How do you differentiate between malware and legitimate programs? You write as if malicious programs set a bit to tell the OS "we're trying to send evil packets and hijack the user's personal info" that Windows is just ignoring. The operating system has no responsibility to stop a legitimately functioning program from doing whatever it does. It exists as a platform to run software. What you're proposing is that Windows should be somehow aware of what programs are legitimately setting a different webpage, or configuring access settings, or sending packets over the network, and which programs are not doing those things with good intentions.
As for your claims about what users can and cannot do on Windows vs Linux and the efficacy of UAC, I think you're making a special pleading. Running most of the modern GUIs on Linux, a user who tries to run a program that requires permissions is prompted with a sudo dialog box. This is no different than UAC, as both can be configured to simply require confirmation or to require a password. Unless you can give an example of how those programs a user can run are specially limited in Linux in a way that's unavailable on Windows, I'll assume your "defective by design" comment is simply you repeating a fact you have not even bothered to verify.
The user is choosing to run a virus/worm. The link says nothing about whether any UAC windows were prompted, simply if the program was able to run or not. Moreover, if a virus/worm isn't changing any user account settings, of course they're not going to set off USER ACCOUNT CONTROL dialogs.
Windows is made to run programs that a user tries to run. Security programs, including anti-virus and anti-malware, are made to prevent certain classes of programs from running. The fact a system allows malicious programs to run when a user initiates the action is not indicative of the operating system's intrinsic security. More important is whether a remote attacker can exploit the OS, similar to how Blaster was able to remotely spread after XP's launch.
The complaint in the article is basically "if you run a malicious program, the malicious program runs." Well, no shit, if you run a malicious program designed for another OS I would expect it to run there as well. It's quite clear this article is simply Sophos trying to remain relevant in the face of Microsoft Security Essentials and other such free offerings that provide antivirus and antimalware protection. The fact kdawson picks it up and starts his normal FUD machine is not surprising, but the number that cheer him on just amazes me.
Nah, there are too many anti-gun people here for it to be at gunpoint. Really, they just threaten to get rid of the free coffee and soda, and we'll do anything. It's like the bounty hunter in Stargate SG1 who was addicted to a substance that he'd die without. The soda and coffee comes with a special ingredient.
More seriously, the work environment is actually really good. I'm not sure about previously, but working on the last 1/3 of Windows 7 was a great experience, and it's been amazing to see how some of my previous biases and assumptions were blown away. People here really do have a passion for technology and quality software, and as a company we reap the benefits or suffer the problems that happen to us as a team. Unless you view the world through kdawson-tinted glasses, Microsoft is, by and large, an excellent place to work.
They don't do the deep plumbing hacks as often any more, most of what they used to do is now forbidden in order to be compliant with Connecting and Configuring Displays. This is why Vista disabled heterogeneous systems, because prior to our implementation of a unified persistence database and monitor setup APIs, each vendor provided their own solutions, and most were incompatible across vendors. That is largely fixed now, and though we find some places of code that still need fixes, we work hard with the IHVs to ensure your description of their drivers is no longer true.
Of course we're not trying to eat your brains. Those complementary bics and shaving cream we offer at PDC are because, uh, the summer is much cooler with a bald head?
It has nothing to do with sweet, delicious, yet spicy brains. Mmm...
Where was I?
To this day the original xbox controllers are the most comfortable for me of any gamepad I've used. The new ones (and pretty much any other controller I've used) gives me "console claw" after using them for a while. Now I work here at Microsoft. It makes me wonder if we just happen to have a disproportionately large number of people with big hands.
(7) "Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.
Though others have already addressed it, I figured I'd chime in as well. Most hunting takes place on public land, making your base premise incorrect. Tons of target shooting also occurs on public land, as well. The noise of such can disturb neighbors, and it can damage hearing. Also, home defense situations would benefit from a suppressed gun, as any use in such a situation would be within an enclosed room.
Note, I said suppressed and suppressor, because generally, the devices only reduce the noise, they do not eliminate it completely. For most rifles and pistols, a suppressor serves only to bring the noise to safe operational levels. Only for relatively useless (from defense/hunting perspective) rounds like.22 subsonic do suppressors really become silencers.
How do you define "scare people intentionally"? Is it just being a black guy in a neighborhood? Is it wearing baggy clothing? Is it being gay and kissing in front of a church? Do any of those qualify, or is it simply your reaction, rational or not, that determines if you're scared?
If you look at the picture in the article, the only way somebody would be freaked out by that is if they are an idiot. Police harassment is no more justified than someone carrying a sign, even if the sign says "I have a bomb and am going to kill you all." The situation needs to be rationally assessed, not with fear, panic, and overreaching authority. Basically, stop using the TSA model of police control.
When a 20 something person is going down the street carrying a huge sign, serious or not, they deserve to be badgered by police anyway. It's like a free-speech-nerd equivalent of streaking.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.
(1) Every person who:
(c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
So you can own a silencer, but you cannot use it.
We're working on getting the silencer law amended/removed, but dealing with a public that has learned about suppressors from Hollywood makes it difficult at best.
However, we are an open carry state, I do it all the time without issue, as do many people I know. Police harassment is rare, and becoming rarer still. Generally we're seeing progress in a good direction.
This is at least partially, but likely wholly, incorrect. This provides a very good analysis of the issue. Essentially, you can address 2GB at any given time, but you can allocate as much contiguous space as the OS is able to pull up in its virtual address space. This means you can allocated, and address, 5 gigs of memory if you desire, but you would have to be careful and work with a view window of only 2GB. Nothing in that means you are limited to addressing only 4GB (32 bit pointer limit) of memory, simply that you can only address so much at a given time.
There is no need to run multiple instance of a program in order to read and write/address more than the 2 gig system limit.
It's especially funny considering that our team is the "plug in a monitor / Win+P" team.
Heck, most of the time, you plug in a monitor, and it configures automatically. Laptops default to clone, desktops to extend.
*disclaimer* I work at MS */disclaimer*
GDI locks reduced/removedFederated search
Connecting monitors "just works" now.
There are more, but the point is, there are "really new" things. Though it's not as if "really new" matters - being well polished and designed is more important than being new, first, etc. Google wasn't the first search engine, but they did a great job polishing up and refining previous ideas. Same with the iPod and mp3 players. "New" does not, prima facie, mean "better."
To be fair, you are on/. - being called a "faggot Mexican Jew Lizard" seems like the kind of AC troll you see around here. So maybe for it to be a good time only requires the person to be named "Anonymous Coward."
Perhaps I'm biased, because I worked on connecting and configuring displays on Windows 7. Throughout college I'd used linux on my dual monitor desktop system. Flavors varied from gentoo to ubuntu to suse, and I tried various DWMs - KDE, Gnome, XFCE, and fluxbox. None provided anything even close to what is avaiable on Windows.
On all digital connectors, the system automatically detects a newly plugged in monitor and sets up the appropriate configuration. Appropriate is based on user data for the most common use case - this means a desktop extends while a laptop clones. Most VGA (HD15) connectors also support hotplug detection, though it's supported at different levels by the different IHVs. If I don't like the default configuration, I simply Win+P to change the configuration to what I'm looking for. For more advanced configurations, the desktop control panel (desk.cpl) allows easy access to various settings - rotation, orientation, forced output projection (for analog devices that cannot be detected by polling), etc. NONE of this requires restarting the window manager (well, X server) manually editing a configuration file, et cetera. MOST of it is handled without any user input at all - we get the EDID, determine the best configuration, and apply it, simply by plugging the monitor in. How is that "not intuitive or easy... to set up multiple monitors"?
Logic: we're a company that makes money because people develop software for our platform. Some don't do it well, and only check the major version number. We had a core tenet that things working in Vista should work in 7. Now, we could either go and try to get each person who only checked major version number for compatibility to change that, or we could make the version 6.1 and endure the taunts of those slashdotters who haven't seen the light of day in years. Guess which was chosen?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you differentiate between malware and legitimate programs? You write as if malicious programs set a bit to tell the OS "we're trying to send evil packets and hijack the user's personal info" that Windows is just ignoring. The operating system has no responsibility to stop a legitimately functioning program from doing whatever it does. It exists as a platform to run software. What you're proposing is that Windows should be somehow aware of what programs are legitimately setting a different webpage, or configuring access settings, or sending packets over the network, and which programs are not doing those things with good intentions.
As for your claims about what users can and cannot do on Windows vs Linux and the efficacy of UAC, I think you're making a special pleading. Running most of the modern GUIs on Linux, a user who tries to run a program that requires permissions is prompted with a sudo dialog box. This is no different than UAC, as both can be configured to simply require confirmation or to require a password. Unless you can give an example of how those programs a user can run are specially limited in Linux in a way that's unavailable on Windows, I'll assume your "defective by design" comment is simply you repeating a fact you have not even bothered to verify.
The user is choosing to run a virus/worm. The link says nothing about whether any UAC windows were prompted, simply if the program was able to run or not. Moreover, if a virus/worm isn't changing any user account settings, of course they're not going to set off USER ACCOUNT CONTROL dialogs.
Windows is made to run programs that a user tries to run. Security programs, including anti-virus and anti-malware, are made to prevent certain classes of programs from running. The fact a system allows malicious programs to run when a user initiates the action is not indicative of the operating system's intrinsic security. More important is whether a remote attacker can exploit the OS, similar to how Blaster was able to remotely spread after XP's launch.
The complaint in the article is basically "if you run a malicious program, the malicious program runs." Well, no shit, if you run a malicious program designed for another OS I would expect it to run there as well. It's quite clear this article is simply Sophos trying to remain relevant in the face of Microsoft Security Essentials and other such free offerings that provide antivirus and antimalware protection. The fact kdawson picks it up and starts his normal FUD machine is not surprising, but the number that cheer him on just amazes me.
Require global watchers to pay a fee equal to what the advertisers would pay per impression? Naaaah, let's just block it.
He's right, there's no Robert Morgan here (well, there's a v-, but no Robert Morgan in R&D).
Nah, there are too many anti-gun people here for it to be at gunpoint. Really, they just threaten to get rid of the free coffee and soda, and we'll do anything. It's like the bounty hunter in Stargate SG1 who was addicted to a substance that he'd die without. The soda and coffee comes with a special ingredient. More seriously, the work environment is actually really good. I'm not sure about previously, but working on the last 1/3 of Windows 7 was a great experience, and it's been amazing to see how some of my previous biases and assumptions were blown away. People here really do have a passion for technology and quality software, and as a company we reap the benefits or suffer the problems that happen to us as a team. Unless you view the world through kdawson-tinted glasses, Microsoft is, by and large, an excellent place to work.
They don't do the deep plumbing hacks as often any more, most of what they used to do is now forbidden in order to be compliant with Connecting and Configuring Displays. This is why Vista disabled heterogeneous systems, because prior to our implementation of a unified persistence database and monitor setup APIs, each vendor provided their own solutions, and most were incompatible across vendors. That is largely fixed now, and though we find some places of code that still need fixes, we work hard with the IHVs to ensure your description of their drivers is no longer true.
Everyone knows the dawn of time is January 1, 1970. ;)
Of course we're not trying to eat your brains. Those complementary bics and shaving cream we offer at PDC are because, uh, the summer is much cooler with a bald head? It has nothing to do with sweet, delicious, yet spicy brains. Mmm... Where was I?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd316910(VS.85).aspx A full API and set of tutorials is provided for other people to implement it.
To this day the original xbox controllers are the most comfortable for me of any gamepad I've used. The new ones (and pretty much any other controller I've used) gives me "console claw" after using them for a while. Now I work here at Microsoft. It makes me wonder if we just happen to have a disproportionately large number of people with big hands.
About the time Steve Jobs left: http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/09/09/apple-discontinues-1.html
Though others have already addressed it, I figured I'd chime in as well. Most hunting takes place on public land, making your base premise incorrect. Tons of target shooting also occurs on public land, as well. The noise of such can disturb neighbors, and it can damage hearing. Also, home defense situations would benefit from a suppressed gun, as any use in such a situation would be within an enclosed room.
.22 subsonic do suppressors really become silencers.
Note, I said suppressed and suppressor, because generally, the devices only reduce the noise, they do not eliminate it completely. For most rifles and pistols, a suppressor serves only to bring the noise to safe operational levels. Only for relatively useless (from defense/hunting perspective) rounds like
How do you define "scare people intentionally"? Is it just being a black guy in a neighborhood? Is it wearing baggy clothing? Is it being gay and kissing in front of a church? Do any of those qualify, or is it simply your reaction, rational or not, that determines if you're scared? If you look at the picture in the article, the only way somebody would be freaked out by that is if they are an idiot. Police harassment is no more justified than someone carrying a sign, even if the sign says "I have a bomb and am going to kill you all." The situation needs to be rationally assessed, not with fear, panic, and overreaching authority. Basically, stop using the TSA model of police control.
When a 20 something person is going down the street carrying a huge sign, serious or not, they deserve to be badgered by police anyway. It's like a free-speech-nerd equivalent of streaking.
Same with silencers under RCW 9.41.250(1)(c):
So you can own a silencer, but you cannot use it. We're working on getting the silencer law amended/removed, but dealing with a public that has learned about suppressors from Hollywood makes it difficult at best. However, we are an open carry state, I do it all the time without issue, as do many people I know. Police harassment is rare, and becoming rarer still. Generally we're seeing progress in a good direction.
This is at least partially, but likely wholly, incorrect. This provides a very good analysis of the issue. Essentially, you can address 2GB at any given time, but you can allocate as much contiguous space as the OS is able to pull up in its virtual address space. This means you can allocated, and address, 5 gigs of memory if you desire, but you would have to be careful and work with a view window of only 2GB. Nothing in that means you are limited to addressing only 4GB (32 bit pointer limit) of memory, simply that you can only address so much at a given time.
There is no need to run multiple instance of a program in order to read and write/address more than the 2 gig system limit.
I first saw the mobility trends mentioned and cited in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Cowboy-Capitalism-European-American-Reality/dp/1930865627 Not sure if it's the same info as parent's post, but it's a well-written book that discusses mobility as a factor in trying to compare US vs European statistics.
It's especially funny considering that our team is the "plug in a monitor / Win+P" team. Heck, most of the time, you plug in a monitor, and it configures automatically. Laptops default to clone, desktops to extend.
*disclaimer* I work at MS */disclaimer* GDI locks reduced/removed Federated search Connecting monitors "just works" now. There are more, but the point is, there are "really new" things. Though it's not as if "really new" matters - being well polished and designed is more important than being new, first, etc. Google wasn't the first search engine, but they did a great job polishing up and refining previous ideas. Same with the iPod and mp3 players. "New" does not, prima facie, mean "better."
Yeah, $25 is really expensive.
To be fair, you are on /. - being called a "faggot Mexican Jew Lizard" seems like the kind of AC troll you see around here. So maybe for it to be a good time only requires the person to be named "Anonymous Coward."
The term to be familiar with is "materially adverse change in the contract."
Perhaps I'm biased, because I worked on connecting and configuring displays on Windows 7. Throughout college I'd used linux on my dual monitor desktop system. Flavors varied from gentoo to ubuntu to suse, and I tried various DWMs - KDE, Gnome, XFCE, and fluxbox. None provided anything even close to what is avaiable on Windows.
On all digital connectors, the system automatically detects a newly plugged in monitor and sets up the appropriate configuration. Appropriate is based on user data for the most common use case - this means a desktop extends while a laptop clones. Most VGA (HD15) connectors also support hotplug detection, though it's supported at different levels by the different IHVs. If I don't like the default configuration, I simply Win+P to change the configuration to what I'm looking for. For more advanced configurations, the desktop control panel (desk.cpl) allows easy access to various settings - rotation, orientation, forced output projection (for analog devices that cannot be detected by polling), etc. NONE of this requires restarting the window manager (well, X server) manually editing a configuration file, et cetera. MOST of it is handled without any user input at all - we get the EDID, determine the best configuration, and apply it, simply by plugging the monitor in. How is that "not intuitive or easy... to set up multiple monitors"?
Logic: we're a company that makes money because people develop software for our platform. Some don't do it well, and only check the major version number. We had a core tenet that things working in Vista should work in 7. Now, we could either go and try to get each person who only checked major version number for compatibility to change that, or we could make the version 6.1 and endure the taunts of those slashdotters who haven't seen the light of day in years. Guess which was chosen?