I wasn't referring to all applications, however, the mobile platform DOES use.NET, and any desktop apps written therein should be able to work on a mobile platform, unless some kind of "do not execute" flag is used.
And assuming code you write/compile yourself has no back doors is idiotic. People doing that, and then selling it, is how many security issues come about..
And the compiler would still run on your machine, not a remote machine, so... You'd still be compiling it on your machine. Yes, it's a closed source compiler, but I don't want to waste years trying to comprehend the code clusterfuck that is GCC, so GCC is just as closed source for my purposes - I don't see an added risk.
I don't trust MS any more or less than I trust the developers of Linux and it's associated tools. So, swapping one for another doesn't really bother me. The question is - is the benefit from the tool worth the extra layer.
So, no, nothing about the statement is lacking in clarity.
That's just it, aren't they still using.NET? That doesn't compile to native, except for a JIT compiler, which still leaves the assemblies cross platform (other tan tags that say 'do' or 'don't' run on platforms x, y and z.
I don't see the alternatives as a reduction of vulnerabilities in this case, unless you actually bother to look at and parse the code of the entire chain, or at some point hand recompile the binaries. I will never do this, and therefore, I gain no advantage.
Doesn't mean this is a bad idea, it just means, like every other piece of computer tech, use with caution. On a Linux or BSD box, it's pretty damn easy to mimic a service if you don't need access to ports below 1024, and screen is installed, for example. With just those two caveats, there's a lot you can do that is really unpleasant. You don't even need a "service" to patch into.
I'd be more concerned with
(1) who is administrating the computer
(2) who is administrating the local network
(3) who is administrating the other computers on the local network
and the skills of this person/people, than if the computer is running windows and a compiler as OS service, or not.
On my home network, where I control everything, I'd run it.
On my work network, which is a bit too relaxed for my tastes, I probably wouldn't.
"You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself." - if your binary compiler injects a backdoor in the object code, then even recompiling the compiler from source may not get you out of the woods.
Otherwise, let point to you the (in my opinion) relevant phrases in TFA:
Have you read all the code of your OS? Your compiler? Have your read the code of each compiler that was used in the chain, back to the very first one written in assembly/hex?
If not, then you are really not in much of a better position than you would be using a closed source compiler.
You "new" it was better? I believe the word you are looking for is "knew".
Also, Mono is an implementation/compiler for.NET, not a replacement. So, if mono is better than (Visual Studios, and the MS.NET run time, I'm guessing you are referring to?) Then I'm guessing you don't want to kill.NET because that would also kill Mono, which is.NET.
To emphasize this point, I compile programs on both Mono and Visual Studios 2010/MS Runtime. I then run programs compiled on either system to run on the other.
Windows has been perfectly intuitive for me. Moreso than MacOS. I found Ubuntu and FreeBSD more intuitive than MacOS, sadly. Admittedly with FreeBSD, I had someone point me to the handbook first thing. What is "most intuitive" very much depends on the user.
Oh, and I didn't need to install cards for printers on any of them. Usually I don't even need to download drivers separately (unless you count installing CUPS in FreeBSD).
I think his point was that there were companies other than MS that did this. The first (and only) company I can think of that does as good as MS, is Apple
However, The only two languages I prefer Objective C to, are Perl and Lisp. Hell, I'd rather program Java than Obj C.
Actually, if you've seen the previous informational releases, you can still run the standard windows UI fairly easily. It just isn't necessary.
Honestly, I like this. I'll stick with the classic UI, because I like the functionality, but I know a lot of people who would much rather have the newer, simpler UI.
Umm... Most scientist would agree with, and self-apply those adjectives... We are fucking crazy dudes, and if were weren't, life would be so much less enjoyable!
Actually it's a good thing for those compromised sites - they'll find out they are compromised sooner, and users won't be put at risk by traveling to the site. That just means a process needs to be put in place to get off the blacklist. Maybe add IP address as well as host names - same logic.
I'm not sure what the hell this rofl thinking you are talking about is.
There are a lot of non-tracking purposes for which these are useful/necessary. Things that people aren't going to want to do without. They'd rather be tracked than do without.
That's reasonable. Prior to using disk encryption where I had to be at the console to log in, I restarted my system when I left for the evening, and had no downtime (that affected me) from updates.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, after having java shoved up my ass and down my throat so much, I've come to appreciate mono
I wasn't referring to all applications, however, the mobile platform DOES use .NET, and any desktop apps written therein should be able to work on a mobile platform, unless some kind of "do not execute" flag is used.
And assuming code you write/compile yourself has no back doors is idiotic. People doing that, and then selling it, is how many security issues come about..
And the compiler would still run on your machine, not a remote machine, so... You'd still be compiling it on your machine. Yes, it's a closed source compiler, but I don't want to waste years trying to comprehend the code clusterfuck that is GCC, so GCC is just as closed source for my purposes - I don't see an added risk.
I don't trust MS any more or less than I trust the developers of Linux and it's associated tools. So, swapping one for another doesn't really bother me. The question is - is the benefit from the tool worth the extra layer.
So, no, nothing about the statement is lacking in clarity.
Yes, if only something like that existed, and could even target the Apple, Android AND Windows phone platform, as well as many desktop and 'big box' server platforms.
Android uses it with Dalvik .NET/CLR (which I believe is what the GP was hinting at)
Windows Phone 7 uses it with the
Dunno if apply uses it or not.
So... why not?
That's just it, aren't they still using .NET? That doesn't compile to native, except for a JIT compiler, which still leaves the assemblies cross platform (other tan tags that say 'do' or 'don't' run on platforms x, y and z.
I don't see the alternatives as a reduction of vulnerabilities in this case, unless you actually bother to look at and parse the code of the entire chain, or at some point hand recompile the binaries. I will never do this, and therefore, I gain no advantage.
come to think of it, if it doesn't offer any network ports, I'm not sure I would mind running that service in my work environment either.
Doesn't mean this is a bad idea, it just means, like every other piece of computer tech, use with caution. On a Linux or BSD box, it's pretty damn easy to mimic a service if you don't need access to ports below 1024, and screen is installed, for example. With just those two caveats, there's a lot you can do that is really unpleasant. You don't even need a "service" to patch into.
I'd be more concerned with
(1) who is administrating the computer
(2) who is administrating the local network
(3) who is administrating the other computers on the local network
and the skills of this person/people, than if the computer is running windows and a compiler as OS service, or not.
On my home network, where I control everything, I'd run it.
On my work network, which is a bit too relaxed for my tastes, I probably wouldn't.
but if they want it without the handcuffs and butt-plug, then they can use Window/Metro
I don't think you even really read the summary...
I don't think you read the (already classic?) Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust
"You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself." - if your binary compiler injects a backdoor in the object code, then even recompiling the compiler from source may not get you out of the woods.
Otherwise, let point to you the (in my opinion) relevant phrases in TFA:
Have you read all the code of your OS? Your compiler? Have your read the code of each compiler that was used in the chain, back to the very first one written in assembly/hex?
If not, then you are really not in much of a better position than you would be using a closed source compiler.
You "new" it was better? I believe the word you are looking for is "knew".
Also, Mono is an implementation/compiler for .NET, not a replacement. So, if mono is better than (Visual Studios, and the MS .NET run time, I'm guessing you are referring to?) Then I'm guessing you don't want to kill .NET because that would also kill Mono, which is .NET.
To emphasize this point, I compile programs on both Mono and Visual Studios 2010/MS Runtime. I then run programs compiled on either system to run on the other.
Both are AMAZING pieces of work.
I second this motion.
*hands the troll a bone*
Windows has been perfectly intuitive for me. Moreso than MacOS. I found Ubuntu and FreeBSD more intuitive than MacOS, sadly. Admittedly with FreeBSD, I had someone point me to the handbook first thing. What is "most intuitive" very much depends on the user.
Oh, and I didn't need to install cards for printers on any of them. Usually I don't even need to download drivers separately (unless you count installing CUPS in FreeBSD).
I think his point was that there were companies other than MS that did this. The first (and only) company I can think of that does as good as MS, is Apple
However, The only two languages I prefer Objective C to, are Perl and Lisp. Hell, I'd rather program Java than Obj C.
Actually, 8 should be good and 9 should suck
95 ok, 98 good, ME suck, 2000 good, XP ok, Vista suck, 7 ok...
Actually, if you've seen the previous informational releases, you can still run the standard windows UI fairly easily. It just isn't necessary.
Honestly, I like this. I'll stick with the classic UI, because I like the functionality, but I know a lot of people who would much rather have the newer, simpler UI.
As both, I also have to agree with you.
None the less moving to russia, with the appreciation in an official holiday, and the hot russian chicks does appeal to me.
Umm... Most scientist would agree with, and self-apply those adjectives... We are fucking crazy dudes, and if were weren't, life would be so much less enjoyable!
Actually it's a good thing for those compromised sites - they'll find out they are compromised sooner, and users won't be put at risk by traveling to the site. That just means a process needs to be put in place to get off the blacklist. Maybe add IP address as well as host names - same logic.
I'm not sure what the hell this rofl thinking you are talking about is.
There are a lot of non-tracking purposes for which these are useful/necessary. Things that people aren't going to want to do without. They'd rather be tracked than do without.
With Windows, that happens about once a month, and honestly, usually doesn't take that long unless your IT group has seriously fucked up.
That's reasonable. Prior to using disk encryption where I had to be at the console to log in, I restarted my system when I left for the evening, and had no downtime (that affected me) from updates.