Re:And there will be one Master Ring
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 2
I agree with your statement that Microsoft has evolved itself with every iteration, but that wasn't the original question at hand. While your experience with Windows 2.0 is nice (I remember using that), the original poster's comment was "the general rule that I see nowadays." That doesn't include the users that it's kept since 2.0. Users nowadays are users that it's had since Windows 95, which is largely the same in key features. In less than a day, a user can move from using Windows 95 to Windows XP. I agree that the Control Panel can be confusing for old users of Windows, but clicking on the "Classic" interface option fixes that. If you tried to move a Windows 95 user to Linux in one day, I think you'd have a much more serious challenge.
Microsoft keeps changing something about the GUI because people like things that look different. Otherwise, we'd be each car would be a slightly larger, more powerful version of the same looking car. Despite this, they've managed to keep the same features in a place that's still easy enough to find.
Re:And there will be one Master Ring
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Actually, I think that the number one reason people (average consumers) stay with Microsoft is not for it's backwards compatability, but rather backwards familiarity, which is a subtle difference. They sort of go hand-in-hand. People like the way they do things and don't like to change. They've become familiar with the Windows concepts, as old as they are. They've come to understand a C: drive, a Start menu, a registry, Windows Install/Uninstall, and all the other associated terminology. Confusion comes in when you replace those things with a/usr directory, a different icon, an/etc directory full of text files, and RPMs. They're just as easy for power users, but there's HUGE user backlash when such fundamental interfaces are changed. Application backwards compatability is a necessary, but not complete, requirement for most users. An open-source word processor might be able to open and save MS Word documents, but if they need to use different icons, keyboard shortcuts, menus, and dialogs to do the same things as MS Word, they won't use it.
The Tablet PC is really a notebook with a) a specialized OS b) a touch-sensitive screen and c) a repackaged case. So putting Linux on it shouldn't be a problem, but trying to get half of the functionality out of it vs. the Tablet PC XP is going to be a real challenge. There are huge hurdles, including handwriting recognition and redoing the UI to do neat tricks like highlighting blocks of handwritten text to cut and paste. Microsoft has the money and the manpower to pull off multiple-project tricks like this. It's going to be a very long time before an Open Source version of this comes out. I know it's possible, but Microsoft invested very, very seriously into this project and it surely is not trivial. After having seen/used it, it looks like it'll pay off.
Sorry, but what exactly are you criticizing? You're remarking a quote that was made by an analyst, quoted in an article that's based largely on rumor and the best guesses -- Microsoft hasn't provided any real information in the article. The quote itself is so vague and out of context, that it's nearly impossible to ascertain anything yet.
Re:.. and in the darkness bind them
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In the Land of Richmond where Shadows lie.
Richmond? Home of tobacco? I had no idea it was such an evil tech powerhouse! Perhaps you meant "Redmond?"
I missed that day on Slashdot, but I just read that BBC piece, and that article doesn't support your argument. Your argument is that IE has more security flaws than other browsers. While that may or may not be true, the BBC article simply states that IE should be avoided because it's the most targeted: "The easiest way to avoid parasite programs, he says, is to stop using Internet Explorer because it is targeted by many of the adware and spyware companies." This advice is akin to saying that one shouldn't buy a Honda because they are targeted by thieves -- it's not saying that Hondas are easier to steal than other cars. Likewise, the article doesn't say that IE is more vulnerable than other browsers but merely that it's more targeted. IE is definitely more vulnerable than other browsers, but the article doesn't argue it for you.
Neither does that other article. I actually read the whole whitepaper and the article isn't about how Unix is better than Windows (in fact, right in the abstract of the paper, it says that Windows provides much better throughput and slightly better performance than Unix!). Rather, it describes the process by which Hotmail was migrated from Unix to Windows. There are advantages and disadvantages to both platforms and it discusses them well. It describes in good detail how it went about converting the platform and the challenges as they were presented and resolved. It criticizes Windows where appropriate, but it doesn't say that Unix is the better OS as the Slashdot headline and blurb suggest.
I was ok with your post up until you referencing the other articles because they make no sense.
My IE 6.0 on Windows XP grew by 21 MB while trying to process that page. It took a few seconds, but got it done. On Opera 7.0, it grew from 40 MB. It did get it done faster, but it took up twice as much memory. Maybe you're having problems, but with this silly example of a "simple page" and with non-universally reproducible results, I don't think you have a case. Besides, that page isn't even HTML compliant.
We're talking about secondary or tertiary effects here, at best. China happens to be using technology purchase from US manufacturers for something that's morally reprehensible. How or why should these manufacturers be held responsible for the way that it's used unless it was sold directly to them for that sole purpose? Unless Amnesty can show that these companies helped advise them on such censorship solutions, I don't think they have a case. If they want, Amnesty can basically point the finger at anybody who's involved in the chain, including Intel for supplying processors and Belkin for supplying ethernet cables. Probably as "guilty" are open source projects, which not only give them a product but the source to manufacture it at will!
Nothing personal, but saying stuff like that just makes you sound arrogant or worse. I find that politely telling people where to look for the right answer as opposed to the answer works out much better. I just say, "I think I saw the answer once on some webpage. Try searching Google with the keywords..." This gives them a hint that they can use Google to help solve their own problems and gives them a place to start. It took me less than thirty seconds to give them an honest answer but limited my liability. I don't have the time to research the problem for them or to walk them through it, so just by telling them where I would start, they can do it there. Usually, a starting step is all people need to get back on their feet.
It only takes a little bit to buy tons of future goodwill. As another poster noted, you can get paid back in all kinds of ways.
These are all today's prices. The system was only released a year ago and specs were released two years ago. So putting prices two years ago into perspective, it's possible that it could have cost the $450 to make and with a price of $300 two years ago. So by the time they got it on the shelves last year, the prices for the parts were probably negotiated a year ahead of time. Remember that they're order hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of parts and the suppliers need time to produce these things. I think it's perfectly possible for the first machine on the shelf to have cost the reported $450 to make. Prices went down for parts, but so did the price of the console. So maybe it cost $250 to make but it now sells for $200. Who knows -- maybe now they break even on the console, but based on the recent financial reports of the entertainment segment, they are still losing millions amounts of money, much of it probably still associated with hardware costs.
You're right, but The Register is clearly a sensationalistic website. It makes a huge deal out of everything that happens. To some people, it's interesting reading and they actually consider it as a news source (as in, it keeps them informed). But the articles are so inflammatory toward Microsoft, that it has very little credibility and the first thing that I do when I read something about Microsoft is go out and verify it from another source via Google News or the like. Certainly, many facts that they state are correct and the links are worth reading, but like Slashdot, the editorial commentary is worthless and I usually skip the "summary" and the one-liner conclusion posted by the editors.
True, but that wasn't the original point. The original point was that it's a loss for Microsoft if they had to give away the tools (in this case) for free. All I was saying was that even if they gave away the tools for free, they'd win anyway.
You're exactly right. People don't protect their privacy until they've lost it. They don't protect their car until it's stolen. They don't protect their home until it's been burglarized.
This bug is tantamount to someone being able to break into your home, secured by a Microsoft lock, if they use a certain kind of paperclip and you left the door locked in a particular way. It's not going to cause a mass panic and people aren't going to suddenly fix their locks, let alone swap the whole lock out for something else (like a Mozilla branded one). Even if your neighbor's house gets scored, you're not even likely to get that lock fixed. Human nature is fun, ain't it?
did you read the EULA [microsoft.com]?
You just sold your soul! 1 d (e)"indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from...."
Did you read the GPL? (lameness filter requires changing to lowercase letters -- it comes in screaming caps)
In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will any copyright holder... be liable to you for damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
Indeminification of software writers is standard practice. There are tons of better things you can use against Microsoft than this lame argument.
Reasonable for a home computer is to do nothing, actually. I'll probably get railed for saying this, but for most people, security isn't really that big of a deal. They pick shitty passwords, leave tons of security holes open, don't bother patching, and don't even know what they're doing is unsafe.
Granted, this vulnerability is considered critical, but few people will ever encounter it. Someone has to hit upon one of these malicious sites with IE after having trusted Microsoft by default and must have MDAC 2.7 (comes with Windows XP, I believe). The chances of this are very low.
You asked what you would do for your mother's PC and I would say do nothing. My dad browses all the time, but he pretty much sticks to the same big-name sites, reads the news, keeps up on a few messageboards, and sends email. I'm not going to give him a confusing list of things to worry about -- I'd be calling him every day for things to watch out for, trojans to be wary of, and websites to avoid. Most people won't encounter the problem, so I'm fairly comfortable with not having to panic about it and call everyone I know.
It sounds like the paradigm is fairly solid, but it was not completely thought out and not well executed. Sounds like it'll take version 2 or the mighty version 3 release to get it right. Not terribly surprising.
What kind of privilege set do you recommend using instead? It's consistent with current security models -- the application runs at the privileges of the user. The problem seems to be that most users (myself included) have users in the Administrator group, so any time something goes wrong, it happens at the root level. Oh well.
It's going to take an entry in to the desktop market. Recent reports STILL put Linux on the desktop at less than 1% market share, sometimes as low as 0.2-0.3%. If Linux is to succeed and become significant, it needs to be a score on the desktop market. At least as large as Macintosh. If you can find any recent, credible articles reflecting desktop marketshare, I'd love to read them.
Either way, It's good news, except of course for Microsoft shareholders.
Not true at all. I'm not a Linux zealot, but I will say this: if Microsoft gives its software to them for free, they will gain marketshare and will have lost nothing. The long term advantages of increasing an installed base and requiring more techies trained on Microsoft platforms especially in a developing country will do far more damage than losing any potential short term income if cash flow isn't a problem.
Disk checksumming? You gotta be joking! Surely you mean that Microsoft should have come up with some sort of encrypted disk format that would cryptographically ensure that the code is signed and deemed authentic before running it.
Oh, wait... they already did! Modded Xboxes allow your Xbox to run unsigned code, as every piece of Xbox software you can buy from the store has been digitally signed by Microsoft's key. That is the most important feature behind Xbox modifications. Once you can run unsigned code, the hardware already does the decryption for you and you can simply copy games straight from the DVD onto your drive by writing a program that does that for you. No need to tangle with the encryption on the disk.
Are you paying $x/mo to RedHat for a service? Nope.
There's a big difference between a product and a service. You can do with the product as you please, but you can't use a product to subvert the service. If you do, you're a threat to the service as a whole and the service can be denied to you. The product is still yours to keep.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your statement that Microsoft has evolved itself with every iteration, but that wasn't the original question at hand. While your experience with Windows 2.0 is nice (I remember using that), the original poster's comment was "the general rule that I see nowadays." That doesn't include the users that it's kept since 2.0. Users nowadays are users that it's had since Windows 95, which is largely the same in key features. In less than a day, a user can move from using Windows 95 to Windows XP. I agree that the Control Panel can be confusing for old users of Windows, but clicking on the "Classic" interface option fixes that. If you tried to move a Windows 95 user to Linux in one day, I think you'd have a much more serious challenge.
Microsoft keeps changing something about the GUI because people like things that look different. Otherwise, we'd be each car would be a slightly larger, more powerful version of the same looking car. Despite this, they've managed to keep the same features in a place that's still easy enough to find.
Actually, I think that the number one reason people (average consumers) stay with Microsoft is not for it's backwards compatability, but rather backwards familiarity, which is a subtle difference. They sort of go hand-in-hand. People like the way they do things and don't like to change. They've become familiar with the Windows concepts, as old as they are. They've come to understand a C: drive, a Start menu, a registry, Windows Install/Uninstall, and all the other associated terminology. Confusion comes in when you replace those things with a /usr directory, a different icon, an /etc directory full of text files, and RPMs. They're just as easy for power users, but there's HUGE user backlash when such fundamental interfaces are changed. Application backwards compatability is a necessary, but not complete, requirement for most users. An open-source word processor might be able to open and save MS Word documents, but if they need to use different icons, keyboard shortcuts, menus, and dialogs to do the same things as MS Word, they won't use it.
The Tablet PC is really a notebook with a) a specialized OS b) a touch-sensitive screen and c) a repackaged case. So putting Linux on it shouldn't be a problem, but trying to get half of the functionality out of it vs. the Tablet PC XP is going to be a real challenge. There are huge hurdles, including handwriting recognition and redoing the UI to do neat tricks like highlighting blocks of handwritten text to cut and paste. Microsoft has the money and the manpower to pull off multiple-project tricks like this. It's going to be a very long time before an Open Source version of this comes out. I know it's possible, but Microsoft invested very, very seriously into this project and it surely is not trivial. After having seen/used it, it looks like it'll pay off.
Sorry, but what exactly are you criticizing? You're remarking a quote that was made by an analyst, quoted in an article that's based largely on rumor and the best guesses -- Microsoft hasn't provided any real information in the article. The quote itself is so vague and out of context, that it's nearly impossible to ascertain anything yet.
I missed that day on Slashdot, but I just read that BBC piece, and that article doesn't support your argument. Your argument is that IE has more security flaws than other browsers. While that may or may not be true, the BBC article simply states that IE should be avoided because it's the most targeted: "The easiest way to avoid parasite programs, he says, is to stop using Internet Explorer because it is targeted by many of the adware and spyware companies." This advice is akin to saying that one shouldn't buy a Honda because they are targeted by thieves -- it's not saying that Hondas are easier to steal than other cars. Likewise, the article doesn't say that IE is more vulnerable than other browsers but merely that it's more targeted. IE is definitely more vulnerable than other browsers, but the article doesn't argue it for you.
Neither does that other article. I actually read the whole whitepaper and the article isn't about how Unix is better than Windows (in fact, right in the abstract of the paper, it says that Windows provides much better throughput and slightly better performance than Unix!). Rather, it describes the process by which Hotmail was migrated from Unix to Windows. There are advantages and disadvantages to both platforms and it discusses them well. It describes in good detail how it went about converting the platform and the challenges as they were presented and resolved. It criticizes Windows where appropriate, but it doesn't say that Unix is the better OS as the Slashdot headline and blurb suggest.
I was ok with your post up until you referencing the other articles because they make no sense.
My IE 6.0 on Windows XP grew by 21 MB while trying to process that page. It took a few seconds, but got it done. On Opera 7.0, it grew from 40 MB. It did get it done faster, but it took up twice as much memory. Maybe you're having problems, but with this silly example of a "simple page" and with non-universally reproducible results, I don't think you have a case. Besides, that page isn't even HTML compliant.
We're talking about secondary or tertiary effects here, at best. China happens to be using technology purchase from US manufacturers for something that's morally reprehensible. How or why should these manufacturers be held responsible for the way that it's used unless it was sold directly to them for that sole purpose? Unless Amnesty can show that these companies helped advise them on such censorship solutions, I don't think they have a case. If they want, Amnesty can basically point the finger at anybody who's involved in the chain, including Intel for supplying processors and Belkin for supplying ethernet cables. Probably as "guilty" are open source projects, which not only give them a product but the source to manufacture it at will!
Nothing personal, but saying stuff like that just makes you sound arrogant or worse. I find that politely telling people where to look for the right answer as opposed to the answer works out much better. I just say, "I think I saw the answer once on some webpage. Try searching Google with the keywords ..." This gives them a hint that they can use Google to help solve their own problems and gives them a place to start. It took me less than thirty seconds to give them an honest answer but limited my liability. I don't have the time to research the problem for them or to walk them through it, so just by telling them where I would start, they can do it there. Usually, a starting step is all people need to get back on their feet.
It only takes a little bit to buy tons of future goodwill. As another poster noted, you can get paid back in all kinds of ways.
These are all today's prices. The system was only released a year ago and specs were released two years ago. So putting prices two years ago into perspective, it's possible that it could have cost the $450 to make and with a price of $300 two years ago. So by the time they got it on the shelves last year, the prices for the parts were probably negotiated a year ahead of time. Remember that they're order hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of parts and the suppliers need time to produce these things. I think it's perfectly possible for the first machine on the shelf to have cost the reported $450 to make. Prices went down for parts, but so did the price of the console. So maybe it cost $250 to make but it now sells for $200. Who knows -- maybe now they break even on the console, but based on the recent financial reports of the entertainment segment, they are still losing millions amounts of money, much of it probably still associated with hardware costs.
You're right, but The Register is clearly a sensationalistic website. It makes a huge deal out of everything that happens. To some people, it's interesting reading and they actually consider it as a news source (as in, it keeps them informed). But the articles are so inflammatory toward Microsoft, that it has very little credibility and the first thing that I do when I read something about Microsoft is go out and verify it from another source via Google News or the like. Certainly, many facts that they state are correct and the links are worth reading, but like Slashdot, the editorial commentary is worthless and I usually skip the "summary" and the one-liner conclusion posted by the editors.
I totally agree ... The Register is no more a credible source than Slashdot is. It is entertainment, though.
True, but that wasn't the original point. The original point was that it's a loss for Microsoft if they had to give away the tools (in this case) for free. All I was saying was that even if they gave away the tools for free, they'd win anyway.
You're exactly right. People don't protect their privacy until they've lost it. They don't protect their car until it's stolen. They don't protect their home until it's been burglarized.
This bug is tantamount to someone being able to break into your home, secured by a Microsoft lock, if they use a certain kind of paperclip and you left the door locked in a particular way. It's not going to cause a mass panic and people aren't going to suddenly fix their locks, let alone swap the whole lock out for something else (like a Mozilla branded one). Even if your neighbor's house gets scored, you're not even likely to get that lock fixed. Human nature is fun, ain't it?
In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will any copyright holder
Indeminification of software writers is standard practice. There are tons of better things you can use against Microsoft than this lame argument.
Reasonable for a home computer is to do nothing, actually. I'll probably get railed for saying this, but for most people, security isn't really that big of a deal. They pick shitty passwords, leave tons of security holes open, don't bother patching, and don't even know what they're doing is unsafe.
Granted, this vulnerability is considered critical, but few people will ever encounter it. Someone has to hit upon one of these malicious sites with IE after having trusted Microsoft by default and must have MDAC 2.7 (comes with Windows XP, I believe). The chances of this are very low.
You asked what you would do for your mother's PC and I would say do nothing. My dad browses all the time, but he pretty much sticks to the same big-name sites, reads the news, keeps up on a few messageboards, and sends email. I'm not going to give him a confusing list of things to worry about -- I'd be calling him every day for things to watch out for, trojans to be wary of, and websites to avoid. Most people won't encounter the problem, so I'm fairly comfortable with not having to panic about it and call everyone I know.
It sounds like the paradigm is fairly solid, but it was not completely thought out and not well executed. Sounds like it'll take version 2 or the mighty version 3 release to get it right. Not terribly surprising.
What kind of privilege set do you recommend using instead? It's consistent with current security models -- the application runs at the privileges of the user. The problem seems to be that most users (myself included) have users in the Administrator group, so any time something goes wrong, it happens at the root level. Oh well.
It's going to take an entry in to the desktop market. Recent reports STILL put Linux on the desktop at less than 1% market share, sometimes as low as 0.2-0.3%. If Linux is to succeed and become significant, it needs to be a score on the desktop market. At least as large as Macintosh. If you can find any recent, credible articles reflecting desktop marketshare, I'd love to read them.
Even without encryption, they are probably using 128-bit GUIDs. The chances of you hitting upon a permitted GUID is impossible at best.
But they probably are using encryption and are using a key to sign the serial numbers. You don't have any ammo against that.
Disk checksumming? You gotta be joking! Surely you mean that Microsoft should have come up with some sort of encrypted disk format that would cryptographically ensure that the code is signed and deemed authentic before running it.
... they already did! Modded Xboxes allow your Xbox to run unsigned code, as every piece of Xbox software you can buy from the store has been digitally signed by Microsoft's key. That is the most important feature behind Xbox modifications. Once you can run unsigned code, the hardware already does the decryption for you and you can simply copy games straight from the DVD onto your drive by writing a program that does that for you. No need to tangle with the encryption on the disk.
Oh, wait
Are you paying $x/mo to RedHat for a service? Nope. There's a big difference between a product and a service. You can do with the product as you please, but you can't use a product to subvert the service. If you do, you're a threat to the service as a whole and the service can be denied to you. The product is still yours to keep.
99 out of a 100 modded XBoxes aren't for running Linux. They're for playing copied games.