You do realize where you are posting right? And who this is about (MS?)? Of course this is true. Just like it's true that when you buy a MiniMac god gives the world a cute new puppy.
So, a company may decide to no longer operate a subdivision because the governments of the country it is in tool hostile action.
Sounds completely reasonable to me.
it is AMAZING how many/. people are positively communist int heir willingness to have government run their world.
"i don't see how getting windows to do less out of the box is good for competition..."
When it became clear to many peopel that, unlike what they wanted to believe, MS delivered features peopel actually wanted and were hard to duplicate the did the only thing they could do instead of compete.
Litigate.
I love the/. mindset here - governments lookign into stealing is bad, governments forcing a company to criple software is good - if its a company we hate.
"I have an iPod and I use iTunes, but the thing I don't get is that when Microsoft propose DRM, the sky is falling but when Apple do exactly the same thing with the addition of the fact that to play back your music you need a software player and a portable device that you can only get from them, then this isn't criticised. Bizarre."
Welcome to/. Anything Microsoft does is bad, any turd Apple wraps in white and grey plastic is awesome, inoovative and fun!
Essentially, since most peopel on/. like to feel that they are elite and special they fit Apples demographic - people who like to feel elite and special.
If you are anti MS and pro Apple you are double special!
but instead protect against anything that intentionally restrains trade
Thats really the problem here. "Anything that intentionally restrains trade" can also be construed as "doing anything so well that some loser feels like he can't compete".
If we had the same rules for everything else in life being extremely good looking as a model would be "monopolistic" and being the fastest person on earth in sports would make you a law breaker.
Or to put it another way, in reality Microsoft really fails quite often
So, Microsoft is working in a comeptative environment where it's size, money and the "tactics" that/. believes in so desperately don't guarentee it sucess.
So it competes, winning some, losing some... in exactly the way many here claim it doesn't have to.
You actually really believe that some new idea of a better operating system would actually stand a chance to survive in today's market?
That depends...
Can they bring it to market?
Can they capitalize it's development?
Are they comeptent?
Is there a market for another OS not being met by a current one?
Is the new OS enough of an advantage to make the conversion cost a non issue?
Is it dependable?
Is it usable?
Will the company be percieved as strong enough to attract developers?
See... the fact that someone has a "better idea" has never been the only factor in business... in any business. Thats not MS's fault, thats reality.
I may have a great idea for a better toaster - but if I can't fund development, productionand advertising it doesn't amke a damn bit of difference... unless yous omehow think it is an obligation for yoru competators to pay for your start up costs?
Linux, for example, had a compelling story for a while... and it succeeded. So clearly when the right factors happen it can be done.
What can Microsoft do inorder for you to say, this is a turning point that will satisfy both us/.ers and the Microsoft people.
Nothing. The hatred is born of nothing in it's core and justified by nothing.
By hating MS they feel 3l33t. By hating MS they justify piracy. By hating MS they feel like the underdog. By blaming MS they excuse their own failures.
Hating MS is, in many ways, the glue that holds this community (/. ) together. They have a vested emotional interest in never, ever, letting it go.
If they do have to, they will then turn to hating the "record industry" or the "poatent office" and as a last resort Apple computer (after SCO and IBM).
Alas, do you understand what a monopoly is? There are lots of things better than Microsoft's crap. The problem is their preditory business practices that our Federal Government chooses to endorse.
This is a great fiction. It is one so powerful, and so appealing to those who have failed to compete that it has now entered the realm of religeous truth.
Now, obviously MS has done some illegal things, like all large companies have - but the illusion that the only reasont hey stay on top is because of this and not their product is to forever misunderstand your opponent.
However, it seems clear many woudl rather be wrong and fail with their elitism intact than see the real issues at work and get going on actually competing.
This isn't because it is impossible to exchange information between most versions, but because for the average office drone the concept of saving in a reverse compatible format is to much of a hassel.
So Microsoft is to blame because users don't know how to make use of the tool stitting right in front of them.
Man, it will be interesting if Linux ever makes it big on the desktop and all these problems happen again and I get to see people say "It's not Linux's fault the users are stupid!"
Oh, wait - if we replace the word "user" with "administrator" we can see this double standard at work today.
Further, if MS had kept the formats the same since 97 and never added a feature, or made an improvement we could then watch people trash them for moving too slow.
As for the truck analogy - it's a bad one. Try this...
"That damn Internet conspiracy! I can't get all the data I need to run a business because I won't upgrade from my telegraph! It's a conspiracy to keep me from doing business I tell you! Bah progress! Humbug!"
Except as describe this only applies to situations where the Workstation is part of a domain, and thus the domain admin is a logical holder of such a backup key.
I am missing the problem part.
If all you want is a dialog box that says "HEy, your admin can also decrypt this" then I can see that as being a useful, but not crucial, change.
Would it be possible to design an enryption system such that if semi-trusted party X spent Y CPU-cycles brute-forcing, it could be broken, but for all other parties no?
It's already done - several vendors implement systems where a master key can unlock sub-keys.
Slashdot Mirror
The MMSRT (the removal tool) does not install anything, it leaves behind no icons or whatever and you don;t have to "run" anything after.
the "installation" mechanism runs the tool, which does it's job and leaves nothing behind. No further action is required.
"Doesn't anyone know what that means any more?
/. people are positively communist int heir willingness to have government run their world.
You do realize where you are posting right? And who this is about (MS?)? Of course this is true. Just like it's true that when you buy a MiniMac god gives the world a cute new puppy.
So, a company may decide to no longer operate a subdivision because the governments of the country it is in tool hostile action.
Sounds completely reasonable to me.
it is AMAZING how many
"Have a reality check; all companies do this"
/. if you actually do it well enough to suceed on a massive scale you spontaneously turn evil.
Of course, but in the land of
"i don't see how getting windows to do less out of the box is good for competition..."
/. mindset here - governments lookign into stealing is bad, governments forcing a company to criple software is good - if its a company we hate.
When it became clear to many peopel that, unlike what they wanted to believe, MS delivered features peopel actually wanted and were hard to duplicate the did the only thing they could do instead of compete.
Litigate.
I love the
"I have an iPod and I use iTunes, but the thing I don't get is that when Microsoft propose DRM, the sky is falling but when Apple do exactly the same thing with the addition of the fact that to play back your music you need a software player and a portable device that you can only get from them, then this isn't criticised. Bizarre."
/. Anything Microsoft does is bad, any turd Apple wraps in white and grey plastic is awesome, inoovative and fun!
/. like to feel that they are elite and special they fit Apples demographic - people who like to feel elite and special.
Welcome to
Essentially, since most peopel on
If you are anti MS and pro Apple you are double special!
"does microsoft have agents on slashdot whose job is to sway opinion, blunt criticism, etc. with regard to microsoft/windows etc?"
/. >IS is a group of people who have made it their lifes work to sway opinion about Miscrosoft.
Dude, all
Oh... and pirate music / movies in the name of "freedom".
"It would really be nice if someone actually posted something that made it sound like they actually wanted to start a discussion.
/. - bashing Microsoft with mostly ill-informed and knee jerk responses >IS what passed for discussion.
Dude, this is
but instead protect against anything that intentionally restrains trade
Thats really the problem here. "Anything that intentionally restrains trade" can also be construed as "doing anything so well that some loser feels like he can't compete".
If we had the same rules for everything else in life being extremely good looking as a model would be "monopolistic" and being the fastest person on earth in sports would make you a law breaker.
"An exploit for one JVM wont necessarily work in another JVM"
Hell, in a lot of cases even non-buggy code for one JVM can't run ont he others. This is one of the places where Java fell down big time.
"but we've got to accept that this seems to be one they got right"
/. right?
You do know you're on
Or to put it another way, in reality Microsoft really fails quite often
/. believes in so desperately don't guarentee it sucess.
So, Microsoft is working in a comeptative environment where it's size, money and the "tactics" that
So it competes, winning some, losing some... in exactly the way many here claim it doesn't have to.
You actually really believe that some new idea of a better operating system would actually stand a chance to survive in today's market?
...
That depends
Can they bring it to market?
Can they capitalize it's development?
Are they comeptent?
Is there a market for another OS not being met by a current one?
Is the new OS enough of an advantage to make the conversion cost a non issue?
Is it dependable?
Is it usable?
Will the company be percieved as strong enough to attract developers?
See... the fact that someone has a "better idea" has never been the only factor in business... in any business. Thats not MS's fault, thats reality.
I may have a great idea for a better toaster - but if I can't fund development, productionand advertising it doesn't amke a damn bit of difference... unless yous omehow think it is an obligation for yoru competators to pay for your start up costs?
Linux, for example, had a compelling story for a while... and it succeeded. So clearly when the right factors happen it can be done.
MS would have to compete on merits, not on their monopoly, from now on. That doesn't sound something MS would want to do.
The thing most people seem to miss, and always underestimate, is that MS does and can compete on merits.
To ignore this is to continually be confused about why they stomp you flat.
What can Microsoft do inorder for you to say, this is a turning point that will satisfy both us /.ers and the Microsoft people.
/. ) together. They have a vested emotional interest in never, ever, letting it go.
Nothing. The hatred is born of nothing in it's core and justified by nothing.
By hating MS they feel 3l33t.
By hating MS they justify piracy.
By hating MS they feel like the underdog.
By blaming MS they excuse their own failures.
Hating MS is, in many ways, the glue that holds this community (
If they do have to, they will then turn to hating the "record industry" or the "poatent office" and as a last resort Apple computer (after SCO and IBM).
Someone to hate is imperative.
Alas, do you understand what a monopoly is? There are lots of things better than Microsoft's crap. The problem is their preditory business practices that our Federal Government chooses to endorse.
This is a great fiction. It is one so powerful, and so appealing to those who have failed to compete that it has now entered the realm of religeous truth.
Now, obviously MS has done some illegal things, like all large companies have - but the illusion that the only reasont hey stay on top is because of this and not their product is to forever misunderstand your opponent.
However, it seems clear many woudl rather be wrong and fail with their elitism intact than see the real issues at work and get going on actually competing.
This isn't because it is impossible to exchange information between most versions, but because for the average office drone the concept of saving in a reverse compatible format is to much of a hassel.
...
So Microsoft is to blame because users don't know how to make use of the tool stitting right in front of them.
Man, it will be interesting if Linux ever makes it big on the desktop and all these problems happen again and I get to see people say "It's not Linux's fault the users are stupid!"
Oh, wait - if we replace the word "user" with "administrator" we can see this double standard at work today.
Further, if MS had kept the formats the same since 97 and never added a feature, or made an improvement we could then watch people trash them for moving too slow.
As for the truck analogy - it's a bad one. Try this
"That damn Internet conspiracy! I can't get all the data I need to run a business because I won't upgrade from my telegraph! It's a conspiracy to keep me from doing business I tell you! Bah progress! Humbug!"
Mini-PCs are nothing new, Apple wasn't first.
Hey, they've been busy "inventing" the concept of an MP3 player. Thank god we have Apple out there working for us.
Otherwise knows as "Interactive Fiction".
Cause when you hunt through a website hoping to find a clue to the hidden agenda in an ALT tag, thats what you have.
http://www.argn.com/
other customer-installable parts
The Mac Mini page states that on the Mini memory is not considered customer installable.
Except as describe this only applies to situations where the Workstation is part of a domain, and thus the domain admin is a logical holder of such a backup key.
I am missing the problem part.
If all you want is a dialog box that says "HEy, your admin can also decrypt this" then I can see that as being a useful, but not crucial, change.
You can chalk this one up to careless admins
:)
Absolutely. And that is where the blame belongs - with a small nod that MySQL should not have remote admin on by default.
Of course, if this had been a MS product then it would be all MS's fault and the admins would not be to blame...
Why on God's green earth are you using such an unsecurable platform as Windows?
That there is nothing specific to windows about this attack means nothing of course.
This is yet another solved problem.
So MS solves the problem exactly the way everyone else does (alternate keys and key holders) and your upset becase...
Oh wait... because it's Microsoft.
Some /. user hates Microsoft and has an elitist attitude that the rest of the population is stupid.
Film at 11.
Would it be possible to design an enryption system such that if semi-trusted party X spent Y CPU-cycles brute-forcing, it could be broken, but for all other parties no?
It's already done - several vendors implement systems where a master key can unlock sub-keys.