You are stating a valid attack vector, just not the primary one. Most malware finds its way onto machines directly due to user stupidity. (or have you never witnessed how effectivly one of those damn email worms spreads?)
One of the design errors of Windows, is that it effectively requires that a user run as root (admin) to get much done.
The design of Windows is perfectly capable of allowing users to run under non-root accounts. The vast majority of software written to run on Windows is (obviously) not tested under that scenario and won't work (some of it is Microsoft's; most of it isn't). This is an important distinction, because I can easily write software on Linux that would require admin privs to work; clearly my ability to write crap code isn't the operating system's fault.
The problem you're pointing out is that XP home runs users as admin by default. Which is a fair complaint -- however, given how poorly most applications cope with that environment, I think it was a reasonable decision to make (what do you mean 90% of my applications can't run anymore!?! I'm sticking with WinME! Stupid Microsoft, trying to force me to buy all new software...).
You can generally spend time tweaking permissions to allow software to run as a non-root account, but that takes work. (though we've already established that stupid people would rather just turn it off anyway -- so they're glad they don't have to do it)
AFAIK, Vista is introducing something they call LUA (I forget what the TLA stands for). When logged into the machine (even as admin), every application you launch is run as a least-privledged user. Supposedly their backcompat shims do a fair job of elevating applications when necessary and redirecting access that requires privleges to non-privleged locations... This would seem to address most of your concerns, yet retains app-compat to boot.
How much do you want to bet stupid people turn it off?
Under those conditions, just about any buffer overflow can be parlayed into a rootkit-capable system.
You don't need a buffer overflow to own a box when the user runs as root. You just run.
User stupidity helps but if Windows didn't, for example, insist on binding OS and applications so closely, it would be a lot harder for any tom dick and harry virus to install rootkits.
This has nothing to do with the ability of a rootkit to own a machine.
Linux, for example, doesn't prevent user stupidity, but it does prevent user stupidity from being trivially escelated into a rootkit installation.
Only if a machine is configured correctly, and only if the user decides not to run as root. Remember, we're talking about stupid people here. "Safety" mechanisms just get in the way and are supposed to be turned off.
These people are the reason manufacturers must put warnings on products instructing people not to put platic bags over their child's head. Or not to operate a toaster in the bathtub. Or not to touch the surface of a stove with your hand.
The problem with stupid people is the first thing they do is turn off the safety. The safety is there to prevent accidental discharge of the weapon. Stupid people thing to themselves "if I need to shoot something, this is only just going to get in my way" and proceed to turn it off.
You would be surprised at the number of people who end up shooting themselves with their own gun every year...
If a unix user received a poorly worded email with a password protected zip file attached, saved the file to disc, entered the password from the email, extracted the application, and ran it, YES I WOULD BLAME THE USER.
Microsoft realizes and understands that the Japaneese market is HUGE; capturing a decent portion of that market brings devs to the table that focus on game genre's American / European developers traditionally avoid.
They'll never be #1 if they give up on the Japaneese market. Likewise, it would be rediculous to invest all of that money and give up at the first sign of trouble -- a "relaunch" is cheap -- well worth the risk compared to the outcome of "giving up".
I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.
I agree with you regarding the amount of work that the Revolution and the PS3/360 must do. I disagree that the hardware in the Revolution will generate a 480p image roughly on par with a 720p image scaled down to 480p.
To understand where I'm coming from, take a look at how various graphic cards at different clockspeeds scale between resolutions. Then take a look at the image quality between various generations of cards.
Duh? they said from the beginning that their system was nowhere near the competition horsepower-wise, and that they didn't give a damn about it because they were set out to make a great system to run great games, not a poly-count wankfest.
Listen to yourself for a second. You're basically saying that a faster system can't run games as well as a slower system, which is about the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.
Nintendo has never, in it's whole history, every tried to release the top-performing console. I don't know for the NES, but the SNES was less powerful than the Genesis, the GameBoy was less powerful than the Lynx or the GameGear, the N64 was less powerful than the PlayStation or the Dreamcast, the GameCube was less powerful than the PS2 and the XBOX, the DS was and is less powerful than the PSP.
I couldn't give a crap about handheld games; they're a different ball of wax than consoles. (among other things, battery life plays a large part in the appeal of various devices).
* The NES was the most powerful console of it's generation. * The SNES was more poweful than the Gensis IMO. It could display more colors, had better sound, and had better graphics hardware. * The N64 was a fuckup that most people would rather forget. * The GameCube is more powerful than the PS2 and roughly on-par with the Xbox.
Has that ever stopped every single console of Nintendo from having awesome games and actually turning up a profit for N (as opposed to the XBOX or the PS2, which both losses for their respective manufacturers recouped via license sales)?
Did I ever say it didn't? Where did I fucking say that it was going to flop? Christ, put the fanboy blinders down and read what I actually write instead of what you think you heard.
Long story short, that hasn't. Nintendo doesn't go for sheer power, they know better than that, and this is why they're still here, making thrilling consoles and games and still creating new gameplays every time they release a game or a console.
That hasn't always been true, and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't remember them advertising things like "mode 7 graphics". If they did have the most powerful console, they'd be advertising it. End of story. Marketing people don't ignore checkbox based comparisons when the thing they're advertising wins.
The fact that they didn't set out to have the most powerful console is a different story entirely. If it were, they'd still advertise it. Get over it.
Thing is, once you remove high-def support, you suddenly have a lot horsepower left to render great imagery on a 480p / 480i device.
Except they don't. It'd be one thing if they had hardware capable of rendering hi-def graphics but restricted it to sd resolutions. But they didn't -- their graphics hardware is scaled back proportionally.
I mean, they support NES/SNES/Genesis titles for Christ's sake, were those games crappy? They look GREAT on a TV screen, and some titles have gameplay unparalled in modern titles.
If the only thing worth playing are games I played 10 years ago, why would I want to pay for them all over again?
Nintendo apparently is confident in their vision, enough so not to get into the dick length comparison game Sony and Microsoft are doing with their machine specs.
Translation: Nintendo knows that their specs can't hold a candle to the competition, so they make a point not to talk about it.
I guarantee you if their box had a 6 core PPC in it running at 4ghz they'd be bragging about it all over the place.
Also it has enough power and innovation for great new content, what could a gamer want? Value and entertainment or silly spec numbers?
You assume that the two choices are mutually exclusive. They're not.
Price is indeed a factor for mass adoption. Price is also a factor of the adoption rate -- mass produced items are cheaper to produce than niche market items.
In order for HD-DVD or BluRay to replace DVDs for "normal" consumers that don't know any better, it has to be cheaper to purchase than DVDs (or otherwise possess some sort of "appeal" to the consumer that doesn't rely on "consumer education"). I don't see that happening anytime soon...
Bull. There is a difference between stating how you intend to use your patents and making a promise that Microsoft will never use its patents in a lawsuit involving FOSS. Ex: Company A using FOSS software sues Microsoft over some patent; Microsoft countersues because said FOSS software infringes on their patent.
Given that Ballmer was responding to a question he was asked (which was essentially "can you guarantee that Microsoft will never sue anyone ever about use of FOSS and patents"), and given that the answer appears to be correct and honest (essentially "no, because if I did I'd get my ass sued off by shareholders") it isn't FUD.
It'd be another story if it was a tangent Ballmer went on himself, or if it were in some sort of press release.
We're just now getting proper downloadable music over the internet. Technology isn't the limiting factory -- industry is. The industry will "figure out" this generation before moving onto downloadable content, and in the meantime will fight downloadable content tooth and nail.
Sony has said that their MOVIES will not have the "degrade over analog" bit set. The capability is still there for other publishers to use (and use it they will).
In order for a new format to be adopted, people need to buy it. Early adopters are typically technically minded people, and are generally "informed" about what it is they're purchasing.
The content produces are doing everything in their power to make the format unattractive to technically minded people. Meaning they're scaring away all of the early adopters. Which means that the format will never be adopted.
For me, degrading the signal over analog connections was the thing that pushed me over into the "not gonna buy it" category...
Slashdot Mirror
You are stating a valid attack vector, just not the primary one. Most malware finds its way onto machines directly due to user stupidity. (or have you never witnessed how effectivly one of those damn email worms spreads?)
One of the design errors of Windows, is that it effectively requires that a user run as root (admin) to get much done.
The design of Windows is perfectly capable of allowing users to run under non-root accounts. The vast majority of software written to run on Windows is (obviously) not tested under that scenario and won't work (some of it is Microsoft's; most of it isn't). This is an important distinction, because I can easily write software on Linux that would require admin privs to work; clearly my ability to write crap code isn't the operating system's fault.
The problem you're pointing out is that XP home runs users as admin by default. Which is a fair complaint -- however, given how poorly most applications cope with that environment, I think it was a reasonable decision to make (what do you mean 90% of my applications can't run anymore!?! I'm sticking with WinME! Stupid Microsoft, trying to force me to buy all new software...).
You can generally spend time tweaking permissions to allow software to run as a non-root account, but that takes work. (though we've already established that stupid people would rather just turn it off anyway -- so they're glad they don't have to do it)
AFAIK, Vista is introducing something they call LUA (I forget what the TLA stands for). When logged into the machine (even as admin), every application you launch is run as a least-privledged user. Supposedly their backcompat shims do a fair job of elevating applications when necessary and redirecting access that requires privleges to non-privleged locations... This would seem to address most of your concerns, yet retains app-compat to boot.
How much do you want to bet stupid people turn it off?
Under those conditions, just about any buffer overflow can be parlayed into a rootkit-capable system.
You don't need a buffer overflow to own a box when the user runs as root. You just run.
User stupidity helps but if Windows didn't, for example, insist on binding OS and applications so closely, it would be a lot harder for any tom dick and harry virus to install rootkits.
This has nothing to do with the ability of a rootkit to own a machine.
Linux, for example, doesn't prevent user stupidity, but it does prevent user stupidity from being trivially escelated into a rootkit installation.
Only if a machine is configured correctly, and only if the user decides not to run as root. Remember, we're talking about stupid people here. "Safety" mechanisms just get in the way and are supposed to be turned off.
These people are the reason manufacturers must put warnings on products instructing people not to put platic bags over their child's head. Or not to operate a toaster in the bathtub. Or not to touch the surface of a stove with your hand.
The problem with stupid people is the first thing they do is turn off the safety. The safety is there to prevent accidental discharge of the weapon. Stupid people thing to themselves "if I need to shoot something, this is only just going to get in my way" and proceed to turn it off.
...
You would be surprised at the number of people who end up shooting themselves with their own gun every year
If a unix user received a poorly worded email with a password protected zip file attached, saved the file to disc, entered the password from the email, extracted the application, and ran it, YES I WOULD BLAME THE USER.
Malware doesn't thrive on bugs and vulnerabilities. It thrives on user stupidity.
Bullshit. Every copy of Navigator I ever used was downloaded for free. Even back in the Win3.11 days. (far, FAR before IE existed)
Am I the only one who remembers Navigator being a free download, while Netscape planned to make money off of their server software?
Microsoft realizes and understands that the Japaneese market is HUGE; capturing a decent portion of that market brings devs to the table that focus on game genre's American / European developers traditionally avoid.
They'll never be #1 if they give up on the Japaneese market. Likewise, it would be rediculous to invest all of that money and give up at the first sign of trouble -- a "relaunch" is cheap -- well worth the risk compared to the outcome of "giving up".
I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.
I agree with you regarding the amount of work that the Revolution and the PS3/360 must do. I disagree that the hardware in the Revolution will generate a 480p image roughly on par with a 720p image scaled down to 480p.
To understand where I'm coming from, take a look at how various graphic cards at different clockspeeds scale between resolutions. Then take a look at the image quality between various generations of cards.
Communication between Oracle and Sun and the EU commission.
Duh? they said from the beginning that their system was nowhere near the competition horsepower-wise, and that they didn't give a damn about it because they were set out to make a great system to run great games, not a poly-count wankfest.
Listen to yourself for a second. You're basically saying that a faster system can't run games as well as a slower system, which is about the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.
Nintendo has never, in it's whole history, every tried to release the top-performing console. I don't know for the NES, but the SNES was less powerful than the Genesis, the GameBoy was less powerful than the Lynx or the GameGear, the N64 was less powerful than the PlayStation or the Dreamcast, the GameCube was less powerful than the PS2 and the XBOX, the DS was and is less powerful than the PSP.
I couldn't give a crap about handheld games; they're a different ball of wax than consoles. (among other things, battery life plays a large part in the appeal of various devices).
* The NES was the most powerful console of it's generation.
* The SNES was more poweful than the Gensis IMO. It could display more colors, had better sound, and had better graphics hardware.
* The N64 was a fuckup that most people would rather forget.
* The GameCube is more powerful than the PS2 and roughly on-par with the Xbox.
Has that ever stopped every single console of Nintendo from having awesome games and actually turning up a profit for N (as opposed to the XBOX or the PS2, which both losses for their respective manufacturers recouped via license sales)?
Did I ever say it didn't? Where did I fucking say that it was going to flop? Christ, put the fanboy blinders down and read what I actually write instead of what you think you heard.
Long story short, that hasn't. Nintendo doesn't go for sheer power, they know better than that, and this is why they're still here, making thrilling consoles and games and still creating new gameplays every time they release a game or a console.
That hasn't always been true, and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't remember them advertising things like "mode 7 graphics". If they did have the most powerful console, they'd be advertising it. End of story. Marketing people don't ignore checkbox based comparisons when the thing they're advertising wins.
The fact that they didn't set out to have the most powerful console is a different story entirely. If it were, they'd still advertise it. Get over it.
Thing is, once you remove high-def support, you suddenly have a lot horsepower left to render great imagery on a 480p / 480i device.
Except they don't. It'd be one thing if they had hardware capable of rendering hi-def graphics but restricted it to sd resolutions. But they didn't -- their graphics hardware is scaled back proportionally.
I mean, they support NES/SNES/Genesis titles for Christ's sake, were those games crappy? They look GREAT on a TV screen, and some titles have gameplay unparalled in modern titles.
If the only thing worth playing are games I played 10 years ago, why would I want to pay for them all over again?
Nintendo apparently is confident in their vision, enough so not to get into the dick length comparison game Sony and Microsoft are doing with their machine specs.
Translation: Nintendo knows that their specs can't hold a candle to the competition, so they make a point not to talk about it.
I guarantee you if their box had a 6 core PPC in it running at 4ghz they'd be bragging about it all over the place.
Also it has enough power and innovation for great new content, what could a gamer want? Value and entertainment or silly spec numbers?
You assume that the two choices are mutually exclusive. They're not.
Price is indeed a factor for mass adoption. Price is also a factor of the adoption rate -- mass produced items are cheaper to produce than niche market items.
...
In order for HD-DVD or BluRay to replace DVDs for "normal" consumers that don't know any better, it has to be cheaper to purchase than DVDs (or otherwise possess some sort of "appeal" to the consumer that doesn't rely on "consumer education"). I don't see that happening anytime soon
Bull. There is a difference between stating how you intend to use your patents and making a promise that Microsoft will never use its patents in a lawsuit involving FOSS. Ex: Company A using FOSS software sues Microsoft over some patent; Microsoft countersues because said FOSS software infringes on their patent.
Given that Ballmer was responding to a question he was asked (which was essentially "can you guarantee that Microsoft will never sue anyone ever about use of FOSS and patents"), and given that the answer appears to be correct and honest (essentially "no, because if I did I'd get my ass sued off by shareholders") it isn't FUD.
It'd be another story if it was a tangent Ballmer went on himself, or if it were in some sort of press release.
We're just now getting proper downloadable music over the internet. Technology isn't the limiting factory -- industry is. The industry will "figure out" this generation before moving onto downloadable content, and in the meantime will fight downloadable content tooth and nail.
Sony has said that their MOVIES will not have the "degrade over analog" bit set. The capability is still there for other publishers to use (and use it they will).
Perhaps. But it has nothing to do with BluRay being easier to crack than HD-DVD (or vice versa).
In order for a new format to be adopted, people need to buy it. Early adopters are typically technically minded people, and are generally "informed" about what it is they're purchasing.
...
The content produces are doing everything in their power to make the format unattractive to technically minded people. Meaning they're scaring away all of the early adopters. Which means that the format will never be adopted.
For me, degrading the signal over analog connections was the thing that pushed me over into the "not gonna buy it" category
The content protection scheme used for both HD-DVD and BluRay is the same (ie: neither is easier to crack than the other).
Maybe it is, and the 360 is in a different room acting as an extender?
The xbox team is not working on Vista. So sayeth the xbox team: http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2006/03/24/ 533961.aspx
Vista Server is probably based on Win2k3 SP1 (which was in turn based off of WinXP SP2). I don't know how toughtly coupled each source branch is.
And by "on time" I mean "before the SA contracts expire", or "around November, 2006" :)