That's because it isn't Microsoft's business to collect data, but it definitely is Google's business.
The collect it, but it's generally related to somehow improving how many products they can sell you - which often turns into producing more/better products for you to buy. They need to know a lot less to do this than Google does to tailor adds to your every need (and thereby maximize the success rate for their advertisers), and the data MS needs to collect is generally more mundane. They also allow you to opt out every single time, except for perhaps searches.
Yes, so long as the driver's function is not to circumvent a copy protection mechanism. For example, the purpose of an Xbox Kinect driver would be to allow you to use the Kinect device to homebrew Linux Xbox installs or to PC's, not to circumvent the copy protection MS may have put on their firmware.
It can be tricky in some cases, but this one should be fine. As long as you aren't able to copy the firmware when it is finished the drivers should be legit. Reverse engineering in general is still perfectly legal.
Apparently you can't read, since there at least two iPhone apps in the insecure list (granted, there were four Android apps in the list, and only one Android app that passed vs 4 iPhone apps).
It seems more likely that, for whatever reason, iOS financial app developers tend to be more diligent than Android financial app developers.
It's still bad for Android, but not the same kind of bad. And it certainly doesn't warrant changing the summary title given the fact that iPhone apps are insecure as well, and the problems are related to how the Apps were developed, not the OS's themselves.
Isn't that the "reversable encryption" he mentioned?
Or am I wrong on that?
And no reversible encryption is unbreakable, they are simply unbreakable given a certain amount of time and resources. Good encryption takes thousands of years to break with current technology.
Microsoft has been declared a monopoly by a federal court, and therefore must play by different rules.
You are obviously confused. All Microsoft has to do is abide by the same anti-trust and anti-competition laws that everyone else must abide by.
The fact that most vendors aren't even in a position to break these laws does not mean that Microsoft is somehow magically under new laws. In fact, such an idea is unconstitutional - it violates the "equal protection under the law" clause.
The fact is, all companies sufficiently large within a particular market can run afoul of anti-trust and anti-competition laws. Microsoft got in trouble for attempting to coerce PC vendors into not bundling Netscape with Windows. That's clearly anti-competition, and any company would be violating the law if they did something similar. Apple can easily run afoul of anti-trust laws. So can Dell, or IBM, or GM, or hell even companies in smaller, more local markets.
The rules never changed for Microsoft, they simply broke the rules that apply to everyone, and were punished for it. They are not now under any new rules. They are simply watched closer than other companies because they have the potential to violate these laws in so many huge markets.
This is in particular is not anti-competitive behavior at all. Giving a product away for free in a new way that you have always given away for free cannot be construed as any sort of anti-competition.
Now, Europe sees things a little differently, but European laws are stupid (I mean that with all due respect, Europe).
And MSE is only given as an option to people who don't have AV yet.
What's the friggin problem? Trend Micro is angry that MSE is giving AV to people who haven't bought their shitty AV product yet?
Give me a break.
I suppose we should ban all free AV software too right? I mean, for heaven's sake, all you have to do is go to their website and download it! People won't know that they need to spend $50 a year on AV software! Also, it's a known fact that the more an AV slows your machine, the better it is protecting you against viruses. There should be a law against all of these lean and efficient AV's that don't slow your machine down, and therefore obviously don't provide adequate protection. They're obviously bribing people to get those better AV ratings, too!
Seriously, Trend Micro can stick it in their ear. Build a better product or die. I don't care. Quit trying to take away my options.
I get seriously angry whenever I see the bundles like that (particularly if they are pre-selected, and they usually are). Whenever I see one it is pretty much guaranteed that I will never, ever install the bundled software.
If they didn't pre-select them, and it were simply an additional option, I don't think I would have a problem. If it were an option to download the additional software at the end of the install I would be a-ok with it. But assuming that I want this piece of shit that is completely unrelated to the software I wish to install, and the fact that you've increased my download size (I have a near-dialup connection half the year) for something completely unrelated to what I want just plain pisses me off.
The GP said he likes the security suites because they have nicer firewalls, not necessarily better ones. Some firewalls make management a lot easier than Windows Firewall does, so I can see the point, but I have to wonder what you're doing if your firewall management is a major hassle.
It's also better than Trend Micro's AV, so you can see why Trend Micro is angry.
Instead of improving their product to compete, they whine, even though Microsoft has done absolutely nothing wrong here (and frankly, a lot of good if it gets people who don't have AV to install something).
MSSE is certainly no the best AV out there, so there is plenty of room for competition.
Most of Microsoft's anti-trust trouble, at least in the US, had nothing to do with bundling the browser anyway. It gave them more trouble in Europe, but here the problem was MS was threatening PC retailers who wanted to bundle other browsers (namely Netscape) with their systems.
That's anti-competitive behavior, and we have laws against it. Europe reacted more harshly and forced MS to not ship Windows with a default browser. It ships with IE, but you have to set it as your browser of choice first.
Further, by putting it in with the updates it gives people the sense that they need it as part of a fully patched system, when it's not necessary and there are competing products that may be better.
Except that there are the essential updates, which are selected by default, and the optional updates which are under a completely different list (you have to click a button to even display them).
Most people ignore the optional updates, and this shows up under the optional updates.
Again, what's the problem? Microsoft is putting out something to reduce the number of malware infected machines out there and people are upset? Really?
Well, Java sucks on Windows a desktop, so I can't imagine it's very good when you're looking for raw performance. CLI code, on the other hand, runs at almost native levels.
Maybe for the same reason Microsoft decided to develop F# - because Ocaml wasn't good enough (seriously, they were using Ocaml before, if it were good enough they would never have created F#).
I don't see how the fact that it offers a Grant of Patent License has anything to do with Microsoft not wanting to incorporate community alterations to their software.
I frankly don't understand your point at all in this context. It's a copy of another post you made, which was at least in the right context even though it was completely incorrect.
Seriously, if you can't comprehend what people are saying, you probably shouldn't quote them.
You obviously don't know what "open source" means.
All this means is that Microsoft is not allowing community "enhancements" into the official product. With the source, though, you are free to fork it if you want to (I honestly don't see why you would, but you can).
From what others are saying, Ocaml is not very polished. It was made by researchers for researchers, so some of the practical sides of it weren't well developed.
MS actually used Ocaml first, then decided to create F# because a.) Ocaml was very popular internally and b.) Ocaml didn't meet all of their needs.
The solution is obviously to create a language similar to Ocaml that meets all of their needs.
Thus, F# was born, a language written by researchers for programmers.
It is apparently used very heavily internally for code verification, among other things.
Duh people, if it's not Linux it can't have a community OR be genuinely "Open Source".
This is obviously just another dick move by Microsoft to screw everybody over (even though they have a long history of giving most of their developer tools away for free).
It's invasive because it shows you each person you are scanning completely nude.
It's ineffective because strapping objects to your body isn't the only way to hide stuff, and none of the really dangerous stuff was ever hidden that way.
For example, the underwear bomber's underwear would not have been caught by this machine. The shoe bomber's shoes might have, but we send our shoes through the X-Ray machine now anyway.
It's easy enough to sneak things through the X-Ray machine, and the metal detectors get pretty much all of the small, dangerous things, so how much is this full body scanner going to add to security? Not much. And it's extremely invasive.
Thus, invasive and ineffective, and probably unconstitutional (unreasonable search).
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, I must have dreamed up all those thousands of jailbroken iPhones that were bricked with each new update of the iPhone a couple years ago.
Thanks for fixing that particular mistaken memory!
That's because it isn't Microsoft's business to collect data, but it definitely is Google's business.
The collect it, but it's generally related to somehow improving how many products they can sell you - which often turns into producing more/better products for you to buy. They need to know a lot less to do this than Google does to tailor adds to your every need (and thereby maximize the success rate for their advertisers), and the data MS needs to collect is generally more mundane. They also allow you to opt out every single time, except for perhaps searches.
Yes, so long as the driver's function is not to circumvent a copy protection mechanism. For example, the purpose of an Xbox Kinect driver would be to allow you to use the Kinect device to homebrew Linux Xbox installs or to PC's, not to circumvent the copy protection MS may have put on their firmware.
It can be tricky in some cases, but this one should be fine. As long as you aren't able to copy the firmware when it is finished the drivers should be legit. Reverse engineering in general is still perfectly legal.
Apparently you can't read, since there at least two iPhone apps in the insecure list (granted, there were four Android apps in the list, and only one Android app that passed vs 4 iPhone apps).
It seems more likely that, for whatever reason, iOS financial app developers tend to be more diligent than Android financial app developers.
It's still bad for Android, but not the same kind of bad. And it certainly doesn't warrant changing the summary title given the fact that iPhone apps are insecure as well, and the problems are related to how the Apps were developed, not the OS's themselves.
Isn't that the "reversable encryption" he mentioned?
Or am I wrong on that?
And no reversible encryption is unbreakable, they are simply unbreakable given a certain amount of time and resources. Good encryption takes thousands of years to break with current technology.
Microsoft has been declared a monopoly by a federal court, and therefore must play by different rules.
You are obviously confused. All Microsoft has to do is abide by the same anti-trust and anti-competition laws that everyone else must abide by.
The fact that most vendors aren't even in a position to break these laws does not mean that Microsoft is somehow magically under new laws. In fact, such an idea is unconstitutional - it violates the "equal protection under the law" clause.
The fact is, all companies sufficiently large within a particular market can run afoul of anti-trust and anti-competition laws. Microsoft got in trouble for attempting to coerce PC vendors into not bundling Netscape with Windows. That's clearly anti-competition, and any company would be violating the law if they did something similar. Apple can easily run afoul of anti-trust laws. So can Dell, or IBM, or GM, or hell even companies in smaller, more local markets.
The rules never changed for Microsoft, they simply broke the rules that apply to everyone, and were punished for it. They are not now under any new rules. They are simply watched closer than other companies because they have the potential to violate these laws in so many huge markets.
This is in particular is not anti-competitive behavior at all. Giving a product away for free in a new way that you have always given away for free cannot be construed as any sort of anti-competition.
Now, Europe sees things a little differently, but European laws are stupid (I mean that with all due respect, Europe).
And MSE is only given as an option to people who don't have AV yet.
What's the friggin problem? Trend Micro is angry that MSE is giving AV to people who haven't bought their shitty AV product yet?
Give me a break.
I suppose we should ban all free AV software too right? I mean, for heaven's sake, all you have to do is go to their website and download it! People won't know that they need to spend $50 a year on AV software! Also, it's a known fact that the more an AV slows your machine, the better it is protecting you against viruses. There should be a law against all of these lean and efficient AV's that don't slow your machine down, and therefore obviously don't provide adequate protection. They're obviously bribing people to get those better AV ratings, too!
Seriously, Trend Micro can stick it in their ear. Build a better product or die. I don't care. Quit trying to take away my options.
Europe can say so all they want; it still doesn't mean shit in America.
I get seriously angry whenever I see the bundles like that (particularly if they are pre-selected, and they usually are). Whenever I see one it is pretty much guaranteed that I will never, ever install the bundled software.
If they didn't pre-select them, and it were simply an additional option, I don't think I would have a problem. If it were an option to download the additional software at the end of the install I would be a-ok with it. But assuming that I want this piece of shit that is completely unrelated to the software I wish to install, and the fact that you've increased my download size (I have a near-dialup connection half the year) for something completely unrelated to what I want just plain pisses me off.
Meh, AV's only fix things that are well known anyway, so as long as it's a functioning AV it isn't that much worse than anything else out there.
On that score, MSE is pretty good anyway, so it's a no-brainer for home use.
Windows has had a decent firewall since XP SP1.
The GP said he likes the security suites because they have nicer firewalls, not necessarily better ones. Some firewalls make management a lot easier than Windows Firewall does, so I can see the point, but I have to wonder what you're doing if your firewall management is a major hassle.
Security Essentials is free.
It's also better than Trend Micro's AV, so you can see why Trend Micro is angry.
Instead of improving their product to compete, they whine, even though Microsoft has done absolutely nothing wrong here (and frankly, a lot of good if it gets people who don't have AV to install something).
MSSE is certainly no the best AV out there, so there is plenty of room for competition.
Most of Microsoft's anti-trust trouble, at least in the US, had nothing to do with bundling the browser anyway. It gave them more trouble in Europe, but here the problem was MS was threatening PC retailers who wanted to bundle other browsers (namely Netscape) with their systems.
That's anti-competitive behavior, and we have laws against it. Europe reacted more harshly and forced MS to not ship Windows with a default browser. It ships with IE, but you have to set it as your browser of choice first.
Further, by putting it in with the updates it gives people the sense that they need it as part of a fully patched system, when it's not necessary and there are competing products that may be better.
Except that there are the essential updates, which are selected by default, and the optional updates which are under a completely different list (you have to click a button to even display them).
Most people ignore the optional updates, and this shows up under the optional updates.
Again, what's the problem? Microsoft is putting out something to reduce the number of malware infected machines out there and people are upset? Really?
But isn't this both optional and free?
I don't see the problem at all. It's not like IE, which was free and mandatory (it's still free and bundled).
Well, Java sucks on Windows a desktop, so I can't imagine it's very good when you're looking for raw performance. CLI code, on the other hand, runs at almost native levels.
Maybe for the same reason Microsoft decided to develop F# - because Ocaml wasn't good enough (seriously, they were using Ocaml before, if it were good enough they would never have created F#).
It's "sharp" like in music.
Same as C# (C Sharp).
The musical keys yet available for names as programming languages are pretty much just the flats (there are already A-G and A#-G# languages).
I don't see how the fact that it offers a Grant of Patent License has anything to do with Microsoft not wanting to incorporate community alterations to their software.
I frankly don't understand your point at all in this context. It's a copy of another post you made, which was at least in the right context even though it was completely incorrect.
Seriously, if you can't comprehend what people are saying, you probably shouldn't quote them.
That's not open source!
You obviously don't know what "open source" means.
All this means is that Microsoft is not allowing community "enhancements" into the official product. With the source, though, you are free to fork it if you want to (I honestly don't see why you would, but you can).
Good luck getting it to compile.
I don't understand, why wouldn't Microsoft's free C# compiler compile valid C# code?
Also, have you ever used Visual Studio in the last 10 years?
From what others are saying, Ocaml is not very polished. It was made by researchers for researchers, so some of the practical sides of it weren't well developed.
MS actually used Ocaml first, then decided to create F# because a.) Ocaml was very popular internally and b.) Ocaml didn't meet all of their needs.
The solution is obviously to create a language similar to Ocaml that meets all of their needs.
Thus, F# was born, a language written by researchers for programmers.
It is apparently used very heavily internally for code verification, among other things.
Duh people, if it's not Linux it can't have a community OR be genuinely "Open Source".
This is obviously just another dick move by Microsoft to screw everybody over (even though they have a long history of giving most of their developer tools away for free).
F# runs on Mono, so if you want multi-platform you design it that way.
How is that different than anything else?
It's invasive because it shows you each person you are scanning completely nude.
It's ineffective because strapping objects to your body isn't the only way to hide stuff, and none of the really dangerous stuff was ever hidden that way.
For example, the underwear bomber's underwear would not have been caught by this machine. The shoe bomber's shoes might have, but we send our shoes through the X-Ray machine now anyway.
It's easy enough to sneak things through the X-Ray machine, and the metal detectors get pretty much all of the small, dangerous things, so how much is this full body scanner going to add to security? Not much. And it's extremely invasive.
Thus, invasive and ineffective, and probably unconstitutional (unreasonable search).