I doubt you could have built a machine as capable as the EMachine for what I paid for it, unless you stole parts. I priced components at Pricewatch, and the EMachine was a better deal, and even had a warranty.
1) I'm an idiot for buying a product that's supposed to work, and expecting it to work, and,
2) I'm an idiot because I'm able to use E Machines as reliable servers by putting Linux on them.
I suppose most of humanity must be ignorant morons, because they pretty much all fall into #1. If everyone has to reinstall Windows, then why bother pre-installing it?
I think that *YOU* are the ignorant moron, and a self-righteous and mouthy one at that.
Good for you. My "Designed for XP," pre-installed with XP, built by HP box, hoses all the time. Explorer crashes. DirectX hangs the machine.
My Linux servers -- one of which is a cheapo EMachine -- stay up for more than a year, if I don't upgrade the kernel. Essentially, they stay up until there's a power failure, hardware upgrade, or kernel upgrade.
I wasn't talking about IIS6, but IIS 5 and earlier. IIS 6 is a little more sane, using named pipes to shuttle data back and forth.
ISAPI filters on Win2k can and do cause bluescreens. I learned this experimentally, while developing an ISAPI filter. In an early development version, I make a mistake with a pointer, and... blue screen! Reliably. Every time. All I had to do was an HTTP GET, and the machine rebooted.
Well, he may have been guessing, but he's right. And it turns out that PRINTER DRIVERS can run in kernel mode, too. Here is confirmation from MSDN -- the horse's mouth, so to speak:
Before version 4.0 of Windows NT®, GDI and all graphics drivers executed in user mode. With version 4.0, these components were moved to kernel mode. While this change provided performance improvements for display devices, performance gains for printing devices were not significant enough to counteract losing the advantages inherent with user-mode execution.
Therefore, for Windows® 2000 and later, you can design a printer graphics DLL to execute in either kernel mode or user mode.
GDI is the intermediary support between a Windows® NT-based graphics driver and an application. Applications call Win32® GDI functions to make graphics output requests. These requests are routed to kernel-mode GDI. Kernel-mode GDI then sends these requests to the appropriate graphics driver, such as a display driver or printer driver. Kernel-mode GDI is a system-supplied module that cannot be replaced.
With this new release [NT 4.0], the Window Manager, GDI, and related graphics device drivers have been moved to the Windows NT Executive running in kernel mode. Both Window Manager and GDI now exist as Windows NT Executive system services.
User mode worker-processes serving a pool pull the requests directly from the kernel and eliminate the unnecessary process hops encountered when having to send a request to an out-of-process DLLhost.
You can 'blue screen' Win2k with an ISAPI filter.
I imagine that David Cutler *HATES* all the crap they've shoveled into his kernel.
Microsoft doesn't offer updates for SQL Server or Office, or Photoshop for that matter, via WindowsUpdate. So why do they need that information to NOT supply updates for those programs?
The operating system is hardly "broken": It merely operates in a fashion that you disagree with. A execute bit or a exe extension hardly seem like the big chasm of difference that you make them out to be.
Yes, yes it is. Any program needs only to register a handler for an extension, and files with that extension become "executable." It's worse with files ending in.bat,.exe and.com extensions -- the OS itself considers them to be programs.
You imply that magic filenames are the same as an execute permission. I'm saying the same thing, but stating that it's a bad idea to confer execute permission to a file based on its name. Why don't you think this is a problem?
You mean like this [microsoft.com] (it prevents Outlook users from being able to access executable content)?
That's specific to outlook. It doesn't fix the brokenness in the operating system.
In any case it's interesting that what you're talking about is something that Microsoft is making great strides in "fixing", to the consternation of many Slashdotters. A heavily debated feature of Paladium is the fact that executable files have to be signed by a trusted authority (configurable by domain. For instance your corporate IT department) to be executable. There have been third party utilities that only allow configured executables to run as well via an executable database.
Palladium isn't about fixing this problem. "stpooing viruses" is, at best, a side effect. Palladium is about control -- control by Microsoft. It conveniently kills open development for Windows, including free software and shareware.
The problem on Windows is that the name of a file indicates that it's executable. As opposed to any kind of "execute" permission applied to the file.
I'd like to see MSFT fix *that.*
You can download virus.exe all day on Linux, and it won't run until it's chmod +x. Windows already thinks it's executable, by virtue of the ".exe" (and.vbs,.bat,.pif, etc.).
They'll probably have a "local passport server" to handle your company LAN. But what about when you email that document to another company? I assume you'll either have to link the two companies' passport systems together, or use the public MSFT passport system. What if the other company loses their internet connection? No document access? Another question -- why should you have to log all file access with Microsoft HQ? What is the government was proposing this? Wouldn't you be upset?
when they call it Microsoft Something Something it's bad
More or less. They have a knack for making things bad. PGP can work with ANY data. The new Office "upgrade" will only work with the new office upgrade. PGP doesn't mean lock-in. It's generic, open, and there's even competing implementations. Microsoft's solution is, naturally, about lock-in.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you run a IIS server without using the lockdown utility??
You could have stopped with "Why would you run a IIS server?", but, yeah, you've got a point. If you're going to play with dynamite, wear a helmet.
Windows and the net and look at how things accelerated..why..because ma/pa people use windows..not *nix. Just the facts.
Say "hi" to Jim, Steve and Bill at your next staff meeting. Oh, and don't drink the kool-aid!
The U.S. Military is really boneheaded -- putting MSFT into critical war-support systems is... well, asking for trouble.
If you listened to the Gartner Group, you stopped using IIS last year.
If you didn't, well, get with the program!
Eventually MSFT will have to deliver your "mission critical" ASP runtime for Apache, and the world will be a better place because of it.
Well, I was right -- you *are* an asshole.
I doubt you could have built a machine as capable as the EMachine for what I paid for it, unless you stole parts. I priced components at Pricewatch, and the EMachine was a better deal, and even had a warranty.
Idiot.
So, what you're saying is,
1) I'm an idiot for buying a product that's supposed to work, and expecting it to work, and,
2) I'm an idiot because I'm able to use E Machines as reliable servers by putting Linux on them.
I suppose most of humanity must be ignorant morons, because they pretty much all fall into #1. If everyone has to reinstall Windows, then why bother pre-installing it?
I think that *YOU* are the ignorant moron, and a self-righteous and mouthy one at that.
Good for you. My "Designed for XP," pre-installed with XP, built by HP box, hoses all the time. Explorer crashes. DirectX hangs the machine.
My Linux servers -- one of which is a cheapo EMachine -- stay up for more than a year, if I don't upgrade the kernel. Essentially, they stay up until there's a power failure, hardware upgrade, or kernel upgrade.
The Canopy Group is Ray Noorda's investment firm. Remember Ray? Netware ring a bell?
I wasn't talking about IIS6, but IIS 5 and earlier. IIS 6 is a little more sane, using named pipes to shuttle data back and forth.
ISAPI filters on Win2k can and do cause bluescreens. I learned this experimentally, while developing an ISAPI filter. In an early development version, I make a mistake with a pointer, and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
Here's another citation:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
A third one ("Moving Window Manager and GDI into the Windows NT 4.0 Executive"):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url
IIS also is (partially) kernel-mode. ISAPI filters are handed pointers to kernel memory.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default
You can 'blue screen' Win2k with an ISAPI filter.
I imagine that David Cutler *HATES* all the crap they've shoveled into his kernel.
Better yet, structure the OpenOffice files to look like the MS Office installation files.
what are they supposed when someone sends them .doc files?
Complain.
Microsoft is not a trustworthy company. Why that keeps surprising people, I don't know.
Microsoft doesn't offer updates for SQL Server or Office, or Photoshop for that matter, via WindowsUpdate. So why do they need that information to NOT supply updates for those programs?
Are you an Eliza program, or what?
The operating system is hardly "broken": It merely operates in a fashion that you disagree with. A execute bit or a exe extension hardly seem like the big chasm of difference that you make them out to be.
.bat, .exe and .com extensions -- the OS itself considers them to be programs.
Yes, yes it is. Any program needs only to register a handler for an extension, and files with that extension become "executable." It's worse with files ending in
You imply that magic filenames are the same as an execute permission. I'm saying the same thing, but stating that it's a bad idea to confer execute permission to a file based on its name. Why don't you think this is a problem?
You mean like this [microsoft.com] (it prevents Outlook users from being able to access executable content)?
That's specific to outlook. It doesn't fix the brokenness in the operating system.
In any case it's interesting that what you're talking about is something that Microsoft is making great strides in "fixing", to the consternation of many Slashdotters. A heavily debated feature of Paladium is the fact that executable files have to be signed by a trusted authority (configurable by domain. For instance your corporate IT department) to be executable. There have been third party utilities that only allow configured executables to run as well via an executable database.
Palladium isn't about fixing this problem. "stpooing viruses" is, at best, a side effect. Palladium is about control -- control by Microsoft. It conveniently kills open development for Windows, including free software and shareware.
Automatic execution of embedded scripts is also a problem. In some cases, the ability to embed scripts is a problem.
However, ".exe" is a system-wide problem that doesn't go away just because there are or are not scripts embedded in document files.
The problem on Windows is that the name of a file indicates that it's executable. As opposed to any kind of "execute" permission applied to the file.
.vbs, .bat, .pif, etc.).
I'd like to see MSFT fix *that.*
You can download virus.exe all day on Linux, and it won't run until it's chmod +x. Windows already thinks it's executable, by virtue of the ".exe" (and
The great thing about the PPro is that is ran the binary Pentium software images unmodified, and with decent performance.
IA-64 doesn't.
Increased dependance on technology in general is one thing. Increased dependance on Microsoft is quite another.
They'll probably have a "local passport server" to handle your company LAN. But what about when you email that document to another company? I assume you'll either have to link the two companies' passport systems together, or use the public MSFT passport system. What if the other company loses their internet connection? No document access? Another question -- why should you have to log all file access with Microsoft HQ? What is the government was proposing this? Wouldn't you be upset?
Right now you have to depend on the "good faith" of your employees or those you've forwarded documents to and have agreements with
Ad in the future, you'll depend on... Microsoft and PassPort. Yah.
"The passport servers are down today, so Americans are all on holiday."
but we should be able to at least say, "hey, what they're trying to achieve is valid".
You're right, we *should* be able to say that. However, how long as it been since it would be correct to say that?
when they call it Microsoft Something Something it's bad
More or less. They have a knack for making things bad. PGP can work with ANY data. The new Office "upgrade" will only work with the new office upgrade. PGP doesn't mean lock-in. It's generic, open, and there's even competing implementations. Microsoft's solution is, naturally, about lock-in.
4) Someone writes shatter-esque software to copy out the text