Nope, it is still a bug in Windows. Windows 2000 and XP were written for backwards compatability but they didn't bother to include code that would allow apps that normally write to HKLM to work as a normal user by redirecting those writes to HKCU.
Sorry, dude, but that's what LOA tools do. They shim registry calls to remap NKLM into HKCU. (That's HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, which is protected from non-admins, to HKEY_CURRENT_USER, which is open to the current user.)
The fact that this isn't obvious to people who know about the registry, though, goes to show that Dvorak's spouting shite out of his arse. Microsoft put proper access controls on the registry in NT3.1! It was always just in the DOS/9x series that the registry was unprotected.
That's usually the single best indicator of security issues, you know. If the client doesn't "work right" for you, then it's buggy. If it's buggy, and particularly if it's perceptibly buggy, then it's almost always insecure.
Why was he running a client application as admin? Contrary to the usual slashdolt FUD, that's almost never necessary except for a small -- and increasingly smaller -- class of games. The various "lup" apps take care of things which want to write in the wrong part of the registry -- but those misplaced registry writes are still bugs in the third-party applications, not in Windows.
He claims to be qualified to blame Microsoft for security holes in its products, doesn't he? It's clear that he was slammed by a security hole in a third-party application he was running on his system as an Administrator. (Not to mention, a third party application with a history of known defects...)
He has no business complaining about Microsoft's "protection racket" if he honestly doesn't understand that his recent issue has jack-squat to do with Microsoft.
The simplest correct solution turns out to be the best. This would be (as a comment further down points out) a head-slappingly obvious thesis -- which leads me to wonder if the authors have their calculations right.
it's not possible to look at software development as a physical manufacturing process. We're much closer to art.
I like to tell my younger colleagues that "We aren't engineers, and we aren't artists. We are craftsmen and -women. We make useful devices through the skills we have. We make pots and pans."
We don't call Voyager or Pioneer "satellites" because they aren't. Their trajectories are open -- that is, they are not satellites by virtue of nor orbiting a larger body, bot by virtue of their artificial neighbors.
Did you read what I wrote? There is NO OPTION in Word 2003 to "save as Word 97". That's a statement of fact. He, therefore, is lying.
I would love to see a file generated by Word 2000 which appears different in Word 2003. I keep hearing about these, but, you know, I've never seen one.
And, in my case, that means something: I've never seen one, and I wrote tools that looked at hundreds of thousands of such files for a project I was on about two years ago.
There's no option to save in "word 97" format unless you save in rtf. The.doc file format has changed since 97, but it's backwards and forwards compatible.
In other words, I think you're stretching the truth.
In my experience, for early prototypes, the chips are often hand-inserted on the PC boards, and then the patch wires are wirewrapped on the back. I would not be in the least surprised if these are just barely beyond that stage. I wouldn't be surprised if the video driver (which is being released as free software) is being custom-written by a team of people in real time. Etc. A lot of those costs are treated as sunk when you go beyond eval, but I'm betting they're trying to break even now.
I used to work in the mobile device business, and we routinely wound up buying dev boards that might cost twenty to thirty times the cost of the final product, and sometime much more. The dev boards would be manufactured as one-offs in a high-wage environment by hand. Each was essentially hand crafted from a bag of parts. The retail devices would be made by the hundreds of thousands in a low-wge environment using a fixed (and highly optimized) assembly process. The per unit cost margins really are that different.
You know, the Egyptians thought the same thing. They were, therefore, absolutely stunned when Napoleon invaded and crushed them in a matter of a few months. Although Britain took Egypt after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, the French used their military power to establish colonies in Algeria and throughout Africa.
But don't let the facts get in your way -- they're nasty, pesky things...like levees.
It's something of both. The monorail was a stupid project which was sold as a bargain against the huge cost overruns of Sound Transit. It appealed to Seattle's exceptionalism, while snubbing the rest of King County.
Fair enough, and probably a good thing: the vote to start the monorail did get Sound Transit off its duff and actually building things. However, the vote happened before Seattlites began learning just how expensive the SMP was going to be. Surprise, surprise -- there were huge overruns, there were sweetheart deals, and there were constant fights among the neighborhoods about who get what.
If there hadn't been a competitor to the monorail, I think it's likely that it would be fully funded. However, as there is, the mayor is looking at a huge hole into which the city can poor money it doesn't have, versus a partly working system already on the ground. He can't have both of them, and so he's backed the one which is more likely to provide him with something.
You're comparing apples with oranges. Bandwidth is not a gating vactor for a compute intensive application such as CAD/CAM. It is a gating factor for games -- textures don't come free.
But even if that were not the case, your argument would still be weak. The network's backend fabric has finite bandwidth, and. switched or not, that bandwidth is still going to be shared.
it'll probably load faster thru a switched FastE connection
Only if the connection is unshared. That's the thing about my CD-ROM drive -- it's an unshared resource. Yes, it isn't as fast as an unshared switched connection, but it's a lot faster than a shared switched connection.
Seeing as how the Gates mansion didn't exist when MSN was formed, I kind of think that story's...what does one say...oh, yes: aprocyphal. As in made up.
As to "maringally profitable" -- MSN actually earned $250M last year.
Sorry, bumpkin -- the facts don't support your claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, my. That's a nasty design error in the DOM parser. I wonder if I can exploit the lack of data scrubbing there?
The fact that this isn't obvious to people who know about the registry, though, goes to show that Dvorak's spouting shite out of his arse. Microsoft put proper access controls on the registry in NT3.1! It was always just in the DOS/9x series that the registry was unprotected.
Why was he running a client application as admin? Contrary to the usual slashdolt FUD, that's almost never necessary except for a small -- and increasingly smaller -- class of games. The various "lup" apps take care of things which want to write in the wrong part of the registry -- but those misplaced registry writes are still bugs in the third-party applications, not in Windows.
He claims to be qualified to blame Microsoft for security holes in its products, doesn't he? It's clear that he was slammed by a security hole in a third-party application he was running on his system as an Administrator. (Not to mention, a third party application with a history of known defects...)
He has no business complaining about Microsoft's "protection racket" if he honestly doesn't understand that his recent issue has jack-squat to do with Microsoft.
The simplest correct solution turns out to be the best. This would be (as a comment further down points out) a head-slappingly obvious thesis -- which leads me to wonder if the authors have their calculations right.
In this case, the "virus" was a shell script which...functioned as a shell script. Calling that a virus is FUD.
Literally, these "viruses" were the equivalent of
Too bad it's a lousy bubble stock with no real presence in the market
True enough. I guess one could refer to them as satellites of the Big Black Hole in the middle of the core.
It seems a bit of a stretch, but...
We don't call Voyager or Pioneer "satellites" because they aren't. Their trajectories are open -- that is, they are not satellites by virtue of nor orbiting a larger body, bot by virtue of their artificial neighbors.
Yes and yes. The .doc entry simply says "Word document (*.doc)". No mention of 97.
The 97-2003 option is *.rtf -- that is a different file format. (Which is what I said.)
Did you read what I wrote? There is NO OPTION in Word 2003 to "save as Word 97". That's a statement of fact. He, therefore, is lying.
I would love to see a file generated by Word 2000 which appears different in Word 2003. I keep hearing about these, but, you know, I've never seen one.
And, in my case, that means something: I've never seen one, and I wrote tools that looked at hundreds of thousands of such files for a project I was on about two years ago.
In other words, I think you're stretching the truth.
I did say that they were past the wirewrap stage...but, all the same, I didn't notice that this was surface mount technology.
Are you counting in the 80-100% markup for a customer buying at n=1? Remember that they bought those boards retail themselves, basically.
You're looking at this like a producer. As a past consumer of this kind of junk, it doesn't seem all that bad.
In my experience, for early prototypes, the chips are often hand-inserted on the PC boards, and then the patch wires are wirewrapped on the back. I would not be in the least surprised if these are just barely beyond that stage. I wouldn't be surprised if the video driver (which is being released as free software) is being custom-written by a team of people in real time. Etc. A lot of those costs are treated as sunk when you go beyond eval, but I'm betting they're trying to break even now.
Actually, that really isn't true.
I used to work in the mobile device business, and we routinely wound up buying dev boards that might cost twenty to thirty times the cost of the final product, and sometime much more. The dev boards would be manufactured as one-offs in a high-wage environment by hand. Each was essentially hand crafted from a bag of parts. The retail devices would be made by the hundreds of thousands in a low-wge environment using a fixed (and highly optimized) assembly process. The per unit cost margins really are that different.
You know, the Egyptians thought the same thing. They were, therefore, absolutely stunned when Napoleon invaded and crushed them in a matter of a few months. Although Britain took Egypt after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, the French used their military power to establish colonies in Algeria and throughout Africa.
But don't let the facts get in your way -- they're nasty, pesky things...like levees.
It's something of both. The monorail was a stupid project which was sold as a bargain against the huge cost overruns of Sound Transit. It appealed to Seattle's exceptionalism, while snubbing the rest of King County.
Fair enough, and probably a good thing: the vote to start the monorail did get Sound Transit off its duff and actually building things. However, the vote happened before Seattlites began learning just how expensive the SMP was going to be. Surprise, surprise -- there were huge overruns, there were sweetheart deals, and there were constant fights among the neighborhoods about who get what.
If there hadn't been a competitor to the monorail, I think it's likely that it would be fully funded. However, as there is, the mayor is looking at a huge hole into which the city can poor money it doesn't have, versus a partly working system already on the ground. He can't have both of them, and so he's backed the one which is more likely to provide him with something.
You're comparing apples with oranges. Bandwidth is not a gating vactor for a compute intensive application such as CAD/CAM. It is a gating factor for games -- textures don't come free.
But even if that were not the case, your argument would still be weak. The network's backend fabric has finite bandwidth, and. switched or not, that bandwidth is still going to be shared.
is directly taken from The Exchange 2003 Outlook Web Access, down to the order and contents of the right click menus.
That's not a problem for me -- we're proud of our work, and glad to see it used -- but it's kind of annoying that it isn't recognized.
Seeing as how the Gates mansion didn't exist when MSN was formed, I kind of think that story's...what does one say...oh, yes: aprocyphal. As in made up.
As to "maringally profitable" -- MSN actually earned $250M last year.
Sorry, bumpkin -- the facts don't support your claims.