I don't use it. Most of my windows are X, using Windowmaker on Cygwin. I use Windowmaker workspaces, and few enouigh native Windows windows that the loss of virtual desktops their don't affect me.
Back to MS's design. It has issues. Some windows apps don't like the shifting. Sometimes the backdop gets changed (not as trivial as you might think, remember that people differentiate workspaces by background). The worst thing was it put 5 huge buttons on my taskbar, taking up space for apps. I ditched it.
Minor niggles: 1) you don't need to recompile your kernel to change application level software. It takes time to find the software, (possibly) compile it, and (possibly) manage it if you want to update it. But no kernel compiles are needed for 99% of software. 2) s/kernal/kernel/g
I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality. So, higher Windows OS sales doesn't make it better than Linux?
Jokes aside, he says security concerns are because Windows doesn't ship with a firewall. Umm, it does, it's poorly documented, but it does. I'm not sure how a firewall would help against email viruses.
The scary thing is email viruses work because everything is working just the way it should (at least the way it was at some snapshot in time, a snapshot in time that many people are obviously still at). Outlook is hiding extensions, like it was told to. The people are opening attachments, like they should be able to (MS has taken the obvious action in some situations, made it dangerous, and then blamed the user for doing the obvious). The OS is doing what it is told to when opening ANY.vbs (local or remote), which is to execute it. The VBS engine has free rein over the system, including being able to read addressbooks, open network sockets (most viruses now have primitive SMTP mailers) and do anything else they pretty much want.
0. If you're a software guy blame it on hardware, if you're a hardware guy blame it on software. Old joke... The hardware guy says "it's a software problem." The software guy says "it's a hardware problme." The liberal arts major says "umm, do you want fries with that?"
Sadly, a lot more hardware and software guys ware wearing paper hats and supersizing it.
<FLAMEBAIT>But even though they're making 1/3 of what they're used to, they're happy because thanks to Bush NewSpeak, they're in manufacturing jobs.</FLAMEBAIT>
The input of the other party is so irrelevant in this process that we used to joke about keeping a cardboard cut-out programmer to save wear and tear on the real ones... How about a cardboard cutout dog?
"Debugging is always harder than coding. If you write the code as cleverly as you possibly can, then you are - by definition - not clever enough to debug it."
--- Attr to Kernighan and Pike
This was standard on all MS-BASICs. Commodore 64 basic had this. It was constrained by 8 bit microprocessor, with 16 bit address line, and all code, data, and memory mapped hardware (display, SID sound chip, joystick, user port...) had to share the 16 bit address space. One way that they saved a few bytes was to jump in the middle of instructions. I think it was something like: LDA #1 cmp (addressing mode which took next two operands) LDA #0...
If I hit the bottom LDA, I'd just load accumulator (MOS 6502, ONE GP 8 bit register, two lesser functionality registers, basically address registers) and be on my merry way. If I hit the top LDA 1, the next thing I'd do is do the cmp, which would pick the next two arguments, do the compare, set the flags, and go on, essentially bypassing them as code. It saved a whole byte over doing the more normal branch instructions, but in those days, a couple bytes here and there were critical.
The C64 had lots of tricks to save RAM. High res graphics (all 4 color, 320x240 resolution of high res) were made usable only by memory mapping tricks. The system allowed mapping the high res graphics buffer as an overlay directly on top of the code space. Writes to the overlay space went to the video RAM. Reads by the video chip were by the video RAM, but reads by the OS always came from the underlying code space RAM. You use the same addresses for different things depending on what chip was reading from it.
Re:RCS can handle binary data since v5.7
on
Subversion 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
cvs does not (no longer) use rcs as a back end. It used to be a collection of scripts on top of RCS, but it's had it's own back end for a while now.
Explorer only creates Explorer style Shortcuts, whether in NT 2K which has something more similar to symlinks, or in Win95, WinNT4 which didn't. The real symlinks have to be created in other ways.
The stupid thing is MS could have implemented real kernel level symlinks in the jump to Win95, but they didn't. They instead made Shortcuts at the shell level. Apple got it right with System 7 Aliases, which were symlinks at the kernel level.
I recall OpenUNIX (UnixWare 8) being sold as the great melding of UNIX with Linux. I know they have a lot of GNU userland tools (always have; I hit the Skunkware site regularly when I had to work on OpenServer 5) but part of me thinks they tried to meld some kernel stuff as well. They claim that their Linux compatibility stuff in the kernel is cleanroom, has anyone checked? People can ask for specific code modules instead of the general fishing expedition that SCO is doing.
In that article the guy talks abuot "what is UNIX", and whether a UNIX clone could be built without looking at UNIX source. 1) Linux is API compatible with UNIX. How? Because they read the standards and the man pages. I keep on bringing up that some code that uses select() for timing breaks on Linux because they copied the man page and not the code. Their cleanroom version was copied from the old BSD manpage, and is not bug-compatible to the way that BSD implemented it. 2) They don't even need to be cleanroom, they can just use the BSD code.
I stopped caring when the guy took the 10-Q filing as a strong piece of evidence against Linux. 10-Q filings need to include EVERYTHING, essentially in "the sky is falling" mode, just in case it does happen and the SEC gets hard core, or even shareholder lawsuits. Yeah, there's always the off chance that SCO might win, but to take this warning in the 10-Q as strong evidence gives strong evidence he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I used to work at a company called STG. There's a diploma mill in India also called STG. People called us up all the time, bitching about the school. "Um, I'm sorry, we're in the US, not in Inida. Yes, we're sure. Bye now".
You'll see them come up to some guy who seems like he's just minding his own business, and they'll totally abuse his rights -- although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.
The show needs access to police departments. The police depts. want to be shown in a favorable light. The show has editors. How many clips ended up on the cutting room floor of the times have they abused the rights of someone when they don't end up being guilty?
I thought there's a CD or so worth of compressed code. You'd need a small font and/or a huge CD to get it to fit. Well, given the higher than average percentage of coders putting on XXXL t-shirts, you may have a shot.
OK, now that I have my joke out (and I do realize your statement probably a joke as well) there are a few reasons to think this is bad.
1) If I find a bug that lets me execute code on a windows machine, the average hacker a) tells people about it gets it fixed because he has the best interest of MS and users at heart or b) exploits it for some notoriety or monetary gain. Even if 99% of people choose a), if any choose b), viruses and worms means everyone is affected. Sure, they could patch it, but slow patch adoption rates and slow patch creation rates (look how long the ASN1 patch took to get fixed) means any exploit has a long shelf life.
2) Somewhat related to 1) above, they said that if they are more secure because they keep the source guarded. It is no longer, people may start thinking it's less secure. Security through obscurity only works if the code is obscured.
3) From what I hear (haven't seen it) the code looks pretty amateur in places. MS is a huge company, and not a monolith. Some of the code will be low quality. They just plain look bad.
Funny thing is, since this is FreeBSD, most folks are going to cvsup anyway, instead of downloading and install a whole disk. Nice touch, but hitting the direct ftp server is less of a problem for FreeBSD than other downloads.
Anyone who knows about the orignal case will see a lot of parallels with BSD.
BSD went through this a while back. AT&T sued BSD because they released their code and allegedly diluted the value of UNIX SYS5. This was a bastard thing to do, because a lot of cool things in UNIX actually came from Bezerkely. "Hey, you work on this code, make us money, we'll include your code in UNIX, and for your troubles we'll sue you someday!!" Berkely beat them because of the duplicity; there were a lot of files in UNIX that came from Berkeley and didn't have the proper copyrights. Novel bought the UNIX rights from AT&T USL and dropped the suit.
That said, SCO is pretty crazy suing Linux for bad reasons, so them suing BSD wouldn't be totally out of the realm of possibility )though out of the realm of sanity).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use it. Most of my windows are X, using Windowmaker on Cygwin. I use Windowmaker workspaces, and few enouigh native Windows windows that the loss of virtual desktops their don't affect me.
Back to MS's design. It has issues. Some windows apps don't like the shifting. Sometimes the backdop gets changed (not as trivial as you might think, remember that people differentiate workspaces by background). The worst thing was it put 5 huge buttons on my taskbar, taking up space for apps. I ditched it.
ST => Suicidal Tendencies, "Institutionalized"
Granparent post (All I wanted was a Pepsi, and she wouldn't give it to me, just one Pepsi)
Institutionalized
Minor niggles:
1) you don't need to recompile your kernel to change application level software. It takes time to find the software, (possibly) compile it, and (possibly) manage it if you want to update it. But no kernel compiles are needed for 99% of software.
2) s/kernal/kernel/g
I'm just simply saying that more in number does not mean it's more in quality.
.vbs (local or remote), which is to execute it. The VBS engine has free rein over the system, including being able to read addressbooks, open network sockets (most viruses now have primitive SMTP mailers) and do anything else they pretty much want.
So, higher Windows OS sales doesn't make it better than Linux?
Jokes aside, he says security concerns are because Windows doesn't ship with a firewall. Umm, it does, it's poorly documented, but it does. I'm not sure how a firewall would help against email viruses.
The scary thing is email viruses work because everything is working just the way it should (at least the way it was at some snapshot in time, a snapshot in time that many people are obviously still at). Outlook is hiding extensions, like it was told to. The people are opening attachments, like they should be able to (MS has taken the obvious action in some situations, made it dangerous, and then blamed the user for doing the obvious). The OS is doing what it is told to when opening ANY
Rant mode OFF
0. If you're a software guy blame it on hardware, if you're a hardware guy blame it on software.
Old joke...
The hardware guy says "it's a software problem."
The software guy says "it's a hardware problme."
The liberal arts major says "umm, do you want fries with that?"
Sadly, a lot more hardware and software guys ware wearing paper hats and supersizing it.
<FLAMEBAIT>But even though they're making 1/3 of what they're used to, they're happy because thanks to Bush NewSpeak, they're in manufacturing jobs.</FLAMEBAIT>
The input of the other party is so irrelevant in this process that we used to joke about keeping a cardboard cut-out programmer to save wear and tear on the real ones...
How about a cardboard cutout dog?
"Debugging is always harder than coding. If you write the code as cleverly as you possibly can, then you are - by definition - not clever enough to debug it."
--- Attr to Kernighan and Pike
This was standard on all MS-BASICs. Commodore 64 basic had this. It was constrained by 8 bit microprocessor, with 16 bit address line, and all code, data, and memory mapped hardware (display, SID sound chip, joystick, user port...) had to share the 16 bit address space. One way that they saved a few bytes was to jump in the middle of instructions. I think it was something like: ...
LDA #1
cmp (addressing mode which took next two operands)
LDA #0
If I hit the bottom LDA, I'd just load accumulator (MOS 6502, ONE GP 8 bit register, two lesser functionality registers, basically address registers) and be on my merry way. If I hit the top LDA 1, the next thing I'd do is do the cmp, which would pick the next two arguments, do the compare, set the flags, and go on, essentially bypassing them as code. It saved a whole byte over doing the more normal branch instructions, but in those days, a couple bytes here and there were critical.
The C64 had lots of tricks to save RAM. High res graphics (all 4 color, 320x240 resolution of high res) were made usable only by memory mapping tricks. The system allowed mapping the high res graphics buffer as an overlay directly on top of the code space. Writes to the overlay space went to the video RAM. Reads by the video chip were by the video RAM, but reads by the OS always came from the underlying code space RAM. You use the same addresses for different things depending on what chip was reading from it.
cvs does not (no longer) use rcs as a back end. It used to be a collection of scripts on top of RCS, but it's had it's own back end for a while now.
Explorer only creates Explorer style Shortcuts, whether in NT 2K which has something more similar to symlinks, or in Win95, WinNT4 which didn't. The real symlinks have to be created in other ways.
The stupid thing is MS could have implemented real kernel level symlinks in the jump to Win95, but they didn't. They instead made Shortcuts at the shell level. Apple got it right with System 7 Aliases, which were symlinks at the kernel level.
I recall OpenUNIX (UnixWare 8) being sold as the great melding of UNIX with Linux. I know they have a lot of GNU userland tools (always have; I hit the Skunkware site regularly when I had to work on OpenServer 5) but part of me thinks they tried to meld some kernel stuff as well. They claim that their Linux compatibility stuff in the kernel is cleanroom, has anyone checked? People can ask for specific code modules instead of the general fishing expedition that SCO is doing.
If anything, we live in interesting times...
"May you code in interesting times..."
-- text string embedded in old MacOS System file (MacOS 7 at least).
I can't wait for some mix song to start looping the line from Fight Club "Fuck Martha Stewart". Anyone hear of one yet?
In that article the guy talks abuot "what is UNIX", and whether a UNIX clone could be built without looking at UNIX source.
1) Linux is API compatible with UNIX. How? Because they read the standards and the man pages. I keep on bringing up that some code that uses select() for timing breaks on Linux because they copied the man page and not the code. Their cleanroom version was copied from the old BSD manpage, and is not bug-compatible to the way that BSD implemented it.
2) They don't even need to be cleanroom, they can just use the BSD code.
What a freakin' moron. Two uninformed pieces.
I stopped caring when the guy took the 10-Q filing as a strong piece of evidence against Linux. 10-Q filings need to include EVERYTHING, essentially in "the sky is falling" mode, just in case it does happen and the SEC gets hard core, or even shareholder lawsuits. Yeah, there's always the off chance that SCO might win, but to take this warning in the 10-Q as strong evidence gives strong evidence he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I used to work at a company called STG. There's a diploma mill in India also called STG. People called us up all the time, bitching about the school. "Um, I'm sorry, we're in the US, not in Inida. Yes, we're sure. Bye now".
truss is available on FreeBSD. Is better known as strace on Linux systems.
You'll see them come up to some guy who seems like he's just minding his own business, and they'll totally abuse his rights -- although in their defense, in the end, the guy always ends up being guilty of something.
The show needs access to police departments. The police depts. want to be shown in a favorable light. The show has editors. How many clips ended up on the cutting room floor of the times have they abused the rights of someone when they don't end up being guilty?
Don't know if you were joking, but some folks really got MS Office war3z letters from the BSA for putting up OpenOffice downloads.
I thought there's a CD or so worth of compressed code. You'd need a small font and/or a huge CD to get it to fit. Well, given the higher than average percentage of coders putting on XXXL t-shirts, you may have a shot.
OK, now that I have my joke out (and I do realize your statement probably a joke as well) there are a few reasons to think this is bad.
1) If I find a bug that lets me execute code on a windows machine, the average hacker a) tells people about it gets it fixed because he has the best interest of MS and users at heart or b) exploits it for some notoriety or monetary gain. Even if 99% of people choose a), if any choose b), viruses and worms means everyone is affected. Sure, they could patch it, but slow patch adoption rates and slow patch creation rates (look how long the ASN1 patch took to get fixed) means any exploit has a long shelf life.
2) Somewhat related to 1) above, they said that if they are more secure because they keep the source guarded. It is no longer, people may start thinking it's less secure. Security through obscurity only works if the code is obscured.
3) From what I hear (haven't seen it) the code looks pretty amateur in places. MS is a huge company, and not a monolith. Some of the code will be low quality. They just plain look bad.
Don't you realize trying to fix all the bugs in MS code will reduce people's productivity to all time lows?
My favorite would be the ASL icon, saving me countless hours in adult.. err, friendly chat rooms.
Funny thing is, since this is FreeBSD, most folks are going to cvsup anyway, instead of downloading and install a whole disk. Nice touch, but hitting the direct ftp server is less of a problem for FreeBSD than other downloads.
That's quite a trick, since Windows isn't 100% compatible with all windows programs. =)
Anyone who knows about the orignal case will see a lot of parallels with BSD.
BSD went through this a while back. AT&T sued BSD because they released their code and allegedly diluted the value of UNIX SYS5. This was a bastard thing to do, because a lot of cool things in UNIX actually came from Bezerkely. "Hey, you work on this code, make us money, we'll include your code in UNIX, and for your troubles we'll sue you someday!!" Berkely beat them because of the duplicity; there were a lot of files in UNIX that came from Berkeley and didn't have the proper copyrights. Novel bought the UNIX rights from AT&T USL and dropped the suit.
That said, SCO is pretty crazy suing Linux for bad reasons, so them suing BSD wouldn't be totally out of the realm of possibility )though out of the realm of sanity).