If they merely wanted to re-use the code, then write it into Win8 so that Win8 can natively support the extra features and have IE10 leverage it off there.
This is how every version of IE since IE4 - the one that got them into trouble - has been implemented. A model subsequently taken up by all the other vaguely significant platforms (OS X, KDE, GNOME) as well.
You are criticising Microsoft for something you want them to do, that they've been doing for the better part of 15 years, because you don't realise they're doing it.
It's interesting how you equate clean water and sanitation with workers' rights, health care, and social safety nets. The difference is that the former two are essential parts of a society while the latter, if the price is pretty low, are merely nice to have (except maybe the euphemistically named "workers' rights").
Firstly, I didn't claim they were all equivalent. Merely that they were significant factors in the quality of life advantages of the developed world over the developing world.
Secondly, they might be "merely nice to have" if you're American. The rest of the civilised world considers them a key part of a stable and equal society, which is why their debates are about how best to deliver those services, rather than whether or not they should exist at all.
Workers' rights give a great deal of power to labor unions.
Oh noes ! Teh Unionz will r00n us all !11
Given the comprehensive victory of capital over labour in the last few decades, whatever "power" labour unions might have in contemporary times, there sure as hell isn't "a great deal of it".
Worker's rights give the vast majority of people who lack unique, specialised, highly in-demand skills the ability to bargain effectively with employers.
Regulations in general create a variety of rent-seeking opportunities such as compliance specialists, testing services, certification of professions (reducing the supply of a particular profession),
Indeed. Just as the legal system creates a variety of rent-seeking opportunities like police, judges and lawyers. Clearly we must abandon the rule of law.
"Social safety nets" provide a lot of business for the businesses and such that end up processing the funds or providing relevant services. And there's the government agencies that gain power as the result of enforcing the regulation or restricting access to the public good in question. Fraud also is a typical outcome since it is politically lethal to fail to provide an offered service, but not politically lethal to provide that service in error.
And naturally this sort of thing is completely unheard of in private industry.
The real shame is that these bribes not only don't keep standards of living from declining, but they actively contribute to making the problem worse.
I guess that's why all the places with the highest living standards in the world are Libertarian strongholds without any of that pesky regulation, those fraud-ridden public services, and the productivity-destroying, extortionist unions. o.O
We can keep food safety inspections, at least until an adequate private inspection regime is in place (like the one that inspects food and facilities for Kosher and Halal dietary requirements).
The difference is that if someone lies about whether or not a particular food is Kosher/Halal or not, the outcome is nothing more than begging another forgiveness from an imaginary friend, whereas if someone lies about whether or not a food might have peanuts in it, the outcome will (eventually) be fatal.
Self-regulation works tolerably well when the differences between outcomes are relatively unimportant. It's a disaster waiting to happen (at best) if they're important.
What has our developed world societies done to deserve that "more equitable" distribution of wealth?
Created most of it.
My view is that the very people who are now demanding an "equitable distribution" are the same people who created the current distribution of wealth and endorsed the current failures of the system.
The top 0.1% are demanding a more equitable distribution ?
The wealthiest have an inherent advantage in dealing with burdensome regulation. And those trinkets which you call "quality of life benefits" are the public's bribes for going along with various scams.
Publicly funded education, healthcare and social safety nets, health and safety regulations, worker's rights, clean water, sanitation, etc, are not "trinkets".
I suppose we can just not employ developed world workers instead and lose those quality of life benefits in some other way. The race to the bottom is already happening. Better I think, to make prudent sacrifices now than have the entire system collapse later.
Or we could, you know, aim for a more equitable distribution of wealth so that everyone can live a good life, rather than a handful living an unbelievably luxurious one and the rest a subsistence one.
You ignore the workers in the developing world. They're doing quite well.
Not really. Better than they were, certainly. But the wealth distribution in most of those countries is even worse than it is in the developed world.
They can start by making their workers cheaper to employ by a) reducing the cost of employing people (for example, reducing or eliminating employer-side payments for public pensions, health care, etc), b) reducing the cost of complying with regulation (both by streamlining compliance paperwork and cutting regulation that doesn't meet a reasonable cost/benefit threshold), c) cut overall government spending and reduce tax burden on the worker, and d) take steps to reduce the cost of living (in the US, home inflation is a considerable part of cost of living. It is due in large part to how much borrowing people can do for home ownership and interest payments count as a tax deduction).
So, throw away nearly all the quality of life benefits gained from decades of productivity and technology and race to the bottom ? What a great idea !
The cost of living in a developed country is never going to be anywhere near that in an undeveloped country. America has one of, if not the, lowest costs of living, least supportive social safety nets and lowest levels of taxation in the developed world, and (most of) its labour force still can't be competitive with developing countries.
Sure, you could think that way. But why would you? It hasn't been true in practice.
The last few decades (in the US, at least) has seen stagnant real incomes for all but the top few percent (the "large plantation holders").
Or, in other words, effectively all the productivity, efficiency and wealth gains resulting from the last few decades of technology and innovation, have gone nearly entirely into the pockets of a handful of people, at the cost of everyone else.
Germany is one of the worlds biggest exporters, and has a fairly healthy economy, and they don't have a minimum wage for most jobs.
It does, however, have a strong and influential union presence (who set a minimum wage in a practical, if not legislative, sense) in most industries, a comprehensive welfare system and a culture of string support for the community.
Make everything they say during campaign advertising and debate under oath.
Uh huh. And how are you going to account for the situations like the one we have now, where the lack of a majority can require a compromise implying someone has "lied" ?
Apparently Australians have gotten so used to be ruled by a single party, they get confused and scared when it's not the case.
One thing that really drove that home from finally getting around to watching the movie "Cloverfield" tonight I understood where those dozens of productions with pointless shaky camerawork came from.
Blair Witch was the first (mainstream) film that kicked off that horrid form of cinematography, long before Cloverfield (and it has a lot to answer for because of that).
...and thank you for pointing out why the protesters should be in front of the White House, the Capitol, and choking off K Street. The behavior of companies is not the pressing problem, it is the government reinforcing those behaviors and making them viable and repeatable that causes the serious harm.
So they shouldn't be going after the shooter, but instead the guy who sold him the gun ?
When Snow Leopard released in 2009, you could buy both an upgrade option (~$29 and there were other assorted family packs of upgrades) and if you didn't have Leopard (10.5), there was a full version option (it was the Mac Box Set ~$169), which came with bundled with iLife and iWork since Tiger wasn't considered an upgrade option for the Snow Leopard installer. Tiger also had a full install box you could get for ~$199 back when it released a few years before.
They're both still upgrade licenses, just upgrades for different prior versions.
Every retail copy of OS X requires a Mac to install it on (legally). You can't own a Mac without having bought a prior copy of OS X (since they're bundled).
Since the summary seems to have malware in mind, primarily, maybe the most universal code in existence could be studied by a few million inquiring minds. If NT Kernel could be examined with the aim of making it as secure as possible, I wonder what might happen. Is it possible that it could be pruned, tuned, and eventually rewritten so that it actually is secure?
There is little evidence to suggest the NT kernel is especially insecure. The vast, vast majority of "exploits" don't rely on kernel design flaws or bugs (or even software bugs in general, for that matter).
And, if that were to happen, is is possible that people simply wouldn't NEED Symantec, McAfee, and the myriad of other vendors offering ineffective security solutions?
Of course they would. The point of malware tools is not to supplement OS-level security, it's to act as a last-ditch defense effort once OS-level security has already been breached.
You don't fire the city guard just because you've put in a new moat.
I'm sure Russinovich believed that based on the information he had available at that time. However, it's very easy to show it's false - turn on ReadyBoost and watch the drive light of the ReadyBoost device. If the above where true, it would always blink when the HD light blinks, plus any time it serves something from cache instead of HD. That's not what happens at all.
Do you have a source more authoritative than a blinking LED ?
Not sure I'm feeling the love for this concept. On the reads, sure. Nice idea. Writes however, not feeling the love. For whatever the reasons, PC hardware can lock up (CPU, video, motherboard, RAM etc) or because of buggy device drivers on the OS. In any event, how well can this device recover from a dirty-cache shutdown? What happens if the device just dies? Will I still be able to mount the HDD and recover data?
How are any of these possibilities changed by the presence, or lack, of an SSD caching layer ?
I agree it makes for sense for an operating system (filesystem perhaps) to do this job. Unfortunately, Windows does not do it. Readyboost is merely an extra space for Superfetch to cache files, but this isnt persistent over reboots. So every time I boot, I have to retrain the cache, which is about as undesirable as a filesystem cache could be.
I'm not aware of any caches - filesystem or otherwise - that will remain persistent across reboots.
I wish SSD enthusiasts would accept this simple fact: SSDs are not that reliable yet.
I am by no means an "SSD enthusiast", whatever that might be, but if you have any genuine reliability stats for SSDs, I'd be interested to see them.
So lets say I wanted to do this in any way that was remotely reliable. I'd have to pay for a TRIM enabled RAID1 card and two 160gb SSDs, preferably intel. Now your $150 solution is more like $1500 solution.
Or you could just use the software RAID1 that Windows, Linux and OS X all have built in.
No, it's not the same. ReadyBoost provides a compressed paging file cache, it doesn't work as a cache between the OS and the HD.In other words, it only gets what is written to the paging file, or pages that are dropped from memory.
That's not how Mark Russinovich describes it here.
"After the ReadyBoost service initializes caching, the Ecache.sys device driver intercepts all reads and writes to local hard disk volumes (C:\, for example), and copies any data being written into the caching file that the service created."
Slashdot Mirror
This is how every version of IE since IE4 - the one that got them into trouble - has been implemented. A model subsequently taken up by all the other vaguely significant platforms (OS X, KDE, GNOME) as well.
You are criticising Microsoft for something you want them to do, that they've been doing for the better part of 15 years, because you don't realise they're doing it.
OS/2 is not a particularly good example of this, it was never really "the biggest thing" anywhere, or anytime.
Netware is the one I would use.
Firstly, I didn't claim they were all equivalent. Merely that they were significant factors in the quality of life advantages of the developed world over the developing world.
Secondly, they might be "merely nice to have" if you're American. The rest of the civilised world considers them a key part of a stable and equal society, which is why their debates are about how best to deliver those services, rather than whether or not they should exist at all.
Oh noes ! Teh Unionz will r00n us all !11
Given the comprehensive victory of capital over labour in the last few decades, whatever "power" labour unions might have in contemporary times, there sure as hell isn't "a great deal of it".
Worker's rights give the vast majority of people who lack unique, specialised, highly in-demand skills the ability to bargain effectively with employers.
Indeed. Just as the legal system creates a variety of rent-seeking opportunities like police, judges and lawyers. Clearly we must abandon the rule of law.
And naturally this sort of thing is completely unheard of in private industry.
I guess that's why all the places with the highest living standards in the world are Libertarian strongholds without any of that pesky regulation, those fraud-ridden public services, and the productivity-destroying, extortionist unions. o.O
The difference is that if someone lies about whether or not a particular food is Kosher/Halal or not, the outcome is nothing more than begging another forgiveness from an imaginary friend, whereas if someone lies about whether or not a food might have peanuts in it, the outcome will (eventually) be fatal.
Self-regulation works tolerably well when the differences between outcomes are relatively unimportant. It's a disaster waiting to happen (at best) if they're important.
Created most of it.
The top 0.1% are demanding a more equitable distribution ?
Publicly funded education, healthcare and social safety nets, health and safety regulations, worker's rights, clean water, sanitation, etc, are not "trinkets".
Or we could, you know, aim for a more equitable distribution of wealth so that everyone can live a good life, rather than a handful living an unbelievably luxurious one and the rest a subsistence one.
Not really. Better than they were, certainly. But the wealth distribution in most of those countries is even worse than it is in the developed world.
So, throw away nearly all the quality of life benefits gained from decades of productivity and technology and race to the bottom ? What a great idea !
The cost of living in a developed country is never going to be anywhere near that in an undeveloped country. America has one of, if not the, lowest costs of living, least supportive social safety nets and lowest levels of taxation in the developed world, and (most of) its labour force still can't be competitive with developing countries.
Yes, it has, which is why the incomes of the top few percent have skyrocketed while everyone else keeps running as fast as they can to go nowhere.
How can they when "valuable" is a synonym for "cheap" ?
The last few decades (in the US, at least) has seen stagnant real incomes for all but the top few percent (the "large plantation holders").
Or, in other words, effectively all the productivity, efficiency and wealth gains resulting from the last few decades of technology and innovation, have gone nearly entirely into the pockets of a handful of people, at the cost of everyone else.
It does, however, have a strong and influential union presence (who set a minimum wage in a practical, if not legislative, sense) in most industries, a comprehensive welfare system and a culture of string support for the community.
Uh huh. And how are you going to account for the situations like the one we have now, where the lack of a majority can require a compromise implying someone has "lied" ?
Apparently Australians have gotten so used to be ruled by a single party, they get confused and scared when it's not the case.
Blair Witch was the first (mainstream) film that kicked off that horrid form of cinematography, long before Cloverfield (and it has a lot to answer for because of that).
Not according to Windows Internals, Fifth Edition.
Most of Windows is written in C.
So they shouldn't be going after the shooter, but instead the guy who sold him the gun ?
I thought it was the people who thought it was preferable to flush all those potential humans down the drain rather than use them productively ?
They're both still upgrade licenses, just upgrades for different prior versions.
Every retail copy of OS X requires a Mac to install it on (legally). You can't own a Mac without having bought a prior copy of OS X (since they're bundled).
There is little evidence to suggest the NT kernel is especially insecure. The vast, vast majority of "exploits" don't rely on kernel design flaws or bugs (or even software bugs in general, for that matter).
Of course they would. The point of malware tools is not to supplement OS-level security, it's to act as a last-ditch defense effort once OS-level security has already been breached.
You don't fire the city guard just because you've put in a new moat.
Make sure her leash doesn't reach to the doorway and install a good security system, of course.
I know about ZFS. As far as I know the L2ARC does not persist across reboots, and a quick Google suggests that is still true.
Do you have a source more authoritative than a blinking LED ?
How are any of these possibilities changed by the presence, or lack, of an SSD caching layer ?
I'm not aware of any caches - filesystem or otherwise - that will remain persistent across reboots.
I am by no means an "SSD enthusiast", whatever that might be, but if you have any genuine reliability stats for SSDs, I'd be interested to see them.
Or you could just use the software RAID1 that Windows, Linux and OS X all have built in.
That's not how Mark Russinovich describes it here.
"After the ReadyBoost service initializes caching, the Ecache.sys device driver intercepts all reads and writes to local hard disk volumes (C:\, for example), and copies any data being written into the caching file that the service created."