual processor support, etc... XP offers nothing new in any of these area, so the win2k userbase Won't upgrade unless they have money to burn.
Finally, that product activation thing is gonna be another major pain in the butt for them, most IT people won't tolerate that, and boycott it. (personnally I don't feel like wasting 10hrs a month waiting over the phone because something bad happened to my users and I have to reactivate each one of them one by one or for whatever other reasons).
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
How can Microsoft stop people from sending in spoofed data? What will stop, for example, NVidia from sending in data that makes Matrox drivers look buggy as hell and getting them blocked?
Note: according to this article, the change does not prevent Black Ice or other programs from running per se -- but it does require them to use updated versions tailored for XP.
Hello??? Anybody home? Did it occur to anyone that maybe the reason why Microsoft is considering blocking old versions of ZoneAlarm and BlackIce is because they don't work on the new operating system? I'm sure by the time XP ships, there will be updated versions of ZoneAlarm and BlackIce available, and users will simply be required to upgrade them (for free I'm sure) before installing them on XP. If Microsoft didn't do this, some morons would try to install the same old version they used on Win98, and it would break things, and many of the users would blame XP.
Microsoft did something similar in WinME: the OS ships with a database of known-incompatible software, and if you try to run a known-incompatible program, it gives you a warning, with the option to cancel or run it anyway. An example of this is Enternet 100, a PPPoE client that Mindspring used to distribute for their ADSL service. Guess what? It actually doesn't work on WinME. Runs fine on Win95b, Win98, NT 4 and 2000, and I understand there's a way to hack it to make it work on ME, but according to the company that makes it, it's not compatible - you have to upgrade to a version of Enternet 300, or use a different PPPoE client. I did tech support for Earthlink after the Mindspring merger, and that feature that Microsoft put in actually saved us from some pretty annoyed customers, because it told them it wasn't going to work before they found out for themselves the hard way.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
even though the code base is no different than NT/2K
I think not. The XP code base shares its roots with Win2k but is not Win2k.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Is to do away with those pesky non-standard codecs like SMR, DivX ;-), 3ivx, M$MPEG-4 and so forth. Right now you get just a warning when you try to install those ACX/DLL files but come XP then that "Unable to find codec" message is all you are going to see.
Also you can say goodbye to those wonderful drivers that let you load a "sound card" to output the contents of the wave device to the hard drive of those "video cards" that let you screen capture ASF/RM player windows in an unencrypted format.
As soon as the encrypted video standards are rolled out you can bet that any kind of video output driver will be limited to VHS quality or the driver just simply won't be allowed.
Microsoft is smoking some serious crack if they think they can become the sole authoritative source for drivers on the Internet. Their WindowsUpdate driver server (if you go though the process of registering your hardware config with Microsoft) is worthless and do you think that companies are going to want to have to go through the hassle of signing very beta or unsupported driver they release?
Lesson from history folks...when the Amiga 4000 came out and told their customers that everything they had bought up to this point was no longer compatible Amiga went down the toilet. When Mom and Pop find their CD burner no longer works because their manufacturer hasn't gotten around to becoming "XP Ready" (even though the code base is no different than NT/2K) then I seriously doubt they'll be keeping it. Even though they can't return it. Shafted.
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
However...
One thing no post has touched on (at least not to my satisfaction) is why popular hardware and software manufacturers need to bend over backwards to keep up with changes to the operating system instead of the other whay around.
So...Windows XP figures out when vendors write shitty drivers and call them on it by informing you and the vendor and that's bad? Is it just as bad when a kernel module causes a core dump and it writes a mail message to the admin defining the error? This is ridiculous. So the fuck what if Microsoft fucked over Caldera by making Windows 3.11 crash on it, it's their fucking product. Windows 2000 supports driver certification just like Win XP does, it is a professional class workstation OS and damn well should have some way to verify the integrity of the hardware drivers you're installing. Maybe when a vendor's drivers keep causing a system to core dump they will get on the ball and release what we call "updates" to their drivers. I'm sorry releasing a single driver update over a product's lifetime is a pretty shitty way to treat your customers. Compare for example Creative and nVidia. Creative drivers for their sound cards and modems are over a year old and dispite being shit have not been improved upon at all. On the other end of the spectrum nVidia unified their driver base and continuously updates and refines their drivers. It drives you to buy shitty bargain basement hardware for your systems because at least then you get what you paid for.
I'd like to see alot more talkback features in fucking software so vendors can actually improve their fucking products. The Omni group pretty graciously lets you use their browser for free with no restrictions yet maintains a bug tracking system. Bug report e-mails aren't exactly support for software. Slashdot always finds a reason to bitch just because Microsoft's logo is found somewhere near an article.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
As said by other posters this is probably not such a bad thing, as it ensures that driver developers do better quality control before they release the driver. The problem, like anything it is open to abuse. For example do we know for sure that MS will be putting the same limitations on home grown drivers, or that they won't use this in anti-comptetitve manner? We don't, but this doesn't mean they will (only time will tell).
I believe that if there was an option to disactivate this feature, or have a admin control-panel which lists the software that has been perceived as causing the problems, with an over-ride, then I am sure users would appreciate this feature a bit more. The FUD comes from the fact that the user, as I understand, has no control over this feature and has to trust MS is not abusing their position - given past history it would take a lot of faith to put 100% trust in them.
Being to turn off this featue would also mean that you don't need an MS certified development environment to develop your software.
The other question I ask myself, is what do you do if you don't have an internet connection?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Oops, blew your cover there, quoting directly from the Microsoft PR handbook. You certainly have earned your right to praise XP; in your weekly pay packet.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
when apple wouldn't let you change the theme of Mac OS X?
ah...the days of installing whatever drivers we felt like installing...make us sound like the "I actually USED punchcards!" guys, don't it?
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
This way, the name of 'crash-prone' OS windows has for decades will slowly vanish. That's the whole idea.
Now, to get to your point of choice: in win2k, you get a warning when you install a non-signed driver. If you continue, and the box crashes due to that driver, just when you were about to save that important document, are you still happy? Who will you blame? Yourself, because you were so utterly stupid to install that poopdriver? Or microsoft because 'their OS' crashes all the time?
I know the answer. So does Microsoft. That's why this option is included.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
What happens if "explorer" crashes? God knows that it happens at least once-per-day to every Windows user. Would that be an unacceptable threshold? Would explorer be put on the banned driver list (putting aside the fact that it isn't a driver, heh)
[insert witty comment here]
This is not about making things more stable. This is about squashing the competition by claiming that the product was defective. This is just a more brazen way of being anti-competition.
My guess is with this kind of press, Microsoft is going to make the decision to punish them a lot easier for the government. It's transparent and no one is going to be fooled by it. This cannot be helping their case.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Firewall included in XP? I can see the support calls now.
OK, so this scenario could happen with any of the commercial firewalls now, but in most places one would have to go through an approval process to get the software, where if it is now included on the CD it is more readily accessible and much easier for people to screw it up.And frankly with everything that Microsoft has gone through in the last few months (sites hacked into multiple times, Red Code, etc.), they are the last people I will trust to make firewall product. They had better have already qualified both Zone Alarm and Black Ice. This "driver blocked by vote" idea is just too too dumb.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Just so you know, an NT admin would simply define a group policy to disable that option for XP installs on their network.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
This is just another method to determine what things are installed on your computer. They couldn't get away with HD scan uploads, so now they upload what's installed on your computer - but only when it crashes. On windows, that's more than early enough, my win2k box crashed twice today.
Do you have StarOffice installed? Well that's why you crashed.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
"This just in: Microsoft drops support for all security products in a move to solidfy support for its own firewall. However, Microsoft's firewall has a mere 61,000 bugs, but only 20,000 are considered to be serious. Bill Gates says, 'Screw you Steve Jobs, we got the money, baby!'"
And everyone thought that Apple's "Big Brother" ad was so off the wall...
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
When Mozilla receives n crash reports from a specific page, they don't block you from looking at the URL that crashed the browser. When Microsoft gets n crash reports from a certain program, they won't allow it to run. Of course, with Microsoft's dubious history, I'm *sure* that a perfectly good 3rd party application that works just fine won't be blocked ... rriiiiggghhttt....
Are you opposed to traditional firewalls as well? While a personal firewall can't compete with a dedicated firewall it will still provide far better protection than a bare connection.
While you can likely keep a machine free from trojans by beeing cautious of who you source your software from, there is still loads of spyware out there, some contained in quite useful apps.
While you can say (/shout) "SHOULD NOT RUN PROGRAMS THEY DO NOT KNOW". In practice noone can know all the software they run, as this entails reading and understanding all source, as well as building from the ground up all software you use. Some trust must be applied, and when you trust you may be mistaken.
A firewall app provedes an extra layer of security against your own erronous judgements (after all noone is perfect) as well an enable you to use and identify some spyware without sacrificing privacy (By blocking the spyware's channel to home)
The windows XP OS "phones home" and delivers information to MS headquarters (supposeldy just about your liscence data and nothing else of course). If you had a firewall program like Black Ice or ZoneAlarm you would be alerted that your computer was trying to send something over your internet connection. You could then STOP IT from transmitting data with a functional personal firewall.
When MS says they are working with vendors on an "XP" version what they really mean is
**sillymodeon**
"We are forcing vendors to allow our Big Brother program to work without your ability to disable it because we really need to know what software you are installing and whether or not you have an ext2 partition or other non-suitable for XP partitions on your harddrives. You of course have accepted us snooping into what you eat and your e-mail when you bought windows XP, merely glancing at the packaging in the store binds you to this agreement whether or not you even own XP. Our lawyers are that well paid *wink*".
**/sillymode**
I don't think I will be purchasing any computer with XP on it.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Maybe someone can correct me here, but I don't think there are any desktop operating systems that can recover after an unhandler kernel-mode exception.
In addition, you might be interested to know that BlackICE completely blocks all network traffic when lanning, and is very troublesome, while Tiny is not. BlackICE, in my experience, also does not actually uninstall properly and continues to run after you have theoretically removed it. This struck me as very strange, and could be a random incident. However, I have had my computer frozen solid with BlackICE running, on Windows 2000, and my opinion of it, like that of Steve Gibson is somewhat low. And yeah, some of you might laugh at Steve Gibson, but I'm not just going by what he says, bear that in mind.
To be honest, when I read that BlackICE was used widely inside Microsoft, I laughed my arse off.
A word can paint a thousand pictures
Call me paranoid, but I have a hunch that the new "compliant" versions of this software will have certain microsoft ports opened for various reasons. Not only does this present a security threat, but I am also somewhat worried about the user's privacy.
As for AOL, I think I can guess about that one.
the difference little troll, is Mozilla is not asking anyone to pay money for the Mozilla-Logo Certified App program.
cat
Later on, in another thread, you're going to be the guy who says 'They sit on problems for MONTHS and never fix them' aren't you?
Nooooo. But I do control a bunch of Linux boxes which have great uptimes. A couple of them had a full year before I took them down for a kernel upgrade. I've patched all other software throughout last year without taking any of the boxes down. Try doing that with NT. Now I didn't let them 'sit with problems' because I kept up with the kernel changelogs and only patched when I needed to because of a genuine issue (security or otherwise). I do the same with NT.
Before you say anything, mind that I also have 5 NT boxes in my control, and every time IIS needs a patch, which IS practically weekly, the damned thing needs a complete reboot. Not so with Apache. Not so with anything on my linux boxes, with the exception of the kernel.
And in a company which is a Microsoft shop (meaning, we're a VAR which resells pretty much exclusively MS products), the higher-ups are now asking me to move our other services to Linux because they've seen the stability of those boxes. Earlier (a year ago) our applications HAD to be on NT (their words) because we had to use what we sold. Now they have decided to let me move everything off NT, because they've seen for themselves how unreliable they are.
Finally, my post was a joke. Lighten up.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Ahhhhh, all the evil news about XP that is being floated is obviously a ploy to boost sales of Windows 98 and ME. Well, it worked. I'll be advising my friends, who rely on prebuilt systems, to purchase tricked-out PCs before XP ships.
Although the article you refer to appeared on Slashdot, it was basically uninformed, hysterical speculation. MS doesn't have sufficient inroads on the Internet to impose a proprietary protocol. If any company does, it's Cisco, but they're happy to use open standards anyway, for obvious reasons. Furthermore, Sun owns a large portion of the server market, and they don't exactly get along with MS after the Java deal.
TCP/IP is on its way out the door anyway, with IPv6 promising to provide an open standard that implements most of what was claimed for "TCP/MS" in the article.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I think this is a good thing.
They are making device developers fall into line.
I sure Microsoft is as tired of the the blue screen jokes as the rest of us are.
I would not say that adding a major feature that breaks competitors' software in the SECOND RELEASE CANDIDATE is kosher in ANY sense of the word. I mean, think of the implications JUST from the software development life cycle aspect. This addition will certainly have system-wide implications, and it's going into RC2? TWO??? Wouldn't that effectively nullify most of the beta testing that applied to RC1 and ALL previous builds? Isn't this just plain common sense?
And if you were a prosecutor, you'd look at the defendant's past history of proven, similar actions and call it damning. Just the things that we know for sure, coming largely from internal memos and emails that came out of the discovery process during the various legal actions, indicate that there is a predatory culture in Microsoft. Not that there isn't a similar culture in a lot of companies, but this one goes beyond the bounds of the law, common sense, and is certainly NOT in the interests of the comsumer. (And when I say comsumer, that's you 'n' me, chief!)
Furthermore, you saw fit to add your own conjecture. Frankly, if ZoneAlarm uses hacks to accomplish what it needs to do, I for one am entirely happy; and so are the millions of other people using it, who find that it causes no crashes whatsoever. I am hard-pressed, in fact, to think of a system utility that does its job so well, sitting in the background as unobtrusive as it can be. Especially something that has to intercept and examine every packet coming into a machine.
If you're going to accuse Slashdot submitters of faulty journalism, you can't interject your own bias as well and hope it all balances out...
even if they did use ftp, it wouldn't be by running an ftp server on your machine, they'd just do the equivalent of a 'put'. the fact that when you open an ftp connection to an ftp server, that ftp server actually tries to open a connection back to your client pretty much makes you a server whenever you download anything from an ftp server. unless, of course, you're doing a 'quote PASV' for each ftp connection.
yeah, the best strategy for this one is not to install 3rd party drivers unless you really have to. sometimes devices like digital cameras will be regognized by windows without the driver as USB mass storage devices that you can use through the generic explorer interface. I don't trust most hardware vendors to code themselves out of a paper bag, especially when it comes to devices like cameras whose primary use isn't connection to a computer.
If the criteria are not published, though, one may reasonably presume that the criteria are not objective. Even barring malicious intent, subjective criteria would be bent to Microsoft's convenience. This is for the same reason that science uses double-blind experiments when possible. People always are biased in favor of judgements that favor their own interests. In the absence of an objective specification, I believe this no-run list would be a clear violation of monopoly power even if it were not so intended.
mt
Hi I've been using "Tiny Personal Firewall" from "http://www.tinysoftware.com/" and I'd like to say that I'm pretty much happy with it - it lets you set rules and doesn't nag you whenever somebody pings you. I don't know about black-ice or other perasonal firewalls, however, I find Tiny personal firewall by far more intelligent (& free for non-commercial use). I highly recommend it, even though that company has some shareware products (winroute etc.) because it seems much simpler and compatible with my taste in software. I would like to simply use IP-tables under and OSS OS but simply don't have the knowledge to install one.
Yes, despite what the most vocal MS critics say, NT is quite stable, third party drivers do kill it.
Linux doesn't have this problem because there aren't too many vendors writing kernel modules.
IMHO, it is a harsh solution for a bad problem. But I can't fault them -- I can't think of any other way of doing it... except maybe a "I forfeit support from MS, and accept the risks of running this driver" button.
Remember too that MS has been responding to industry requests for privacy and control over updates. I imagine this will be among those tools with an option to point towards a privately run server. If not, corporate customers would have a fit. Just imagine being an IT manager finding out that Windows XP purged the video drivers from half your users in North America.
On the other hand, the worse MS gets, the more sense Linux makes.
They can remotely cripple any software or hardware that uses a specialized driver. While they use the excuse that it is not XP compliant. What is to stop them from placing drivers from any software or hardware they choose on the list? Imagine if they wanted to block a certain piece of hardware, a specialized sound driver or a Divx codec. What would stop the? This impacts open source because often the software used is in beta when people first download and try it. This would not work if they wished it. Where are the controls to disable this feature? Even then how much do you want to bet that in order to watch or listen to any secure content that you will need to update your list of banned devices? Anyone here use Disk Daemon or VNC? I will bet that packages like these will be banned because they can emulate hardware or provide ways to pull screen content. I would also bet that Microsoft is not about to remove any of its products from the list. Imagine them restricting the latest version of Apache or MySQL while releasing the newest version off IIS. Even if this feature were meant to be used with good intention, it allows them in an underhanded way to control the software and hardware market. Futhermore, it just dawned on me that they could even block software that uses standard Windows drivers by updating a standad driver in way that cripples third party software ability to communicate with it and then blocking the old driver as outdated. All they have to do is make sure that the driver update and the patch for their own software to work with the new driver's FEATURES is released in the same package. I could easily see them doing this with the streaming Media Codecs.
That said, there is NO question Microsoft has used tactics to drive competition into the ground. The DR_DOS is a clear example and there are others. Again, we're left with the conspiracy theory - Microsoft could easily use this and WIndows update to degrade the stability of competing products and then block them out entirely or make them spend precious R&D on fixing bugs Microsoft has cause. Now in most other contexts (except maybe the gov't) something like this would be laughed at. But time and again Microsoft has proved they will go to extreme lengths to eliminate competition and a setup like this gives them a very powerful weapon.
Its too bad really. Microsoft has rightly earned their reputation and now they are in the position that even when they might have good intentions they get slammed for it. Its their own fault, but at times you wish we could trust Redmond in cases like these so that we could help improve the stability of WINdows and make our lives easier (for those that are forced to support them)
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Plan B: buy Caldera.
Plan C: buy Ximian.
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
Slashdot should have a Microsoft section. It seems like there is at least one MS article a day, and they are all the same article: "MS bad OSS good."
With a separate section, those who enjoy whining about how "M$" is taking over the world can go off in a corner and circle-jerk all they want. The rest of us can (hopefully) read something truly interesting.
Also, the MS articles shouldn't appear on the main page unless there is something *truly* newsworthy, for example, the final resolution to the anti-trust case.
Of course, this will never happen because /. gets more page hits from MS articles on the front page than from any other single source; but I can dream.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I would say, yes.
We HAD NT systems here that ran for almost 5 years, with reboots only for service packs and hotfixes.
(As a side note, after receiving nearly 35 letters from the BSA and Microsoft, sent to us because we were developers and resellers and customers, offering us a "truce" and calling us all manner of names, we have removed all Microsoft Server products from our organization, have replaced them with Linux or BSD based systems. MS, F*CK you and your BSA Cronies! I dont care if it was a form letter, we were a bit more than offended.)
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
I've seen lots of comments about how Microsoft is evil and is trying to eliminate all their competitors in the personal firewal market and how they are going to spy on what the users have installed and how they will block web sites a programs too, along with the drivers, but nobody seems to have realized the true implications of this modification to Windows, instead of all the paranoid stupidity.
First of all, this provides another revenue stream for Microsoft. In order to get their the drivers marked as Windows XP Compatible (and the digital signature that goes along with this), hardware vendors will undoubtedly have to pay Microsoft some fee, whether it be for the signature itself or perhaps something slightly more useful (and less greedy), like paying Microsoft to do some testing on the drivers and then providing the certification.
This isn't particularly bad (although, Microsoft is once again abusing its monopoly power to gain money, who else are the hardware companies going to make hardware for?).
What does worry me is the fact that this provides an easy way for Microsoft to infulence hardware manufacturers. If they don'y follow Microsoft's "suggestions", the testing and certification could be "accidently" delayed, while all the hardware company's competitors deliver their products to market before them.
What will those suggestions be?
Probably something like "Hey, you know those weird communist hippy freaks who work on that evil anti-American OS called Linux? We want you to stop providing them with technical specifications and hardware drivers. Thanks, and have a nice day!"
"I want to KNOW what internet traffic is coming IN and OUT of my system. ZoneAlarm fulfills that need, for $0, and deserves praise."
Microsoft has a history of creating deliberate incompatibilities for competition, and it's no coincidence that ZoneAlarm and others find their software broken for no good reason in XP. It's happened before and it will happen again, and KEEP happening until developers learn that when they are playing M$'s game, the only winning move is NOT TO PLAY.
In the case of a firewall, or any other kind of security software, I have a LOT more faith in a third party than I do in MS's "security bug a week" laughable record.
I have no doubt that MS's so-called "firewall" in XP with Active Swiss Cheese (tm) technology will prove just as sucessful as their foray into bundling anti-virus software with DOS 6.x (horrible failure).
Bundling a swiss-cheese firewall with the OS is a BAD idea, as it will, like the MS Anti-Virus debacle, it will give a LOT of people a false sense of security, and cause the demise of third party security apps for `Doze (who will cease development because their air supply is cut off). Which will do NOTHING for MS's reputation as the least secure, MOST dangerous OS to let loose on the `net there is.
Aim down, FIRE, where did my foot go today?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Yes, despite what the most vocal MS critics say, NT is quite stable, third party drivers do kill it.
Here's a fix for this problem: MS requires all vendors (except for itself, of course) to open-source their drivers. THAT would be ironic.
Then that's not a firewall, and shouldn't be marketed as such.
At best it's a packet filter.
A firewall should be a seperate machine, which, among other things, filters network packets to protect internal machines.
The fact that the software on the machine you are trying to protect is capable of actively bypassing the filtering rules set up to protect it means that you do not even have an effective packet filter. What you have is a marketing device.
Living better through chemicals
The main problem is that, like all personal firewall manufacturers, Microsoft ahs to take into consideration support costs. For this reason, personal firewalls do not offer high levels of security. This is why I build my own...
The Personal Firewall in XP has a number of design decisions made in order to cut down on support costs (read security). Among these are the fact that they decided to not allow it to protect packets traversing through Internet Connection Sharing meaning that there is no single point of administration for a home network. This limits its security and violates nearly all good security practices by making Personal Firewall somehting that simply provides enhanced host-based security. It is not a piece of software I would encourage in any sirt of networked environment...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Bogus analogy. mozilla talkback doesn't make mozilla refuse to run certain plugins, or prevent you from running anything else. What Win XP evidently will have in it is not only a bug reporting facility, but something that will refuse to run software deemed "unsafe" or "incompatible." How long before MS uses that to cut off someone's air supply?
The justice department and the courts have not been able to find a solution to the Microsoft problem. Even M$'s competititors have failed miserably.
At this point only group of people can save us....this is a job for Ted Kaczynski and the Trench Coat Mafia!
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
If a vendor complies and uses CLX and only CLX calls, their code should port to D6 and vice-versa.
My understanding is that BORLAND is helping fund the QT effort (especially for Windows). Their drive is to become a cross platform tool supplier rather than be bound to a single platform.
I'm suprised that my original post was marked as flamebait. My guess is they figured that I was implying that only decent programs can built for Linux using Kylix. However, Delphi 6 and Kylix are good attempts at making apps cross platform. As such, it is a good vehicle to move Windows apps to Linux.
The release of Kylix Open Source edition was to aid the Open Source community. In doing so, it is anticipated by the Delphi and Kylix users that more CLX compliant components will become available. When leading VCL vendors like DevExpress and Woll2Woll see that Kylix (and Linux) are viable platforms to which they can market their product, they will. But, it costs money and time to make the port from VCL to CLX. Other VCL vendors probably realize the same thing.
We are interested in moving our Delphi 5 app to Delphi 6 and Kylix. While we can migrate to D6, we can't to Kylix because of the non-availability of CLX replacements for many of the VCL components we use. This is unfortunate and I expect many other developers will encounter this as well.
Our plan was to wait out the XP debacle and, as people realize that their favorite apps won't run or not available on XP, they will begin looking elsewhere. We figure this will happen in about 3-4 years when NT4 and 2000 are hard to find commodities as M$ implements XP.
Perhaps they might write a worm that damages your driver, making it cause crashes, and then replicates and spreads itself to other susceptable machines. It wouldn't take too long - after a few days, thousands of machines would be crashing on YOUR driver, which might be enough to get it blacklisted.
Of course, Microsoft's tracking program might be smart enough to note the sudden change in crash reports and conclude that it's a worm, but do you trust them to do so?
Might there be issues with the legality of one company disabling another company's products without their permission, regardless of "qulity" issues?
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm asking this, but it seems that they might be asking for trouble here.
Yes, I have an MCSE certification. ...Hi, my name is_________and I use Microsoft products...)
Yes, I know it isn't worth very much around here.
No, I don't live in a world depicted by Microsoft marketing.
You see, I don't work for Microsoft, I work for my clients, and the technical advice I give them will be what is in their best interests, not Microsoft's! And that advice doesn't include XP in future deployments. Expect to see more Linux, BSD, BeOS etc...
(gee, I feel like I'm at an A.A meeting!
You're using her as bait, Master!
There isn't much journalistic integrity on this site is there? "Well, apparently among the casualties are ZoneAlarm and BlackIce... Two popular free personal firewall products for windows. Guess What? XP includes its own firewall ... So you don't really need then anyway, right?"
and at the very end of the article:
"Note: according to this article, the change does not prevent Black Ice or other programs from running per se -- but it does require them to use updated versions tailored for XP. "
Why wasn't the entire summary of that one line posted, instead of so blatantly skewing the truth?
"RC2 refuses to install a host of third party applications including Black Ice, Zone Alarm and AOL. Users will need to upgrade their applications to Windows XP-compliant versions."
You know, I really think the average consumer oesn't care a bit about open souce, closed source, or shared source. Sure, maybe most people think that Microsoft shouldn't be such a bully, but that's not going to keep them from wanting to buy computers they can use without reading a book.
Wake up, folks. People don't really care about free software, open source and all the rest. No more than they'd be expected to care about Free Toasters and Open Refrigerators. They don't want choice if the choice means reading howto's and Unix manuals. They don't want to have the freedom to build their own computing environmen because computers are complicated, intimidating and scary.
If Microsoft disappeared tomorrow, Linux and all the other free Unixes still wouldn't be easy enough, simple enough, and attractive enough to fill the void.
So, rather then whining about how the Big Bully is keeping Your Favorite Unix LookAlike from taking over the world, how about getting busy and putting together on OS that is so outrageously good that people will wipe Windows from their PC's and buy it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Why is Microsoft the only one with the privilege of getting automatic bug reports for their products? Why can't each vendor set up an address where crash dumps can be sent?
I've got to ask, how many people downloaded to the doc file and read it? How many downloaded it to /dev/null just to eat a little M$ bandwidth? :-) 'nough said.
Linux also seems to be crashing much more often due to third-party drivers. I have had several lockups due to a closed-source X driver (fire GL) that killed everything except ping (actually that is done by the hardware, right). (PS new versions of the drivers do not seem to be crashing).
NT also suffered from a great deal of the GUI in the kernel. This caused most of our crashes as we attempted to use our machines as a renderfarm and the whole thing would bluescreen when somebody logged in. This appears to have been fixed as the rendering processes no longer link with any GUI DLLs (I know NT was not fixed as we never updated past 4.0 here). I suppose you could just say that the programs are written correctly, now, but I still think this is a problem.
Actually the number one reason for serious system crashes is probably IE upgrades, MDAC upgrades or service patches. Not even MS can write stable software for MS how do they expect everybody else to.
War is necrophilia.
You can't handle a driver failure. By definition a driver is part of the kernel, and if the kernel screws up, you're toast.
This is an unsupported proposition. While it may be typical for a driver to be implemented in kernel mode, it's not "by definition" a requirement. Take a look at Project UDI for a device driver API that could be implemented in user-mode. This would allow the system to be equally protected against untrusted drivers as it can be from untrusted applications. Now, I'm not saying that the Reference Implementation or any other UDI implementation actually supports user-mode drivers today. However, the API standard is written in such a way as to allow for that possibility.
Of course, user-mode drivers would execute more slowly than kernel-mode drivers, but if an OS supported both types, paying the performance price for stability on untrusted drivers would be a worthwhile tradeoff...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay