That's the real meat. New graphics subsystem (hardware accelerated composite graphics), new audio, new network, new I/O bandwidth reservation/prioritisation, transactional NTFS, new memory management. It is indeed a huge technological overhaul within the innards.
But why would I rain down on the "Vista = XP + shiny + DRM" parade.
I'm not bitching about releasing the patch itself. My post that all the vulns weren't fixed was in response to the post about "1-day service" and "Apple > Microsoft". He later brought Patch Tuesday into this, and I felt compelled to respond.
I AM bitching about the text on the Safari home page. When you make such claims as "THE WORLD'S BEST BROWSER" you'd better follow them up. (Ah sorry, it was "BEST", not "MOST SECURE".)
This text on the page just a symptom of the absolute arrogance shown by Apple, including in their PC/Mac ads. I am totally fed up of the FUD and outright lies spread by Apple, including in those ads. Yes, I am putting them down. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ma cs_cant
Maynor wasn't the only one who found flaws. (He did act like a prick in the past, though.)
It means that the patch made headlines. A poster in this discussion quite appropriately called it "media control".
8+ vulnerabilities in 24 hours IS large. Some of those vulnerabilities even work on the Mac version. (not sure if they are fixed or not)
Why, no, you don't make claims like "the world's best browser" for a highly unstable beta product.
Did you see the Safari homepage? From memory, the "most secure" browser ever or something. Then, you have a large number of vulnerabilities within 24 hours. They simply SHOULD NOT have made such claims! That's why I'm calling it damage control, a face-saving measure.
Oh hell, even television channels here in India, which usually stay aloof from all things tech, covered it!
I have no problem with releasing patches once a month for vulnerabilities that have been disclosed to the vendor alone. All the vulnerabilities that have been patched or left unpatched in Safari were in the public domain.
OK. We seem to be using different definitions, that's all.
A software bug (or "bug") is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect result).
That reminds me of the Ubuntu 6.06 update that actually broke X and dumped the user into a command-line! People claim to install Ubuntu on granny's computer to solve virus/spyware issues. Think about what granny would be thinking then.
Things *will* break. There's just no way around it.
1. The absolutely huge number of configurations. Say, the coder of a driver didn't follow guidelines and used a hack (linked to, say, a vulnerability). A future update fixed the vulnerability and therefore the hack, but the device went kaput. Microsoft is of course partially to blame -- however they've got their act together now. They have a program going where if 500 or more Vista error reports are received for a driver, they would make it top priority to work with the manufacturer.
2. As I've mentioned in the discussion above, the release of a patch entails the disclosure of the vulnerability. If patches were released all of a sudden, exploits would be *guaranteed* to release the next day. So sysadmins would have to patch systems as soon as they are released. With a set schedule, at least he knows when he would be required to do so.
Agreed. In fact, bugs ARE due to sloppy code, in the OS, drivers or programs. BTW, what's the difference between a bug and an error? I've always called an error a bug. Vulnerabilities are a subset of bugs.
First: complex software written for use on a wide variety of configurations WILL HAVE BUGS. I just don't see any way around it. This has nothing to do with competition. OS X in the past 2 months has had a huge number of patches, hasn't it? That too, with a BSD based kernel and a much smaller hardware base.
Second: Not every bug is a showstopper. Even if a bug is found after code freeze, it might be better to release a patch separately. You know, like those "errata" sheets of paper in books.
When a patch is released the vulnerability *has* to be disclosed! That means sysadmins would run around trying to keep systems up to date the whole month.
I agree that more out of cycle patches should be released for serious vulnerabilities that are being exploited, but I see nothing wrong with the Patch Tuesday method otherwise.
Am I correct in understanding that in Vista, the web-based msn search engine crawls your hard drive? You are incorrect.
is it a build in search engine? (ie. daemon running on the local machine)
Yes, and it can easily be turned off. Google is being moronic here, crying for the sake of crying.
So no Linux distro has bugs? Your beloved Mac doesn't have bugs? Haven't there been around 30 Mac patches in the last 2 months?
spyware attack after spyware attack
Name ONE spyware attack that is Vista only. ONE.
That's right, you can't. I can, however, say that most spyware, viruses, trojans, and rootkits, have their functionality retarded due to UAC.
slow op code after slow op code
The perceived "slowness" of Vista is a product of immature drivers, one bug that affects some computers (slow file copy) and pure FUD.
I'm just so FREAKING tired of this all this bull
Indeed. I'm freaking tired of all the bull in your post as well.
Seems more like a general problem with IPv6 than with Vista. I remember once trying to use Fx with Ubuntu on a NAT based network, and each HTTP request took at least 3 seconds. I turned off IPv6 and all was well. I did the same with Vista as soon as I installed it. Honestly, it's just a checkbox!
We are going to see more such incompatibilities in the future. For now, though,/.ers can enjoy their lame Vista bashfest.
It's no longer possible in Vista, though another way is to install it from the DVD, then upgrade it on top of itself. Since the Vista install is quite faster than the XP one, he would have been done with it quicker.
Slashdot Mirror
Shame on you.
"Technical features new to Windows Vista".
That's the real meat. New graphics subsystem (hardware accelerated composite graphics), new audio, new network, new I/O bandwidth reservation/prioritisation, transactional NTFS, new memory management. It is indeed a huge technological overhaul within the innards.
But why would I rain down on the "Vista = XP + shiny + DRM" parade.
With a 3 digit UID, I don't think anyone can honestly say that. :P
In reverse order:
a cs_cant
I'm not bitching about releasing the patch itself. My post that all the vulns weren't fixed was in response to the post about "1-day service" and "Apple > Microsoft". He later brought Patch Tuesday into this, and I felt compelled to respond.
I AM bitching about the text on the Safari home page. When you make such claims as "THE WORLD'S BEST BROWSER" you'd better follow them up. (Ah sorry, it was "BEST", not "MOST SECURE".)
This text on the page just a symptom of the absolute arrogance shown by Apple, including in their PC/Mac ads. I am totally fed up of the FUD and outright lies spread by Apple, including in those ads. Yes, I am putting them down. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=m
Maynor wasn't the only one who found flaws. (He did act like a prick in the past, though.)
It means that the patch made headlines. A poster in this discussion quite appropriately called it "media control".
8+ vulnerabilities in 24 hours IS large. Some of those vulnerabilities even work on the Mac version. (not sure if they are fixed or not)
Why, no, you don't make claims like "the world's best browser" for a highly unstable beta product.
Did you see the Safari homepage? From memory, the "most secure" browser ever or something. Then, you have a large number of vulnerabilities within 24 hours. They simply SHOULD NOT have made such claims! That's why I'm calling it damage control, a face-saving measure.
Oh hell, even television channels here in India, which usually stay aloof from all things tech, covered it!
I have no problem with releasing patches once a month for vulnerabilities that have been disclosed to the vendor alone. All the vulnerabilities that have been patched or left unpatched in Safari were in the public domain.
Safari 3.0.1 is damage control because they haven't fixed all the vulnerabilities yet. It's a PR stunt.
Oh damn it, for serious active vulnerabilities I really WOULD like patches to be released quickly.
It's a bit late, but there's trouble with that, as I explained above. Releasing a patch means disclosing the vulnerability.
A software bug (or "bug") is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect result).
That reminds me of the Ubuntu 6.06 update that actually broke X and dumped the user into a command-line! People claim to install Ubuntu on granny's computer to solve virus/spyware issues. Think about what granny would be thinking then. Things *will* break. There's just no way around it.
1. The absolutely huge number of configurations. Say, the coder of a driver didn't follow guidelines and used a hack (linked to, say, a vulnerability). A future update fixed the vulnerability and therefore the hack, but the device went kaput. Microsoft is of course partially to blame -- however they've got their act together now. They have a program going where if 500 or more Vista error reports are received for a driver, they would make it top priority to work with the manufacturer.
2. As I've mentioned in the discussion above, the release of a patch entails the disclosure of the vulnerability. If patches were released all of a sudden, exploits would be *guaranteed* to release the next day. So sysadmins would have to patch systems as soon as they are released. With a set schedule, at least he knows when he would be required to do so.
Think of the sysadmins, I say!
Agreed. In fact, bugs ARE due to sloppy code, in the OS, drivers or programs. BTW, what's the difference between a bug and an error? I've always called an error a bug. Vulnerabilities are a subset of bugs.
What I am saying is that bugs are an inescapable reality.
Apple delivers updates once monthly. So does Microsoft. What's the difference?
PS: I don't need an advertising agency to tell me what is correct.
First: complex software written for use on a wide variety of configurations WILL HAVE BUGS. I just don't see any way around it. This has nothing to do with competition. OS X in the past 2 months has had a huge number of patches, hasn't it? That too, with a BSD based kernel and a much smaller hardware base.
Second: Not every bug is a showstopper. Even if a bug is found after code freeze, it might be better to release a patch separately. You know, like those "errata" sheets of paper in books.
When a patch is released the vulnerability *has* to be disclosed! That means sysadmins would run around trying to keep systems up to date the whole month.
I agree that more out of cycle patches should be released for serious vulnerabilities that are being exploited, but I see nothing wrong with the Patch Tuesday method otherwise.
...is there for a reason.
Though I really would prefer vulnerabilities fixed asap, I can see the reason for Patch Tuesday, especially for non-0day exploits.
Safari 3.0.1, however, is just damage control.
Just don't fill in that field. :P
they haven't fixed all the vulnerabilities yet.
MICROSOFT HASN'T LIMITED GOOGLE'S ABILITY TO RUN GOOGLE DESKTOP SEARCH.
Microsoft hasn't "intentionally hobbled" GDS!
It's very easy to turn off Vista search indexing. There is an API to use for Google itself!
Google is lying.
Am I correct in understanding that in Vista, the web-based msn search engine crawls your hard drive?
You are incorrect.
is it a build in search engine? (ie. daemon running on the local machine)
Yes, and it can easily be turned off. Google is being moronic here, crying for the sake of crying.
WTF?
bug after bugSo no Linux distro has bugs? Your beloved Mac doesn't have bugs? Haven't there been around 30 Mac patches in the last 2 months?
spyware attack after spyware attackName ONE spyware attack that is Vista only. ONE.
slow op code after slow op codeThat's right, you can't.
I can, however, say that most spyware, viruses, trojans, and rootkits, have their functionality retarded due to UAC.
The perceived "slowness" of Vista is a product of immature drivers, one bug that affects some computers (slow file copy) and pure FUD.
I'm just so FREAKING tired of this all this bullIndeed. I'm freaking tired of all the bull in your post as well.
Seems more like a general problem with IPv6 than with Vista. I remember once trying to use Fx with Ubuntu on a NAT based network, and each HTTP request took at least 3 seconds. I turned off IPv6 and all was well. I did the same with Vista as soon as I installed it. Honestly, it's just a checkbox!
/.ers can enjoy their lame Vista bashfest.
We are going to see more such incompatibilities in the future. For now, though,
A huge lie. That figure was from ONE small retailer in ONE city.
while Fx/Linux or OS X are? This had to come some day. :P
Gamers aren't moving to Vista *yet* because graphics drivers aren't really up to snuff (though they are getting better and better with every release).
...was a lie.
It's no longer possible in Vista, though another way is to install it from the DVD, then upgrade it on top of itself. Since the Vista install is quite faster than the XP one, he would have been done with it quicker.
You can also save in the .doc format. AND you can also set the doc format as default.