Untrue. Do you make this up or did someone tell you and you're just credulous about it?
Go into the Internet Options control panel, Content tab, click the Certificates button, then the Trusted Root Certification Authorities tab.
You'll see numerous roots there, many of which are supported for code signing. For instance, Comodo, Entrust, GeoTrust, Equifax, GlobalSign, etc. There are lots.
Mod parent down. His premise is just plain wrong. As others have pointed out, code doesn't have to be signed by Microsoft, just by someone with a class III code signing certificate issued by an authority in the appropriate trusted root, meaning all of the major CA's.
Exactly. Since the service can be accessed by unauthenticated user-mode code the program is now a DOS vulnerability. Any program can screw with with the system by interacting with the service.
They haven't proved anything. The UAC interaction was at the point of installaiton in this case. Once the user agrees to that, they are 0wned.
I've been using FF3 for months and it's definitely efficient with memory, but the graph doesn't reflect my own experience with IE7 and FF2. At the moment, for instance, on my XPSP2 system with both FF2 and IE7 running, probably for weeks, FF2 is using about 509MB and IE7 about 208MB.
Perhaps some of the differences here have to do with plugins? There are still a bunch that don't work with FF3.
The Google blog you cite essentially admits it's not as accurate as the Netcraft survey, which shows the market shares much closer, i.e. about 51 to 36.
But neither of them is really measuring market share; they're measuring share by domain, not server. So if you assume that one OS has more domains on it, on average, than the other, then its "market share" is proportionally less than the numbers in the survey. Personally, based on what I know about the hosting market, I would assume that Apache servers have more domains on average than most Windows servers, but that's a guess.
The market for Windows POS (ha ha, I see the joke too) systems is large and mature. Dell has sold them for years.
I just came back from a week of vacation on Grand Bahama and every shop, even the very small ones, has a Windows-based point of sale system. It was amazing how widespread they were.
Good luck to the open source guys. Small businesses have zero appreciation for the free-as-in-speech benefits.
So people who write books for a living don't deserve to make a living? It's a good thing the Constitution recognizes intellectual property rights. The founding fathers had their heads screwed on about this stuff a lot better than some of today's ideologues.
We may not *know* it till then, but it might exist nonetheless. For instance, maybe OS X and Linux don't have a real chance of displacing Microsoft in the OS market, but are they effective competition? By that I mean that they are viable alternatives.
Judge Jackson specifically said they weren't. Think about the implications of this. It says that people really have no choice. And yet there are plenty of people reading this thread who have chosen to use these products instead of Windows. I don't see why this isn't competition.
Here are the specific claims about performance from the white paper:
Improves the speed of copying and extracting files.
Improves the time to become active from Hibernate and Resume modes.
Improves the performance of domain-joined PCs when operating off the domain; in the current release version of Windows Vista, users would experience long delays when opening the File dialog box.
Improves performance of Windows® Internet Explorer® 7 in Windows Vista, reducing CPU utilization and speeding JavaScript parsing.
Improves battery life by reducing CPU utilization by not redrawing the screen as frequently, on certain computers.
Improves the logon experience by removing the occasional 10-second delay between pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL and the password prompt displaying.
Addresses an issue in the current version of Windows Vista that makes browsing network file shares consume significant bandwidth and not perform as fast as expected.
You can't tell from the PCWorld article what the tests were, but there's no indication that they made substantial use of these specific features, and there's no reason to believe from this feature list that overall general system performance would improve
Slashdot Mirror
And you can buy a personal code signing cert.
Untrue. Do you make this up or did someone tell you and you're just credulous about it?
Go into the Internet Options control panel, Content tab, click the Certificates button, then the Trusted Root Certification Authorities tab.
You'll see numerous roots there, many of which are supported for code signing. For instance, Comodo, Entrust, GeoTrust, Equifax, GlobalSign, etc. There are lots.
Mod parent down. His premise is just plain wrong. As others have pointed out, code doesn't have to be signed by Microsoft, just by someone with a class III code signing certificate issued by an authority in the appropriate trusted root, meaning all of the major CA's.
Only slightly on point, Unbound was originally prototyped in Java, but rewritten in C.
It's bigger than you think. In 2007 a majority of domains registered were for tasting purposes.
Exactly. Since the service can be accessed by unauthenticated user-mode code the program is now a DOS vulnerability. Any program can screw with with the system by interacting with the service.
They haven't proved anything. The UAC interaction was at the point of installaiton in this case. Once the user agrees to that, they are 0wned.
There are 2 Dave Welshs and 2 Grantham Daniels signed to the open letter. Not a big deal I guess.
The article cited Joe Wilcox's Microsoft Watch blog and the submitter got confused between the Joes.
/. quality standards.
Typical
Perhaps you could name one DLL or function that is specific to IE but loaded in a system DLL?
With two products supporting Office 2007 files it should be easier for standards bodies to countenance adopting it.
I've been using FF3 for months and it's definitely efficient with memory, but the graph doesn't reflect my own experience with IE7 and FF2. At the moment, for instance, on my XPSP2 system with both FF2 and IE7 running, probably for weeks, FF2 is using about 509MB and IE7 about 208MB.
Perhaps some of the differences here have to do with plugins? There are still a bunch that don't work with FF3.
The Google blog you cite essentially admits it's not as accurate as the Netcraft survey, which shows the market shares much closer, i.e. about 51 to 36.
But neither of them is really measuring market share; they're measuring share by domain, not server. So if you assume that one OS has more domains on it, on average, than the other, then its "market share" is proportionally less than the numbers in the survey. Personally, based on what I know about the hosting market, I would assume that Apache servers have more domains on average than most Windows servers, but that's a guess.
The market for Windows POS (ha ha, I see the joke too) systems is large and mature. Dell has sold them for years.
I just came back from a week of vacation on Grand Bahama and every shop, even the very small ones, has a Windows-based point of sale system. It was amazing how widespread they were.
Good luck to the open source guys. Small businesses have zero appreciation for the free-as-in-speech benefits.
Remember the shit that went down when Family Guy did this...
Right, they're competent to see ballot box stuffing but incompetent to see anyone pulling the case off of an electronic voting machine to hack it.
I'm not so worried about voters, but corrupt poll workers. All of the "paper trail" advocates basically ignore this problem.
Very old news. I wrote about this a long time ago.
/. a couple months ago.
In fact, the same basic topic was in
So people who write books for a living don't deserve to make a living? It's a good thing the Constitution recognizes intellectual property rights. The founding fathers had their heads screwed on about this stuff a lot better than some of today's ideologues.
...and kids are stupid and naive.
One day their livelihood may rely on intellectual property and their attitude will change.
The administrative contact for the oldest name, symbolics.com, has a Compuserve e-mail address.
We may not *know* it till then, but it might exist nonetheless. For instance, maybe OS X and Linux don't have a real chance of displacing Microsoft in the OS market, but are they effective competition? By that I mean that they are viable alternatives.
Judge Jackson specifically said they weren't. Think about the implications of this. It says that people really have no choice. And yet there are plenty of people reading this thread who have chosen to use these products instead of Windows. I don't see why this isn't competition.
- Improves the speed of copying and extracting files.
- Improves the time to become active from Hibernate and Resume modes.
- Improves the performance of domain-joined PCs when operating off the domain; in the current release version of Windows Vista, users would experience long delays when opening the File dialog box.
- Improves performance of Windows® Internet Explorer® 7 in Windows Vista, reducing CPU utilization and speeding JavaScript parsing.
- Improves battery life by reducing CPU utilization by not redrawing the screen as frequently, on certain computers.
- Improves the logon experience by removing the occasional 10-second delay between pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL and the password prompt displaying.
- Addresses an issue in the current version of Windows Vista that makes browsing network file shares consume significant bandwidth and not perform as fast as expected.
You can't tell from the PCWorld article what the tests were, but there's no indication that they made substantial use of these specific features, and there's no reason to believe from this feature list that overall general system performance would improveDid Microsoft say it would improve overall system performance?
I guess they're still testing because it's still broken