Seems like the first requirement of security through obscurity is obscurity itself. Secure software from that obscure company Microsoft. Something in that doen't work.
Joking? Not unless losing everything on your computer is a joke. I don't know that Evil Eye Fleegle works on the registry, but better not to take unnecessary risks.
Always backup your registry before booting up windows. Haven't seen that one before, but it's actually good advice. At least be aware that booting Microsoft Windows without a backed up registry (and you should have several backups) is rather risky. You can ameliorate that risk by terminating power when Microsoft Windows goes screwy. Don't log off, Don't power down. Hit reset or the power switch.
How do you do this? Boot something else, obviously. Microsoft doesn't want people booting into multiple systems. Ever wondered why?
Why have such a fragile mechanism for storing important system information? Because programs that store important system information never make mistakes. That's the theory. Reality is something else.
Makes a good myth, but no. This is working from the old stuff forward, so I may be missing something about the new stuff. Addressing is done by a 0-4095 byte displacement from a base register (of 1 thru 15). There is an RX mode that uses both a base and an index register (from same set) The standard IBM calling sequence for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I, etc. typically by BALR 14,15 after loading GR 15 with entry point. GR 13 points to a register save area, typically in the body of calling program. Non-Recursive. GR 15 points to the Entry Point in the Called Program. GR 14 points to the Return Address in the Calling Program. GR 1 points to a parameter list. Successive addresses. Last parameter is marked with high bit set. Probably one or two other changes. Pretty transparent, actually, unless you do things like tag bits in the non-address part of an address register.
The 31/24 is a PSW thing, like the ASCII/EBCDIC bit. In 31-bit mode, the old condition code from BALR has to be stored somewhere else. LA (Load address does not necessarily zero the high-byte). Format change in the PSW (Program status word)
I have to agree - and offer as evidence the jokes *everyone* makes about the instability of windows. The sheeple know their software sucks and they absolutely do not care. No matter what Microsoft does, the majority of people will continue to use it for the foreseeable future. MS doesn't have to worry about PR - and god does that hurt to say Always blame Microsoft. User error? Blame Microsoft. Hardware error? Blame Microsoft. Works pretty well;) The majority of the people absolutely don't care. They have better things to concern themselves with, certainly better than trying to play catch-up with the latest and greatest. A few reactions of "They saw you coming, didn't they?" to the latest XP with all the speed-robbing bloat also help matters. Microsoft has a problem. They're trying to keep growing much faster than the GDP in a industry that will grow at a lesser rate than the GDP. Everything Microsoft does to squeeze a bit more makes it look like the dregs of a dying industry. Slowly and quietly you start moving everything that matters out of reach of Microsoft's worms, viruses and file formats.
Early mainframes were expensive. CPU time metered and charged by the second. Only large corporations or government could afford them. Second generation mainframes topped out at essentially 64k bytes (7074 had 10,000 10-digit decimal words storage). Solaris, Irix, and HP/UX were designed as big UNIX, (which is something rather different from small mainframe). Each probably based on Berkely UNIX and each trying to distinguish itself as something special. The big UNIX did encroach on the mainframes turf, often doing more, better and cheaper.
You won't see kernel messages on ATM machines. Mainframes don't use ATM machines for consoles, they use Selectric typewriters. Or at least they used to. You use mainframes for reliability and concentration, where something critical doen't work if it's distributed. 80 rackmount x86 machines has better price/performance, at least until something like Chernobyl goes off in all 80 of them at the same time.
Mainframes and their operating systems are great for certain applications, but Linux generally isn't part of those applications. Yet.
mainframe software infrastructure is really, really reliable. That's the intention and the attempt. That's what you're paying for. YMMV. Things may have changed since, but CICS used to run all of it "joblets" (whatever they were called) in a single process which could be taken out by a single bad module (like any FORTRAN program).
Reinventing the wheel. Paying good money for someone to reinvent a rather poor wheel. Paying lots of good money for people to reinvent a lot of bad wheels, some of which don't even work. Paying lots of good money to ensure that disfunctional wheels never get fixed.
Figure that closed source cost GE several billions last year over and above the cost of hardware/software itself.
If you can't give them support, the ethical thing to do would be to... give them the source code And if you do give them support it makes it so much easier if the client already has the code.
"properly configured" is a way of putting the blame elsewhere. The idea is to get the victim to feel somehow responsible for Microsoft's faults. "properly configured" means Linux or even better one of the BSDs. I run NT and I don't get BSODs. Generally up except for power failures, but I've learned to kill power as soon as anything starts going flakey. Nt is stable like a boat in harbor on a calm day. Usually fine as long as you don't do anything. Somehow seems to get less stable over time. Bit rot? Linux somehow seems to get more stable with time. I know it's impossible, but I still get that impression.
There are no silver bullets. If you squeeze out the noise, you squeeze out the signal. Even if all the submitters have the best of intentions, many have neither the skills nor the willingness to eliminate false positives. The data is dirty but far from useless. If there is a problem, there is a high chance of it showing up somehow. The thing is to not get panicked if something shows up. If it shows a problem, it may be something like a virus that looks like it came from you, when it really came from someone who had your address. If you see a lot of them, then probably better investigate. The main value is that if there is a problem, this dirty data has a high chance of having some useful information.
some corporations who want to use StarOffice have told us that they need to pay for software they use. Not surprising, but that's the first time I've seen that expressed. You don't survive long in business by starving your suppliers, particularly of anything vital. The code and the binaries can even be the same, but the product is different. I can imagine you do spend a lot of time with the lawyers, some very fine distinctions.
To the extent that this is being played to the media, the states have made their point, maybe even better than with an in-court demonstration. The demonstration you didn't get to see. It can't do anything to improve Microsoft's reputation.
I think customized software (which is the bulk of software actually created, and consultant programmers are mighty glad that's the case) will remain proprietary by its very nature. By its very nature is right. Not to give you nightmares, but imagine running Sun with IBMs internal business software. There's a reason for the NIH (not invented here) syndrome. The reasons to keep such confidential are not the code itself. Oh, and thanks for the nice reply.
We'll never know for sure since MSFT refuses to even consider the alternative of releasing info for their protocols, APIs, source. Maybe not for sure, but methinks we can make a very educated guess. The existing exploits and wormage seem to be picking relatively low-hanging fruit. With a bit of help there are some nice juicy ones farther up. Whether keeping the info secret actually accomplishes anything is a different matter. Machine level debugging is laborious, but shows what is actually going on unobfuscated by preconceptions in the source. There is a good chance that some black hats have detailed knowledge that is not generally known and that Microsoft itself has no access to.
Dialect is used to capture distinctions that are lost in "english".
It generally uplevels coding quality... It generally improves coding quality Like the difference between grade A and grade B product. It's a difference in viewpoint. It implies that code quality does matter.
we are deferring (not cancelling) the productization of x86 for Solaris 9 we are deferring (not cancelling) the release of x86 for Solaris 9 Release is the final step. Productization includes all those steps required before it can be released.
The shift to pervasively liberated infrastructure code will be regulated by... The shift to open source will be regulated by... Pervasively liberated infrastructure code. It's a mouthful, but it says a lot. It implies open source, but not everywhere. Pervasively liberated implies a lack of concern or interest in exactly which model of open source. Pervasive also carries the sense of a relentless pressure that ultimately makes it all liberated (for some definition of it all). Infrastructure means all those things that everybody should be able to take for granted. It's easier to get at the meaning by imagining the opposite. If GM cars only go on GM roads and GM bridges and Ford cars only go on Ford roads and Ford bridges, then everybody has a problem.
IBM is heading back towards BIG BLUENESS Methinks you're right. It's a curious mixture. By lowering the bar for competition, it becomes harder to compete with IBM. Of course if IBM gets fat and lazy and sloppy, the competition will appear almost overnight. This makes IBM a very safe choice for big business.
"hardware know-how" That's one way to put it and I can't think of a better term but there's a lot more than just hardware in there. Basically it needs to work under stress and high-load, without things going screwy on the edges and corners. Open Source tends to be better stress-tested than anything you can do with a completely closed system. If you can get the balance right, everybody gains.
Is a parent corpoeration responsable for every paperclip or internal policy at a subsidiary, even wholly owned? Is it reasonable to blame ITT or Textron or WR Grace or any other big corporation for everything a subsidiary (or a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary etc.) does? Generally yes. (YMMV, dinner party chit-chat, this is/. and all that) In a merger or acquisition the controlling party will put its stamp of ownership on the controlled party. This will happen with any collection of control-freaks and/or PHBs in the controlling party. Along with this goes an assumption on the controlling party that the controlled party conforms to "corporate standards". If the controlled party is an embarrasment the fault is assigned to the controlling party for not doing its job.
Blame All of humanity for any of humanities transgressions. Or achievements. Methinks binary doesn't work here, you needs shades of gray. Sometimes you have to draw a line somewhere. I don't have the answers. I don't even understand the question.
IBMJava2-13 says it's open. You have a couple of two-ton behemoths to keep each other honest. Neither of them gets to do what they please. An 800 pound gorilla trying to mix in becomes Microsquish. Pipsqueaks like you and me don't really even get to have an opinion. Eventually it will become an official standard, AFTER it's known exactly what that standard has to be.
There are two ways to take that. 1) If it's a Democrat, it's expected, if it's a Republican it's news. 2) If it's a Democrat, kindly omit the reference, if it's a Republican, emphasize the fact. That's the problem with unbiased news. On whose side are they unbiased?
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like the first requirement of security through obscurity is obscurity itself.
Secure software from that obscure company Microsoft.
Something in that doen't work.
Joking? Not unless losing everything on your computer is a joke.
I don't know that Evil Eye Fleegle works on the registry, but better not to take unnecessary risks.
Always backup your registry before booting up windows.
Haven't seen that one before, but it's actually good advice. At least be aware that booting Microsoft Windows without a backed up registry (and you should have several backups) is rather risky. You can ameliorate that risk by terminating power when Microsoft Windows goes screwy. Don't log off, Don't power down. Hit reset or the power switch.
How do you do this? Boot something else, obviously. Microsoft doesn't want people booting into multiple systems. Ever wondered why?
Why have such a fragile mechanism for storing important system information?
Because programs that store important system information never make mistakes. That's the theory. Reality is something else.
Can I get a list of the ActiveX controls installed on my machine??!?
Oh come on. If Microsoft were to release that information they would be opening themselves up to security exploits.
That, my friend is the crux of the problem.
The black hats don't have a clue how to find them???? The skill, the determination ???
Result: Deprive the users of information that would actually help and deprive the black hats of what they already have.
Backup early, backup often. Backup where the worms and viruses cannot reach.
Makes a good myth, but no.
This is working from the old stuff forward, so I may be missing something about the new stuff.
Addressing is done by a 0-4095 byte displacement from a base register (of 1 thru 15). There is an RX mode that uses both a base and an index register (from same set)
The standard IBM calling sequence for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I, etc. typically by BALR 14,15 after loading GR 15 with entry point.
GR 13 points to a register save area, typically in the body of calling program. Non-Recursive.
GR 15 points to the Entry Point in the Called Program.
GR 14 points to the Return Address in the Calling Program.
GR 1 points to a parameter list. Successive addresses. Last parameter is marked with high bit set.
Probably one or two other changes. Pretty transparent, actually, unless you do things like tag bits in the non-address part of an address register.
The 31/24 is a PSW thing, like the ASCII/EBCDIC bit.
In 31-bit mode, the old condition code from BALR has to be stored somewhere else.
LA (Load address does not necessarily zero the high-byte).
Format change in the PSW (Program status word)
Isn't that one of the signs of a con artist? Gotta do it right now or ....
I have to agree - and offer as evidence the jokes *everyone* makes about the instability of windows. The sheeple know their software sucks and they absolutely do not care. No matter what Microsoft does, the majority of people will continue to use it for the foreseeable future. ;)
MS doesn't have to worry about PR - and god does that hurt to say
Always blame Microsoft. User error? Blame Microsoft. Hardware error? Blame Microsoft. Works pretty well
The majority of the people absolutely don't care. They have better things to concern themselves with, certainly better than trying to play catch-up with the latest and greatest. A few reactions of "They saw you coming, didn't they?" to the latest XP with all the speed-robbing bloat also help matters.
Microsoft has a problem. They're trying to keep growing much faster than the GDP in a industry that will grow at a lesser rate than the GDP. Everything Microsoft does to squeeze a bit more makes it look like the dregs of a dying industry. Slowly and quietly you start moving everything that matters out of reach of Microsoft's worms, viruses and file formats.
Early mainframes were expensive. CPU time metered and charged by the second. Only large corporations or government could afford them. Second generation mainframes topped out at essentially 64k bytes (7074 had 10,000 10-digit decimal words storage).
Solaris, Irix, and HP/UX were designed as big UNIX, (which is something rather different from small mainframe). Each probably based on Berkely UNIX and each trying to distinguish itself as something special. The big UNIX did encroach on the mainframes turf, often doing more, better and cheaper.
You won't see kernel messages on ATM machines. Mainframes don't use ATM machines for consoles, they use Selectric typewriters. Or at least they used to.
You use mainframes for reliability and concentration, where something critical doen't work if it's distributed.
80 rackmount x86 machines has better price/performance, at least until something like Chernobyl goes off in all 80 of them at the same time.
Mainframes and their operating systems are great for certain applications, but Linux generally isn't part of those applications.
Yet.
mainframe software infrastructure is really, really reliable.
That's the intention and the attempt. That's what you're paying for. YMMV.
Things may have changed since, but CICS used to run all of it "joblets" (whatever they were called) in a single process which could be taken out by a single bad module (like any FORTRAN program).
Reinventing the wheel.
Paying good money for someone to reinvent a rather poor wheel.
Paying lots of good money for people to reinvent a lot of bad wheels, some of which don't even work.
Paying lots of good money to ensure that disfunctional wheels never get fixed.
Figure that closed source cost GE several billions last year over and above the cost of hardware/software itself.
If you can't give them support, the ethical thing to do would be to ... give them the source code
And if you do give them support it makes it so much easier if the client already has the code.
"properly configured" is a way of putting the blame elsewhere. The idea is to get the victim to feel somehow responsible for Microsoft's faults.
"properly configured" means Linux or even better one of the BSDs.
I run NT and I don't get BSODs. Generally up except for power failures, but I've learned to kill power as soon as anything starts going flakey. Nt is stable like a boat in harbor on a calm day. Usually fine as long as you don't do anything. Somehow seems to get less stable over time. Bit rot?
Linux somehow seems to get more stable with time. I know it's impossible, but I still get that impression.
There are no silver bullets. If you squeeze out the noise, you squeeze out the signal.
Even if all the submitters have the best of intentions, many have neither the skills nor the willingness to eliminate false positives.
The data is dirty but far from useless. If there is a problem, there is a high chance of it showing up somehow. The thing is to not get panicked if something shows up.
If it shows a problem, it may be something like a virus that looks like it came from you, when it really came from someone who had your address. If you see a lot of them, then probably better investigate. The main value is that if there is a problem, this dirty data has a high chance of having some useful information.
To communicate "If you want North 5 you need to be here" on a high speed expressway IS art. Not arty. Art.
some corporations who want to use StarOffice have told us that they need to pay for software they use.
Not surprising, but that's the first time I've seen that expressed. You don't survive long in business by starving your suppliers, particularly of anything vital. The code and the binaries can even be the same, but the product is different.
I can imagine you do spend a lot of time with the lawyers, some very fine distinctions.
To the extent that this is being played to the media, the states have made their point, maybe even better than with an in-court demonstration. The demonstration you didn't get to see. It can't do anything to improve Microsoft's reputation.
I think customized software (which is the bulk of software actually created, and consultant programmers are mighty glad that's the case) will remain proprietary by its very nature.
By its very nature is right.
Not to give you nightmares, but imagine running Sun with IBMs internal business software. There's a reason for the NIH (not invented here) syndrome. The reasons to keep such confidential are not the code itself.
Oh, and thanks for the nice reply.
We'll never know for sure since MSFT refuses to even consider the alternative of releasing info for their protocols, APIs, source.
Maybe not for sure, but methinks we can make a very educated guess.
The existing exploits and wormage seem to be picking relatively low-hanging fruit. With a bit of help there are some nice juicy ones farther up.
Whether keeping the info secret actually accomplishes anything is a different matter. Machine level debugging is laborious, but shows what is actually going on unobfuscated by preconceptions in the source. There is a good chance that some black hats have detailed knowledge that is not generally known and that Microsoft itself has no access to.
Dialect is used to capture distinctions that are lost in "english".
...
It generally uplevels coding quality...
It generally improves coding quality
Like the difference between grade A and grade B product. It's a difference in viewpoint. It implies that code quality does matter.
we are deferring (not cancelling) the productization of x86 for Solaris 9
we are deferring (not cancelling) the release of x86 for Solaris 9
Release is the final step. Productization includes all those steps required before it can be released.
The shift to pervasively liberated infrastructure code will be regulated by
The shift to open source will be regulated by...
Pervasively liberated infrastructure code. It's a mouthful, but it says a lot. It implies open source, but not everywhere. Pervasively liberated implies a lack of concern or interest in exactly which model of open source. Pervasive also carries the sense of a relentless pressure that ultimately makes it all liberated (for some definition of it all). Infrastructure means all those things that everybody should be able to take for granted. It's easier to get at the meaning by imagining the opposite. If GM cars only go on GM roads and GM bridges and Ford cars only go on Ford roads and Ford bridges, then everybody has a problem.
IBM is heading back towards BIG BLUENESS
Methinks you're right. It's a curious mixture. By lowering the bar for competition, it becomes harder to compete with IBM. Of course if IBM gets fat and lazy and sloppy, the competition will appear almost overnight. This makes IBM a very safe choice for big business.
"hardware know-how"
That's one way to put it and I can't think of a better term but there's a lot more than just hardware in there. Basically it needs to work under stress and high-load, without things going screwy on the edges and corners. Open Source tends to be better stress-tested than anything you can do with a completely closed system. If you can get the balance right, everybody gains.
What's lurking in my email?
Is a parent corpoeration responsable for every paperclip or internal policy at a subsidiary, even wholly owned? Is it reasonable to blame ITT or Textron or WR Grace or any other big corporation for everything a subsidiary (or a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary etc.) does? /. and all that)
Generally yes.
(YMMV, dinner party chit-chat, this is
In a merger or acquisition the controlling party will put its stamp of ownership on the controlled party. This will happen with any collection of control-freaks and/or PHBs in the controlling party. Along with this goes an assumption on the controlling party that the controlled party conforms to "corporate standards". If the controlled party is an embarrasment the fault is assigned to the controlling party for not doing its job.
Blame
All of humanity for any of humanities transgressions. Or achievements.
Methinks binary doesn't work here, you needs shades of gray.
Sometimes you have to draw a line somewhere.
I don't have the answers. I don't even understand the question.
IBMJava2-13 says it's open.
You have a couple of two-ton behemoths to keep each other honest.
Neither of them gets to do what they please.
An 800 pound gorilla trying to mix in becomes Microsquish.
Pipsqueaks like you and me don't really even get to have an opinion.
Eventually it will become an official standard, AFTER it's known exactly what that standard has to be.
There are two ways to take that.
1) If it's a Democrat, it's expected, if it's a Republican it's news.
2) If it's a Democrat, kindly omit the reference, if it's a Republican, emphasize the fact.
That's the problem with unbiased news. On whose side are they unbiased?