Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Steve Ballmer Directing "House Party 7"

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the microsoft-sponsored-debauchery dept.

theodp writes "What are you doing on Oct. 22? Microsoft is putting a Tupperware-style twist on the upcoming Windows 7 rollout, launching a new initiative to encourage thousands of employees, partners and technology enthusiasts to throw parties in their homes and communities to demonstrate and help spread the word about its new OS. People accepted as official launch party hosts will get their own copy of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition, and a chance to win a computer. Host spaces are very limited, so apply now, kids. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?"

3 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. PLEASE MOD THIS UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It made me laugh. And I really needed a laugh. Thank you sir or ma'am.

  2. gMail is down again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Jesus Christ. gMail is more problematic than Linux.

  3. Speaking of the word "HOST", step inside... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    "Okay, you probably don't want to host one of these parties." - by bigman2003 (671309) on Friday September 04, @06:04PM (#29317911) Homepage

    Regarding the word HOST? Ms needs to host a "WORK PARTY" on THE HOSTS FILE & to fix how it works in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7: Microsoft has made it grossly more inefficient (30% or so) by making it unable to use 0 as a blocking IP address in it (for VISTA after the 12/09/2008 Ms "Patch Tuesday" & for the rest it was always thus), vs 0.0.0.0 (next most efficient due to smaller size) & lastly 127.0.0.1 (the largest & slowest of the lot)...

    I don't like that, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

    1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

    So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

    Ok - since you can technically use either:

    a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
    b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
    c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

    PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

    You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

    Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

    Simply because

    1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
    2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
    3.) 0 = 1 byte

    Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.

    Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

    AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))

    Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363

    Why (especially for blocking adbanners)?

    Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):

    ----

    THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:

    http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus

    ----

    AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using pos