Office2k3 installs without DRM software just fine.
If you get a document with right's management enabled, you see a message saying that the document has rights management enabled and that you need to install DRM software to view it.
Well, if you're putting together a system to only fill the role of a storage/backup solution, then what's the big deal? Costs the same either way, and one of them takes a lot less of YOUR time to put together/take care of.
1. Treats the ability to open attachments in Outlook as a windows vulnerability.
2. Treats IIS vulnerabilities as Windows vulerabilities because IIS runs on Windows.
3. Treats SQLServer vulnerabilities as Windows vulnerabilities because SQLServer runs on Windows.
4. Treats DCOM vulnerabilities as Windows vulerabilities because DCOM runs on Windows.
5. Treats all software problems on Windows as problems caused by Microsoft.
6. Double counting "Windows" vulnerabilities by counting all of the patches put out for different versions.
7. Ignorant of the fact that the Windows kernel is exploited as (in)frequently as the Linux kernel.
8. Frequently talkes about Linux "distributions" in most OS discussions, except when a flaw is discovered in some OSS software that everyone runs -- in which case they run around screaming "Linux is not an operating system!"
Plus, I don't see Microsoft supporting not one but TWO Intel-specific 64-bit platforms.
If the platforms both become popular they will. Having.Net out there actually makes supporting two 64bit platforms pretty easy. Most of the work is creating two separate JIT compilers...
Except in the real world, an admin wouldn't be walk to each computer with a floppy disk to update 1000 machines (unless they enjoy pain). They'd have setup Software Update Service on a machine, and deploy the patch using that. Your 5 days to update 1000 machines is reduced to less than an hour and a few mouse clicks.
Yet, anyhow, and one of the reasons is probably because the idea is much less feasible in the windows-centric gaming world than on 'nix....where in the 'nix world, accelerated drivers for modern hardware are non-existant (ie: poor performance). Graphics hardware support is the worst of all -- linux only has drivers for nvidia hardware; not only are the driver's closed source, they can't be redistributed.
The problem isn't that the gaming world is "windows-centric" -- it's that the hardware the games run on is too diverse.
In the playstation, you can choose "Memory card A, B, etc", so no problem doing the same for a PC I'd imagine.
And in the playstation, you know which card slot A & B are. On the PC, you get to randomly pick the one on the left, right, two in the middle, and possibly a few in the back. Or perhaps a device on a USB hub.
And remember, just because somebody hasn't done something yet, doesn't mean that - with a little care and effort - it can't be done in the future!
Of course it could be done. I'm not saying it hasn't been done because it's too hard or impossible. I'm saying that it brings more problems to the table than it solves, and THAT is why it hasn't been done.
As per the USB-drive though, the advantage would be in autodetecting and using the drive, as well as portability. No specifying hard-drive save locations, etc. Most users could probably figure out how to stick a USB dongle in the port... and if you consider that a proper liveCD game would run in most PCs you could drag dongle and game disc with you anywhere...
No, you've still got the same problems as with a harddrive. You still have the problem of getting the drivers into the right place on the usb dongle for instance. On top of that, the drivers on your dongle won't work on your friends pc (who happens to not have the game or the drivers needed to make the game run). And you'd have to choose a dongle to save to if more than one are plugged in -- and unlike a console, the USB dongles aren't going to be labeled. And "easy" to insert depends on the computer -- a large number of computers still don't have USB ports on the front of the case.
And I still challenege the notion that a "proper" liveCD game will run in most PCs -- unless you're talking about tetris or solitare. There is definately a REASON why nobody distributes games in that form for the PC.
No; rather, they don't do anything with the old versions of windows anymore. This means they generally don't check the unsupported systems for flaws, let alone fix them. If you've got a problem, you're on your own -- hence the encouragement to upgrade (well, one of the reasons anyway).
In other words, better the devel you know than the devil you don't.
Though, I don't think using older versions of windows is a big deal -- mainly because they aren't heavily used and very few exploits target them (and I can pretty much guarantee you that it isn't because Win9x is more secure than NT)...
I believe there was an SSL vulnerability that someone was posting about that had existed for roughly 7 years... I don't recall the details, though I'm sure you can find them if you're really curious.
You can't really disable RPC (COM uses the RPC service, and lots of windows apps use COM), but you can disable DCOM -- which is where the vulnerability lies. And it should be pretty safe to do so, as most normal people don't use DCOM.
Does this mean that even though microsoft cleaned up the code that was used by MSBlast as a backdoor, they still overlooked some code in the same region?
There is another RPC buffer overflow that hits a different part of DCOM. The patch was released within the last week or two.
The binary switchover happened as a marketing scheme sometime between 100MB and 1GB
It had to have happened before that, because I had a 20mb Quantum drive that wasn't a true 20mb, and the same for a 40mb Seagate drive (which died a few months later...*sigh*).
What issue? Load up the USB mass-storage driver. Save to USB. And is it really that much slower than an HD, no moving parts and with USB 2.0 it should be reasonably fast.
How is this different than having to create a special file system/directory layout on the harddrive? It isn't. And USB 2.0 be damned, all of those mass storage devices use flashram, which isn't incredibly exactly the fastest stuff on the planet (I have yet to see one max out on a pre usb2 port... took me 5 minutes to copy a 150mb file, or roughly 500k/s).
As per inserting different disks. Yes, blah, annoying... but not that much worse than the old sierra games (5 1/4 floppies with Kings Quest on a 286 or less anyone?) or perhaps something like Final Fantasy where the game spanned CD's (until DVD took over as popular format).
It doesn't matter, having to insert disks in a special sequence just to play the game sucks. Especially considering the only reason you'd be doing it is for drivers.
Also, how are newer cards for legacy support? I know that Nvidia drivers often come bundled now, so perhaps an older Nvidia card could run a future GeForce 7 on a GF4 commanset, just without the inherant extra functionality (which, in and old game, wouldn't matter anyhow).
Legacy support among video cards doesn't matter. Eventually the architecture changes, and it won't be backwards compatible. Not to mention what happens when a new manufacturer comes to market with a new card. Or what happens when AMD/Intel release a new mobo chipset. Or when the next IDE standard comes to market... and so on.
True, but that's only after the point if it can't liveboot by itself, which in most situations one would hope that it still could.
Your optimism is greater than mine, and having to go through those steps negates the benefits of using the "everything on cd" console-like approach.
Another solution would simply be to have a "companion disc" for updated drivers etc. Lots of games load off multiple CD's anyhow... though I thing this would just make it a bit more annoying.
A bit annoying is an understatement... brings back memories of installing Office for Win3.11... insert disk 1, insert disk 2, insert disk 3, insert disk 2, insert disk 3, insert disk 1... bleh. Shoot me. Not to mention what would happen when you start mixing disks with different updates of drivers, and keeping track of what's what.
which again a USB-dongle would save you the trouble of this
The USB dongle/sotrage device doesn't save you from anything. It's just a different storage device from the HD. A much SLOWER storage device than a HD. And you've still got the issue of getting everything in the right place configured properly.
Then you lose the entire advantage from booting off of the game disk -- you now have to have something installed on a standard way on your harddrive. The whole point of the boot-from-cd is to have a game that works without having anything else installed. When you start requiring a certain directory layout with certain files preinstalled, you've basically got another OS installation -- at which point I'd have to ask "why bother?"
Video drivers you say? The greater majority of systems I plop this one into run very nicely in the GUI. Now for accelerated video drivers... it could be a bit more of a pain, but I'm sure if they've come this far they could figure it out.
If you're talking games, you're talking accelerated drivers. And with everything burnt onto a cd, you only get support for hardware that exists at the time the game shipped, which sucks for pc gaming. Want to play a game you bought 2 years ago on your new pc? Tough luck, it won't work.
so perhaps if a linux system that in some ways worked like a console would be better than a console that acted like a PC (hard drive, network addons, etc).
Except with the PC is acting like a console it isn't doing anything better than a console. You're playing a game. The only way a game on-cd works is if it has a static hardware target. The PC world isn't static.
Actually, they use XML in a very standard way with Office 2k3. Most of the whining about Office XML support on Slashdot is from people who don't know the right way to use XML.
I've got a game sitting right here, works on my PC, but on another machine (with specs that well exceed game recommended) it craps out.
Wow, the detail here makes your claim SO believable... what, Wing Commander II doesn't work on your 1ghz Athlon?
Now, tell me the wonders of gaming on an MS platform, because in many cases it is still hit-and-miss as to whether your game will work 100%.
In many cases for who? I don't know one person who's had a problem with a game they've bought. I know I've never had a problem.
What would be nice, is a game booting off a liveCD. If I can get a full OS+Productivity apps to load off a mini-CD, one would think that booting off a standard disc or perhaps DVD would run a game rather well.
And for savegames? Perhaps a USB memory stick (hell, they're pretty cheap, an 8mb or 4mb wouldn't cost much) and/or the ability to mount off a hard drive. If you can slap a memory card in a PS2 you can figure out a USB stick.
They exist. They're called consoles.
Seems to me that the ability to boot a productive running kernel without an HDD should be a boon that potential game developers should consider. At that point the pre-loaded OS becomes a rather moot point.
You're missing one minor detail... DRIVERS. Shipping a bootable cd for your game in pc land will never happen -- there are just too many different video cards, too many different sound cards, too many different network cards, and too many different ways to hook up a joystick (not to mention the different kinds of joysticks) and/or keyboard. Not to mention hardware that is released AFTER the game ships.
Imperative, they're imperative or OOP, not functional. Functional languages are languages exactly like LISP or Scheme. You construct a C program out of a bunch of statements, not a bunch of functions.
*smacks self on forehead* You're right... that's what happens when I post at 2am.:)
C, Basic, Pascal, Fortran, and Cobol are not regarded as functional nor object-oriented languages. I highly recommend you consult the definitions of said terms. In addition, I would not count the following as object-oriented languages, in an ideal world: C++ and Java, due to their mostly static (and pain-in-the-ass) nature.
I didn't state that the languages mentioned were purely functional or purely object based. But they are functional (your program is based around functions) and/or object oriented (your program is based around objects).
The distinction you are making is academic. While it may be an important distinction to you, it isn't to me. But then again, I get the distinct impression that your work regarding computers is purely academic in nature (where such things are important) while mine is in industry (where such things aren't).
In general, the problem of an ideal "Universal Intermediate Representation" for all languages, so that only one backend is needed per platform, has been extensively studied for probably 30 years and I do believe the conclusion so far is: it's not possible.
I highly doubt that Microsoft has beat out academia in this regard.
I never stated that Microsoft came up with a universal backend. I did state that they came up with a backend that accurately models languages commonly in use, and such a backend would probably work for languages that don't fit that model well, albiet poorly (I probably should append that with "and a crapload of work").
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps; however, if he was given the oppotunity to do everything he wanted, the first version of NT would still be in development...
Office2k3 installs without DRM software just fine.
If you get a document with right's management enabled, you see a message saying that the document has rights management enabled and that you need to install DRM software to view it.
In other words, the Apple DRM is ok because it is flawed in a manner that lets you bypass the restrictions.
:p
Who is it we're talking about here again?
Well, if you're putting together a system to only fill the role of a storage/backup solution, then what's the big deal? Costs the same either way, and one of them takes a lot less of YOUR time to put together/take care of.
1. Treats the ability to open attachments in Outlook as a windows vulnerability.
2. Treats IIS vulnerabilities as Windows vulerabilities because IIS runs on Windows.
3. Treats SQLServer vulnerabilities as Windows vulnerabilities because SQLServer runs on Windows.
4. Treats DCOM vulnerabilities as Windows vulerabilities because DCOM runs on Windows.
5. Treats all software problems on Windows as problems caused by Microsoft.
6. Double counting "Windows" vulnerabilities by counting all of the patches put out for different versions.
7. Ignorant of the fact that the Windows kernel is exploited as (in)frequently as the Linux kernel.
8. Frequently talkes about Linux "distributions" in most OS discussions, except when a flaw is discovered in some OSS software that everyone runs -- in which case they run around screaming "Linux is not an operating system!"
Plus, I don't see Microsoft supporting not one but TWO Intel-specific 64-bit platforms.
.Net out there actually makes supporting two 64bit platforms pretty easy. Most of the work is creating two separate JIT compilers...
If the platforms both become popular they will. Having
Except in the real world, an admin wouldn't be walk to each computer with a floppy disk to update 1000 machines (unless they enjoy pain). They'd have setup Software Update Service on a machine, and deploy the patch using that. Your 5 days to update 1000 machines is reduced to less than an hour and a few mouse clicks.
Yet, anyhow, and one of the reasons is probably because the idea is much less feasible in the windows-centric gaming world than on 'nix. ...where in the 'nix world, accelerated drivers for modern hardware are non-existant (ie: poor performance). Graphics hardware support is the worst of all -- linux only has drivers for nvidia hardware; not only are the driver's closed source, they can't be redistributed.
The problem isn't that the gaming world is "windows-centric" -- it's that the hardware the games run on is too diverse.
In the playstation, you can choose "Memory card A, B, etc", so no problem doing the same for a PC I'd imagine.
And in the playstation, you know which card slot A & B are. On the PC, you get to randomly pick the one on the left, right, two in the middle, and possibly a few in the back. Or perhaps a device on a USB hub.
And remember, just because somebody hasn't done something yet, doesn't mean that - with a little care and effort - it can't be done in the future!
Of course it could be done. I'm not saying it hasn't been done because it's too hard or impossible. I'm saying that it brings more problems to the table than it solves, and THAT is why it hasn't been done.
As per the USB-drive though, the advantage would be in autodetecting and using the drive, as well as portability. No specifying hard-drive save locations, etc. Most users could probably figure out how to stick a USB dongle in the port... and if you consider that a proper liveCD game would run in most PCs you could drag dongle and game disc with you anywhere...
No, you've still got the same problems as with a harddrive. You still have the problem of getting the drivers into the right place on the usb dongle for instance. On top of that, the drivers on your dongle won't work on your friends pc (who happens to not have the game or the drivers needed to make the game run). And you'd have to choose a dongle to save to if more than one are plugged in -- and unlike a console, the USB dongles aren't going to be labeled. And "easy" to insert depends on the computer -- a large number of computers still don't have USB ports on the front of the case.
And I still challenege the notion that a "proper" liveCD game will run in most PCs -- unless you're talking about tetris or solitare. There is definately a REASON why nobody distributes games in that form for the PC.
No; rather, they don't do anything with the old versions of windows anymore. This means they generally don't check the unsupported systems for flaws, let alone fix them. If you've got a problem, you're on your own -- hence the encouragement to upgrade (well, one of the reasons anyway).
In other words, better the devel you know than the devil you don't.
Though, I don't think using older versions of windows is a big deal -- mainly because they aren't heavily used and very few exploits target them (and I can pretty much guarantee you that it isn't because Win9x is more secure than NT)...
I believe there was an SSL vulnerability that someone was posting about that had existed for roughly 7 years... I don't recall the details, though I'm sure you can find them if you're really curious.
You can't really disable RPC (COM uses the RPC service, and lots of windows apps use COM), but you can disable DCOM -- which is where the vulnerability lies. And it should be pretty safe to do so, as most normal people don't use DCOM.
That would be because the Win9x codebase doesn't have DCOM ...
Does this mean that even though microsoft cleaned up the code that was used by MSBlast as a backdoor, they still overlooked some code in the same region?
There is another RPC buffer overflow that hits a different part of DCOM. The patch was released within the last week or two.
The binary switchover happened as a marketing scheme sometime between 100MB and 1GB
It had to have happened before that, because I had a 20mb Quantum drive that wasn't a true 20mb, and the same for a 40mb Seagate drive (which died a few months later...*sigh*).
What issue? Load up the USB mass-storage driver. Save to USB. And is it really that much slower than an HD, no moving parts and with USB 2.0 it should be reasonably fast.
... took me 5 minutes to copy a 150mb file, or roughly 500k/s).
... and so on.
How is this different than having to create a special file system/directory layout on the harddrive? It isn't. And USB 2.0 be damned, all of those mass storage devices use flashram, which isn't incredibly exactly the fastest stuff on the planet (I have yet to see one max out on a pre usb2 port
As per inserting different disks. Yes, blah, annoying... but not that much worse than the old sierra games (5 1/4 floppies with Kings Quest on a 286 or less anyone?) or perhaps something like Final Fantasy where the game spanned CD's (until DVD took over as popular format).
It doesn't matter, having to insert disks in a special sequence just to play the game sucks. Especially considering the only reason you'd be doing it is for drivers.
Also, how are newer cards for legacy support? I know that Nvidia drivers often come bundled now, so perhaps an older Nvidia card could run a future GeForce 7 on a GF4 commanset, just without the inherant extra functionality (which, in and old game, wouldn't matter anyhow).
Legacy support among video cards doesn't matter. Eventually the architecture changes, and it won't be backwards compatible. Not to mention what happens when a new manufacturer comes to market with a new card. Or what happens when AMD/Intel release a new mobo chipset. Or when the next IDE standard comes to market
True, but that's only after the point if it can't liveboot by itself, which in most situations one would hope that it still could.
... brings back memories of installing Office for Win3.11 ... insert disk 1, insert disk 2, insert disk 3, insert disk 2, insert disk 3, insert disk 1... bleh. Shoot me. Not to mention what would happen when you start mixing disks with different updates of drivers, and keeping track of what's what.
Your optimism is greater than mine, and having to go through those steps negates the benefits of using the "everything on cd" console-like approach.
Another solution would simply be to have a "companion disc" for updated drivers etc. Lots of games load off multiple CD's anyhow... though I thing this would just make it a bit more annoying.
A bit annoying is an understatement
which again a USB-dongle would save you the trouble of this
The USB dongle/sotrage device doesn't save you from anything. It's just a different storage device from the HD. A much SLOWER storage device than a HD. And you've still got the issue of getting everything in the right place configured properly.
Then you lose the entire advantage from booting off of the game disk -- you now have to have something installed on a standard way on your harddrive. The whole point of the boot-from-cd is to have a game that works without having anything else installed. When you start requiring a certain directory layout with certain files preinstalled, you've basically got another OS installation -- at which point I'd have to ask "why bother?"
Video drivers you say? The greater majority of systems I plop this one into run very nicely in the GUI. Now for accelerated video drivers... it could be a bit more of a pain, but I'm sure if they've come this far they could figure it out.
If you're talking games, you're talking accelerated drivers. And with everything burnt onto a cd, you only get support for hardware that exists at the time the game shipped, which sucks for pc gaming. Want to play a game you bought 2 years ago on your new pc? Tough luck, it won't work.
so perhaps if a linux system that in some ways worked like a console would be better than a console that acted like a PC (hard drive, network addons, etc).
Except with the PC is acting like a console it isn't doing anything better than a console. You're playing a game. The only way a game on-cd works is if it has a static hardware target. The PC world isn't static.
Actually, they use XML in a very standard way with Office 2k3. Most of the whining about Office XML support on Slashdot is from people who don't know the right way to use XML.
I've got a game sitting right here, works on my PC, but on another machine (with specs that well exceed game recommended) it craps out.
... what, Wing Commander II doesn't work on your 1ghz Athlon?
... DRIVERS. Shipping a bootable cd for your game in pc land will never happen -- there are just too many different video cards, too many different sound cards, too many different network cards, and too many different ways to hook up a joystick (not to mention the different kinds of joysticks) and/or keyboard. Not to mention hardware that is released AFTER the game ships.
Wow, the detail here makes your claim SO believable
Now, tell me the wonders of gaming on an MS platform, because in many cases it is still hit-and-miss as to whether your game will work 100%.
In many cases for who? I don't know one person who's had a problem with a game they've bought. I know I've never had a problem.
What would be nice, is a game booting off a liveCD. If I can get a full OS+Productivity apps to load off a mini-CD, one would think that booting off a standard disc or perhaps DVD would run a game rather well.
And for savegames? Perhaps a USB memory stick (hell, they're pretty cheap, an 8mb or 4mb wouldn't cost much) and/or the ability to mount off a hard drive. If you can slap a memory card in a PS2 you can figure out a USB stick.
They exist. They're called consoles.
Seems to me that the ability to boot a productive running kernel without an HDD should be a boon that potential game developers should consider. At that point the pre-loaded OS becomes a rather moot point.
You're missing one minor detail
Yeah, like you've never gotten something backwards before ... *rolls eyes*
Imperative, they're imperative or OOP, not functional. Functional languages are languages exactly like LISP or Scheme. You construct a C program out of a bunch of statements, not a bunch of functions.
... that's what happens when I post at 2am. :)
*smacks self on forehead* You're right
My car goes from 0-120 back to 0 in just over 30 seconds. It isn't fast enough for me. :p
C, Basic, Pascal, Fortran, and Cobol are not regarded as functional nor object-oriented languages. I highly recommend you consult the definitions of said terms. In addition, I would not count the following as object-oriented languages, in an ideal world: C++ and Java, due to their mostly static (and pain-in-the-ass) nature.
I didn't state that the languages mentioned were purely functional or purely object based. But they are functional (your program is based around functions) and/or object oriented (your program is based around objects).
The distinction you are making is academic. While it may be an important distinction to you, it isn't to me. But then again, I get the distinct impression that your work regarding computers is purely academic in nature (where such things are important) while mine is in industry (where such things aren't).
In general, the problem of an ideal "Universal Intermediate Representation" for all languages, so that only one backend is needed per platform, has been extensively studied for probably 30 years and I do believe the conclusion so far is: it's not possible.
I highly doubt that Microsoft has beat out academia in this regard.
I never stated that Microsoft came up with a universal backend. I did state that they came up with a backend that accurately models languages commonly in use, and such a backend would probably work for languages that don't fit that model well, albiet poorly (I probably should append that with "and a crapload of work").