Slashdot Mirror
When Software Leaks (and What Really Goes Down)
Bryant writes "The Windows community is somewhat notorious for leaks from upcoming versions of Windows (obligatory link to this guy since that's most of what he does), and while the official PR word from Microsoft and many other companies with regards to leaks is a simple 'no comment,' no one has really gotten a candid, inside look at the various things that go down when word, screenshots, or builds of upcoming software leak. I managed to get some time with a senior Microsoft employee for the sake of discussing leaks, and the conclusions reached (leaks heavily affect communication, not so much the product schedule) as well as what these guys actually have to deal with whenever someone leaks a build, breaks an embargo, etc. may actually be a surprise given what most companies try to instill in the public mind."
the Microsoft leaks were a calculated way to build public interest in new products. But what do I know.
John C. Randolph, how were leaks handled at Apple?
Does their method of handling leaks reflect the vastly different culture at Apple versus, say, Microsoft, Oracle and IBM?
Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products.
It also gets people that would normally dislike their products curious about what's going on and trying them.
I've watched it happen for so many years now that I know it to be a fact!
Was the surprise the lack of surprises?
I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like. This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"
No real surprises there.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
I though they were talking about memory leaks at first. I was a bit confused, and the title does not make it any more clear
It's suprising how many times one person can, you know, say "you know" in one interview. For the record, it was 22 times, don't you know...
It took me a few minutes to realize that we were't talking about memory leaks.
I've been spending too much time with Valgrind lately...
I think the "anonymous softie", the over use of colloquial communication's - "you know", shows that this interview was entirely made up.
This is my sig.
It's odd that they would be concerned with the perception of quality in leaked software... Microsoft customers have come to expect the final release to be buggy anyhow. The only people who are going to install the leaked software probably wouldn't buy the final build anyhow.
The header says "Aeroexperience Blog: The forums are over there."
That's not very catchy, it seems like some sort of advisory note, as if Windows enthusiasts were so clueless that-
<smug>Ah, I get it now.</smug>
As Microsoft's launch of Windows 7 continues to attract small amounts of attention, it today issued a plea through its network of objective opinion-shapers: Don’t let the journalists near it.
“We understand that many journalists use Macs,” said CNet marketing marketer Don Reisinger. “This means they necessarily suckle at the Satanic rear passage of Steve Jobs. We cannot countenance their bias and 'reality' leaks. Journalists are responsible for all those signs outside computer shops offering to replace Vista with XP. When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple? It’s so unfair!”
Smears and slanders also come from obsessive overweight nerdy Mac-using Linux geek troublemakers who run “benchmarks” and “tests.” “It’s horrifying leaks and bias from the ‘reality’-based community,” said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary Jo Enderle. “We understand that, just because Vista was 40% slower than XP and Windows 7 is the same speed as Vista, the nattering nabobs of negativism are already writing press releases condemning it as ‘not enough of an improvement’ - based entirely on unauthorised leaks of the official beta and RC. It’s so unfair!”
“Mactards are like concentration camp guards,” said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield, “brutalising ‘I’m A PC’ users and” [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.]
“The only reason Vista failed was because Microsoft planned for it to fail,” said Reisinger in an earlier ad-banner troll post. “It was a fantastically subtle double-bluff! They did the honorable thing in the face of the vile calumnies spread by Apple. It’s so unfair!”
Microsoft debuted Windows 7 on a new 17 Asus Eee Ultra-Portable Mini-Netbook with 8GB memory and a 2GHz quad-core processor. Battery life is up to twenty minutes in preliminary tests.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Real security slows things down too much, so companies get by with "good enough" and then get litigious if things go wrong.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
leaks are about showing off.
I prefer this sort of leek, myself.
Speaking as a web developer (and admittedly a Mac user, FWIW) - shouldn't a website named "AeroXperience" work a bit harder at having a halfway decent web site design? While I personally think the graphics are ugly, what really stands out is how the page doesn't scale - and it's not like there's some overarching design that requires the amount of page width the styles seem to be enforcing.
Aero is all about the visuals, right?
#DeleteChrome
It's not like Microsoft's "leaks" are anything new. I have even found references on old archived newsgroups to people discussing pre-release Windows 1.0 as early as late 1983 (although perhaps not "leaked" if they were meant to have it). Late 1983 was when Microsoft was promoting this vapor-ware product in magazines such as Byte in order to upstage the now forgotten VisiCorp Visi On and this little product about to be announced from Apple called the Macintosh. Of course it was not officially release until 1985. There is even a late 1984 pre-release still floating around.
Microsoft wants people to get their hands on their software. They make it available to developers, testers, and reviewers. And if they wave their hand to others and say "ah-ah-ah you aren't allowed to have that" then people start drooling over this tempting forbidden software rather than seeing it as just another pile of bits. It is an inexpensive way to produce publicity.
When you write up an oral interview, it is perfectly
fine to edit for clarity, patch together half sentences,
and generally make it so neither you nor your interviewee
look like marble-mouthed morons.
Yes, it's important to not change or add meaning. But
simply transcribing a conversation is lazy, crappy
journalism. And in this case, you've failed.
Compare to Linux, for example, where "leaking an unfinished build" is a total non-issue. Even expected, in fact. So whether the leaks are intentional or not, if they are a problem, then it sounds like they're a problem of Microsoft's own making.
Breakfast served all day!
I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like. This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"
No real surprises there.
Well I'm not surprised at all. He must actually like leaks, otherwise he wouldn't keep his phone shoved up his ass.
In some cases, it's perfectly fine to keep some verbal mannerisms intact in an interview. It's usually done to preserve a human component which would otherwise be lost.
My interviews are often done on video and via audio. Our audience is typically used to seeing that human component. Therefore, I preserved it (for the most part). I did clean it up to an extent, but I only removed bits which would have otherwise compromised the meaning of a particular statement.
-Bryant
Fail. There were several instances of 'MS' in there instead of the mandatory 'M$'. You also failed to mention LookOUT!, did not mention BSOD and left out the words shill and astroturfer. All these have reduced the effectiveness of your point that you had achieved so well with the original use of M$.
I use Java, so my software doesn't have memory leaks.
Parent uses M$ in post - obvious +5 Insightful post!
Sometimes it is a problem for Open Source. gcc "2.96" for example. A distro took an experimental version of gcc, called it "2.96" (the previous version was 2.95.x) and released it in their distribution. This version of gcc had a number of serious problems and incompatibilities with other versions of gcc.
This caused quite a few headaches. If you ever see a version of gcc marked 2.96, DO NOT use it. It is screwed up.
This is partly why I don't like to use distros who modify projects. Yeah, they may improve the crap script kiddie ones, or the ones written by universities where they are based on sound concepts, but were programmed by non-programmers--scientists and the like.
But, many of the very popular core projects are written by programming experts who are the best in their field. For example OpenSSL and Debian: did the maintainer really think he was more of a cryptography programming expert than the OpenBSD guys? No frakking way!
I can't imagine what their job looked like the day they released the (in)famous build5048: Longhorn Developer Preview
"I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows" - by Foredecker (161844) * on Sunday October 25, @04:03PM (#29866759) Homepage Journal
GOOD: Then, you're JUST THE MAN I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF!
I say that, because nobody answered me on it here (your companies' own "Engineering Windows 7" blog no less):
----
Welcome to our blog dedicated to the engineering of Microsoft Windows 7
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
----
QUESTION:
Why was the ability to use 0 as a "blocking IP address" removed from HOSTS files, from 12/09/2008 onwards, in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 it is this way also!
(& it IS completely legit to use 0, & faster + MORE EFFICIENT - Windows 2000, pre Service Pack #4 couldn't use it, but from then on it could, & Windows XP + Server 2003 always could, so, that is PROOF you guys added it in, & are now pulling it... why? Doing so, affects effciency of it adversely... read on!)
First of all, on "legit IP address" using 0 - because when you ping a "zero blocked" site you get back 0.0.0.0 on Windows 2000/XP/Serer 2003.
Secondly, using that in a HOSTS file to protect one's self from KNOWN 'bad sites &/or botnet command & control servers for instance, you cannot get to them (& thus you are safe from them via this practice)
Third & MOST importantly?
When you perform the File I/O Open/Read/Close cycle on a LARGE HOSTS file (with these types of entries for protection)? Loading said file is FAR faster... have your coders try this themselves, by loading a large HOSTS files into a listbox & timing it using multimedia hi-resolution timers you register with the system.
It's inefficient to use 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter" address, because it IS larger by 8 bytes per line & does do a "loopback operation", which 0 &/.or 0.0.0.0 do not).
Also, "technically speaking"? Well, the DNS cache perform a DECIMAL to HEXADECIMAL conversion on 0.0.0.0, and on 127.0.0.1... & 0? It doesn't NEED THAT, period. (because 0-9 in decimal are 0-9 in hex too).
That's also more efficient by using 0... period!
But, the most important part is, that the SMALLER THE FILE IS, the faster it loads from DISK into RAM, period. Using 0 makes it smaller, per line during reads (until the trailer record cr+lf or null is hit, then next line is read), & thus faster, per line.
In a HOSTS like I use, with 660,000 entries in it of KNOWN bad malscripted sites &/or botnet command & control servers? It keeps me safe, but is SLOWER using the longer IP addresses, per line.
E.G.-> 127.0.0.1 makes my HOSTS file bloat to 22++mb in size... using the next least inefficient entry of 0.0.0.0 makes it 18++mb in size! Using 0, by way of comparison? ONLY 14mb in size... a 30% improvement!
The physics of this 'back me up', & I would like to know if you have enough "PULL" to mention this to the team that handles the IP stack!
Thanks!
APK
P.S.=> You may also wish to read that blog there, because I noted even more here (rootkit.com is a site where 'hacker/cracker' types & researchers "hang out", & they said THIS about your new single part "WFP" base filtering engine for protection (no longer uses RDR20.DLL which Windows 2000 uses as a LSP, but it does use the same one XP/Server 2003 does for an LSP) but, if you want more details on this & why it's "worse" possibly, per rootkit.com?
http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952
PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:
"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."
That was a DIRECT QUOTE from said URL I just posted from rootkit.com ...
Read more at the IBM site for details & DO please get back to us, or me, @ apk4776239@hotmail.com
http:
and a radioactive one at it too...
Isn't thinking that MS is taking a leak on the internet on purpose just gross?
"I get the impression you have an enormous HOSTS file and want to micro-optimize it by using a non-standard abbreviation for IPv4 addresses? Generally, non-standard representations should be avoided if at all possible." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, @12:40AM (#29869093
First: Your telling myself, or others, that avoiding something that makes a HOSTS file load faster would be "smart".
(More like stupid, sorry, but it is!)
So, YOU are basically trying to tell us that making a file that can load faster, via using something that makes it do so, is "Bad to do"?
Wake up, because, IF so and it is so from you?? I strongly suggest you work on your LOGIC & COMMON-SENSE buddy.
Secondly: Wait a second - first of all, are you ForeDecker? No. Go away already, I wasn't even TALKING TO YOU.
----
"Seems to me that if you really wanted performance there, you'd ask for a binary blob / database format that pre-parsed the HOSTS file upon any change, thus making it far faster than even your method regardless of HOSTS file format. Flat files are not the format to use for performance-consciousness." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, @12:40AM (#29869093
You know, I'd love to see that, for the indexing speed, but that is NOT how the reference TCP/IP stack from BSD's were designed, & that was AGES AGO... it is still a text file, period.
I am just showing how to make it perform better, & faster - for added speed AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, SECURITY (and how/why).
Again - "wake up & 'abres los ojos amigo'": Ms couldn't get their filesystem to be DB based, & you're expecting that?
IBM has had it for decades on DB/2 based filesystems on OS/400 (what is the OS on AS/400 & zSeries midranges etc.) & you're asking a "bit much" imo.
I, on the contrary, am not, & I am only asking them to work with what already exists (not "fantasy land", as you seem to be).
----
"But it also seems to me that you're probably looking in the wrong place for a performance enhancement in the first place." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, @12:40AM (#2986909
Oh, "really"? I am looking @ REALITY & the fact HOSTS FILES are text files... not databases, as you are in "fantasy land"...
It also seems I am looking, AND PROVING (with ways anyone who codes can test no less) a way to do so, for testing by anyone, because I am dealing in REALITIES, unlike you.
A way to make HOSTS more efficient, & one that USED TO WORK (&, was ONLY PUT IN AFTER WINDOWS 2000 on SP#4 iirc, or between that & #1, because Windows 2000 didn't have it using 0 period in a HOSTS file - it was 'grafted on' & someone saw the light on it, as being good)
Despite what you say?
Well, vs. the reference BSD design of the IP stack, which MS used?
It was was added by MS to use 0 in HOSTS, only later, because Windows 2000, in its original shipping OEM form, used 0.0.0.0 @ BEST!
So, I would like to know a SOLID REASON why it has been removed, because it works for better loadspeeds & efficiency (plus it reduces bloat).
PRACTICAL E.G. (from a HOSTS file with 660,000 entries of KNOWN BAD SITES I use it to protect myself & friends + family from (that has them never catching malwares no less)):
127.0.0.1 here = 22++mb sized HOSTS file
0.0.0.0 here = 18++mb sized HOSTS file
0 here = 14mb sized HOSTS file
The loadspeeds on a 30% smaller file are APPRECIABDLY SMALLER, & if you code? Load such a file into a listbox, & time it using a hi-res multimedia timer... Argue with the numbers - "Good Luck" (you'll NEED IT (more like a miracle)).
APK
P.S.=> On this "little tidbit of wisdom" from you, lastly:
"You *really* need to work on your formatting. I want to keep answering your questions, which vary slightly every time I read them, but I just can't und
you know, i really found this article to be educational also, because i've seen it before where someone will post a leak of some sort, a leaked build, or leaked screen shots, something leaked, and they will say 'wow look it's so rough man this will be the worst most horrible experience ever' or 'look they cut this essential feature out it will be horrible' or 'look how sloppy everything is!'. from what i read of this dev's statements, he sounds like me when i'm working on anything, from my car to my computer. if an outsider peeked in and looked at it all while i'm in the middle it may look really sloppy. dirt all over, parts strew right and left, half of it doesn't even work, and i myself am just sloppy and dirty. dust on my nose, smudges on my glasses, grease on my hands. it really presents the idea that i am just a slob and also that the finished product will be horribly broken.
of course, that is the not the case. i just need to get dirty and make a mess to get anywhere sometimes. i may wind up taking whole sections of my computer or car out and botching something together just to test something. it doesn't look good at all, but it's just part of the process. when i'm done, it will be functional. it will work. it will in fact even look nice, but i have my process to work in and if you step into that while i'm busy and you don't know what is going on in my head, you won't be impressed.
so please, save the hating on this dev for someone else. i'm glad he said something. it helps put these negative reviews of various Windows leaked builds (or WIP builds of anything really) in perspective. important things to realise i figure.
thanks, anonymous dev.
if you are a dev manager , then you do not care a SHIT on leak. As the ncie article pointed out, only MARKETING manager and associated cre for a leak.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That's a really unfair and inaccurate summary of how it went down.
Here's an article arbitrarily picked from googling "valgrind ssh". It checks out, follow the link to the openssl-dev list archive.
All parties involved, including the openssl people, made the mistake of thinking Valgrind was more of a cryptography programming expert. The maintainer did everything he could.
Altho i haven't tried it - i've considered buying it.
Load pwer consumption is apparently only 19W ( http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3321&p=5 )
- i think it's looks like an alternative to the mac mini.
I thought you were talking about "leaks" in products like Word (and other non-MS products) and XP "going down" - I find even with Word 2003 it was still safer to reboot every other weekend. Has this been fixed yet?
for the me the rest is all variations in marketing technique...
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
I understood it. Perhaps you too have need of remedial reading courses. Of course we all know that is the oldest troll move in the world, to say "I couldn't understand it". Give us a break. He makes a strong point on hosts files. I just tried what he notes on vista and he is correct. The file gets larger and slower to load with the longer blocking addresses of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 versus 0. A child can understand that much. Microsoft needs to fix that or it is just evidence of their "bloatware" they tend to create. Now this is not the english grammar forums here and you are off topic as well with your english professor attempts also you know. Please, if you cannot stay on topic or read? Learn to. Thank you. As far as your psych analysis do you have a phd in psychiatry and have you performed a formal analysis of this ac apk? No you have not and that is construable as libel. Of course you post as ac and you truly are the real anonymous coward here and ridiculous and unqualified on those grounds also. Again you are off topic and blatantly unqualified to be on this forums. You are the troll and you know it because you have to go off topic this way and state you cannot read what is written. Funny how you respond as if you did understand it though. Idiots like you can't fool anyone so give up
It was not an official build. I digged a bit and found a ref :
//E/debug/dump' or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Nashville
From snapshots you can't really see the differences between it and 95 or 98, but it was really a mix bag of both and had some very nifty tricks that did not make it in 98. For instance, you could get rid of mouse double-clicks, and use 1 click action throughout the UI, weblike. Options would turn blue when hovered by the mouse pointer. There was a good Personal Information Manager that wasn't kept later on. Etc.
Crashes were funny because they were hardwired to an external debugging machine ; so blue screens went like 'can't find
LOL! You gave away your OWN inadequacies in your accusations above (like most fools do - after all: You do NOT know me personally, and you only attack with what hurts YOU, personally, and where YOU are weak).
Obviously? You're not very intelligent if you do nto realize that much.
NOW, as to WHOM attacked WHOM, & first here? You did, via your 'sidewalk english prof' poorly constructed & off topic "english writing critiques"... hilarious, oldest troll trick in the book.
I was blatantly insulted by you, Mr. "A/C psycho internet stalker" & this is not the first time from you. All you are ever left with is your constant b.s. on "how others should write", & in regards to that? Well - you prove you have a PHD in English to me, & I just MIGHT (only might), listen, & only then.
This is not the English grammar section here, and you ought to learn to read (or take your ADD/ADHD dyslexia meds-treatments then) first. Reading IS "fundamental" you know.
That said? Well, as usual, you are "off topic" & you try to take "snide jabs @ me" as usual, to try to get me to respond, and I ONLY MERELY RESPOND IN KIND, ala "When in Rome, do as the romans do" & just use 'reverse psychology' reflecting back the same attitude you gave me FIRST.
Give up already - you can't make me "look bad" you fool, because you only fool yourself & nobody else on that accoutn (anyone reading can see, and they have apparently) that YOU make the insults first & obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about (all while you post as "ac" here, because you obvisouly have NO CONFIDENCE or SKILLS in this area - else, why post as ac?)
LOL, you made me LAUGH hilariously at your "assessement" of me - I can only say 1 thing to that:
I have ENOUGH confidence to ask/confront the folks @ MS, with my real name & email here... do you? No, you do not.
Nuff said!
APK
P.S.=> "Too TOO Easy..." apk
How could I edit something like a database when I do not own one mr. ac troll but more importantly what does that have to do with reality when the hosts file is not a database device but a text file filter in reality, not fantasy land, like ac apk said to you mirroring back your bull you started with he like you always do. You are a sad person. Now I can also easily edit a hosts file in seconds using notepad, and playing with databases is much more complex than that and you spoke of rarity in large hosts files and I can say the same of database programs. Most people do not own them, or do they want to. I have also read ac apk before and in regards to the disk reads that is done at the logical level by the operating system's filesystem driver, then the diskdriver after via the hal, first because that is how it gets information from harddisks and the actual software conduits used, then caches are afterwards. It does so in 4kb increments just as the memory manager does also before anything 'disk' comes into play and it gets cached in the case of a hosts file quickly in a short time into the local dns client memory cache or the operating system's own cache. Your so called point is pointless and you are just reaching for straws in desparation I think because you clearly do not understand how a hosts file speeds you up for free online and how it can keep you safer too. With a hosts file you do not need to run a dns server or other kinds of filters that are not as easy to manage as a hosts is in a text editor like notepad. On dns servers I have read more than a few times here on slashdot where those have been found very problematic the past couple years now, even in what apk mentions in the supposedly invulnerable djbdns and Dan Kaminsky and Moxie Marlinspike found even more issues of worse nature in dns server program. I get the same without wasting cpu cycles by using a hosts file, instead of running a program I do not need to like dns servers or even the dns client cache. Hosts add to your speed by blocking adbanners also which have been found to harbor malware scripts in their content too for years now and you can hardcode your favorite sites into it for even more speed by avoiding calling out to potentially compromised dns servers. If you suck in botnet worm and have its command and control servers blocked in yourh hosts file you cant reach those either because they run under your user sid context typically unless they use impersonation methods and they tool will be blocked even if those are used by them such as running as administrator. Once a bad server or bad domain or bad site is blocked in a hosts file even a malware is trapped with it and no orders from its commanders can reach it either nor can it do so looking to contact them. This ac apk has a point. Too bad you do not. I can only assume you are some disgruntled botmaster (or even webmaster) who hates those who use hosts files because you can't get to those of us who have the good sense to use them, for $0 price. Top that with the cost of other things for security I say. Free and it works = good thing. It works to secure me and speed me up in a single stroke, and people like spybot search and destroy use it too. You give yourself away and most people here have seen this ac apk get bothered by you with your usual "I cannot understand what you wrote" or "I am the self titled English professor who can tell others how to write" and you don't have that phd you were asked for do you? No you don't. You are trying to tell people that going faster and being more efficient is bad? You don't even understand that a databased filesystem in Windows is years away, if it will ever replace ntfs entirely (it will most likely be layered on by the installeable filesystem model nt operating systems have if anything becomes of that that is) and you dno't seem to understand that it is fine to speculate about how it should be, but as ac apk said, there is how it is. Microsoft used to use this smaller and faster 0 ip address in hosts or allowed it rather. Why pull it out for VISTA whe
... of a super secret leaks marketing depeartment
(like most fools do - after all: You do NOT know me personally, and you only attack with what hurts YOU, personally, and where YOU are weak).
That would be twice you've mentioned ADD/ADHD treatments.
"That would be twice you've mentioned ADD/ADHD treatments." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, @02:34PM (#29875323)
'My God, "it reads"... look everyone, it really reads' lmao - your pitiful trolling facade here is crumbling. You understand what I write with no ddifficulty & your quote above proves that much easily.
Strike a "raw nerve" did it? Apparently it has. Remember: YOU started it, with the "wannabe english prof." off topic rants to put me down, so I am merely returning the favor.
(And you really can understand what I write I see also, because you respond to exact points I make)
So - Despite your "complaining" you could not understand what I write (which is the oldest troll technique out there)? You obviously do.
So take your off topic "english writing critiques" elsewhere, maybe to the "grammar section" here (oh, that's right - it doesn't exist).
You say, obviously to troll myself, that I don't write up to "your standards" (those of someone who isn't willing to provide proof of their expertise in it, when I had asked if you had a PHD in English (which, you clearly do not possess)) - too bad: Don't read it then, or much less, respond to it to troll myself, or others then.
I mean, lol, w/out a PHD in English to your name (never saw a diploma, certification, or degree with the name "A/C" on it, you'd be a first, lmao)...
So without that? Well... why should anyone listen to your drivel about "how to write"?
APK
P.S.=> Man - you don't even "troll a good game"... you're boring, & transparent! If you're going to do something, please - @ least be GOOD at it, ok? apk
The OpenBSD guys wrote and maintain OpenSSH, which uses OpenSSL. The OpenBSD guys don't have anything to do with OpenSSL.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You said this in your first reply to him:
"You *really* need to work on your formatting. I want to keep answering your questions, which vary slightly every time I read hem, but I just can't understand what you're talking about."
If that isn't something a dyslexic person or somebody with add or adhd would say then I do not know what is. You are obviously the person with brain damage here, because your own words trap you in that much providing the evidence of why he stated what he did to you (after you gave him a hard time about how he writes and we still don't see proof of that phd in english from you, now do we? No, of course not).
You are correct. From openssl.org:
Sorry for the misinformation.
Thank you for stating the truth which is obvious. Personally, after I read ALL of this? I am going to enumerate my points, short & sweet (albeit minus a good deal of detail, but most mgt. doesn't understand details where the "devils" are) to "ForeDecker" a mgr. @ MS:
BOTTOM-LINE, to FOREDECKER (an MS mgr.):
----
1.) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW (who published code that shows how to EASILY "unhook" the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 no less) & why they said this:
http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952
PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:
"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."
&
2.) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then, because it:
a. 127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only, makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory (be that the local DNS client, or diskcache even) & hosts speed you up online (by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware, or isn't this indicative of that -> Anti-malvertising.com? ) and, by allowing one to hardcode in one's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers (ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof!
b. HOSTS also make you SAFER online, no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed (as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example, no cpu burned there, just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM, CPU, & other I/O. Block out known bad servers (easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet, stopbadware.org, or even Spybot Search & Destroy)? YOU CANNOT BE BURNED, & a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref. designs (not some fantasy land db that doesn't exist, but, instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file )
----
Well, @ this point? Unfortunately, I suspect this IS "foredecker" responding as "A/C" & he is caught with his pants down, as most mgt. is, & all they say is "I don't understand or I could not read it" instead of coming clean & owning up to it, then learning more (they are not about learning, they are about scamming imo, having been one in my past & knowning i needed to know more so I went back for CSC degrees ontop of my MIS ones, which were on info. systems basically, NOT how this stuff REALLY works @ the lowest levels as CSC degree tracks DO show you + the theories behind them).
So, I would just like to KNOW WHY as to WHY the more efficient on diskspace & faster loading into RAM 0 based HOSTS file was removed in Microsoft VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 - there really MAY be a GOOD REASON, but everyone @ MS is avoiding it... this reeks of something BAD, imo, almost like a 'cover up'. Sounds nuts, but a straight answer like "here is the trade off we made" or "yes, we screwed up - expect a patch" would be FAR better. Own up to a fuckup, or just say "You have a point, expect a patch"
This was intentional, but, on WHAT GROUNDS? That's all I wish to know here.
This happened, again, after 12/09/2009 patch Tuesday, & onwards in Windows Server 2008 + Windows 7.
I just asked for a VALID technical reason WHY this was done (especially after it was added to the reference TCP/IP design, altering it, by Microsoft & for ONCE, for a GOOD PERFORMANCE ORIENTED REASON, instead of intentional bloat to sell more INTEL CPU's by eating more power by being less efficient)...
It was NOT in the OEM original Windows 2000... it was added, but, ONLY after Windows 2000 was patched, because it's original OEM pre service pack version did not have that, it was added (& SOMEONE knew it was a "good thing", or else, wh
After I read ALL of this + the "adhominem" attacks I suspect YOU used vs. myself (only to YOUR own dismay - you aren't intelligent enough to even BEGIN to try to 'take me on' in this area, & you're obviously unarmed as well on this topic, what with your 'fantasy land' DB filesystem that doesn't exist, vs. the reality EVERYONE has a HOSTS file that's easily edited via notepad.exe & good valid ones are around online like mvps.org for better speed AND SAFETY onlnie)?
Well - since you complain (which fools no one) that you cannot READ or UNDERSTAND my points (old stale troll trick that)?
I am going to enumerate my points, short & sweet (albeit minus a good deal of detail, but most mgt. doesn't understand details where the "devils" are) to "ForeDecker" a mgr. @ MS:
BOTTOM-LINE, to FOREDECKER (an MS mgr.):
----
1.) TELL US WHY ROOTKIT.COM SAID THIS BELOW (who published code that shows how to EASILY "unhook" the new NDIS6 firewall in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 no less) & why they said this:
http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952
PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:
"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."
&
2.) Give us a SOLID answer to why 0 was removed in HOSTS then, because it:
a. 127.0.0.1 or even 0.0.0.0 HOSTS files only, makes for larger slower HOSTS file loads into memory (be that the local DNS client, or diskcache even) & hosts speed you up online (by blocking adbanners which have been shown to harbor malware, or isn't this indicative of that -> Anti-malvertising.com? ) and, by allowing one to hardcode in one's favorites to avoid potentially compromised DNS servers (ala Dan Kaminsky proof thereof!
b. HOSTS also make you SAFER online, no CPU or RAM + other forms of I/O burning use needed (as in more complicated filter like iptables in Linux for example, no cpu burned there, just more complex than editing a text file like HOSTS) or a potential compromiseable DNS server that uses RAM, CPU, & other I/O. Block out known bad servers (easily found from Dancho Danchev of ZDNet, stopbadware.org, or even Spybot Search & Destroy)? YOU CANNOT BE BURNED, & a hosts file is on EVERY SYSTEM THAT USES A TCP/IP stack based on BSD ref. designs (not some fantasy land db that doesn't exist, but, instead in a HOSTS file you have already that is easily edited or downloaded from places like mvps.org or here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file )
----
Well, @ this point? Unfortunately, I suspect this IS "foredecker" responding as "A/C" & he is caught with his pants down, as most mgt. is, & all they say is "I don't understand or I could not read it" instead of coming clean & owning up to it, then learning more (they are not about learning, they are about scamming imo, having been one in my past & knowning i needed to know more so I went back for CSC degrees ontop of my MIS ones, which were on info. systems basically, NOT how this stuff REALLY works @ the lowest levels as CSC degree tracks DO show you + the theories behind them).
So, I would just like to KNOW WHY as to WHY the more efficient on diskspace & faster loading into RAM 0 based HOSTS file was removed in Microsoft VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 - there really MAY be a GOOD REASON, but everyone @ MS is avoiding it... this reeks of something BAD, imo, almost like a 'cover up'. Sounds nuts, but a straight answer like "here is the trade off we made" or "yes, we screwed up - expect a patch" would be FAR better. Own up to a fuckup, or just say "You have a point, expect a patch"
This was intentional, but, on WHAT GROUNDS? That's all I wish to know here.
This happened, again, after 12/09/2009 patch Tuesday, & onwards in Windows Server 2008 + Windows 7.
I just asked for a VALID techni
QUOTING MYSELF -> "You can ping 0 on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & what does it return? 0..."
CORRECTING MYSELF NOW -> It returns 0.0.0.0 when you "PING" 0, in Windows 2000, not what I wrote originally... so, correcting THAT now, before you guys reading do!
(AND, it has done so, ever since SP2 or SP4 that is, on Windows 2000 - BUT, before those service packs? Well - You could NOT use 0 in Windows 2000)
So, so much for MS "using standards" on MS' part & the rubbish others here are trying to use vs. my points!
(On standards - Well, & ask ANY webdev on that account also, on "how well MS adheres to standards", ala IE6 etc. et al)
STILL, the ability to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file? Well - it does tend to PROVE that MS did indeed see that using 0 in a HOSTS file is smaller & faster too, which is MY POINT here: AND, also because Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 STILL CAN USE 0 as a BLOCKING IP ADDRESS... period!
So, why did they remove it in VISTA from 12/09/2008 onwards (when it worked before that) on that "Patch Tuesday"), and same on Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows7?
Reiterating this point again here as well:
0.0.0.0 is STILL CONSIDERED a "VALID IP ADDRESS", per my critics here no less... but, apparently? MS also felt that 0 was as well since it makes HOSTS files smaller & thus, faster to load from Windows 2000 SP#2 (or #3 or #4 for sure) onwards!
(AND, any coder can compare a HOSTS file load with 1 hosts using 0 & others using either 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, & see which loads faster - Especially relatively larger ones like Spybot Search & Destroy or hosts files from mvps.org or WIKIPEDIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file give you to block out known bad sites or bad adbanners, if not ALL adbanners period for more speed, AND SAFETY (above all else on the latter especially))
APK
P.S.=> Also, lastly, FIX YOUR DNS LOCAL CLIENT CACHE, Microsoft - because when it gets relatively "larger HOSTS files"? It begins to lag the system (paging data in & out apparently from its datastructure in memory (which is what the BSD reference model uses, a structure (ala C/C++))... make a redimmable array instead so it can "flex" & grow, or shrink, dynamically instead (sure, some overheads, but... MUCH BETTER THAN LAG!)... apk