It's not a legitimate feature because it's not at all part of the Internet mail standard. As such, it shouldn't be enabled if the Exchange server allows access over a protocol that doesn't accept this.
E-mail recall is simply a feature to make things easier for the end user not a standard. There is no guarantee that the message will never be seen by anyone and removed from all existance. It simply helps to avoids confusion. People using Outlook will not see the message or see a newer revison, which is helpful.
Outlook can use a ton of features which Exchange provides that are not available in other clients. If your client supports them you can use them, if not, you get reduced functionality. If you disabled all of Exchange's features which are not part of the standard then it just becomes a regular e-mail server. It would be like people not using HTML4 or CSS because someone might view their page with Netscape 3. Eventually things have to move forward.
Install Thunderbird, right-click on the toolbar and choose 'Customize', then remove the Reply-all button. In fact, I'm going to go do this on all the machines I administer ASAP.
An even easier fix (if you have a domain) is to just apply a Group Policy setting for Outlook which removes that button.
The problem is MS Exchange. Proper mail servers will only save ONE copy of a message and attachment sent to any number of users.
Exchange does use that kind of system. The problem was not that Exchange was replicating the message, it was that it had to process all of the requests to deliver the message. The mail server still has to add the pointer to each user's mailbox for each message, and if the message contains every user, that takes time to process.
That is what separates the men from the boys. Unfortunately, Exchange is one of the boys.
Yes it's nice. Yes it's pretty. People aren't complaining that they're using their video card. They're complaining that Vista runs like shit on their mostly new system and they don't want to have to go out and get a top-of-the-line system JUST TO HAVE A PRETTY INTERFACE.
If you have a mostly new system (even an older system) then Vista will run on it. If your system doesn't support Aero then it will use normal 2D themes on your card (even using the Standard VGA Adapter driver). It runs fine and is fully usable, even on older hardware.
I should not have to upgrade my system just because you wanted my os to look nicer. Hey MSFT, how about first concentrating on making the fucking thing WORK instead of "OOOOH SHINY!!!"?
Suprisingly they did concentrate on making a lot of things work and added a lot more to it than just the shiny. It works really well, and in my opinion works much better than XP ever did.
When I use windows explorer to delete ie it shows the program is deleted until I close and reopen windows explorer and discover that it has not been deleted.
When you delete the iexplore.exe executable Windows File Protection will re-copy it back to where it was almost immediately. If it is popping up from sites visited in Firefox then it is able to intercept and process your network activity on a layer outside of IE (ie. Winsock) and just using IE to deliver the popups. Deleting the IE executable won't fix the overall problem.
A good idea is to download Autoruns and boot into plain Safe Mode. If the malware uses a driver to hide itself it won't be loaded in Safe Mode and you can see whatever it hides. Autoruns gives you a good look at most of the places where malware can hide itself, like Winlogon notifiers, drivers, Winsock providers etc. You can look through there and see if you can spot anything suspicous (like random name DLLs and executables).
A lot of the security issues in Vista today are there because drivers used those holes to work. People still use hardware that uses those broken drivers, and the companies who released the products stopped supporting them years ago.
Actually Vista addressed the driver issues with new driver models and which broke compatability with many older drivers. The link has the details but a lot of restrictions were created specifically against older drivers and holes. That's exactly why everyone so pissed about Vista because a lot of compatability was broken. Most of the security issues in Vista seem to be people rolling back to XP.
In what way is Firefox bloated? Does it do anything else apart from being a browser? Honest question
Without addons it really does function a just a browser. When you look at Tools->Settings you'll realize that there are no options for any features that a browser doesn't need. The menus and toolbars also relate strictly to browsing.
The addons system really separates it from being just a browser. There are so many addons that do so many things. It's wonderful to have those options available but they can cause issues too. For example: if you just installed 10 random plugins off the FF site, when you reload the browser it'll be crazy! Windows popup, new buttons and status bar items appear, dialogues. A ton of things constantly are running and using resources.
Like any extensions they can quicly become a problem if not managed.
From where I sit there is still a lot of competition in this area. I see McAfee, AVG, Norton, Trend Micro, ZoneAlarm, and dozens more. But keeping on topic with this article, AV is rapidly becoming a a commodity, and the price will continue to plummet, with or without Microosoft.
This isn't the first Microsoft AV product. I dunno if anyone remembers MSAV from Windows 3.1/DOS days. It was a Microsoft Antivirus product bundled with Windows and DOS. Somehow Symantec, Trend Micro, Mcaffee and all survived and still release products to this day. Microsoft stopped maintaining it eventually.
Just like back then Windows Defender isn't competetion for those products. It blocks and fixes a lot of more generic malware and is easily available to users. It's a good tool for making Windows more secure and fixing general or widespread malware.
Products like Symantec which are more specialized and need things like SARC to keep current with all of the many wild exploits and malwares (and variants). Why would Microsoft want to duplicate that huge effort?
Some ideas should be integrated into Windows and provided at a basic service. They aren't out to copy and crush every other software. Windows firewall didn't crush ZoneAlarm either, despite being free.
There are ongoing costs to package, market and distribute Word '97, and they exceed $1 per unit.
Yes that's what Microsoft Select is perfect for. They just package it on a Select CD and distribute it with an edition of others to their customers. No marketing or repackaging beyond the disc and jacket. When the customer decides he needs Office 97 on ten machines he installs from the disc and pays Microsoft whatever listed price per copy. The select membership fees probably cover any of the initial packaging and distribution costs. Then they just collect money from installs of old software that they wouldn't sell anyway.
Nash wrote that he "personally got burned" by buying a laptop that was labeled as Windows Vista Capable
If you're using it for e-mail Vista must be running, and thus the machine is rightly "Vista Capable". So is a P3 with 512MB of RAM but I don't expect it to get a high hardware rating and run Aero. That's like blaming Intel because your Celeron has crappy performance and the "Intel Inside" sticker mislead you.
Am I the only one that remembers the Plus! pack that you could by to "enhance" your Windows 95 and 98?
Yeah but Plus! 95 actually did add features like font smoothing and high color icons (later released as a free font smoothing patch), Pinball, LOGO.SYS boot screen, and of course themes. Since all of that was integrated into later Windows releases Plus!98 pretty much just installed themes and a new boot logo.
If people want to complain about different versions of Windows, 95 was even worse! There was "Windows 95", "Windows 95 With Plus!" (aka OSR2), "Windows 95 With USB Support" (OSR2.1) and "Windows 95 with Internet Explorer" (OSR2.5). Each release contained significant features and updates not available in the lower versions (like USB support for example). Even worse was the fact that you couldn't even buy the better featured releases!
although I dont know if you can disable the auto-run part of the windows software. I've succeeded on cd's, but the problem still affects floppies (yeah.), HD's, and thumbdrives.
You can use TweakUI from the Microsoft Powertoys for XP to disable autorun on removable storage devices. It also allows you to manually select which drive letters are allowed to use autorun so you can disable it on floppies and fixed disks.
I have like, a gajillion USB pen drives that are easily bigger than half a gig that I can buy from any store around me and yet I can't use it for save games or downloadable content? I have to buy a proprietary device? The same thing is true for the HDD, WiFi, headset, and the list goes on with peripherals.
I can tell from your complaints that you've never owned a Playstation 2.
My Communist-Anti-American-Virus-Cancer Linux PeeCees eat 256 threads for breakfast. So do my All-American Sun SPARC/Solaris boxes. 10 lines of C says so.
Looking in Task Manager explorer.exe alone is using 46 threads! I really hope Windows breaks the 8-bit thread barrier soon...
Linux proved it can be done, why can't Microsoft do the same?
The NT kernel was written in a versatile manner and can easily run on alternate platforms. Windows NT was origionally made for i386, MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC. However a while ago Microsoft dropped support and stopped developing for all but intel and embedded (MIPS, ARM, and SH4) platforms. I think the primary reason for not supporting 4096 CPU supercomputers is because nothing like exists on the Intel platform which Windows runs on. Even if they wanted to prove it, there's nothing that they could ever test it on.
The Vista DVD pretty much does that. It contains the files for all 5 versions and the key you enter when you install determines which version of Vista will be configured. So you can install Vista Ultimate from the Vista Home DVD, if you use an Ultimate key. This also allows you to perform the "anytime upgrade" to a higher version if you buy it.
The server components are not present however because Windows Server is configured a lot differently. For example, Windows XP is version 5.1 and Windows Server 2003 is version 5.2. Although they contain many of the same features their configuration is a lot different (ie. Windows server has no themes service or system restore and is set to prioritize background processes over foreground). Some people have configured Windows Server as a workstation but there are a lot of steps involved just to get it to XP style functionality. The kernel and services are also different to optimize the system for serving or workstation tasks.
BECAUSE A BUNCH OF CHILDISH ASSHOLES DECIDE THEY'RE ENTITLED TO MORE SHIT THAN THEY CAN AFFORD.
You're totally viewing the relation of piracy to lost sales incorrectly. I have a pirated copy of Photoshop on my system. The fact that I pirated Photoshop doesn't mean Adobe lost a sale, because I'd never pay the $699 and buy a copy of Photoshop for the the few little photo edits or whatever that I use it for. Adobe doesn't directly use a sale because I'm running pirated Photoshop, because I'll probably never purchase a copy of Photoshop in my lifetime. If I gave a copy to my buddy it's not like he was ready to buy a copy either and I stole Adobe's sale. If I ever couldn't run pirated Photoshop anymore (or if it became much hassle to crack) then I would just use something else. It's a great product but I don't really need it.
If I actually used it enough to justify the cost then I would probably but it to save a lot of hassle. Running pirated copies of software is not as carefree and fun as just making a copy. Most of the time you have to take precautions to keep the software cracked and from re-activating. Often you can't use features, update the software or do all kinds of things with a pirated copy. I've even had people I've given copies to actually buy Photoshop. After using the copy they decided they liked it and had enough usage for it, the cost was worth avoiding the hassle.
People who actually need the Lincoln will buy it from the dealership, get their coverage and full features which the copy Lincoln doesn't have. Maybe there'll be a product recall and suddenly all copy Lincolns will break at some point. People using the copy Lincoln just wanted to get somewhere. The copy Lincoln is nice but they'd be fine with a copy Lada too. They could also decide the copy Lincoln was sweet and buy a real one.
The childish assholes are the companies who claim they're losing money because basically people who can't afford it didn't buy their product. There is some impact from piracy, but it works both ways, and it's not a direct correlation to a sale.
windows SUCKS because you run as fucking ADMIN.. meybe if you dumb Windows users had a clue as to how operating systems work, you would understand
Well hopefully your SERVICES will be running under another process account. Especially if they are some sort of NETWORK SERVICE. It's almost like they should have some sort of "Windows Firewall" warning when you have to run services from ADMIN and start to open ports. I wish I could just press F1 and somehow get some HELP with my privilege escalation problems. Even worse the 'Configure Your Server Wizard' windows is always in the way when I want to double click more server processes from my desktop!
I guess I don't know a lot about operating systems but I recommend you buy Norton Firewall and give up running your Windows server. It might be too insecure for some kinds of people.
Initially this will break a lot of webpages, but it will force them to change to be truely standards compliant (as long as IE8 is truely standards compliant)
If IE 8 broke a lot of pages it would be even worse. Users would stick with IE 7 to avoid broken pages. Developers with broken code would promote sticking with IE 7 to avoid having to fix it. In the end people will be slower to adopt the more compliant browser, sticking with the broken implementation longer.
People will always choose compatibility over standards. As soon as something breaks they'll move or stay with an inferior but working system instead of dealing with the problems.
For example, in the Netscape/Internet Explorer 3.x days there was an issue when developers didn't close tags properly in a table. Internet Explorer would attempt to render the table. Netscape followed the standard and wouldn't render anything. People viewing sites with broken table code moved towards IE because they could view pages that didn't work in Netscape. No one cared that they were writing or viewing broken code.
A closed implemntation of crypto by a closed corporation subject to the laws of most countries by virtue of being a multi-national.
Most encryption algorithms are open standards and are same regardless of the implementation. Open or closed, the output will be the same. If they use standard AES encryption then the data will be just as secure as it would be in a open implementation.
A backdoor in their implementation would take effort and is risky, with little gain. What use would they have for the decrypted data? If they had a backdoor they would be responsible for providing it in response to things like court orders. If they can't decrypt the data then they are no longer responsible for it. It's up to the parties who want the decrypted data to find a method of obtaining it.
It doesn't make any difference if it's open or closed. Their implementation is safe. If it was bad the government would just sniff the packets and reverse the encryption. They have to use the trojan to intercept the data instead because they can't easily decrypt it.
Yeah you're right they don't enable it by default or make the user too aware of that functionality. They're probably afraid it would cause confusion. It's probably also a lot easier to manage Hotmail content when most people aren't encrypting messages.
Disloyal customers, such as those running GNU Linux, will be shown the door, or barred from entering the store in the first place.
WOW! You totally think that kind of stuff would happen?
I'm sure Shoprite doesn't care as long as you buy stuff from them. Microsoft probably just wants to sell adds and make make money off these devices. There's no point in leveraging Windows and OOXML in the embedded shopping cart ad screen market.
No one at the store is gonna care about what OS you're running on your PC. Most people won't take the cart's OS into consideration while buying food either. In the real world no one cares that much about that stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a legitimate feature because it's not at all part of the Internet mail standard. As such, it shouldn't be enabled if the Exchange server allows access over a protocol that doesn't accept this.
E-mail recall is simply a feature to make things easier for the end user not a standard. There is no guarantee that the message will never be seen by anyone and removed from all existance. It simply helps to avoids confusion. People using Outlook will not see the message or see a newer revison, which is helpful.
Outlook can use a ton of features which Exchange provides that are not available in other clients. If your client supports them you can use them, if not, you get reduced functionality. If you disabled all of Exchange's features which are not part of the standard then it just becomes a regular e-mail server. It would be like people not using HTML4 or CSS because someone might view their page with Netscape 3. Eventually things have to move forward.
Install Thunderbird, right-click on the toolbar and choose 'Customize', then remove the Reply-all button. In fact, I'm going to go do this on all the machines I administer ASAP.
An even easier fix (if you have a domain) is to just apply a Group Policy setting for Outlook which removes that button.
The problem is MS Exchange. Proper mail servers will only save ONE copy of a message and attachment sent to any number of users.
Exchange does use that kind of system. The problem was not that Exchange was replicating the message, it was that it had to process all of the requests to deliver the message. The mail server still has to add the pointer to each user's mailbox for each message, and if the message contains every user, that takes time to process.
That is what separates the men from the boys. Unfortunately, Exchange is one of the boys.
So the men must all be using mbox format?
What was so bad about your experience?
I used telnet to connect to my SMTP server and found it more user friendly for composing and sending messages.
Yes it's nice. Yes it's pretty. People aren't complaining that they're using their video card. They're complaining that Vista runs like shit on their mostly new system and they don't want to have to go out and get a top-of-the-line system JUST TO HAVE A PRETTY INTERFACE.
If you have a mostly new system (even an older system) then Vista will run on it. If your system doesn't support Aero then it will use normal 2D themes on your card (even using the Standard VGA Adapter driver). It runs fine and is fully usable, even on older hardware.
I should not have to upgrade my system just because you wanted my os to look nicer. Hey MSFT, how about first concentrating on making the fucking thing WORK instead of "OOOOH SHINY!!!"?
Suprisingly they did concentrate on making a lot of things work and added a lot more to it than just the shiny. It works really well, and in my opinion works much better than XP ever did.
When I use windows explorer to delete ie it shows the program is deleted until I close and reopen windows explorer and discover that it has not been deleted.
When you delete the iexplore.exe executable Windows File Protection will re-copy it back to where it was almost immediately. If it is popping up from sites visited in Firefox then it is able to intercept and process your network activity on a layer outside of IE (ie. Winsock) and just using IE to deliver the popups. Deleting the IE executable won't fix the overall problem.
A good idea is to download Autoruns and boot into plain Safe Mode. If the malware uses a driver to hide itself it won't be loaded in Safe Mode and you can see whatever it hides. Autoruns gives you a good look at most of the places where malware can hide itself, like Winlogon notifiers, drivers, Winsock providers etc. You can look through there and see if you can spot anything suspicous (like random name DLLs and executables).
A lot of the security issues in Vista today are there because drivers used those holes to work. People still use hardware that uses those broken drivers, and the companies who released the products stopped supporting them years ago.
Actually Vista addressed the driver issues with new driver models and which broke compatability with many older drivers. The link has the details but a lot of restrictions were created specifically against older drivers and holes. That's exactly why everyone so pissed about Vista because a lot of compatability was broken. Most of the security issues in Vista seem to be people rolling back to XP.
I think "Open Source" would be a bad idea Richard Stallman will come after you for sure.
In what way is Firefox bloated? Does it do anything else apart from being a browser? Honest question
Without addons it really does function a just a browser. When you look at Tools->Settings you'll realize that there are no options for any features that a browser doesn't need. The menus and toolbars also relate strictly to browsing.
The addons system really separates it from being just a browser. There are so many addons that do so many things. It's wonderful to have those options available but they can cause issues too. For example: if you just installed 10 random plugins off the FF site, when you reload the browser it'll be crazy! Windows popup, new buttons and status bar items appear, dialogues. A ton of things constantly are running and using resources.
Like any extensions they can quicly become a problem if not managed.
From where I sit there is still a lot of competition in this area. I see McAfee, AVG, Norton, Trend Micro, ZoneAlarm, and dozens more. But keeping on topic with this article, AV is rapidly becoming a a commodity, and the price will continue to plummet, with or without Microosoft.
This isn't the first Microsoft AV product. I dunno if anyone remembers MSAV from Windows 3.1/DOS days. It was a Microsoft Antivirus product bundled with Windows and DOS. Somehow Symantec, Trend Micro, Mcaffee and all survived and still release products to this day. Microsoft stopped maintaining it eventually.
Just like back then Windows Defender isn't competetion for those products. It blocks and fixes a lot of more generic malware and is easily available to users. It's a good tool for making Windows more secure and fixing general or widespread malware.
Products like Symantec which are more specialized and need things like SARC to keep current with all of the many wild exploits and malwares (and variants). Why would Microsoft want to duplicate that huge effort?
Some ideas should be integrated into Windows and provided at a basic service. They aren't out to copy and crush every other software. Windows firewall didn't crush ZoneAlarm either, despite being free.
There are ongoing costs to package, market and distribute Word '97, and they exceed $1 per unit.
Yes that's what Microsoft Select is perfect for. They just package it on a Select CD and distribute it with an edition of others to their customers. No marketing or repackaging beyond the disc and jacket. When the customer decides he needs Office 97 on ten machines he installs from the disc and pays Microsoft whatever listed price per copy. The select membership fees probably cover any of the initial packaging and distribution costs. Then they just collect money from installs of old software that they wouldn't sell anyway.
Nash wrote that he "personally got burned" by buying a laptop that was labeled as Windows Vista Capable
If you're using it for e-mail Vista must be running, and thus the machine is rightly "Vista Capable". So is a P3 with 512MB of RAM but I don't expect it to get a high hardware rating and run Aero. That's like blaming Intel because your Celeron has crappy performance and the "Intel Inside" sticker mislead you.
Am I the only one that remembers the Plus! pack that you could by to "enhance" your Windows 95 and 98?
Yeah but Plus! 95 actually did add features like font smoothing and high color icons (later released as a free font smoothing patch), Pinball, LOGO.SYS boot screen, and of course themes. Since all of that was integrated into later Windows releases Plus!98 pretty much just installed themes and a new boot logo.
If people want to complain about different versions of Windows, 95 was even worse! There was "Windows 95", "Windows 95 With Plus!" (aka OSR2), "Windows 95 With USB Support" (OSR2.1) and "Windows 95 with Internet Explorer" (OSR2.5). Each release contained significant features and updates not available in the lower versions (like USB support for example). Even worse was the fact that you couldn't even buy the better featured releases!
although I dont know if you can disable the auto-run part of the windows software. I've succeeded on cd's, but the problem still affects floppies (yeah.), HD's, and thumbdrives.
You can use TweakUI from the Microsoft Powertoys for XP to disable autorun on removable storage devices. It also allows you to manually select which drive letters are allowed to use autorun so you can disable it on floppies and fixed disks.
I have like, a gajillion USB pen drives that are easily bigger than half a gig that I can buy from any store around me and yet I can't use it for save games or downloadable content? I have to buy a proprietary device? The same thing is true for the HDD, WiFi, headset, and the list goes on with peripherals.
I can tell from your complaints that you've never owned a Playstation 2.
My Communist-Anti-American-Virus-Cancer Linux PeeCees eat 256 threads for breakfast. So do my All-American Sun SPARC/Solaris boxes. 10 lines of C says so.
Looking in Task Manager explorer.exe alone is using 46 threads! I really hope Windows breaks the 8-bit thread barrier soon...
Linux proved it can be done, why can't Microsoft do the same?
The NT kernel was written in a versatile manner and can easily run on alternate platforms. Windows NT was origionally made for i386, MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC. However a while ago Microsoft dropped support and stopped developing for all but intel and embedded (MIPS, ARM, and SH4) platforms. I think the primary reason for not supporting 4096 CPU supercomputers is because nothing like exists on the Intel platform which Windows runs on. Even if they wanted to prove it, there's nothing that they could ever test it on.
Any OS that must be aware of how many cores it is running on is obviously doing it wrong.
I would hope the OS is made aware of the number of processors and speed if it's going to schedule threads on them...
The Vista DVD pretty much does that. It contains the files for all 5 versions and the key you enter when you install determines which version of Vista will be configured. So you can install Vista Ultimate from the Vista Home DVD, if you use an Ultimate key. This also allows you to perform the "anytime upgrade" to a higher version if you buy it.
The server components are not present however because Windows Server is configured a lot differently. For example, Windows XP is version 5.1 and Windows Server 2003 is version 5.2. Although they contain many of the same features their configuration is a lot different (ie. Windows server has no themes service or system restore and is set to prioritize background processes over foreground). Some people have configured Windows Server as a workstation but there are a lot of steps involved just to get it to XP style functionality. The kernel and services are also different to optimize the system for serving or workstation tasks.
BECAUSE A BUNCH OF CHILDISH ASSHOLES DECIDE THEY'RE ENTITLED TO MORE SHIT THAN THEY CAN AFFORD.
You're totally viewing the relation of piracy to lost sales incorrectly. I have a pirated copy of Photoshop on my system. The fact that I pirated Photoshop doesn't mean Adobe lost a sale, because I'd never pay the $699 and buy a copy of Photoshop for the the few little photo edits or whatever that I use it for. Adobe doesn't directly use a sale because I'm running pirated Photoshop, because I'll probably never purchase a copy of Photoshop in my lifetime. If I gave a copy to my buddy it's not like he was ready to buy a copy either and I stole Adobe's sale. If I ever couldn't run pirated Photoshop anymore (or if it became much hassle to crack) then I would just use something else. It's a great product but I don't really need it.
If I actually used it enough to justify the cost then I would probably but it to save a lot of hassle. Running pirated copies of software is not as carefree and fun as just making a copy. Most of the time you have to take precautions to keep the software cracked and from re-activating. Often you can't use features, update the software or do all kinds of things with a pirated copy. I've even had people I've given copies to actually buy Photoshop. After using the copy they decided they liked it and had enough usage for it, the cost was worth avoiding the hassle.
People who actually need the Lincoln will buy it from the dealership, get their coverage and full features which the copy Lincoln doesn't have. Maybe there'll be a product recall and suddenly all copy Lincolns will break at some point. People using the copy Lincoln just wanted to get somewhere. The copy Lincoln is nice but they'd be fine with a copy Lada too. They could also decide the copy Lincoln was sweet and buy a real one.
The childish assholes are the companies who claim they're losing money because basically people who can't afford it didn't buy their product. There is some impact from piracy, but it works both ways, and it's not a direct correlation to a sale.
windows SUCKS because you run as fucking ADMIN.. meybe if you dumb Windows users had a clue as to how operating systems work, you would understand
Well hopefully your SERVICES will be running under another process account. Especially if they are some sort of NETWORK SERVICE. It's almost like they should have some sort of "Windows Firewall" warning when you have to run services from ADMIN and start to open ports. I wish I could just press F1 and somehow get some HELP with my privilege escalation problems. Even worse the 'Configure Your Server Wizard' windows is always in the way when I want to double click more server processes from my desktop!
I guess I don't know a lot about operating systems but I recommend you buy Norton Firewall and give up running your Windows server. It might be too insecure for some kinds of people.
Initially this will break a lot of webpages, but it will force them to change to be truely standards compliant (as long as IE8 is truely standards compliant)
If IE 8 broke a lot of pages it would be even worse. Users would stick with IE 7 to avoid broken pages. Developers with broken code would promote sticking with IE 7 to avoid having to fix it. In the end people will be slower to adopt the more compliant browser, sticking with the broken implementation longer.
People will always choose compatibility over standards. As soon as something breaks they'll move or stay with an inferior but working system instead of dealing with the problems.
For example, in the Netscape/Internet Explorer 3.x days there was an issue when developers didn't close tags properly in a table. Internet Explorer would attempt to render the table. Netscape followed the standard and wouldn't render anything. People viewing sites with broken table code moved towards IE because they could view pages that didn't work in Netscape. No one cared that they were writing or viewing broken code.
A closed implemntation of crypto by a closed corporation subject to the laws of most countries by virtue of being a multi-national.
Most encryption algorithms are open standards and are same regardless of the implementation. Open or closed, the output will be the same. If they use standard AES encryption then the data will be just as secure as it would be in a open implementation.
A backdoor in their implementation would take effort and is risky, with little gain. What use would they have for the decrypted data? If they had a backdoor they would be responsible for providing it in response to things like court orders. If they can't decrypt the data then they are no longer responsible for it. It's up to the parties who want the decrypted data to find a method of obtaining it.
It doesn't make any difference if it's open or closed. Their implementation is safe. If it was bad the government would just sniff the packets and reverse the encryption. They have to use the trojan to intercept the data instead because they can't easily decrypt it.
Yeah you're right they don't enable it by default or make the user too aware of that functionality. They're probably afraid it would cause confusion. It's probably also a lot easier to manage Hotmail content when most people aren't encrypting messages.
Disloyal customers, such as those running GNU Linux, will be shown the door, or barred from entering the store in the first place.
WOW! You totally think that kind of stuff would happen?
I'm sure Shoprite doesn't care as long as you buy stuff from them. Microsoft probably just wants to sell adds and make make money off these devices. There's no point in leveraging Windows and OOXML in the embedded shopping cart ad screen market.
No one at the store is gonna care about what OS you're running on your PC. Most people won't take the cart's OS into consideration while buying food either. In the real world no one cares that much about that stuff.