So, there are two relevant aspects to it. Probably more. The 2.6 Kernel has been plagued by bad bugs. On the other hand, one way or another you need it for a multimedia-enabled desktop on more modern hardware (compared to 2.4). From that point of view, the proposal is fantastic. Otherwise we see the quality of the kernel of our beloved OS going down. 2.6 has never seen a phase of consolidation, really. Therefore, the proposal is almost overdue.
It would be badly short-sighted to think of quick ROI (as the IT companies usually aspire), since the troubles only multiply with further advances.
Yes, please, Andrew, get stability back into 2.6 - Though I have no single word of say in this, I thrust up both hands in favour !
Maybe there are some thumb-screws needed for the contributors: As long as the bug level stands above a certain threshold, no enhancements will be accepted.
There is also a political aspect to it: we have always argued about re-use of legacy hardware. This becomes even more important with Vista on the horizon. The kernel must not lose the 'caring' attitude. It must be trustworthy and trusted by the general public to care for more than greedy hardware manufacturers and their sick quest to replace functional hardware with most recent hardware.
Frankly, you're right. You're so right. You even made me smile another time: The first time after really, really, clicking through that story. Since it proved to be a *very* complicated so-called solution. Smiling, because Microsoft will shoot themselves into the foot another time and the users will throw foul eggs at them. The second time, when you described what you have to do to run Limited right now. Setting ACLs on both directions and setting the registry. And you call this 'no problem'. I really wonder how this can be viewed as 'no problem'. Joe Homeowner will revolt.
RTFM, and tell DJB to offer a non-braindead licence. And then you might see what you want. Or, even better, ask DJB why he doesn't put his code to Free && Open.
Re:Mr. Thurrott forgives Microsoft
on
How Vista Disappoints
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Though this seems obviuous, it needs to be seconded ! - This is a perspective that has changed compared to earlier releases. Worse (for MS): It has nothing to do with Debian or stuff. We are running XP on a Duron 800 with 256 MB of RAM just fine. Not even slow. No need here to upgrade.
Except, and this is the bad predicament of Microsoft, they add so-called great new features that require advanced hardware. But when they do so, the very same moment, the uptake of new hardware (and subsequently Vista) will be slow.
I don't envy them. But their karma is self-inflicted and so there is no need to pity them, neither.
Crap. AFAIK, he's of South-African descent. And probably by now a Canadian citizen. Ask him. Try Google. Whatever. Don't post things you have no clue about.
Righto ! Of course, it will and will have to be a derivative work.
Have you thought of the licensing ?? If they want to Google == Good they might not want to use GPL. A BSD-style license is much better. On the other hand: multimedia suggests 2.6.XX.
And I think it could make it to a success. Everyone in here (almost everyone) has a PC-style computer in mind: Linux, KDE, OSX, etc. And talks about hardware compatibility. Rubbish. When you sell the hardware with the OS on / in it, no need to support exotic hardware. I think - if ever it comes - it would be an 'integrated' system; a gadget and not a PC. Then nobody will want to run their games or edu-software on it.
* Is it better to use Firefox or Internet Explorer?
Internet Explorer will view the image and trigger the exploit without warning. New versions of Firefox will prompt you before opening the image. However, in most environments this offers little protection given that these are images and are thus considered 'safe'.
I take the liberty to read this passage differently from the grandfather.
* Should I just block all.WMF images?
This may help, but it is not sufficient. WMF files are recognized by a special header and the extension is not needed. The files could arrive using any extension, or embeded in Word or other documents.
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/181038:
Please note that Windows Metafile data may be saved with an extension other than WMF. A file with any extension that is associated with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer can be used to exploit this vulnerability. By default, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer is associated with the following file extensions:
BMP DIB GIF EMF JFIF JPE JPEG JPG PNG TIF TIFF WMF
I have yet to read the definite statement that Opera and Firefox do not fall back to gdi.dll, ever.
However, disabling the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer will not eliminate this vulnerability as it is currently thought to exist in the Windows Graphical Device Interface library (GDI32.DLL).
I know, speculation. But not more uncertainty than in the grandfather's post.
Hey, as much as I sympathise with you, I find a few items illogical in here. OpenBSD probably doesn't run AutoCAD. But does your NT 3.5 with an uptime since 1998 run AutoCAD ? Does the NT 3.51 run your DOS-based CNC programming software ? What does the old, proprietary Unix do ? Surely neither of these.
When we talk about 'switch', nobody suggests to switch all and everything overnight. It is learning, studying, on an old machine; one that has been replaced by a more resource-hungry Windows box. And there will always be one or another box remaining with an application that cannot be ported. But our discussion is not so much about that last DOS box and the CNC; rather on all the other applications; like e-mail, databases, printing, file servers, backups.
MS should examine every byte of their code that was written for the single user paradigm.
Fine. And who's going to pay for that ? You know, they have investors breathing down their neck. Nobody who invests money wants code audit. I wouldn't want that either. Which is why I don't invest in Microsoft: I'd invalidate my own principles.
But I take bets that > 50% of the code compiled into XP is unaccounted for. That is, nobody knows exactly how it works; except if you don't link to it, the build will break.
Just think of approaching 100 million lines.
Still have to make up my mind how many percent of Vista will fall into the same category... .
I am sure that Microsoft simply hopes and preys that one fine day the last line of code written before 2000 will have been replaced 'naturally'.
What makes you think so ? Are you an insider ?
I ask, because most of the sources (including sans) state differently.
Why would Opera or Firefox not resort to using the built-in image rendering ?
Or, if you talk about the extension.wmf, then you didn't do your homework.
You might have cited properly from CERT; but then CERT is wrong; FYI. Otherwise, the thing would have been done easily and none of the applications would break by applying the 'hotfix'.
Do you always believe what someone else states ? I have no reason to distrust CERT, but also these people could be wrong. The only correct method: lay the sources open and we can all find out what is going on.
Come on, people. Don't pretend stupidity. Nobody ever expected the consumers in Europe to yell for "Windows without Media Player" ! Neither did the commission. They rather took an unworldly bureaucratic way out: Forcing RedMond to *offer* XP without. Of course, chances are that this will backfire. But they didn't have the balls to do better; alas.
Personally, I think this is a show at the side. The crucial aspect is, if the EU can force Microsoft to lay the protocols open, for free. *That* would get us into competition. Just compare phone, electricity. Imagine, AT&T had had a phone only talking to another AT&T phone. Your power supply only working with... Tenaga, in my case. Respectively your utility company. Ridiculous; of course. Now apply this to computing. Fortunately, TCP/IP is not proprietary to Microsoft; as everyone will agree. But now apply this to other protocols: MAPI-Exchange. When your Siemens works and talks to AT&T, why does Microsoft not need to open all their APIs to make Sylpheed talk to the Exchange server just as well ? OpenBSD to AD (if Theo so desires, of course) ? The current state is not a monopoly, it is quite something more. It is non-interoperability on purpose. Don't tell me that's wrong. It isn't. I am sitting on a monopoly ISP, Streamyx. There is no alternative. (But to *not* connect.) Though, my monopoly ISP permits me to connect to the Internet, which is something. Otherwise I couldn't write this comment to be seen by you. Whereas Microsoft tries to render their formats non-interoperable. Some Word document doesn't show properly on my screen. That's nothing to do with a monopoly. A monopoly would be that I can't buy anything but Microsoft in a place. Bush might want to like to decide so.
Did you guys *read* the paper ? I did as long as I didn't have to vomit.
On Windows they applied some normal patches; while the 'milestones' on Linux included real heavy stuff: upgrading glibc, upgrading mysql. Plus patches. When I upgrade mysql and glibc I upgrade from W2K to Server2003; so to say. Serious upgrading and normal patches cannot be compared.
So, to me, it is and remains FUD. On purpose they would not use a period including an update from W2K to 2003; or XP. Even less one when you migrate Exchange from 5.5 to 2000 or similar.
They feel the pain and now spend some big money to some Herbert, PhD, to invent a useless situation. Deception.
Mea culpa maxima. This isn't my mothertongue and I fell into the 'through' of "... is transmitted through particles". I was seeing kind of fog of particles in front of my eyes; and these tiny driplets being the reason for possible transportation. Of course, at second and third read, this is not necessarily what was intended. It could as well be the message itself that comes across as particle; be it light or gravitation.
Thanks for a great discussion and AFAICS, we have reached a conclusion (and, please, don't disappoint me !).
Sure I am confused. How could I not ? We started with gravity, and here we end with electromagnetic waves; light in this case. The duality of wave/particle is all clear to me. But when it is a wave, it doesn't need any particle to transfer through vacuum. And finally, ether was not 'ether', but some yet (then) undefined goo (matter) as transport medium. And - as you confirm - there is no matter / goo necessary ('still rejected'), otherwise we'd be back at the ether. But if we are at the point of ether being rejected; that is: no matter *whatsoever* is necessary to get a beam of light or a radio wave across nothing (vacuum), we find ourselves back at OP, who wanted a particle to get electromagnetics across that notorious vacuum. Necessarily a contradiction.
Now I think you are confused and mix two things: a medium over which 'it' travels; and the character of the 'it'em itself (particle or wave ?).
Slashdot Mirror
So, there are two relevant aspects to it. Probably more.
The 2.6 Kernel has been plagued by bad bugs. On the other hand, one way or another you need it for a multimedia-enabled desktop on more modern hardware (compared to 2.4). From that point of view, the proposal is fantastic. Otherwise we see the quality of the kernel of our beloved OS going down.
2.6 has never seen a phase of consolidation, really. Therefore, the proposal is almost overdue.
It would be badly short-sighted to think of quick ROI (as the IT companies usually aspire), since the troubles only multiply with further advances.
Yes, please, Andrew, get stability back into 2.6 - Though I have no single word of say in this, I thrust up both hands in favour !
Maybe there are some thumb-screws needed for the contributors: As long as the bug level stands above a certain threshold, no enhancements will be accepted.
There is also a political aspect to it: we have always argued about re-use of legacy hardware. This becomes even more important with Vista on the horizon. The kernel must not lose the 'caring' attitude. It must be trustworthy and trusted by the general public to care for more than greedy hardware manufacturers and their sick quest to replace functional hardware with most recent hardware.
Frankly, you're right. You're so right.
You even made me smile another time: The first time after really, really, clicking through that story. Since it proved to be a *very* complicated so-called solution. Smiling, because Microsoft will shoot themselves into the foot another time and the users will throw foul eggs at them.
The second time, when you described what you have to do to run Limited right now. Setting ACLs on both directions and setting the registry. And you call this 'no problem'. I really wonder how this can be viewed as 'no problem'. Joe Homeowner will revolt.
RTFM, and tell DJB to offer a non-braindead licence.
And then you might see what you want.
Or, even better, ask DJB why he doesn't put his code to Free && Open.
For warfare against google, you mean, I assume ?
Memory serves. Netscape, and it serves right.
Though this seems obviuous, it needs to be seconded ! - This is a perspective that has changed compared to earlier releases.
Worse (for MS): It has nothing to do with Debian or stuff. We are running XP on a Duron 800 with 256 MB of RAM just fine. Not even slow. No need here to upgrade.
Except, and this is the bad predicament of Microsoft, they add so-called great new features that require advanced hardware. But when they do so, the very same moment, the uptake of new hardware (and subsequently Vista) will be slow.
I don't envy them. But their karma is self-inflicted and so there is no need to pity them, neither.
What about lack of basic math ?
(or was it one-two-three-sex-four-five-seven intentionally ?)
In case you wanted to support the AC, think a bit harder: Does SA being settled partially by the Dutch hundred years ago make Theo a *Dutch* ?
Ridiculous. Of course, if I wanted to write big BS, I'd also go for AC.
Crap.
AFAIK, he's of South-African descent. And probably by now a Canadian citizen.
Ask him. Try Google.
Whatever. Don't post things you have no clue about.
Righto ! Of course, it will and will have to be a derivative work.
Have you thought of the licensing ?? If they want to Google == Good they might not want to use GPL.
A BSD-style license is much better. On the other hand: multimedia suggests 2.6.XX.
And I think it could make it to a success. Everyone in here (almost everyone) has a PC-style computer in mind: Linux, KDE, OSX, etc. And talks about hardware compatibility. Rubbish. When you sell the hardware with the OS on / in it, no need to support exotic hardware.
I think - if ever it comes - it would be an 'integrated' system; a gadget and not a PC. Then nobody will want to run their games or edu-software on it.
I take the liberty to read this passage differently from the grandfather.
* Should I just block all .WMF images?
This may help, but it is not sufficient. WMF files are recognized by a special header and the extension is not needed. The files could arrive using any extension, or embeded in Word or other documents.
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/181038: Please note that Windows Metafile data may be saved with an extension other than WMF. A file with any extension that is associated with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer can be used to exploit this vulnerability. By default, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer is associated with the following file extensions: BMP DIB GIF EMF JFIF JPE JPEG JPG PNG TIF TIFF WMF
I have yet to read the definite statement that Opera and Firefox do not fall back to gdi.dll, ever.
However, disabling the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer will not eliminate this vulnerability as it is currently thought to exist in the Windows Graphical Device Interface library (GDI32.DLL).
I know, speculation. But not more uncertainty than in the grandfather's post.
Hey, as much as I sympathise with you, I find a few items illogical in here.
OpenBSD probably doesn't run AutoCAD. But does your NT 3.5 with an uptime since 1998 run AutoCAD ? Does the NT 3.51 run your DOS-based CNC programming software ?
What does the old, proprietary Unix do ?
Surely neither of these.
When we talk about 'switch', nobody suggests to switch all and everything overnight. It is learning, studying, on an old machine; one that has been replaced by a more resource-hungry Windows box. And there will always be one or another box remaining with an application that cannot be ported. But our discussion is not so much about that last DOS box and the CNC; rather on all the other applications; like e-mail, databases, printing, file servers, backups.
Have seen this a ten times now in here.
Where is the karma whore to finally help out ?
Mhhm; I for my part consider this *very* funny ! But lack of modpoints force me to spill my karma. Worthwhile.
Fine. And who's going to pay for that ? You know, they have investors breathing down their neck. Nobody who invests money wants code audit. I wouldn't want that either. Which is why I don't invest in Microsoft: I'd invalidate my own principles.
But I take bets that > 50% of the code compiled into XP is unaccounted for. That is, nobody knows exactly how it works; except if you don't link to it, the build will break.
Just think of approaching 100 million lines.
Still have to make up my mind how many percent of Vista will fall into the same category ... .
I am sure that Microsoft simply hopes and preys that one fine day the last line of code written before 2000 will have been replaced 'naturally'.
Or, if you talk about the extension .wmf, then you didn't do your homework.
You might have cited properly from CERT; but then CERT is wrong; FYI.
Otherwise, the thing would have been done easily and none of the applications would break by applying the 'hotfix'.
Do you always believe what someone else states ? I have no reason to distrust CERT, but also these people could be wrong.
The only correct method: lay the sources open and we can all find out what is going on.
Come on, people. Don't pretend stupidity.
... Tenaga, in my case. Respectively your utility company. Ridiculous; of course. Now apply this to computing. Fortunately, TCP/IP is not proprietary to Microsoft; as everyone will agree.
Nobody ever expected the consumers in Europe to yell for "Windows without Media Player" ! Neither did the commission. They rather took an unworldly bureaucratic way out: Forcing RedMond to *offer* XP without.
Of course, chances are that this will backfire.
But they didn't have the balls to do better; alas.
Personally, I think this is a show at the side. The crucial aspect is, if the EU can force Microsoft to lay the protocols open, for free.
*That* would get us into competition. Just compare phone, electricity.
Imagine, AT&T had had a phone only talking to another AT&T phone. Your power supply only working with
But now apply this to other protocols: MAPI-Exchange. When your Siemens works and talks to AT&T, why does Microsoft not need to open all their APIs to make Sylpheed talk to the Exchange server just as well ? OpenBSD to AD (if Theo so desires, of course) ?
The current state is not a monopoly, it is quite something more. It is non-interoperability on purpose.
Don't tell me that's wrong. It isn't. I am sitting on a monopoly ISP, Streamyx. There is no alternative. (But to *not* connect.) Though, my monopoly ISP permits me to connect to the Internet, which is something. Otherwise I couldn't write this comment to be seen by you.
Whereas Microsoft tries to render their formats non-interoperable. Some Word document doesn't show properly on my screen. That's nothing to do with a monopoly. A monopoly would be that I can't buy anything but Microsoft in a place. Bush might want to like to decide so.
Fails to convince me. They would if they so needed. But why would anyone with a sane mind buy something less for the same price of something more ?
For whom, the hell, in the attic - and not where they belong (trash ??)
Alas, the best intention does not get you through here. There is one - hmm, oops, one that can't be removed, even, easily removed at least ;) - lynx.
You applied and were not taken in, right-o ? ;)
Did you guys *read* the paper ? I did as long as I didn't have to vomit.
On Windows they applied some normal patches; while the 'milestones' on Linux included real heavy stuff: upgrading glibc, upgrading mysql. Plus patches.
When I upgrade mysql and glibc I upgrade from W2K to Server2003; so to say.
Serious upgrading and normal patches cannot be compared.
So, to me, it is and remains FUD.
On purpose they would not use a period including an update from W2K to 2003; or XP. Even less one when you migrate Exchange from 5.5 to 2000 or similar.
They feel the pain and now spend some big money to some Herbert, PhD, to invent a useless situation.
Deception.
[ends]
Mea culpa maxima.
This isn't my mothertongue and I fell into the 'through' of "... is transmitted through particles".
I was seeing kind of fog of particles in front of my eyes; and these tiny driplets being the reason for possible transportation. Of course, at second and third read, this is not necessarily what was intended. It could as well be the message itself that comes across as particle; be it light or gravitation.
Thanks for a great discussion and AFAICS, we have reached a conclusion (and, please, don't disappoint me !).
Sure I am confused.
How could I not ?
We started with gravity, and here we end with electromagnetic waves; light in this case. The duality of wave/particle is all clear to me. But when it is a wave, it doesn't need any particle to transfer through vacuum.
And finally, ether was not 'ether', but some yet (then) undefined goo (matter) as transport medium. And - as you confirm - there is no matter / goo necessary ('still rejected'), otherwise we'd be back at the ether.
But if we are at the point of ether being rejected; that is: no matter *whatsoever* is necessary to get a beam of light or a radio wave across nothing (vacuum), we find ourselves back at OP, who wanted a particle to get electromagnetics across that notorious vacuum. Necessarily a contradiction.
Now I think you are confused and mix two things: a medium over which 'it' travels; and the character of the 'it'em itself (particle or wave ?).