You are talking about redefining a system service. That's an not an application anymore but an OS change. Generally I think you make that a mild pain in the neck. Which is kinda of what Apple does now on iOS. If you want to install unauthorized software you can:
a) Use complex tools b) jailbreak c) Use a developer SDK d) Use an enterprise / university mass tool
etc...
Which keeps general end users away and thus software developers don't require it unless they are dealing with an appropriate crowd who has the knowledge to really understand what they are biting off in changing a system component.
Windows 7 was designed for rapid adoption. Windows 8 was designed to be a transition operating system primarily for hardware OEMs and application developers. Windows 7 upgrades were designed to be very very smooth. Windows 8 is more like the transition to NT.
no organization on the planet has the ability to prevent republication of already public organization.
European governments do it all the time in newspapers and television.
Not if it's on the internet
That's why this is interesting. Because it is much harder on the internet but there is a whole body of law that assumes it is possible and needed.
There are no laws that can enforce such a concept successfully.
Sure there are. Consider child pornography laws which make it a major felony to sell, distribute, possess, transport... any files having to with child sex acts. Those laws exist and they are effectively enforced. It is unclear if that is a special case or not though.
Obviously a program can compress files in its own folders. But I assume you mean arbitrary files.
And the answer is an end application doesn't do that. Rather the application makes a call to a system service which then returns the result to the application. The system service handles confirming with the user, just like in the Address Book example. Finder or Spotlight would handle the user interaction the application just makes the request.
Now the next question is what about something for which there isn't a system support. Like a new compression algorithm. In the case the whole thing works the other way around. The new compression algorithm dynamic code installs as an extension to Finder, that is it grants Finder permission to use it as a way to compress. Then the application makes a request to Finder to use that compression algorithm.
That's easy. The QR reader like any other applications can create public data with weak permissions. It then passes a request to Address Book to import that data. Address Book likely should handle getting user permission to add the card. There is the problem that the user tells the QR reader to add card to address book and then from their perspective gets asked whether they want to add the card by Address Book.
The OS can maintain a permissions system where people can turn on "QR reader can write to address book" but that applications can't assume such permissions ever ever ever.
I'm familiar with Nicholas Carr's analogy about Chief Electrical Officer. And no doubt technology is moving to the cloud. And that's a perfectly acceptable way to do IT services. But that's a large complex advanced IT department just not one on staff. That's very different from not having one and not being able to do these sorts of upgrades. A cloud based company wouldn't have much complexity at all in changing from XP to Win 7 their software is all tested and externally maintained. That would be what would exist in a world of a large IT department.
Also you can't outsource the integration aways. Outsource application A to X and application B to Y. But who ties A and B together? This is what people found with salesforce. Sure you can outsource CRM and get a great system. But your CRM has to tie into other systems, who does that work?
This sort of integrating complex semi-generic systems is bread and butter IT. Exactly what we were doing with Siebel and SAP has to be done with these cloud systems. Oh and lets not forget cloud systems go broke more often:)
I.T. does not have any voice
"Make it happen" works great until it doesn't happen. When the IT experiences a large public failure they ask the IT guy why and he explains that he's been trying to tell the MBA.... Well that's how the IBM makes their money.
____
The world is run by idiots. But reality is reality. Idiots don't get to change facts much as they like to ignore them.
That's interesting about Sierra. "Sally" might work. But: daly, galley, rally, tally, valley are all valid words. I'm not sure you picked the best choice.
140k that is a big migration. On the other hand financial companies are used to adding and subtracting headcount for other parts of businesses quickly.
This set of problems didn't evolve overnight. I'm glad they are thinking about it being repeatable. Meetings in board rooms so what, there may need to multiple working groups feeding that meetings in board rooms. Build the infrastructure. I'm sure you still have people on staff from the 1990s when infastructure changes were routine.
The way to fix that, and I hope the XP switch forces this, is that the company culture changes back to one with IT planning and lots of IT workers to do that planning.
With OS X 10.7.3 the ability to effectively sandbox applications with a diverse permissions system for access was made part of OSX. Using this system became mandatory to distribute as part of Apple's App Store. Most OSX applications meet the sandboxing / 10.7.3 requirements.
Obviously there are a lot of exceptions. But those are often applications which are brand names from well known developers. And remember that Apple as of 10.8 also has centralized code signing.
I suspect we are already in a situation where almost all OSX users have 95%+ of their applications either sandboxed or from a large brand name developer. Within a few years I expect that number to be higher. I also expect that Apple will get better at large applications installing complex sandboxing and push that percentage further up.
I don't think it is comparable. Windows applications frequently assume fairly broad permissions to function well. For example most Linux applications can be installed in a user's home directory while most Windows applications must be installed in a particular system directories. Most Unix applications segment configuration / profile files that the user may change on a per user basis while many windows applications require these in a central location.
All other things being equal In theory Windows is more secure. In practice it is just not the case.
What you would do is you don't grant that permission at all. Instead the applications has to get permission on a file by file basis to files outside its sandbox.
That's what Apple does and it is pretty effective in getting people not to grant permissions.
Absolutely true. And moreover who is in those respective user bases is helpful to Apple.
On the other hand Apple has had different security policies that Microsoft that have allowed it to respond much more effectively and aggressively to threats. And that has discouraged malware/virus writers. For example Apple established a policy / tradition that OS versions make some breaking changes and application developers should often release updates if not new versions around new OSX versions. They have new versions OS versions every year or two which allows them to tighten security substantially and moreover their app stack follows suit. So if a class of exploits is found it gets closed down fast.
No question. It happened. how many people follow the French talk page of Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute. How many read the articles now in English? I'm sure this article is now copied to dozens of websites including historical versions with even extra information.
I'm gathering the French govt has the ability to prevent the republication of already public information. Those sorts of laws are common in Europe and Canada.
No. Apple has put in place tremendous security features that already exist in the OS. They just need to flip the switch and they can up the security fast.
They have trained developers to understand that they will need to release minor upgrades for every OS version, and those come out annually. Developers like that, because they can make some of those paid updates so it can become a forced upgrade approach.
They have trained end users to demand developers be ready with updates prior to the OS going into general release. They have trained users to not expect all their programs to "just work" but rather to possibly switch brands.
____
Finally they can and do push out breaking security changes freely, as the recent java episode shows.
A Macbook is not God's Chosen Computer -- there are plenty of ways to leave Apple in the dust hardware-wise. If you can't make a computer that's a 2/3mm thick laminated-glass slab like Apple, the solution isn't to make one that's 5/6mm thick and try to undercut Apple by $10. The solution is to say 'fuck Apple', make it an inch thick, give it a mechanical keyboard, and pack the empty space inside with 4 pounds of Lithium Ion gel that can run an i7 at full bore for 16 hours without breaking a sweat. Let the bitchy fashion queens who think the world begins and ends with Facebook have their credit-card thickness tablets with soft keyboards, and let people who use their computers to get real things done not be crippled.
Those were available in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and now in 2013. People don't buy them. The fact is the people who use their computers to get things done and are willing to pay mostly buy Apple, 85-91%. The rest are very scattered in what they want and create a variety of small niche markets.
Slashdot Mirror
You are talking about redefining a system service. That's an not an application anymore but an OS change. Generally I think you make that a mild pain in the neck. Which is kinda of what Apple does now on iOS. If you want to install unauthorized software you can:
a) Use complex tools
b) jailbreak
c) Use a developer SDK
d) Use an enterprise / university mass tool
etc...
Which keeps general end users away and thus software developers don't require it unless they are dealing with an appropriate crowd who has the knowledge to really understand what they are biting off in changing a system component.
Yes newer OSes run worse on old systems. So if people need to replace their computers they replace their computers.
Windows 7 was designed for rapid adoption. Windows 8 was designed to be a transition operating system primarily for hardware OEMs and application developers. Windows 7 upgrades were designed to be very very smooth. Windows 8 is more like the transition to NT.
no organization on the planet has the ability to prevent republication of already public organization.
European governments do it all the time in newspapers and television.
Not if it's on the internet
That's why this is interesting. Because it is much harder on the internet but there is a whole body of law that assumes it is possible and needed.
There are no laws that can enforce such a concept successfully.
Sure there are. Consider child pornography laws which make it a major felony to sell, distribute, possess, transport... any files having to with child sex acts. Those laws exist and they are effectively enforced. It is unclear if that is a special case or not though.
Obviously a program can compress files in its own folders. But I assume you mean arbitrary files.
And the answer is an end application doesn't do that. Rather the application makes a call to a system service which then returns the result to the application. The system service handles confirming with the user, just like in the Address Book example. Finder or Spotlight would handle the user interaction the application just makes the request.
Now the next question is what about something for which there isn't a system support. Like a new compression algorithm. In the case the whole thing works the other way around. The new compression algorithm dynamic code installs as an extension to Finder, that is it grants Finder permission to use it as a way to compress. Then the application makes a request to Finder to use that compression algorithm.
I like Silver. That's a good one.
That's easy. The QR reader like any other applications can create public data with weak permissions. It then passes a request to Address Book to import that data. Address Book likely should handle getting user permission to add the card. There is the problem that the user tells the QR reader to add card to address book and then from their perspective gets asked whether they want to add the card by Address Book.
The OS can maintain a permissions system where people can turn on "QR reader can write to address book" but that applications can't assume such permissions ever ever ever.
I'm familiar with Nicholas Carr's analogy about Chief Electrical Officer. And no doubt technology is moving to the cloud. And that's a perfectly acceptable way to do IT services. But that's a large complex advanced IT department just not one on staff. That's very different from not having one and not being able to do these sorts of upgrades. A cloud based company wouldn't have much complexity at all in changing from XP to Win 7 their software is all tested and externally maintained. That would be what would exist in a world of a large IT department.
Also you can't outsource the integration aways. Outsource application A to X and application B to Y. But who ties A and B together? This is what people found with salesforce. Sure you can outsource CRM and get a great system. But your CRM has to tie into other systems, who does that work?
This sort of integrating complex semi-generic systems is bread and butter IT. Exactly what we were doing with Siebel and SAP has to be done with these cloud systems. Oh and lets not forget cloud systems go broke more often :)
I.T. does not have any voice
"Make it happen" works great until it doesn't happen. When the IT experiences a large public failure they ask the IT guy why and he explains that he's been trying to tell the MBA.... Well that's how the IBM makes their money.
____
The world is run by idiots. But reality is reality. Idiots don't get to change facts much as they like to ignore them.
By 1014 people will be buying more Android devices than Windows devices.
That happened much earlier. In 2012 they bought 2x as many Android devices as Windows devices.
It exists. It is called Android.
That's interesting about Sierra. "Sally" might work. But: daly, galley, rally, tally, valley are all valid words. I'm not sure you picked the best choice.
It helps a lot. Those sounds are much easier to distinguish than most other English sounds. Try it next time./
140k that is a big migration. On the other hand financial companies are used to adding and subtracting headcount for other parts of businesses quickly.
This set of problems didn't evolve overnight. I'm glad they are thinking about it being repeatable. Meetings in board rooms so what, there may need to multiple working groups feeding that meetings in board rooms. Build the infrastructure. I'm sure you still have people on staff from the 1990s when infastructure changes were routine.
Windows 7 includes a Windows XP subsystem.
The way to fix that, and I hope the XP switch forces this, is that the company culture changes back to one with IT planning and lots of IT workers to do that planning.
With OS X 10.7.3 the ability to effectively sandbox applications with a diverse permissions system for access was made part of OSX. Using this system became mandatory to distribute as part of Apple's App Store. Most OSX applications meet the sandboxing / 10.7.3 requirements.
Obviously there are a lot of exceptions. But those are often applications which are brand names from well known developers. And remember that Apple as of 10.8 also has centralized code signing.
I suspect we are already in a situation where almost all OSX users have 95%+ of their applications either sandboxed or from a large brand name developer. Within a few years I expect that number to be higher. I also expect that Apple will get better at large applications installing complex sandboxing and push that percentage further up.
I don't think it is comparable. Windows applications frequently assume fairly broad permissions to function well. For example most Linux applications can be installed in a user's home directory while most Windows applications must be installed in a particular system directories. Most Unix applications segment configuration / profile files that the user may change on a per user basis while many windows applications require these in a central location.
All other things being equal In theory Windows is more secure. In practice it is just not the case.
What you would do is you don't grant that permission at all. Instead the applications has to get permission on a file by file basis to files outside its sandbox.
That's what Apple does and it is pretty effective in getting people not to grant permissions.
Absolutely true. And moreover who is in those respective user bases is helpful to Apple.
On the other hand Apple has had different security policies that Microsoft that have allowed it to respond much more effectively and aggressively to threats. And that has discouraged malware/virus writers. For example Apple established a policy / tradition that OS versions make some breaking changes and application developers should often release updates if not new versions around new OSX versions. They have new versions OS versions every year or two which allows them to tighten security substantially and moreover their app stack follows suit. So if a class of exploits is found it gets closed down fast.
No question. It happened. how many people follow the French talk page of Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute. How many read the articles now in English? I'm sure this article is now copied to dozens of websites including historical versions with even extra information.
There is no huge change between post Win 8 sales and the Win 7 sales before it came out. No meaningful effect in either direction.
Growth isn't leveling off. Sales have been declining for about 3 years now. Growth leveled off a decade ago.
I'm gathering the French govt has the ability to prevent the republication of already public information. Those sorts of laws are common in Europe and Canada.
No. Apple has put in place tremendous security features that already exist in the OS. They just need to flip the switch and they can up the security fast.
They have trained developers to understand that they will need to release minor upgrades for every OS version, and those come out annually. Developers like that, because they can make some of those paid updates so it can become a forced upgrade approach.
They have trained end users to demand developers be ready with updates prior to the OS going into general release. They have trained users to not expect all their programs to "just work" but rather to possibly switch brands.
____
Finally they can and do push out breaking security changes freely, as the recent java episode shows.
A Macbook is not God's Chosen Computer -- there are plenty of ways to leave Apple in the dust hardware-wise. If you can't make a computer that's a 2/3mm thick laminated-glass slab like Apple, the solution isn't to make one that's 5/6mm thick and try to undercut Apple by $10. The solution is to say 'fuck Apple', make it an inch thick, give it a mechanical keyboard, and pack the empty space inside with 4 pounds of Lithium Ion gel that can run an i7 at full bore for 16 hours without breaking a sweat. Let the bitchy fashion queens who think the world begins and ends with Facebook have their credit-card thickness tablets with soft keyboards, and let people who use their computers to get real things done not be crippled.
Those were available in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and now in 2013. People don't buy them. The fact is the people who use their computers to get things done and are willing to pay mostly buy Apple, 85-91%. The rest are very scattered in what they want and create a variety of small niche markets.