Netscape themselves came up with the genius idea to scrap Navigator v5 and spend the next five years rewriting from scratch under the "Mozilla" umbrella. You can't put that on AOL.
Hmmm. If I ever saw a "release group" or a BitTorrent site that limited itself to 30+ year old movies and music, I might take this moral positon seriously.
But, as a practical matter, the Disney-effects on copyright really have no relationship to "piracy".
HTML is barely adequate for the physics papers it was designed for, but it got us this far, and there's not really any pressing need to clean it up (especially versus other long standing problem areas, like FORM).
I'm of the opinion that IE7 is just a distraction, a way of catching up superficially to yank on the chains of the competition.
I somewhat agree that the IE7 plan makes sense -- from an End User point of view, IE's failings are the lack of Tabs and poor security, so it makes sense to address those first.
99% of End Users could frankly care less about full CSS2 support, because everything is equally possible with tables and a little script. But IE got on top largely because it went after the 'hearts and minds' of developers, so eventually they'll have to get back to that (if they're serious about keeping IE dominant).
So, you're suggesting that MS should sell stuff that's currently unsupported freeware, just because some enterprise babies have a stick up their ass about support contracts? I'd rather have the freeware.
Well, just as an outside observer, it seems like the W3C is not very interested in "the web as application platform" -- instead pushing new document models like XHTML2 that don't really solve any realworld app dev problems.
At least from my POV, the stuff going on at WHATWG -- such as a vastly improved FORM model and standardized AJAX support -- will have much more relevance to the web in the manner that I and probably most other slashdotters build it.
That might work if Microsoft had any interest in being standards compliant.
Being disinterested in browser development is not the same thing as being disinterested in standards compliance.
If you look at IE in the late 90s, for example, what you saw was that they were implementing W3C standards at an emormous rate, blowing Netscape and Opera out of the water, and IE was by far the most standards-compliant browser at the time.
The Standards game always favors the players that invest the most money in development -- If MS wanted to bury Firefox, they could just spend the cash to invent and implement standards at a rate that nobody could keep up with.
The root issue is that MS doesn't see web standards support as an important competitive issue.
How is a shatter attack a configuration error? Any application can send a windowing message to any other.
The security model is built on "window stations" -- If you put a privileged window into an unprivileged window station, then you have made a configuration error. Period.
The author of the paper stated that *nix/X11 is just as vulnerable to these types of attacks, BTW, so *nix is just as irrevocably mis-designed as Windows. The only difference is that *nix programmers are smart enough not to write interactive software that runs as root.
Shatter attack are a configuration error, not a OS issue. They are roughly similar to running xterm as root on Unix and then complaining that users can execute root commands.
I mean, after all didn't performance monitor and disk defrag and other utilities also come from companies that MS assimilated?
Performance Monitor has been in NT since day 1... and Defrag is a cutdown version of Diskeeper.
I honestly don't see why people are so worried -- I really doubt this stuff will be integrated into Windows proper. Instead, most likely the sysinternal tools will be bundled into the free Resource Kit along with all the other random utilities that MS doesn't want to provide full support for.
Well, it would be a non-story if they were talking about Office Suites. But since Microsoft is dumping billions of dollars into web services to "kill Google", it's somewhat ironic.
One nice thing is that Microsoft can't change things willy-nilly with NTFS as it could with, for example, the Word file format
That seems wrong. Word files need to mostly work with a dozen different versions of Word. A filesystem really only has to work with a specific operating system and patch level. As long as there's seamless conversion, MS could change their filesystem as much as they'd like.
Although it's silly pananoia that MS would change NTFS just to defeat some useless dualbooting nerds -- NTFS is irrelevant in the places where Linux competition actually matters.
Well, actually it was never about "bloggers" at all, because ThinkSecret is not a blog. It's probably more accurate to call it an online trade journal that publishes original content and news briefs. IIRC, the guy also writes ocassionally for ZDNet. I don't believe the courts expended much if any effort considering his legitimacy.
It's only the monomania of certain members of the 'blogosphere' that have somehow redefined everyone who does online publishing as "bloggers" twisting this case into a question about something that it wasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
The office suite with 90% marketshare is moving to a documented, text-based format. And you can see NO technical good in it at all?
Perfect example about how the zealotry surrounding this issue has blinded people into utter stupidity.
Netscape themselves came up with the genius idea to scrap Navigator v5 and spend the next five years rewriting from scratch under the "Mozilla" umbrella. You can't put that on AOL.
Sweet, sweet victory
Electronics have historically been massively deflationary. Applying the CPI to a phone makes no sense whatsoever.
Hmmm. If I ever saw a "release group" or a BitTorrent site that limited itself to 30+ year old movies and music, I might take this moral positon seriously.
But, as a practical matter, the Disney-effects on copyright really have no relationship to "piracy".
AFAIK, the only program that ever used Network DDE was "Hearts" from Windows for Workgroups. No wonder it's disabled.
And how exactly would I take control of that X app running as root from an unprivledged window
Well, you could send it some combination of event messages that causes a buffer-overflow and allows you to execute arbitrary code.
Or you could just click on it and start typing.
Do you have an example of a "neat effect" that's only possible with CSS2.1? I sure can't think of one.
You know what? Who cares.
HTML is barely adequate for the physics papers it was designed for, but it got us this far, and there's not really any pressing need to clean it up (especially versus other long standing problem areas, like FORM).
"Nobody will develop for IE because Netscape has 60% marketshare"
I'm of the opinion that IE7 is just a distraction, a way of catching up superficially to yank on the chains of the competition.
I somewhat agree that the IE7 plan makes sense -- from an End User point of view, IE's failings are the lack of Tabs and poor security, so it makes sense to address those first.
99% of End Users could frankly care less about full CSS2 support, because everything is equally possible with tables and a little script. But IE got on top largely because it went after the 'hearts and minds' of developers, so eventually they'll have to get back to that (if they're serious about keeping IE dominant).
Each application should get its own secure window station to run in, then
This would break copy-n-paste and a million other things. You don't really want this.
So, you're suggesting that MS should sell stuff that's currently unsupported freeware, just because some enterprise babies have a stick up their ass about support contracts? I'd rather have the freeware.
Even if that was true, IE already supports two modes ('standards' and legacy), so they could do it with the proper application of cash.
Well, just as an outside observer, it seems like the W3C is not very interested in "the web as application platform" -- instead pushing new document models like XHTML2 that don't really solve any realworld app dev problems.
At least from my POV, the stuff going on at WHATWG -- such as a vastly improved FORM model and standardized AJAX support -- will have much more relevance to the web in the manner that I and probably most other slashdotters build it.
That might work if Microsoft had any interest in being standards compliant.
Being disinterested in browser development is not the same thing as being disinterested in standards compliance.
If you look at IE in the late 90s, for example, what you saw was that they were implementing W3C standards at an emormous rate, blowing Netscape and Opera out of the water, and IE was by far the most standards-compliant browser at the time.
The Standards game always favors the players that invest the most money in development -- If MS wanted to bury Firefox, they could just spend the cash to invent and implement standards at a rate that nobody could keep up with.
The root issue is that MS doesn't see web standards support as an important competitive issue.
How is a shatter attack a configuration error? Any application can send a windowing message to any other.
The security model is built on "window stations" -- If you put a privileged window into an unprivileged window station, then you have made a configuration error. Period.
The author of the paper stated that *nix/X11 is just as vulnerable to these types of attacks, BTW, so *nix is just as irrevocably mis-designed as Windows. The only difference is that *nix programmers are smart enough not to write interactive software that runs as root.
Shatter attack are a configuration error, not a OS issue. They are roughly similar to running xterm as root on Unix and then complaining that users can execute root commands.
0 9/14/466175.aspx
But apparently Vista has entirely removed the idea of an "interactive service", so they won't work. Info here: http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/
I mean, after all didn't performance monitor and disk defrag and other utilities also come from companies that MS assimilated?
... and Defrag is a cutdown version of Diskeeper.
a milyID=9D467A69-57FF-4AE7-96EE-B18C4790CFFD
Performance Monitor has been in NT since day 1
I honestly don't see why people are so worried -- I really doubt this stuff will be integrated into Windows proper. Instead, most likely the sysinternal tools will be bundled into the free Resource Kit along with all the other random utilities that MS doesn't want to provide full support for.
BTW, here's the 2003/XP resource kit -- many of the tools are similar to Sysinternals.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Well, it would be a non-story if they were talking about Office Suites. But since Microsoft is dumping billions of dollars into web services to "kill Google", it's somewhat ironic.
Imagine you're writing that code in VB or Javascript, and maybe then it starts to makes sense.
I changed the motherboard in my Windows machine once,
It can be done, and there's some info out there on how -- basically, you have to delete the IDE device icon before you power it off.
One nice thing is that Microsoft can't change things willy-nilly with NTFS as it could with, for example, the Word file format
That seems wrong. Word files need to mostly work with a dozen different versions of Word. A filesystem really only has to work with a specific operating system and patch level. As long as there's seamless conversion, MS could change their filesystem as much as they'd like.
Although it's silly pananoia that MS would change NTFS just to defeat some useless dualbooting nerds -- NTFS is irrelevant in the places where Linux competition actually matters.
One could argue that Dell is down because HP finally has their shit together. And Apple's stock is driven much more by the iPod than PCs.
Well, actually it was never about "bloggers" at all, because ThinkSecret is not a blog. It's probably more accurate to call it an online trade journal that publishes original content and news briefs. IIRC, the guy also writes ocassionally for ZDNet. I don't believe the courts expended much if any effort considering his legitimacy.
It's only the monomania of certain members of the 'blogosphere' that have somehow redefined everyone who does online publishing as "bloggers" twisting this case into a question about something that it wasn't.