because they can't get it to, like actually, work.
Cloud is an architecture limited to guaranteed-connection, high-shareability situations.
You would not use a computer which only booted if the internet connection were available (to pull in the cloud pieces). You would not face an executive meeting in 25 minutes with only cloud-reliability office applications.
Reliability is not the same as Availability. Your cloud vision fails when the latter is paramount.
well the point would be that true preemptive multiasking was offered with windows386 and matured into the NT kernel, IIRC. Clearly (cooperative mutlitasking) Windows 1 and 2 were TSR. AFAIR that technique remained through Windows 95. Also, IIRC, it was Windows SE that tried to break with that old "side winder" TSR heredity.
In 1987, IBM and Microsoft released OS/2 version 1.0 as the successor to MS DOS, the PC operating system shipped with the original IBM PC. OS/2 ran on a 286 or better processor, and required a minimum of 2MB of RAM.
Like Underwriter's Laboratory, a certification to the buyer that their product is infection free could provide the buyer some recourse and some confidence. This is one of those areas that few like to admit are resonant with Federal power but I think this is critical in the consumer computer market. There's a bit of purchasing stasis due, currently, to consumer confidence.
Finding a pre-infection on new Windows gear is not helpful.
Even for the low-margin picture frame, I'd assert there should be a guarantee through an accrediting body like the UL.
The magic of linux is that you don't get it from one-source like Microsoft. Even Fedora has viable competitors. If you chose you could use a hardened version. Or you could even build from source only on a hardened machine. While what you say is true it is not helpful; The *vendor* of those *devices* propagated the infection. (Hi Velma!;)
And your assertion that any device can transport infections is true but does not go far enough. It perfectly highlights the need for an infrastructure integration proving ground just like the UL. Nothing about the OS is relevant because it's the vendors' processes that are compromised.
I'd be way happier with the latter two. Not concerned if Windows is open source. But real virtual desktops and a package manager are critical. Virtual desktops because, as anyone who uses them knows, they are just wickedly useful.
The Package Manager is the place where most infections occur on Windows. If only MSPackageInstaller process had permissions to install programs (eg place an executable binary into Path) **and the social-engineering of UAC were replaced** then a real authentication provides credentials to install. **and fix Windows' obsolescent reliance on three file description characters** then a more transportable and peer-reviewed association to executive.
Well, this particular part of it all has been working well outside of Windows for a long time now.
I dislike Ubuntu for relying on sudo credentials. I want to change the system on Ubuntu and my own password are required. On Fedora, they still require, my *root* password is to be supplied. I prefer that so that anyone with connection access has two levels of authentication.
But still, these are critical areas that Windows 7 do not address.
Bastardizing DOS to take their OS offerings to the next level (eg. compete with Apple Mac and IBM OS/2) was probably the *worst* choice in computer history.
I'd phrase this a little more strongly than you; Windows (including Vista) goes brain-dead without extensions. I find linux from recent distro releases to handle it pretty well. Most of the time my experience is that files move across my home LAN and are properly identified regardless of their source and naming. While anecdotal, "Most of the time" is better than on Windows. I can't say about OSX (but did not enjoy the experience of file handling and maintenance on OSX8 and 9.;)
I think the future is in files identifying their mime type and presume that mime types gain stronger standardization.
If your tire goes flat on your car you don't waste any time with the fix. You do it yourself or you find someone who has the needed skills and availability. Note Availability. You can find that expertise in a lot of ways and the problem might be more along the lines of finding immediate communications than of finding the expertise.
That's not so different from the situation with the camera since, if you want to use it, you find someone to fix it.
Your computer is more like a drippy faucet. If you don't mind the ugly sounds and unappeasing smells it makes then you can just go on ignoring it. No matter the wife can't sleep due to the drip...drip...drip....drip.
It doesn't seem to me that forcing a user to install h/er OS would provide anything in terms of security consciousness. What it *could* do is provide a clean baseline that is certifiably infection-free. Useful if you need to reinstall. Critical if your "recovery media" are infected. That whole idea of a "clean baseline" would, however, contribute to security consciousness.
OEMs should be required to provide certified-infection-free products.
you'd think a bunch of programmers could see the error here...
Ask those 1000 persons "Do you own a computer? If you do, do you run linux?". We don't care about the granularity of what percentage windows or mac or solaris is... just which of the Yes I own a computer are *also* Yes I run linux.
My bet; about 10 percent of computer users run linux somewheres, sometimes. They may not know it though, especially if it's Ubuntu;) as they're probably recipient of a linux-advocate. Now, *that's* guesswork:)
This sounds like an insider attack as there are just too many coincidences. Backups gone missing, many sites hacked, demand for millions of dollars (pay to whom?!), etc. No wonder every information request is referred to the FBI.
"Program installers run without triggering the limit."
There was an updated posted and the author found that installers can trigger the limit.
[Update: Although Microsoft claims installers are exempt from the three-program limit, this appears to be untrue, at least in the beta I looked at. Based on some comments, I just tried to run a dozen or so installers with three programs already open. Each one failed.]
Have to wonder just how much installing a user of such a limited machine would be doing. But, Murphy obliges, so it would probably become a problem at the worst possible time. Closing applications (web browser, document viewer, etc.) that you have open to help you make the right choices in the installation would be a huge PITA.
I'd make a guess that 'compliant' installers won't trigger the limit, but the details of which installers the author tried are absent.
"acquisition totally redefines the industry"
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Oracle-Sun: Jonathan Schwartz Writes His Toughest Ever Email
"...All members of the board present at the meeting to review the transaction voted for it with enthusiasm, and the transaction stands to utterly transform the marketplace - bringing together two companies with a long history of working together to create a newly unified vision of the future."...
For *innocent* people this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. ( and perhaps others )
I am saddened more by your comment than any other I've seen on/. in a long time. To find you moderated Insightful actually scares me. I'll paste the text of the Fourth Ammendment below and ask you to find the Exception clause. You know, that one that provides for contravention of the ammendment when the person is guilty. (I feel dirty having typed that last phrase).
You do remember that a person is not guilty until found so by proper judicial proceedings. Right? Right?!
Ammendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I suppose you meant that it's a violation in any case but especially for those who are never found guilty.
"Most bills passed by Congress try to hide what their subject is by resorting to propagandistic titles such as the "No Child Left Behind Act," or the "PATRIOT Act," or the "Protect America Act." No one wants to be accused of voting to leave children behind, or against patriotism, or against protecting America, but none of these bill titles actually describe the subjects of these bills. So . . .... A BILL
To prohibit the abuse of legislative power: by requiring that each bill or amendment hereinafter introduced (other than concurrent resolutions or appropriations bills within the jurisdictional authority of each subcommittee of each Appropriations Committee) be limited to only one subject, so as to end the practice of addressing more than one subject in a single bill; by requiring that each bill's single subject be descriptively expressed in the title thereto; by requiring each appropriation bill, including any supplemental appropriation bill, by amendment or otherwise, not to contain any general legislation or change of existing law not germane to the subject matter of said bill; by requiring each bill amending an existing statutory provision to set forth in full in the amendatory bill the section as it would read if the proposed amendment were adopted; by declaring that all bills enacted in violation of this Act shall be void, having no legal effect whatsoever, which should be treated as nullities by the American people, this Act being mandatory in purpose, not directory only."
You have been hired to fill a new position and you see your responsibility as covering the licensing of software. Is that really your charter? If you can drive the idea that you can only work with company property, then you immediately presage any direct involvement with such extra-ware.
I'd say have a talk with your attorney because you have already committed to something. Saying your are the "IT Manager" really doesn't help us much. Being the first IT Guy, well, are there more than just you? I think you see the obvious question here.
Every computer-using company faces the same issue. So long as users can install software they will (prev. it guy not withstanding) and you cannot be responsible for misuse of company property by others than yourself. You need to drive the compromise that a list of software is supported by you and there is an as-needed channel and that you need a budget for supported softare.
"My hunch," Dr. Lieberman wrote, "is that the Dmanisi and early African H. erectus fossils represent different populations of a single, highly variable species."
just really floors me. Talk about wishful thinking.
Netflix doesn't show you the rating of a movie; it shows you its best estimate of how well you will like the movie. And does a pretty good job of it, too, once you've rated a few hundred films
I object. I've rated 1623. I find that the suggestion of what I would likely rate something to be off by a whole point (iow- +/- 1.0) or even more. I wish Netflix would go back to prominently showing what the cumulative rating is from their subscribers. That would make comparisons so much more realistic. This "your rating" thing just confuses. I look at the list of suggestions and pick one showing 4 stars. Alas, when I look at the rating from other viewers it's a 3.1. I prefer to see three stars not four in that case.
http://www.wunderground.com/ uses a subscription-or-advertising model where you can have an add-free experience, if you pay a nominal yearly subscription ($5 USD).
When printing articles or copying text from an article, in an encyclopedia, you really need to have add-less pages.
1 and 2 are a given, right? They may not be the rule on the internet as a whole, but certainly for any self-respecting site.
4 - do you want to spend your time on wikipedia looking up information or playing some game with the advertisers? I don't see the point to this one.
3 - wtf. Like the anti-pirating inserts in my recent DVD's ?! Or perhaps you could propose an example. I'm just having trouble seeing any advertising as 'for the common good' and especially for whose good by whose measure.... sorry, not meaning a troll here but you asked.
I would add a number 5 - adds must be as irrelevent to the content as possible. In a page describing heart medications, would you want a specific brand name to have a presence? So #2 would be modified to stress the not-insensitive part.
However, I'd most certainly prefer Wikipedia remain independent of add revenue.
The thing that really bothers me about MSO2007 ribbon UI is that I have to click every tab, translate the icons into a concept of what they will do, and often click several icons on the tab to open up their sub-menus (eg. Review - Translation Tool Tip) when I want to do something which I don't remember the exact location on the ribbon or that I think *might* be possible if only I can find the correct menu.
With the traditional menu I can open it, run my mouse down and along and very quickly I have interrogated every menu item. Most, if not all, of those options will have been in plain human language which I find much easier to scan than icons.
Slashdot Mirror
because they can't get it to, like actually, work.
Cloud is an architecture limited to guaranteed-connection, high-shareability situations.
You would not use a computer which only booted if the internet connection were available (to pull in the cloud pieces). You would not face an executive meeting in 25 minutes with only cloud-reliability office applications.
Reliability is not the same as Availability. Your cloud vision fails when the latter is paramount.
Ubiquity is not the same as Reliability.
How much should Google spend on the three?
well the point would be that true preemptive multiasking was offered with windows386 and matured into the NT kernel, IIRC. Clearly (cooperative mutlitasking) Windows 1 and 2 were TSR. AFAIR that technique remained through Windows 95. Also, IIRC, it was Windows SE that tried to break with that old "side winder" TSR heredity.
Gotta call BS. I think I know what you mean but you have to agree they capitulated early-on?
http://users.erols.com/whitaker/wordsos2.htm
WORDS - Version 1.97 for OS/2 (i386)
Ported to OS/2 by Fr. Mike Thompson (mbt@gator.net) The latest version, 1.97, was released on August 30, 2001.
And the FAQ actually says 286 or better... http://www.faqs.org/faqs/Team-OS2-FAQ/
4(a) - History of OS/2
In 1987, IBM and Microsoft released OS/2 version 1.0 as the successor to MS
DOS, the PC operating system shipped with the original IBM PC. OS/2 ran on a
286 or better processor, and required a minimum of 2MB of RAM.
Like Underwriter's Laboratory, a certification to the buyer that their product is infection free could provide the buyer some recourse and some confidence. This is one of those areas that few like to admit are resonant with Federal power but I think this is critical in the consumer computer market. There's a bit of purchasing stasis due, currently, to consumer confidence.
Finding a pre-infection on new Windows gear is not helpful.
Even for the low-margin picture frame, I'd assert there should be a guarantee through an accrediting body like the UL.
The magic of linux is that you don't get it from one-source like Microsoft. Even Fedora has viable competitors. If you chose you could use a hardened version. Or you could even build from source only on a hardened machine. While what you say is true it is not helpful; The *vendor* of those *devices* propagated the infection. (Hi Velma! ;)
And your assertion that any device can transport infections is true but does not go far enough. It perfectly highlights the need for an infrastructure integration proving ground just like the UL. Nothing about the OS is relevant because it's the vendors' processes that are compromised.
I'd be way happier with the latter two. Not concerned if Windows is open source. But real virtual desktops and a package manager are critical. Virtual desktops because, as anyone who uses them knows, they are just wickedly useful.
The Package Manager is the place where most infections occur on Windows. If only MSPackageInstaller process had permissions to install programs (eg place an executable binary into Path) **and the social-engineering of UAC were replaced** then a real authentication provides credentials to install. **and fix Windows' obsolescent reliance on three file description characters** then a more transportable and peer-reviewed association to executive.
Well, this particular part of it all has been working well outside of Windows for a long time now.
I dislike Ubuntu for relying on sudo credentials. I want to change the system on Ubuntu and my own password are required. On Fedora, they still require, my *root* password is to be supplied. I prefer that so that anyone with connection access has two levels of authentication.
But still, these are critical areas that Windows 7 do not address.
Really good points and I'd mod you up if I could.
Bastardizing DOS to take their OS offerings to the next level (eg. compete with Apple Mac and IBM OS/2) was probably the *worst* choice in computer history.
I'd phrase this a little more strongly than you; Windows (including Vista) goes brain-dead without extensions. I find linux from recent distro releases to handle it pretty well. Most of the time my experience is that files move across my home LAN and are properly identified regardless of their source and naming. While anecdotal, "Most of the time" is better than on Windows. I can't say about OSX (but did not enjoy the experience of file handling and maintenance on OSX8 and 9. ;)
I think the future is in files identifying their mime type and presume that mime types gain stronger standardization.
Car and Camera analogies. cool....
If your tire goes flat on your car you don't waste any time with the fix. You do it yourself or you find someone who has the needed skills and availability. Note Availability. You can find that expertise in a lot of ways and the problem might be more along the lines of finding immediate communications than of finding the expertise.
That's not so different from the situation with the camera since, if you want to use it, you find someone to fix it.
Your computer is more like a drippy faucet. If you don't mind the ugly sounds and unappeasing smells it makes then you can just go on ignoring it. No matter the wife can't sleep due to the drip...drip...drip....drip.
It doesn't seem to me that forcing a user to install h/er OS would provide anything in terms of security consciousness. What it *could* do is provide a clean baseline that is certifiably infection-free. Useful if you need to reinstall. Critical if your "recovery media" are infected. That whole idea of a "clean baseline" would, however, contribute to security consciousness.
OEMs should be required to provide certified-infection-free products.
So should car vendors, but that's another rant ;)
Probably a connection to yourself is not seen to add value in the networking sense. /nitpicker out ;)
except 8 is gray not indigo
you'd think a bunch of programmers could see the error here...
Ask those 1000 persons "Do you own a computer? If you do, do you run linux?". We don't care about the granularity of what percentage windows or mac or solaris is... just which of the Yes I own a computer are *also* Yes I run linux.
My bet; about 10 percent of computer users run linux somewheres, sometimes. They may not know it though, especially if it's Ubuntu ;) as they're probably recipient of a linux-advocate. Now, *that's* guesswork :)
This sounds like an insider attack as there are just too many coincidences. Backups gone missing, many sites hacked, demand for millions of dollars (pay to whom?!), etc. No wonder every information request is referred to the FBI.
There was an updated posted and the author found that installers can trigger the limit.
Have to wonder just how much installing a user of such a limited machine would be doing. But, Murphy obliges, so it would probably become a problem at the worst possible time. Closing applications (web browser, document viewer, etc.) that you have open to help you make the right choices in the installation would be a huge PITA.
I'd make a guess that 'compliant' installers won't trigger the limit, but the details of which installers the author tried are absent.
Oracle-Sun: Jonathan Schwartz Writes His Toughest Ever Email
http://eclipse.sys-con.com/node/926256/print
"...All members of the board present at the meeting to review the transaction voted for it with enthusiasm, and the transaction stands to utterly transform the marketplace - bringing together two companies with a long history of working together to create a newly unified vision of the future."...
I am saddened more by your comment than any other I've seen on /. in a long time. To find you moderated Insightful actually scares me. I'll paste the text of the Fourth Ammendment below and ask you to find the Exception clause. You know, that one that provides for contravention of the ammendment when the person is guilty. (I feel dirty having typed that last phrase).
You do remember that a person is not guilty until found so by proper judicial proceedings. Right? Right?!
Ammendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I suppose you meant that it's a violation in any case but especially for those who are never found guilty.
But that is not what you said.
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83
"Most bills passed by Congress try to hide what their subject is by resorting to propagandistic titles such as the "No Child Left Behind Act," or the "PATRIOT Act," or the "Protect America Act." No one wants to be accused of voting to leave children behind, or against patriotism, or against protecting America, but none of these bill titles actually describe the subjects of these bills. So . . . ... A BILL
To prohibit the abuse of legislative power: by requiring that each bill or amendment hereinafter introduced (other than concurrent resolutions or appropriations bills within the jurisdictional authority of each subcommittee of each Appropriations Committee) be limited to only one subject, so as to end the practice of addressing more than one subject in a single bill; by requiring that each bill's single subject be descriptively expressed in the title thereto; by requiring each appropriation bill, including any supplemental appropriation bill, by amendment or otherwise, not to contain any general legislation or change of existing law not germane to the subject matter of said bill; by requiring each bill amending an existing statutory provision to set forth in full in the amendatory bill the section as it would read if the proposed amendment were adopted; by declaring that all bills enacted in violation of this Act shall be void, having no legal effect whatsoever, which should be treated as nullities by the American people, this Act being mandatory in purpose, not directory only."
Installed. Thank Wou.
That is wery helful! It's ween a lowg timw sinwe W www a *LOSS OF CARRIER*
You have been hired to fill a new position and you see your responsibility as covering the licensing of software. Is that really your charter? If you can drive the idea that you can only work with company property, then you immediately presage any direct involvement with such extra-ware.
I'd say have a talk with your attorney because you have already committed to something. Saying your are the "IT Manager" really doesn't help us much. Being the first IT Guy, well, are there more than just you? I think you see the obvious question here.
Every computer-using company faces the same issue. So long as users can install software they will (prev. it guy not withstanding) and you cannot be responsible for misuse of company property by others than yourself. You need to drive the compromise that a list of software is supported by you and there is an as-needed channel and that you need a budget for supported softare.
And talk to a layer....
>"Proof of Concept"...was the very earliest stage of technological development
so I read that as saying it's been proposed.
And they would really really like to have some .gov pay for it all, but... no promises on results!
sheesh.
well, you have to give credit (or something) to someone who'd start out a philosophical rant with 'Oh dear god'....
this quote from that article:
"My hunch," Dr. Lieberman wrote, "is that the Dmanisi and early African H. erectus fossils represent different populations of a single, highly variable species."
just really floors me. Talk about wishful thinking.
I object. I've rated 1623. I find that the suggestion of what I would likely rate something to be off by a whole point (iow- +/- 1.0) or even more. I wish Netflix would go back to prominently showing what the cumulative rating is from their subscribers. That would make comparisons so much more realistic. This "your rating" thing just confuses. I look at the list of suggestions and pick one showing 4 stars. Alas, when I look at the rating from other viewers it's a 3.1. I prefer to see three stars not four in that case.
I agree with your sentiment, but -not trolling just ignorant-, what is the unconstrained alternative?
I don't have mod points but +1 Informational. I never understood why search wasn't finding files and fell back to cygwin with grep.
The Search Desktop 4.0 has not changed that perspective.
http://www.wunderground.com/ uses a subscription-or-advertising model where you can have an add-free experience, if you pay a nominal yearly subscription ($5 USD).
When printing articles or copying text from an article, in an encyclopedia, you really need to have add-less pages.
1 and 2 are a given, right? They may not be the rule on the internet as a whole, but certainly for any self-respecting site.
4 - do you want to spend your time on wikipedia looking up information or playing some game with the advertisers? I don't see the point to this one.
3 - wtf. Like the anti-pirating inserts in my recent DVD's ?! Or perhaps you could propose an example. I'm just having trouble seeing any advertising as 'for the common good' and especially for whose good by whose measure.... sorry, not meaning a troll here but you asked.
I would add a number 5 - adds must be as irrelevent to the content as possible. In a page describing heart medications, would you want a specific brand name to have a presence? So #2 would be modified to stress the not-insensitive part.
However, I'd most certainly prefer Wikipedia remain independent of add revenue.
I agree and kudos for the well-expressed points.
The thing that really bothers me about MSO2007 ribbon UI is that I have to click every tab, translate the icons into a concept of what they will do, and often click several icons on the tab to open up their sub-menus (eg. Review - Translation Tool Tip) when I want to do something which I don't remember the exact location on the ribbon or that I think *might* be possible if only I can find the correct menu.
With the traditional menu I can open it, run my mouse down and along and very quickly I have interrogated every menu item. Most, if not all, of those options will have been in plain human language which I find much easier to scan than icons.