ID software are totally correct about the cheating aspects of releasing the code.
There will always be people who try to cheat, and some who succeed. Releasing the source makes it significantly easier to make a cheating client.
However,
i) The benefits of having the source to an extremely successful games outweighs the disadvantages of increased cheating (unless you're a victim of the cheating... try a lan party instead of the internet next time).
ii) By seeing what the cheats come up with, perhaps the next generation of client-server games will have better cheat avoidance in the server and/or the protocol - we can learn from past mistakes or oversights.
Microsoft have just pissed off AOL with the AT&T + Comcast merger.
MS owns AT&T and comcast stock and helped ensure the merger happens.
The new cable network is going to be a huge rival to AOL TimeWarner's
I don't know what was discussed during the court case, but to me the core of the patent seems to be the method of taking a set of points making up a stroke and (after cleaning up the data) finding the salient features (length and direction of straight lines and curves) and finding the match to the characters in their alphabet.
Read the claims (they're the important bit legally, I believe) - they don't really say anything about the alphabet itself.
microsoft have got a big pile of their own patents covering all sorts of things. You would have to be very sure you're not infringing one of them before going after MS.
There is some detail in there about the implementation but it's all based off of the display/input generating a list of xy coordinates making up the stroke. Since I can't imagine any computer engineer using anything but a 2D matrix for their displays it doesn't seem to me that these details narrow the patent down in any realistic manner.
If they change their name, who will remember who they were?
"WonderSoft? Oh yeah, they were Lindows - they lost a court battle with microsoft, I better get me some of that!"
Re:Does someone here know what U p&p is?
on
WinXP Security Flaw
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) service allows computers to discover and use network-based devices. Windows ME and XP include native UPnP services; Windows 98 and 98SE do not include a native UPnP service, but one can be installed via the Internet Connection Sharing client that ships with Windows XP. This bulletin discusses two vulnerabilities affecting these UPnP implementations. Although the vulnerabilities are unrelated, both involve how UPnP-capable computers handle the discovery of new devices on the network.
The first vulnerability is a buffer overrun vulnerability. There is an unchecked buffer in one of the components that handle NOTIFY directives - messages that advertise the availability of UPnP-capable devices on the network. By sending a specially malformed NOTIFY directive, it would be possible for an attacker to cause code to run in the context of the UPnP service, which runs with System privileges on Windows XP. (On Windows 98 and Windows ME, all code executes as part of the operating system). This would enable the attacker to gain complete control over the system.
The second vulnerability results because the UPnP doesn't sufficiently limit the steps to which the UPnP service will go to obtain information on using a newly discovered device. Within the NOTIFY directive that a new UPnP device sends is information telling interested computers where to obtain its device description, which lists the services the device offers and instructions for using them. By design, the device description may reside on a third-party server rather than on the device itself. However, the UPnP implementations don't adequately regulate how it performs this operation, and this gives rise to two different denial of service scenarios.
In the first scenario, the attacker could send a NOTIFY directive to a UPnP-capable computer, specifying that the device description should be downloaded from a particular port on a particular server. If the server was configured to simply echo the download requests back to the UPnP service (e.g., by having the echo service running on the port that the computer was directed to), the computer could be made to enter an endless download cycle that could consume some or all of the system's availability. An attacker could craft and send this directive to a victim's machine directly, by using the machine's IP address. Or, he could send this same directive to a broadcast and multicast domain and attack all affected machines within earshot, consuming some or all of those systems' availability.
In the second scenario, an attacker could specify a third-party server as the host for the device description in the NOTIFY directive. If enough machines responded to the directive, it could have the effect of flooding the third-party server with bogus requests, in a distributed denial of service attack. As with the first scenario, an attacker could either send the directives to the victim directly, or to a broadcast or multicast domain.
Microsoft won't tell you they've posted a KB article blaming your product. The first you hear of it is 7am on Monday when your biggest baddest customer phone you up demanding a hotfix from you for MS KB article Q2827438
If you're lucky, it isn't a PrimeSupport article so you can get to it easily. Either way, when you get hold of the article it will say at the end
Microsoft has determined this to be a problem with Virusscan Pro Version 1.2.3. Microsoft recommends that you uninstall this product and contact the vendor for a fix
After that you have to convince microsoft of one of 3 things
i) version 1.2.3 is 9 years old and the current version (29.6) is perfect and Microsoft logo certified 2 weeks ago so don't you dare try to deny it.
ii) Yes there is a problem, but you can solve it by turning off the checkbox you just turned on and you really don't need to uninstall the entire product
or
iii) MS have got it utterly wrong and it isn't virusscan pro v 1.2.3's fault at all.
All of which take about a month, during which time you sound like an idiot telling your customers it's all MS's fault really, trust us.
Most reports (for example, this one) says they were sold outside the family for $20000 to settle a tax bill
Re:Perpetuating the use of Windows software on Lin
on
What's up with Lindows?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
if you consider freedom in and of itself the most important "merit",
That's a very big if. Most people want software to work. It can be 100% free but if it doesn't do what you want it to then it is worthless - software is a tool, not a religion.
Slashdot Mirror
ID software are totally correct about the cheating aspects of releasing the code.
... try a lan party instead of the internet next time).
There will always be people who try to cheat, and some who succeed. Releasing the source makes it significantly easier to make a cheating client.
However,
i) The benefits of having the source to an extremely successful games outweighs the disadvantages of increased cheating (unless you're a victim of the cheating
ii) By seeing what the cheats come up with, perhaps the next generation of client-server games will have better cheat avoidance in the server and/or the protocol - we can learn from past mistakes or oversights.
Filesharing sux. WinXP-WinXP sharing almost always fail. I do not understand why.
Do you accounts have passwords? If not, XP's new default is to prevent network logins with these accounts and file sharing fails.
You can play around in the local security policy
Security Settings -> Local Policies -> Security options -> Accounts : limit local account use of blank passwords to console logon only.
set this option to disabled
Ie. when the original author stops using their right to copy, the right to copy transfers to the public.
National Public Radio has video?
... perhaps I propose we call this exciting new development in communication 'television' meaning 'seeing from afar'.
Cool
They use the term Windows Operating System
Hormel put just SPAM on their tins, not Spam Luncheon Meat every time.
Microsoft have just pissed off AOL with the AT&T + Comcast merger.
MS owns AT&T and comcast stock and helped ensure the merger happens.
The new cable network is going to be a huge rival to AOL TimeWarner's
Microsoft has several trademarks on plain Windows
I don't know what was discussed during the court case, but to me the core of the patent seems to be the method of taking a set of points making up a stroke and (after cleaning up the data) finding the salient features (length and direction of straight lines and curves) and finding the match to the characters in their alphabet.
Read the claims (they're the important bit legally, I believe) - they don't really say anything about the alphabet itself.
5,596,656 was filed on October 26, 1995
Why can't someone do this to Microsoft?
microsoft have got a big pile of their own patents covering all sorts of things. You would have to be very sure you're not infringing one of them before going after MS.
E.g. how many products don't do something like Method for creating and maintaining user data
Is Xerox's claim towards the implementation in the OS or the general input method?
It seems to be more towards the general input method
There is some detail in there about the implementation but it's all based off of the display/input generating a list of xy coordinates making up the stroke. Since I can't imagine any computer engineer using anything but a 2D matrix for their displays it doesn't seem to me that these details narrow the patent down in any realistic manner.
Relevent patent is 5596656
It looks pretty broad and clear
If they change their name, who will remember who they were?
"WonderSoft? Oh yeah, they were Lindows - they lost a court battle with microsoft, I better get me some of that!"
The Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) service allows computers to discover and use network-based devices. Windows ME and XP include native UPnP services; Windows 98 and 98SE do not include a native UPnP service, but one can be installed via the Internet Connection Sharing client that ships with Windows XP. This bulletin discusses two vulnerabilities affecting these UPnP implementations. Although the vulnerabilities are unrelated, both involve how UPnP-capable computers handle the discovery of new devices on the network.
The first vulnerability is a buffer overrun vulnerability. There is an unchecked buffer in one of the components that handle NOTIFY directives - messages that advertise the availability of UPnP-capable devices on the network. By sending a specially malformed NOTIFY directive, it would be possible for an attacker to cause code to run in the context of the UPnP service, which runs with System privileges on Windows XP. (On Windows 98 and Windows ME, all code executes as part of the operating system). This would enable the attacker to gain complete control over the system.
The second vulnerability results because the UPnP doesn't sufficiently limit the steps to which the UPnP service will go to obtain information on using a newly discovered device. Within the NOTIFY directive that a new UPnP device sends is information telling interested computers where to obtain its device description, which lists the services the device offers and instructions for using them. By design, the device description may reside on a third-party server rather than on the device itself. However, the UPnP implementations don't adequately regulate how it performs this operation, and this gives rise to two different denial of service scenarios.
In the first scenario, the attacker could send a NOTIFY directive to a UPnP-capable computer, specifying that the device description should be downloaded from a particular port on a particular server. If the server was configured to simply echo the download requests back to the UPnP service (e.g., by having the echo service running on the port that the computer was directed to), the computer could be made to enter an endless download cycle that could consume some or all of the system's availability. An attacker could craft and send this directive to a victim's machine directly, by using the machine's IP address. Or, he could send this same directive to a broadcast and multicast domain and attack all affected machines within earshot, consuming some or all of those systems' availability.
In the second scenario, an attacker could specify a third-party server as the host for the device description in the NOTIFY directive. If enough machines responded to the directive, it could have the effect of flooding the third-party server with bogus requests, in a distributed denial of service attack. As with the first scenario, an attacker could either send the directives to the victim directly, or to a broadcast or multicast domain.
can't be made public for legal reasons
... I've had experience of this.
It's the opposite
Microsoft won't tell you they've posted a KB article blaming your product. The first you hear of it is 7am on Monday when your biggest baddest customer phone you up demanding a hotfix from you for MS KB article Q2827438
If you're lucky, it isn't a PrimeSupport article so you can get to it easily. Either way, when you get hold of the article it will say at the end
Microsoft has determined this to be a problem with Virusscan Pro Version 1.2.3. Microsoft recommends that you uninstall this product and contact the vendor for a fix
After that you have to convince microsoft of one of 3 things
i) version 1.2.3 is 9 years old and the current version (29.6) is perfect and Microsoft logo certified 2 weeks ago so don't you dare try to deny it.
ii) Yes there is a problem, but you can solve it by turning off the checkbox you just turned on and you really don't need to uninstall the entire product
or
iii) MS have got it utterly wrong and it isn't virusscan pro v 1.2.3's fault at all.
All of which take about a month, during which time you sound like an idiot telling your customers it's all MS's fault really, trust us.
Do Microsoft let new employees check code into their products without a code review?
I thought not.
e to 6 decimal places is 2.718282
pi is 3.141593
Wales?
I very much doubt we are going to see EVERY 2.5.x release on the front page
... err ... 6473?
You're new here aren't you, number
telescopes in Auriga and Perseus
Where are they? Greece?
The Itanium may never be really properly released as a production processor. McKinley is the one to watch for
If you're not careful you'll be thinking it over in gaol.
Most reports (for example, this one) says they were sold outside the family for $20000 to settle a tax bill
if you consider freedom in and of itself the most important "merit",
That's a very big if. Most people want software to work. It can be 100% free but if it doesn't do what you want it to then it is worthless - software is a tool, not a religion.
And if you can't afford that then there will be replicas