I've bitten my tongue so far, instead of responding to all the people ranting about how the ILOVEYOU "virus" is evidence of "security holes" in Outlook. (Inicidentally, ILOVEYOU is neither a virus nor a worm, but rather a trojan horse.)
You've got it right... there is a reason why attacks like these happen to Windows and not other OSs, but it's not security holes, it's just population. Linux viruses don't spread, because Linux machines are far less likely to communicate with other Linux machines than Windows machines are.
I hope you realize, though, that "inbreeding" of code is a much more difficult problem to solve than a simple security hole. In fact, multiple platforms might just cause more problems than they solve; I think it would be more effective to spend time educating users, and the media, and politicians, (and, hell, most Slashdot readers,) so they don't allow incidents like this to happen in the future.
The phrase "operating system" has become rather amorfous to say the least
Actually, that's why I was careful to use the term "systems company", rather than "operating system company". (They're both vague, but at least the first one is blatantly vague.:-))
For better or worse, MS really has succeeded in integrating a lot of functionality into Windows. I don't think ripping all that out would benefit anyone. The really important division is between Office and Windows; IE, "Back Office", and possibly Visual Studio, should all remain in the hands of the people that make Windows.
Now, if I were designing an OS from the ground up, I'd do things differently. A clearly delineated, universal, minimal OS is a good thing. (That's my favorite feature of UN*X, to the extent that it's the case with UN*X.) But the government doesn't have the right or the ability to design OSs, especially not from the Judicial branch.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't think MS is talking about "open source" in any sense; they're talking about opening the Windows APIs, i.e. giving outside developers the same access that the Office developers have. The press constantly confuses "open source" and "open APIs", in their attempts to stupidify news about the MS case.
From a purely selfish perspective (i.e. not considering whether the government has a right to interfere at all,) this is probably my second favorite remedy. My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company. I'm happy (and very surprised) that those seem to be the two options that the court is seriously considering.
Nope. Sorry. Win2k still a reboot if you change nameserver information, which is utterly ridiculous.
It's true that Windows networking has always been the worst when it comes to unnecessary restarts. (Sometimes, on Win9x, if you just look at your settings and then hit "Cancel", you still have to restart. Grrr.) But I just changed my DNS settings several times in Win2K without restarting, so I guess YMMV.
Win2K is much better when it comes to requiring restarts. I believe I installed all of Office 2000 without a single reboot, although I may be mistaken. Sometimes you can even change video drivers without rebooting. (That actually scared the hell out of me when it happened, it's such a foreign concept in Windows.)
Of course, there are still a lot of obnoxious installers that force a restart when it isn't necessary. That's partly why MS wants to make installing apps a service of the OS.
(I'm not a physicist, but I play one on Slashdot. All of the following may be complete B.S.)
I always thought that the amount of mass in the universe was directly related to the curvature of the universe. Too little mass means the universe is open and will expand forever; too much mass means the universe will eventually collapse; just the right amount, and the universe will expand at a constantly decreasing rate, and end up effectively stable.
Physicists have always kind of hoped for the third option, because it makes the math easy. That's why they've been looking for the "extra mass", i.e. dark matter. Now it looks like they've found the extra mass, so we can prove that the universe is flat.
But didn't they just report last week that the universe is open, not flat? Doesn't that contradict this new result?
...
Ahem. And the answer is, no, the report last week also said that the universe is flat. I misremembered.:-/ So the two studies actually agree with each other, and my entire post is moot, right?
Well, I'll post anyway, just in case anyone finds it interesting. Besides, I'd like to know if my understanding of this whole question is correct.
Wow, Douglas Adams! My faith in/. has been restored.
In one or more of your HGttG books, you mention that if humanity ever completely understood our universe, it would instantly be replaced with something much stranger. (Sorry, I'm too excited to find the exact passage right now.) Shortly after I first read that, I heard about a real theory of physics that is strikingly similar... In order to directly study the origins of our universe, we'd need to build a particle accelerator large enough to generate a certain magic number of units of energy -- but it just so happens that putting that much energy in one place would trigger a "phase transition", literally replacing our current universe with a new one. (Again, I haven't done my homework -- local physicists, feel free to correct me.)
Did you know about this theory when you dropped that line into your books, or is the similarity just a bizarre coincidence?
My personal opinion is the telecommunications monopolies are quashing quantum communciations technology because it would obliterate the need for wires.
That's just not true. Excuse the long quote, but it's the best way to answer the question:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Considering all the hype about the GPL on/., you'd think people would at least read it.
But system modal dialogs haven't been allowed since Windows 3.1. Only the OS can prevent you from switching out of a dialog box to another application. (And it only does that rarely... e.g., for the "Are you sure you want to shut down?" box.)
Unfortunately, DirectX provides a lot of loopholes. It's pretty easy to break task-switching on a Win9x machine using DirectX -- the EverQuest client is a notorious example.
Since I've switched to Win2K, no application has ever succeeded in taking exclusive control of the system (not even EverQuest,) but I have occasionally been forced to log off to kill a program.
Excuse my tone, but I think this is the most irresponsible/. article I've seen in a long time.
First, what does this have to do with IBM? The only connection seems to be that it appears in their patent database. Are we suppose to give IBM credit for every patent in their database?
Suggesting that this project is associating with IBM only lends credibility to this ridiculous idea. (If I were IBM, I'd be vehemently demanding a retraction right now.)
As far as the project itself, I'm afraid I'm too tired right now to effectively debunk it, but hopefully some of our local physicists will pick up the ball. All I can say is that if there was any reality to their claims whatsoever, it would completely shatter everything that we know about how the universe works, particularly from the perspective of cognitive science.
(Just in case TPTB retroactively correct this story, as they have in the past, you should know that when I saw the article, it was titled "IBM And Mind Input Devices", and had an IBM logo next to it.)
Between this and Elian (troll), I haven't been this disgusted in a long time.
Coming from the perspective of a Cassiopeia E-105 user, who has owned a PalmPilot and a Newton in the past, but has not seen the new Pocket PCs in person...
So it there are effectively 8 buttons on the Palm, 5 on the Jornada (counting the record button), and 4 on the Cassiopeia
You sure that's right? My Cassiopeia has four app buttons, an "escape" button, an "action" button, and the directional pad (which is also a button.) In addition, there is the two-way rocker and the four-way directional pad. Have they removed some of these? (That would actually be a good idea, IMHO, but I doubt it has happened.)
They claim no performance hit on the PC when this is running.
I hate to knock WinCE based on anecdotal evidence, but on my PC, ActiveSync 3.0 uses about 8% of the CPU when it is otherwise idle. I'm pretty sure this is phantom CPU usage (I haven't had any problem playing Quake while it's running,) but I'm still troubled by it. Does anyone know what the deal is?
almost anything the PocketPC does out of the box you can get for a Palm via third party software or hardware
But remember that all of that third-party software uses up some of your 8 MB of RAM. A Pocket PC with all those features still has all its memory free.
There is no dedicated entry area as there is on the Palms.
You mention this several times, as though it were a good thing. I can't imagine how an unbiased user would prefer to have a third of his potential screen area dedicated to a function which may only be used 20% of the time. Personally, I really appreciate using that extra inch and a half to view web pages, read email, etc.
You can't use a pen stroke [for "return" or "backspace"] the way you can with Graffiti.
Has this changed in WinCE 3.0? On my WinCE 2.x machine, those strokes work just like on the Palm. Maybe the new buttons are just alternatives?
The Home App on both devices is similar to the Launcher on PalmOS, but not really. It doesn't list all the programs on the device.
You neglect to mention that it does list your new email messages, your high priority tasks, your appointments for the day, etc. (You can set it up to show pretty much anything.) I find that feature really useful, and my PalmPilot Pro didn't have it. Do the new Palms do that?
Then there's also the Programs item in the Start Menu, which lists more programs. The lists don't coincide.
This is intentional. With so little space on the screen, why would you put the same item in two places? The Programs folder is supposed to be for less frequently-used apps. (That's the philosophy, anyway, I'm not sure I like it.)
In addition, some programs you close with the "Tools | Exit" menu (which is at the bottom of the screen) and some you close with an "ok" button in the upper right corner. Others don't seem to have an Exit option, at least not one that is obvious.
I went crazy looking for the "exit" command for the first week that I had my Cassiopeia. Eventually, I understood the way CE works... Since processes are persistent, you're never supposed to exit them. They just go away when the OS decides it's time. Dialog boxes, of course, have "ok" buttons, just like in a Desktop OS. Unfortunately, some badly written third-party apps have "exit" commands, which is confusing.
Programs are copied from "storage" RAM to "active" RAM to run
Of course, almost everything you'd ever want to use is actually stored in ROM, not RAM. (See above.)
If you run out of "active" RAM, you have to close programs
This is a little misleading. The OS swaps programs out of memory automatically, and it's completely transparent. I suppose that if you didn't even have enough RAM to run a single program, you might have a problem, but I've never seen that happen.
You know, when the reviewer prefaces almost every fact with "supposedly", it kind of damages the credibility of the review. The facts in this review are basically accurate, but the tone should be taken with a grain of salt.
And speaking of credibility... I've been posting like crazy in defense of WinCE lately. I'm not a shill for Microsoft, and I'm not even really much of a Microsoft booster. I do get a little annoyed at the severe hypocrisy among/.ers (who seem to love monopolies, as long as they aren't Microsoft,) but that's not why I'm defending WinCE... I honestly just think that it's a shame that geeks are letting their bias prevent them from enjoying what is clearly the cooler, more geek-friendly option.
Of course, both of these systems require a special proxy server (free service) to reduce the complexity of html/images. Perhaps this is the limitation you are refering to?
This thread is pretty stale, but you asked a question, so... Yes, that is what I had in mind. It was wrong of me to call Proxiweb a "web-clipping" system, but I don't think it's a "real web browser" in any reasonable sense, just because it requires that you support it with your own server. It looks like AvantGo might actually be a real web browser, although they don't make that very clear in their ads.
Anyway, I'll concede that there are web browsers for the Palms. (It's a law of nature that if a computer is capable of doing something, someone will write the software.) My original point was that it doesn't include a real web browser, unlike the new WinCE machines.
Well, there are web browsers for the palm pilot. www.proxinet.com, www.avantgo.com, and handweb(don't know the url off-hand) just to name a few.
The first two aren't web browsers, they're web clipping systems. The third is discontinued. (http://www.smartcodesoft.com/)
There may very well be web browsers for the Palm out there, but you've got to be look carefully... The claims they make about fake browsers like AvantGo are downright deceptive.
No, he was stating that the MS comparison list was using the term out-of-the-box misleadingly and compensating accordingly.
Whoops, you're right. But I don't think there's anything misleading about making an out-of-the-box comparison... All those add-ons he mentioned add up to a sizable amount of money, as well as a sizeable chunk of the Palm's tiny RAM space.
Nothing on color screen is readable in direct sunlight. My libretto can't show shit in those situation.
Your Libretto does not use the same technology that's in a Cassiopeia. I can't remember what it is, but I do remember that when it was first introduced, the Cassiopeia was the first commercial product to use that kind of display.
Sigh... I guess I'll have to rummage around for some info to back this up... *rummages*... *rummages*...
Okay, I can't find any, and I'm tired. But just trust me on this: Don't judge the Cassiopeia's screen based on other color LCDs. It's different.
Hmmm... I actually thought the WinCE machine would be cheaper, but it sure isn't "2-3 times as much." 'Course, these are list prices. I bet the difference is even smaller at retail.
For anyone who has used a CE device (and I have) you realize just how much they behave like windows... EXACTLY like Windows
Have you read the linked-to articles? The whole point of "Pocket PC" is that it no longer uses the Windows interface. The Pocket PC interface is designed for palmtops. They've eliminated all the features from WinCE that don't make sense on a palmtop, like double-taps, a task bar, and cascading menus. (Not sure I like that last change, but we'll see.)
They fail to mention that the Palm, along with a modem, also allows unlimited web access.
Is that true? I know the Palm OS is capable of using a real PPP connection, but I don't believe that it includes a web browser. (Or even a POP3 email program.)
Others in this thread have effectively refuted most of this FUD, but let me just add a few points:
Of course we're talking Pocket Outlook Express here.
No, we're talking about Pocket Outlook. (And yes, there is a difference.)
Web-Browsing: Well, considering the resolution (320x240) there aren't many sites that will come across looking decent in the first place.
FWIW, I use iBrowser on my Cassiopeia, and it's not that bad. The software scales images, so the formatting looks roughly the same even on such a narrow screen. I'm sure Pocket IE will do the same.
Color: Hope the sun isn't out, right?:)
I can't speak for the other Pocket PC's, but Casio's line uses some kind of magic display technology that's far more readable in sunlight than a black-and-white Palm is.
Multimail Pro... Pocket Quicken...
Sorry, didn't you say you were comparing them "out-of-the-box"? According to Palm's website, neither of these two programs are included with the Palm IIIc. (And as others have pointed out, even if you buy them separately, you would have to waste RAM on them.)
Play MP3s: Pocket PC, 32Mb. Rio, IIRC, 96Mb. There is a reason why I don't want my Palm to do MP3s, the specialized device does it better.
If I ever actually wanted to play MP3s on my WinCE machine, I'd pop in a 340 MB hard drive. You don't have that option on Plams. (Do you?)
Most of your complaints seem to be that Pocket PCs have too many features (at roughly the same price.) Why exactly is that a problem?
I've had a Cassiopeia E-105 for six months now, and it is definitely not a WinCE 3.0 machine. According to Casio's press release, the model introduced today is the E-115. I haven't seen any information about its specs or size, so it may be quite different from the E-105. (Though I doubt it.)
I think the Pocket PCs are dandy. It looks like Microsoft has really combined the best features of WinCE (applications, a real OS, support for better hardware,) with the best features of Palm's and their kin (a simple and fast interface, USB support.)
Those of you who are complaining about the speed of current WinCE devices, you should note that the current version of WinCE wastes massive amounts of CPU time pretending to be Windows. Now that Microsoft has given up on making WinCE look just like Windows, it's reported that the new OS runs more than twice as fast on the same hardware.
The new natural handwriting recognition is supposed to be optional. (I had a Newton too, and it was a pain.) Palm-style letter recognition will still be available, as it is in current WinCE machines.
Incidentally, my Cassiopeia hasn't crashed once. I'm not sure where all these WinCE instability stories are coming from. (But I have an idea...)
I won't bother commenting on this guy's position, I'm sure I'd be preaching to the chorus. But considering that/.ers will use almost any story as an excuse to rant about CSS, patents, or Linux, I'm suprised nobody has pointed out the following:
Mr. Billington, despite all his apparent distaste for technology, is the man responsible for determining if DeCSS is legal or not. He is given that authority by the DMCA, section 1201, subparagraph C. To be specific, DeCSS is assumed to be illegal, unless the Librarian of Congress decides that making it illegal would significantly impact the ability of DVD owners to make "non-infringing use" of their discs. (I.e., play them in Linux.)
To those of you that were enjoying your break from the CSS flame wars, I apologize, but somebody had to bring it up...
It's even got a modest execution time... (largest loop -- while (rot--){...} -- rot is max 127 -- rot=(...)%128;) nothin too complex there...
Of course, {...} includes a loop that iterates 65 times, which ups the running time somewhat. You're right, though, it does look quite simple.
I still don't quite get what it does, though, and I accidentally hit "refresh" after the site was/.ed, so I won't get to look at it again for a while now.
Is decoding password hashes really a big deal? I never thought they were supposed to be that airtight.
Slashdot Mirror
I've bitten my tongue so far, instead of responding to all the people ranting about how the ILOVEYOU "virus" is evidence of "security holes" in Outlook. (Inicidentally, ILOVEYOU is neither a virus nor a worm, but rather a trojan horse.)
You've got it right... there is a reason why attacks like these happen to Windows and not other OSs, but it's not security holes, it's just population. Linux viruses don't spread, because Linux machines are far less likely to communicate with other Linux machines than Windows machines are.
I hope you realize, though, that "inbreeding" of code is a much more difficult problem to solve than a simple security hole. In fact, multiple platforms might just cause more problems than they solve; I think it would be more effective to spend time educating users, and the media, and politicians, (and, hell, most Slashdot readers,) so they don't allow incidents like this to happen in the future.
For better or worse, MS really has succeeded in integrating a lot of functionality into Windows. I don't think ripping all that out would benefit anyone. The really important division is between Office and Windows; IE, "Back Office", and possibly Visual Studio, should all remain in the hands of the people that make Windows.
Now, if I were designing an OS from the ground up, I'd do things differently. A clearly delineated, universal, minimal OS is a good thing. (That's my favorite feature of UN*X, to the extent that it's the case with UN*X.) But the government doesn't have the right or the ability to design OSs, especially not from the Judicial branch.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't think MS is talking about "open source" in any sense; they're talking about opening the Windows APIs, i.e. giving outside developers the same access that the Office developers have. The press constantly confuses "open source" and "open APIs", in their attempts to stupidify news about the MS case.
From a purely selfish perspective (i.e. not considering whether the government has a right to interfere at all,) this is probably my second favorite remedy. My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company. I'm happy (and very surprised) that those seem to be the two options that the court is seriously considering.
Win2K is much better when it comes to requiring restarts. I believe I installed all of Office 2000 without a single reboot, although I may be mistaken. Sometimes you can even change video drivers without rebooting. (That actually scared the hell out of me when it happened, it's such a foreign concept in Windows.)
Of course, there are still a lot of obnoxious installers that force a restart when it isn't necessary. That's partly why MS wants to make installing apps a service of the OS.
(I'm not a physicist, but I play one on Slashdot. All of the following may be complete B.S.)
:-/ So the two studies actually agree with each other, and my entire post is moot, right?
I always thought that the amount of mass in the universe was directly related to the curvature of the universe. Too little mass means the universe is open and will expand forever; too much mass means the universe will eventually collapse; just the right amount, and the universe will expand at a constantly decreasing rate, and end up effectively stable.
Physicists have always kind of hoped for the third option, because it makes the math easy. That's why they've been looking for the "extra mass", i.e. dark matter. Now it looks like they've found the extra mass, so we can prove that the universe is flat.
But didn't they just report last week that the universe is open, not flat? Doesn't that contradict this new result?
...
Ahem. And the answer is, no, the report last week also said that the universe is flat. I misremembered.
Well, I'll post anyway, just in case anyone finds it interesting. Besides, I'd like to know if my understanding of this whole question is correct.
Wow, Douglas Adams! My faith in /. has been restored.
In one or more of your HGttG books, you mention that if humanity ever completely understood our universe, it would instantly be replaced with something much stranger. (Sorry, I'm too excited to find the exact passage right now.) Shortly after I first read that, I heard about a real theory of physics that is strikingly similar... In order to directly study the origins of our universe, we'd need to build a particle accelerator large enough to generate a certain magic number of units of energy -- but it just so happens that putting that much energy in one place would trigger a "phase transition", literally replacing our current universe with a new one. (Again, I haven't done my homework -- local physicists, feel free to correct me.)
Did you know about this theory when you dropped that line into your books, or is the similarity just a bizarre coincidence?
Unfortunately, DirectX provides a lot of loopholes. It's pretty easy to break task-switching on a Win9x machine using DirectX -- the EverQuest client is a notorious example.
Since I've switched to Win2K, no application has ever succeeded in taking exclusive control of the system (not even EverQuest,) but I have occasionally been forced to log off to kill a program.
Excuse my tone, but I think this is the most irresponsible /. article I've seen in a long time.
First, what does this have to do with IBM? The only connection seems to be that it appears in their patent database. Are we suppose to give IBM credit for every patent in their database?
Suggesting that this project is associating with IBM only lends credibility to this ridiculous idea. (If I were IBM, I'd be vehemently demanding a retraction right now.)
As far as the project itself, I'm afraid I'm too tired right now to effectively debunk it, but hopefully some of our local physicists will pick up the ball. All I can say is that if there was any reality to their claims whatsoever, it would completely shatter everything that we know about how the universe works, particularly from the perspective of cognitive science.
(Just in case TPTB retroactively correct this story, as they have in the past, you should know that when I saw the article, it was titled "IBM And Mind Input Devices", and had an IBM logo next to it.)
Between this and Elian (troll), I haven't been this disgusted in a long time.
You know, when the reviewer prefaces almost every fact with "supposedly", it kind of damages the credibility of the review. The facts in this review are basically accurate, but the tone should be taken with a grain of salt.
And speaking of credibility... I've been posting like crazy in defense of WinCE lately. I'm not a shill for Microsoft, and I'm not even really much of a Microsoft booster. I do get a little annoyed at the severe hypocrisy among
Anyway, I'll concede that there are web browsers for the Palms. (It's a law of nature that if a computer is capable of doing something, someone will write the software.) My original point was that it doesn't include a real web browser, unlike the new WinCE machines.
There may very well be web browsers for the Palm out there, but you've got to be look carefully... The claims they make about fake browsers like AvantGo are downright deceptive.
Sigh... I guess I'll have to rummage around for some info to back this up... *rummages*... *rummages*...
Okay, I can't find any, and I'm tired. But just trust me on this: Don't judge the Cassiopeia's screen based on other color LCDs. It's different.
Cassiopeia E-115: $599
Hmmm... I actually thought the WinCE machine would be cheaper, but it sure isn't "2-3 times as much." 'Course, these are list prices. I bet the difference is even smaller at retail.
No, we're talking about Pocket Outlook. (And yes, there is a difference.)
FWIW, I use iBrowser on my Cassiopeia, and it's not that bad. The software scales images, so the formatting looks roughly the same even on such a narrow screen. I'm sure Pocket IE will do the same.
I can't speak for the other Pocket PC's, but Casio's line uses some kind of magic display technology that's far more readable in sunlight than a black-and-white Palm is.
Sorry, didn't you say you were comparing them "out-of-the-box"? According to Palm's website, neither of these two programs are included with the Palm IIIc. (And as others have pointed out, even if you buy them separately, you would have to waste RAM on them.)
If I ever actually wanted to play MP3s on my WinCE machine, I'd pop in a 340 MB hard drive. You don't have that option on Plams. (Do you?)
Most of your complaints seem to be that Pocket PCs have too many features (at roughly the same price.) Why exactly is that a problem?
I've had a Cassiopeia E-105 for six months now, and it is definitely not a WinCE 3.0 machine. According to Casio's press release, the model introduced today is the E-115. I haven't seen any information about its specs or size, so it may be quite different from the E-105. (Though I doubt it.)
I think the Pocket PCs are dandy. It looks like Microsoft has really combined the best features of WinCE (applications, a real OS, support for better hardware,) with the best features of Palm's and their kin (a simple and fast interface, USB support.)
Those of you who are complaining about the speed of current WinCE devices, you should note that the current version of WinCE wastes massive amounts of CPU time pretending to be Windows. Now that Microsoft has given up on making WinCE look just like Windows, it's reported that the new OS runs more than twice as fast on the same hardware.
Incidentally, my Cassiopeia hasn't crashed once. I'm not sure where all these WinCE instability stories are coming from. (But I have an idea...)
I won't bother commenting on this guy's position, I'm sure I'd be preaching to the chorus. But considering that /.ers will use almost any story as an excuse to rant about CSS, patents, or Linux, I'm suprised nobody has pointed out the following:
Mr. Billington, despite all his apparent distaste for technology, is the man responsible for determining if DeCSS is legal or not. He is given that authority by the DMCA, section 1201, subparagraph C. To be specific, DeCSS is assumed to be illegal, unless the Librarian of Congress decides that making it illegal would significantly impact the ability of DVD owners to make "non-infringing use" of their discs. (I.e., play them in Linux.)
To those of you that were enjoying your break from the CSS flame wars, I apologize, but somebody had to bring it up...
I still don't quite get what it does, though, and I accidentally hit "refresh" after the site was
Is decoding password hashes really a big deal? I never thought they were supposed to be that airtight.