Were MS Windows differ's is the fact that most people grant themselves System admin privilege right out of the box and that makes a MS Windows OS less secure then a *nix OS.
That hasn't been the case since XP. Sys admin level changes need elevated privileges just the same as on *nix systems.
Look at the shitload of Apple technologies that Microsoft stole/copied in the earlier days of Windows and ask yourself why Apple might be a bit aggressive when defending their patents.
So Google should provide a free OS and take the liability costs of defending all patent trolls?
They should either play the game by defending their product against patent suits or actively work towards eliminating those patents and fixing the patent system. At this point they are doing neither of those things.
Android is based on Linux and other open-source software. Google also open-sourced most of their own contributions under an Apache license. I don't see that as evil.
If i give you something for free and know that you would be breaking the law if you actually used then that is a pretty immoral thing to do.
Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android.
Patent trolls? You mean competitors that hold patents on things that have been copied by Android (speaking in terms of the reality of the industry, not the way i really see it as i think pretty much all of these so-called 'inventions' are nothing of the sort). I agree the patent system is ridiculous and that many of the patents that Android allegedly infringes upon should not be patentable but you can't just say the patent system is broken and so im not going to abide by it but also do absolutely nothing to get it changed. Play by the rules or make an effort to change the rules, Google is doing neither.
The patent infringement allegations have not been proven. Android is just simply better but the established players can't deal with that.
Google could deal with that, they made the OS, they should start actively defending it and doing something to either eradicate software patents or indemnify their users (handset makers). Personally i prefer the former.
Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.
Perhaps, but then again if they came up with their own language the ridiculousness of software patents would probably infect that language too.
After all, there is the historical counterexample of Java. While it isn't particularly popular for desktop applications these days, it did manage to provide the same applications on any OS with a JVM without any serious discrepancies.
Until you take anything more than a basic Java program and run it on a non-Sun (or Oracle) JVM implementation.
The post you replied to referred to it as a 'pesky little issue', nothing more, hell even Apple admitted it was a an issue and issued a fix. Yes it has been exaggerated, but certainly not in the context of the post you replied to.
But Slashdot is so extremely out of touch with reality, simply pointing out two very obvious fundamental flaws with jhoegl's post gets modded "Troll" simply because it isn't "rah-rah, let's hate Apple!"
But there is no flaw with his post, he said it was a 'pesky little issue', Apple even agrees with that, they issued bumpers as a fix. You would be absolutely 100% correct if had have been making out as if it was a major problem because that is completely untrue, but he didn't, on the contrary he trivialised it about as much as he could.
The "design elements" Samsung copied are literally "rounded corners" and "displaying icons in a grid." There's nothing really unique about any of that.
Also the icon has the same color which i thought that was a fairly obvious choice since at the time the defacto standard for smartphone UI (since most android manufacturers have their own skins) was iOS, keep consistency for the sake of the end user rather than to change just for the sake of change. It also has a very similar picture, but that wasn't created by either company anyway. Samsung's icons don't have rounded corners whereas Apple's do and if i set a green WP7 theme i would get a phone icon that looks pretty similar too.
The only thing they specified that samsung also did is the color, which is a logical decision that if people are using one device it will be a lot easier to use another device if the icon for the common function is similar. There's no point differentiating just for the sake of it when there is a clear advantage to using what many people are used to. The shape of the icon is different and the image is something neither company designed.
What it means is everything eventually gets stolen. But what's not chained down properly gets stolen first, regardless of its value.
Huh? But you said only the one of larger value gets stolen even if it is chained down: My favorite analogy to that is to say that if you set a sack of $2,000 and a sack of $200 in cash beside each other on the street, that only the $2,000 sack will get stolen, even if the $200 sack isn't chained down and the $2,000 sack is.
So if there's a $2000 sack sitting next to the $200 sack, and the $2000 sack gets stolen immediately (and perhaps the $200 sack remains there for quite some time, or even never gets taken) you must assume the former has much poorer security. It's foolish to try to blame the disparity on the value of the contents.
Why? If the security to profit ratio is better on the $2000 than the $200 then regardless of the actual security you'd go for the bigger score.
So how is that any different than any other system?
It isn't, but the exploit is being able to extract the admin credentials from the server when it connects to the compromised system and use those credentials to connect to other macs on the network.
only the $2,000 sack will get stolen, even if the $200 sack isn't chained down and the $2,000 sack is.
Thieves will take everything that's not nailed down.
ay? so the $2000 sack will get stolen even though it's chained down but the $200 sack won't get stolen yet isn't chained down but thieves will take everything that isn't nailed down. Is there some key difference between being chained down and nailed down? if the $2000 sack was nailed down it wouldn't get stolen? but because it's chained down but not nailed down it will get stolen? if the $200 sack isn't chained down then why wouldn't the thieves steal it if they steal everything that isn't nailed down? or is it nailed down but not chained down?
Can someone explain what the problem with Florian is?
The fact that he's not a patent or FOSS expert but he plays one in real life. That whole issue with Bionic was moronic and knowledge of the history of linux and the GPL would have shown it as a clear non-story, so he was either ignorant (in his purported field of expertise) or ran with it anyway just to make some noise and drive hits to his blog.
Remember the 'developers developers developers' mantra.. MS will lose lots of developers over this change, such as myself. I did not invest thousands in.NET certifications to see it thrown away for html/javascript. This will lead to the end of Windows.
I think it's pretty clear JS/HTML5 is not replacing.Net.
Sounds exactly like what Google's trying to do but failing to since the iPhone is still by far the most profitable smartphone out there.
Not really, google doesn't care about the profitability of smartphones at all, all they care about is the advertising revenue generated by the platform. The profitability of the phone is irrelevant, what they want is marketshare, more eyes on ads, that's what makes them money and given their marketshare they are winning at that game.
If MS is 100% behind.net, then somehow a mis-perception is starting to erupt and they need to get on top of it.
Im pretty sure people on whom it actually would have an impact are well aware that the only thing with an uncertain future is Silverlight, but of course people who don't know what they're talking about for some reason assume Silverlight ==.Net.
Slashdot Mirror
Were MS Windows differ's is the fact that most people grant themselves System admin privilege right out of the box and that makes a MS Windows OS less secure then a *nix OS.
That hasn't been the case since XP. Sys admin level changes need elevated privileges just the same as on *nix systems.
Look at the shitload of Apple technologies that Microsoft stole/copied in the earlier days of Windows and ask yourself why Apple might be a bit aggressive when defending their patents.
Out of interest, what were they?
So Google should provide a free OS and take the liability costs of defending all patent trolls?
They should either play the game by defending their product against patent suits or actively work towards eliminating those patents and fixing the patent system. At this point they are doing neither of those things.
on the Wikipedia
that you could search for on the google.
Android is based on Linux and other open-source software. Google also open-sourced most of their own contributions under an Apache license. I don't see that as evil.
If i give you something for free and know that you would be breaking the law if you actually used then that is a pretty immoral thing to do.
Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android.
Patent trolls? You mean competitors that hold patents on things that have been copied by Android (speaking in terms of the reality of the industry, not the way i really see it as i think pretty much all of these so-called 'inventions' are nothing of the sort). I agree the patent system is ridiculous and that many of the patents that Android allegedly infringes upon should not be patentable but you can't just say the patent system is broken and so im not going to abide by it but also do absolutely nothing to get it changed. Play by the rules or make an effort to change the rules, Google is doing neither.
The patent infringement allegations have not been proven. Android is just simply better but the established players can't deal with that.
Google could deal with that, they made the OS, they should start actively defending it and doing something to either eradicate software patents or indemnify their users (handset makers). Personally i prefer the former.
Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.
Perhaps, but then again if they came up with their own language the ridiculousness of software patents would probably infect that language too.
After all, there is the historical counterexample of Java. While it isn't particularly popular for desktop applications these days, it did manage to provide the same applications on any OS with a JVM without any serious discrepancies.
Until you take anything more than a basic Java program and run it on a non-Sun (or Oracle) JVM implementation.
but theft of a design is not it.
They didn't steal the design, it is based on a concept mockup, the iphone5 doesn't exist.
This issue has been extremely exaggerated.
The post you replied to referred to it as a 'pesky little issue', nothing more, hell even Apple admitted it was a an issue and issued a fix. Yes it has been exaggerated, but certainly not in the context of the post you replied to.
But Slashdot is so extremely out of touch with reality, simply pointing out two very obvious fundamental flaws with jhoegl's post gets modded "Troll" simply because it isn't "rah-rah, let's hate Apple!"
But there is no flaw with his post, he said it was a 'pesky little issue', Apple even agrees with that, they issued bumpers as a fix. You would be absolutely 100% correct if had have been making out as if it was a major problem because that is completely untrue, but he didn't, on the contrary he trivialised it about as much as he could.
The "design elements" Samsung copied are literally "rounded corners" and "displaying icons in a grid." There's nothing really unique about any of that.
Also the icon has the same color which i thought that was a fairly obvious choice since at the time the defacto standard for smartphone UI (since most android manufacturers have their own skins) was iOS, keep consistency for the sake of the end user rather than to change just for the sake of change. It also has a very similar picture, but that wasn't created by either company anyway. Samsung's icons don't have rounded corners whereas Apple's do and if i set a green WP7 theme i would get a phone icon that looks pretty similar too.
FM;DR nuff said.
Now i know apple is populated by designers and designers aren't always the sharpest tool in the shed
Actually they're not allowed to have sharp tools in the shed so they came up with the invention 'the rounded rectangle'.
Mac OS X is a cell phone OS?
What is a 'cell phone OS'?
icon design
The only thing they specified that samsung also did is the color, which is a logical decision that if people are using one device it will be a lot easier to use another device if the icon for the common function is similar. There's no point differentiating just for the sake of it when there is a clear advantage to using what many people are used to. The shape of the icon is different and the image is something neither company designed.
What it means is everything eventually gets stolen. But what's not chained down properly gets stolen first, regardless of its value.
Huh? But you said only the one of larger value gets stolen even if it is chained down:
My favorite analogy to that is to say that if you set a sack of $2,000 and a sack of $200 in cash beside each other on the street, that only the $2,000 sack will get stolen, even if the $200 sack isn't chained down and the $2,000 sack is.
So if there's a $2000 sack sitting next to the $200 sack, and the $2000 sack gets stolen immediately (and perhaps the $200 sack remains there for quite some time, or even never gets taken) you must assume the former has much poorer security. It's foolish to try to blame the disparity on the value of the contents.
Why? If the security to profit ratio is better on the $2000 than the $200 then regardless of the actual security you'd go for the bigger score.
So how is that any different than any other system?
It isn't, but the exploit is being able to extract the admin credentials from the server when it connects to the compromised system and use those credentials to connect to other macs on the network.
only the $2,000 sack will get stolen, even if the $200 sack isn't chained down and the $2,000 sack is.
Thieves will take everything that's not nailed down.
ay? so the $2000 sack will get stolen even though it's chained down but the $200 sack won't get stolen yet isn't chained down but thieves will take everything that isn't nailed down. Is there some key difference between being chained down and nailed down? if the $2000 sack was nailed down it wouldn't get stolen? but because it's chained down but not nailed down it will get stolen? if the $200 sack isn't chained down then why wouldn't the thieves steal it if they steal everything that isn't nailed down? or is it nailed down but not chained down?
Can someone explain what the problem with Florian is?
The fact that he's not a patent or FOSS expert but he plays one in real life. That whole issue with Bionic was moronic and knowledge of the history of linux and the GPL would have shown it as a clear non-story, so he was either ignorant (in his purported field of expertise) or ran with it anyway just to make some noise and drive hits to his blog.
FM;DR
For Mr. Dos, why can't C++ use managed code?
he didn't say c++ can't use managed code, he said 'that is, C++ that doesn't use .Net.'
Remember the 'developers developers developers' mantra .. MS will lose lots of developers over this change, such as myself. I did not invest thousands in .NET certifications to see it thrown away for html/javascript. This will lead to the end of Windows.
I think it's pretty clear JS/HTML5 is not replacing .Net.
How obvious a threat does it need to be? Javascript, instead of just "claiming" your system is infected, actually infects the system with malware.
No, Javascript doesn't infect your system with malware, Javascript is just a programming language like any other.
There is a reason internet based technologies are best when sandboxed. It limits the potential damage that can be caused.
As opposed to what? Native applications?
yes... their damned embrace and extend... sickening.
Why replace an existing technology if you can just extend one?
I don't want javascript to have easy access to the file system on my computers!!
Why not? What is it about javascript that is so wrong with it having access to the local filesystem?
And surely they don't mean for all of everyone's work is to be stored exclusively on their cloud do they?
Doesn't seem so.
I know that I should never underestimate the stupidity of typical users, but I am not just worried about people liking the idea, I am terrified of it.
What's so wrong with it? I mean i know people are often scared of what they don't understand but I just can't see any issue with this.
There's a theory out there
There's a lot of theories out there.
Sounds exactly like what Google's trying to do but failing to since the iPhone is still by far the most profitable smartphone out there.
Not really, google doesn't care about the profitability of smartphones at all, all they care about is the advertising revenue generated by the platform. The profitability of the phone is irrelevant, what they want is marketshare, more eyes on ads, that's what makes them money and given their marketshare they are winning at that game.
If MS is 100% behind .net, then somehow a mis-perception is starting to erupt and they need to get on top of it.
Im pretty sure people on whom it actually would have an impact are well aware that the only thing with an uncertain future is Silverlight, but of course people who don't know what they're talking about for some reason assume Silverlight == .Net.