some NTFS features for which Microsoft plans to drop support with ReFS, specifically named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes, and quotas, Verma blogged.
His post:
I must say that ReFS is incredible advangement. ReFS supports named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes and quotas
He's either overpaid as MS shill, or underpaid as dark PR style "obviously dumb MS shill" troll.
without submitting to standards bodies, without forming concensus from other browser makers to agree or disagree to use the tech and basically using the weight of their entire company to foist these standards onto the web whether they are ready for it or not
Does somebody do that? All major features were introduced independently and codified later. It's a race between browsers to see who can invent the next big thing - MS, Mozilla, Google, Apple, Opera, everyone introduces new features and implements interesting features introduced by others every release.
Sure, not every feature sticks - nobody flocks to Chrome to check out WebP, and nobody flocks to FF to check out Javascript 1.8.5.
You make it sound like Google has browser monopoly and can pull their weight because of that, when in fact it's all out competition between browser vendors.
Net result of any new extension is that users of the browser implementing it get a faster and better version. If it turns out to be a good idea other browsers follow and everyone ends with a net benefit.
Canvas, for example, was Apple's extension in WebKit, year or two later other engines caught up to it too.
XHR was created by MS for Outlook Web Access, with other browsers implementing it in a year or two after that, and W3C draft standard appearing only 5 or 6 years later.
That's how innovation worked in browsers for a dozen years.
The whole point of secure boot is establishing chain of trust, where every next link is verified by previous. Secure boot verifies first executable, first executable verifies its dependencies, one of them is responsible for loading and verifying system DLLs and so on. The only way to compromise any link in the chain without triggering the alarm is either replacing the key in key store - which is only possible for user, or signing the compromised file with the secret part of the key from the store - which would require the aforementioned magic computer.
Not verifying every step or relying on software accessible key storage for certificates already breaks the concept of secure boot.
And no, it's not leaving two doors to a vault, it's leaving two vaults side by side - you might access one vault from another, but you'll leave broken down door or wall in the process.
Correction: in the first case it's secure boot initial stage shouting, not even Windows. Windows would shout if you'd replace "supposidly" secure DLL, but didn't get a magical computer to forge a digital signature for you.
Example, user allows linux to be installed, uses the keys to install it bypassing the secure boot functionality. An exploit against linuxs bootloader is found and used to pre-install a rootkit into the executable chain before it passes control onto windows. Windows is then shouting loudly that critical files signature doesn't match one stored in secure storage
Or via linux you replace the supposidly secure windows DLL with one that has been compromised with a magical computer able to reverse private key from public key before sun goes boom and given a signature that appears valid, but wasn't really signed by Microsoft. Again, nothing Microsoft can do to prevent that even if there's only one key in the keystore(this example really shows you don't know jack about crypto)
Check it - secure boot assures that bootloader(s) are not tampered with in the first place regardless of how many keys are in there, as long as only user with direct access to hardware can change them.
If you're gonna call the user an "attack vendor" outside of users-are-stupid joke - well...
And if you're gonna argue "someone can replace your HDD with a tampered version while you're not looking" - a) secure boot key storage shall be password protected, b) access to hardware gives a lot of easier opportunities, like hardware keylogger stuck directly into kb port, so secure boot doesn't protect from "hacker with access to your PC" vector, whether it has one hard coded key or a thousand.
You don't need to lock the hardware to one OS in order to prevent malware
Yes, actually you pretty much do
That doesn't change the fact that doing so makes the device more secure.
Limiting secure boot to single certificate and single OS does not add any more security. If secure boot storage is not available after passing control to verified boot loader - which is pretty much a requirement for it to be secure - it doesn't matter how many keys are in there. Disallowing manual disable - note that it is also something not available to any software after secure boot finished its job - also doesn't make device more secure.
You missed the part where they demand to disable adding other keys/turning off secure boot by user - and they're only demanding it for ARM, x86 is free to have it. That's what's the article talking about, not the secure boot itself.
As far as I can tell, you've got to opt-in in this "Google promoting their own services" as it doesn't work this way for me, so no sell.
Without opting in, for katy+perry you get Katy Perry's official website as first result, no Google+ or Facebook, though it finds twitter and myspace among other results.
Searching katy+perry+facebook gives you facebook page as top result.
But what's funny, earching for katy+perry+google+plus gives peekyou.com as top result and plus.google.com as second, kinda like google demoting their own services.
Err, how on Earth is locking the boot sector going to stop piracy? I may be missing something here, but seriously? Not seeing it.
By disallowing tampering with DRM code. It goes like this: UEFI BIOS checks bootloader signature and runs it, bootloader checks kernel signature and runs it, kernel checks drivers' signatures and so on - in other words, every step requires next step to be cryptographically signed.
Forbid unsigned/selfsigned software and you get a nice walled garden (but then, remove signing checks from any level and it crumples)
What. I know what NDA is, you still miss the part where it doesn't make sense for licensor to force NDA on licensee about which patents were in the deal.
Go check B&N's negotiations story - "You're infringing on our patents, and we'll tell you which patents are those after you sign this NDA". You mean MS was just going out on a limb to help B&N and others with this, so those poor darlings won't accidentally tell competition about their future product lines and ruin themselves?
They have their own webcrawler, but it's young and doesn't have much data yet, so general search results come mostly from Bing/Yahoo, judging by few queries.
Let's wait and see if it'll grow out of conveniency privacy/aggregation wrapper to become a real competing search engine.
Actually, it did, before the browser selection window was introduced - what, were you going to download alternative browser with telnet?
Anyways, preinstalled IE was only part of antitrust investigation, there were also questions of undocumented APIs use in IE and Office for competetive advantage (and if as they say Google doesn't give same API results from YouTube to other search engines, it might be bad for them) and lots of others, like shady OEM licensing and so on.
OS X has this nice thingy called Terminal.app which gives you command line access to all kinds of other nice thingies, both OS X specific and common for *nixes.
You seem to be underestimating time spent learning and using GUIs and overestimating time spent learning CLIs.
Once you learned basics of some interface - graphical or textual - time spent learning new tools with similar interface is logarithmically smaller, you already know where to look.
Fundamental error the OP troll and you make is assuming for some reason that CLI and GUI are mutually exclusive. They're not. They're complementary.
CLI (in various incarnations) beats GUI every time on repetetive, clearly defined tasks. GUI beats CLI every time on tasks requiring tweaking and immediate feedback. Think TeX for scientific papers vs PageMaker for a magazine.
India cited is just an example of where by this spring more Indians will use IOS or Andriod to read the news, browse the net, and do other things than a desktop!
Nope, India is just an example of where cheap feature phones are finally giving people access to the web - just look at mobile OS share. iOS is less than percent, Android (probably in cheaper not-far-from-feature-phone variants) is 4%.
> India cited is just an example of where by this spring more Indians will use IOS or Andriod to read the news, browse the net, and do other things than a desktop!
Yes, and you're free to install Linux on your desktop or buy a Mac.
You're mistaking "market dominance abuse" and "monopoly".
There are almost no literal monopolies, but there are companies dominant in some markets. Competition laws, among other things, are meant to prevent the abuse of such dominance.
MS clearly has such dominance in desktop OS market and abused it by forcing uneven terms on OEMs. Google's current EU investigation, for example, is due to dominance in web ads market and alleged abuse in refusal to deal form.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a blog post linked from the article.
There's all kinds of promising stuff, like data corruption resilience and dropped/extended limits.
Much more interesting read than the linked ZDNet article.
It gets better:
TFA:
some NTFS features for which Microsoft plans to drop support with ReFS, specifically named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes, and quotas, Verma blogged.
His post:
I must say that ReFS is incredible advangement. ReFS supports named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes and quotas
He's either overpaid as MS shill, or underpaid as dark PR style "obviously dumb MS shill" troll.
without submitting to standards bodies, without forming concensus from other browser makers to agree or disagree to use the tech and basically using the weight of their entire company to foist these standards onto the web whether they are ready for it or not
Does somebody do that? All major features were introduced independently and codified later. It's a race between browsers to see who can invent the next big thing - MS, Mozilla, Google, Apple, Opera, everyone introduces new features and implements interesting features introduced by others every release.
Sure, not every feature sticks - nobody flocks to Chrome to check out WebP, and nobody flocks to FF to check out Javascript 1.8.5.
You make it sound like Google has browser monopoly and can pull their weight because of that, when in fact it's all out competition between browser vendors.
Net result of any new extension is that users of the browser implementing it get a faster and better version. If it turns out to be a good idea other browsers follow and everyone ends with a net benefit.
Canvas, for example, was Apple's extension in WebKit, year or two later other engines caught up to it too.
XHR was created by MS for Outlook Web Access, with other browsers implementing it in a year or two after that, and W3C draft standard appearing only 5 or 6 years later.
That's how innovation worked in browsers for a dozen years.
Again, what.
The whole point of secure boot is establishing chain of trust, where every next link is verified by previous. Secure boot verifies first executable, first executable verifies its dependencies, one of them is responsible for loading and verifying system DLLs and so on. The only way to compromise any link in the chain without triggering the alarm is either replacing the key in key store - which is only possible for user, or signing the compromised file with the secret part of the key from the store - which would require the aforementioned magic computer.
Not verifying every step or relying on software accessible key storage for certificates already breaks the concept of secure boot.
And no, it's not leaving two doors to a vault, it's leaving two vaults side by side - you might access one vault from another, but you'll leave broken down door or wall in the process.
Correction: in the first case it's secure boot initial stage shouting, not even Windows. Windows would shout if you'd replace "supposidly" secure DLL, but didn't get a magical computer to forge a digital signature for you.
Example, user allows linux to be installed, uses the keys to install it bypassing the secure boot functionality. An exploit against linuxs bootloader is found and used to pre-install a rootkit into the executable chain before it passes control onto windows. Windows is then shouting loudly that critical files signature doesn't match one stored in secure storage
Or via linux you replace the supposidly secure windows DLL with one that has been compromised with a magical computer able to reverse private key from public key before sun goes boom and given a signature that appears valid, but wasn't really signed by Microsoft. Again, nothing Microsoft can do to prevent that even if there's only one key in the keystore (this example really shows you don't know jack about crypto)
Here, I fixed that for you.
What.
Check it - secure boot assures that bootloader(s) are not tampered with in the first place regardless of how many keys are in there, as long as only user with direct access to hardware can change them.
If you're gonna call the user an "attack vendor" outside of users-are-stupid joke - well...
And if you're gonna argue "someone can replace your HDD with a tampered version while you're not looking" - a) secure boot key storage shall be password protected, b) access to hardware gives a lot of easier opportunities, like hardware keylogger stuck directly into kb port, so secure boot doesn't protect from "hacker with access to your PC" vector, whether it has one hard coded key or a thousand.
You don't need to lock the hardware to one OS in order to prevent malware
Yes, actually you pretty much do
That doesn't change the fact that doing so makes the device more secure.
Limiting secure boot to single certificate and single OS does not add any more security. If secure boot storage is not available after passing control to verified boot loader - which is pretty much a requirement for it to be secure - it doesn't matter how many keys are in there. Disallowing manual disable - note that it is also something not available to any software after secure boot finished its job - also doesn't make device more secure.
Do try harder.
You missed the part where they demand to disable adding other keys/turning off secure boot by user - and they're only demanding it for ARM, x86 is free to have it. That's what's the article talking about, not the secure boot itself.
As far as I can tell, you've got to opt-in in this "Google promoting their own services" as it doesn't work this way for me, so no sell.
Without opting in, for katy+perry you get Katy Perry's official website as first result, no Google+ or Facebook, though it finds twitter and myspace among other results.
Searching katy+perry+facebook gives you facebook page as top result.
But what's funny, earching for katy+perry+google+plus gives peekyou.com as top result and plus.google.com as second, kinda like google demoting their own services.
Err, how on Earth is locking the boot sector going to stop piracy? I may be missing something here, but seriously? Not seeing it.
By disallowing tampering with DRM code. It goes like this: UEFI BIOS checks bootloader signature and runs it, bootloader checks kernel signature and runs it, kernel checks drivers' signatures and so on - in other words, every step requires next step to be cryptographically signed.
Forbid unsigned/selfsigned software and you get a nice walled garden (but then, remove signing checks from any level and it crumples)
What. I know what NDA is, you still miss the part where it doesn't make sense for licensor to force NDA on licensee about which patents were in the deal.
Go check B&N's negotiations story - "You're infringing on our patents, and we'll tell you which patents are those after you sign this NDA". You mean MS was just going out on a limb to help B&N and others with this, so those poor darlings won't accidentally tell competition about their future product lines and ruin themselves?
Yes, that's why it would make sense for licensee to make licensor sign NDA. Not the other way around.
I might not want my competitors to know what technology I'm using in my product.
So you sign NDA to punish yourself if you decide to allow your competitors know what technologies you use. Makes perfect sense.
Here's the info you're looking for.
They have their own webcrawler, but it's young and doesn't have much data yet, so general search results come mostly from Bing/Yahoo, judging by few queries.
Let's wait and see if it'll grow out of conveniency privacy/aggregation wrapper to become a real competing search engine.
Actually, it did, before the browser selection window was introduced - what, were you going to download alternative browser with telnet?
Anyways, preinstalled IE was only part of antitrust investigation, there were also questions of undocumented APIs use in IE and Office for competetive advantage (and if as they say Google doesn't give same API results from YouTube to other search engines, it might be bad for them) and lots of others, like shady OEM licensing and so on.
OS X has this nice thingy called Terminal.app which gives you command line access to all kinds of other nice thingies, both OS X specific and common for *nixes.
Just saying.
You seem to be underestimating time spent learning and using GUIs and overestimating time spent learning CLIs.
Once you learned basics of some interface - graphical or textual - time spent learning new tools with similar interface is logarithmically smaller, you already know where to look.
Fundamental error the OP troll and you make is assuming for some reason that CLI and GUI are mutually exclusive. They're not. They're complementary.
CLI (in various incarnations) beats GUI every time on repetetive, clearly defined tasks. GUI beats CLI every time on tasks requiring tweaking and immediate feedback. Think TeX for scientific papers vs PageMaker for a magazine.
He won't even need to know how to type.
... He'll just need to have nice prononciation. Instead of doctor's hand we'll have doctor's throat.
"I am a cute keys of nads and far in gifted?.. Oh, an acute case of nasopharyngitis"
India cited is just an example of where by this spring more Indians will use IOS or Andriod to read the news, browse the net, and do other things than a desktop!
Nope, India is just an example of where cheap feature phones are finally giving people access to the web -
just look at mobile OS share. iOS is less than percent, Android (probably in cheaper not-far-from-feature-phone variants) is 4%.
> India cited is just an example of where by this spring more Indians will use IOS or Andriod to read the news, browse the net, and do other things than a desktop!
Nope. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-IN-monthly-201012-201112 - iOS and Android are just blips and rise of mobile browsing seems to be thanks to cheap modern feature phones.
Yes, and you're free to install Linux on your desktop or buy a Mac.
You're mistaking "market dominance abuse" and "monopoly".
There are almost no literal monopolies, but there are companies dominant in some markets. Competition laws, among other things, are meant to prevent the abuse of such dominance.
MS clearly has such dominance in desktop OS market and abused it by forcing uneven terms on OEMs. Google's current EU investigation, for example, is due to dominance in web ads market and alleged abuse in refusal to deal form.
Actually, it does.
Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling"
Motorola Backflip is an Android device, uses Bing as default search and has Android Market. Your argument is invalid.