You probably live in a western country - NO PROCESS LIMIT FOR YOU.
As I was corrected yesterday, I'll pass on the favor to you: this is wrong. Unlike XP and Vista, the "starter edition" of Win7 is not the "developing nations" version of Windows. Instead, the starter edition is available worldwide, and is the discounted version intended for Netbooks and similar systems, and it is this version that will have the process limitation. In other words, to run Win7 on a Netbook you either have to put up with the process limitation or pay more for the non-starter edition.
(Win7 will have a developing nations version, called "Home Basic", but this is different. Basically, Home Basic and Starter Editions have swapped since Vista.)
Secondly, this is a major lock in for MS. If by using Firefox, VLC, and a third-party game you can exceede your app limit, but if you use IE, Windows Media Player and some built-in Windows game, you don't.
This is a major [citation needed]. Both show up as separate processes, and since Vista, have little coupling with the rest of Windows components, except the help system which uses the HTML renderer from IE. (Unlike XP and before, when Windows Explorer and IE were very tied together.)
And Windows 2000 SP3 (Aug 2002) and SP4 (Jun 2003; XP was released Oct 2001), which are more definite exceptions you either don't know about or are lying about.
NT4's SP6 security rollup was sort of a mini-service pack, and was released July 2001 (2000 came out in Feb 2000). (Ironically for MS naysayers, the reason that they didn't release a full SP was because they didn't need to release enough patches to make it worthwhile.)
NT 3.51 had a SP5 released, near as I can tell, Aug 1996, a month after NT4. (That's not a very long time though, not like XP SP3, Win2K SP3 or 4, or NT4's SP6 security rollup.)
Looks like we might have people arguing over whether XP or 7 is better... but one thing is for certain, Windows 8 should be the worst Windows since ME based on the Star Trek curse.
"since" ME? I think you meant "including ME".;-)
My main problem with Star Trek 1 is that it should have been a third the length, and it's a bit silly. Whereas my main problem with Star Trek 5 is that I'm pretty sure it was the result of William Shatner's dog taking a dump onto some paper. Then vomiting on it.
Of course, Windows 9 should then finally be good enough to get most of/.'s Linux population to switch.
Why is this getting so much play on/. recently? That's an edition that was available with XP and Vista, and had the exact same restriction. How soon people forget. And if XP and Vista starter editions are any indication, the Win 7 won't even be available outside of basically Asia and Africa.
1. This isn't for arbitrary XP or Vista users; it is (assuming the rumor holds) a program which they will start at some point, so that if you buy a new computer during that time with Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate, you'll get an upgrade to Win 7 when it comes out. This is to reduce the number of people who hold of on buying a new computer until that time.
2. It isn't for XP users at all. There are eleven occurances of "XP" on the linked page, and all but one is in an ad: "* Microsoft Windows Vista® Home Basic, Windows Vista® Starter Edition, and Windows® XP (all editions) are not qualifying products under the program." (emphasis mine).
It's a bit cliche to complain about the editors reading the articles before posting them, but did the poster even read this one?
The work done by Microsoft on Static Driver Verifier isn't new...
Yes, it was.
SLAM was not simply an implementation of existing techniques. Comparing SLAM to Lint is like comparing a safety belt to a life support system. If you really want me to get into what they do differently I can, but that would basically turn into a description of what SLAM actually does. Just for starters, you can't give Lint a description of what a program must or must not do; but this is precisely one of the inputs to SLAM.
SLAM was basically the first remotely effective software model checker for infinite state systems. (My office mate, who knows rather more about software model checking than I do and just submitted a paper to CAV a couple weeks ago, signed off on the accuracy of this system.)
It was also hugely influential in future research outside of MSR in the years since it's publication. It laid essential groundwork for BLAST from Berkeley(3 CAV papers, 1 PLDI, 1 ICSE (with FSE, one of the two top-tier software engineering conferences), 2 POPL), Magic from CMU (1 ICSE paper), Yogi from MSR (1 FSE paper), a couple other projects, and probably a handful of PhD theses.
Again, you quite clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
It's also not new, as static analysis has existed in various forms for quite a while (lint is a form of static analysis).
The work that the SDV is based off of is called SLAM, and it was as much an advance to the field of static analysis as anything people do today is.
Take a look at the publication list from the SLAM project. The research that has gone into it has seen publication in POPL twice (along with PLDI one of the two top-tier conferences in PL), CAV three times (also extremely good), and many other venues.
The BLAST project, which is in some sense a successor to SLAM (not at MSR work), has seen quite a bit of additional publications.
You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about; PL is my research area, so I somewhat do.
Microsoft Research is one of only a couple industry research labs that publishes research of similar quality and quantity to a good research university (another is IBM; Google definitely doesn't). I am much less opposed to MS than most people at/., but I will steadfastly defend MSR.
I mean, can you seriously name one product that's come out of MS R&D that counts as a success (discount anything that's a blatant knockoff of a pre-existing product, embrace and extend/extinguish is not R&D)?
The Static Driver Verifier. Okay, so it's given away free with the DDK, but it indirectly helps them since driver quality is now by far the main stability problem Windows has.
It is a pretty strong implication though, at least for people who don't care much for support. More specifically, care more about saving $$$ than getting support.) I strongly suspect most home users would fall into this category. If MS open sourced Windows but still charged for it, someone would buy it then release it for free. Then all those people who want to save money would go to the person distributing it for free, at least if they knew about it. (They might have to strip it of the Windows trademark, but I still don't think that would increase the value all that much.)
But at what point should they stop? Should Firefox include pop-up blockers? After all, plugins allow someone to not install it if desired -- even the pop-up blocker. Maybe Firefox should try to decouple CSS rendering -- that can be provided in a plugin, so someone who only needs to see the content can do so without that overhead.
I mean, yes, there's a line somewhere, but I think it's hard to argue that something like this is over it.
No, not the first. Maybe the first to be shipped with the functionality turned on by default.
It's more than "turned on by default"; that suggests there's a checkbox somewhere that is just off. The support isn't even installed by default.
Noscript may have deserved mention in the summary, but there is a difference between "including such protections" and "has such protections available in an add-on", and the difference is much more than between "including such protections turned on by default" and "including such protections turned off by default".
I challenge you to show me where the teacher has an intent to gain, or an intent to cause the student to incur a loss?
This would be easy, or at least I hope it would. Just go to a couple university into econ classes towards the end of class and poll the class to see if any of them found their high school notes helpful. I would bet you could find one or two percent.
The requirement that the teacher has an intent to cause the loss doesn't mean that that has to be the motivation behind the action, at least by my reading.
Now, I agree with you on the other point -- you would have a much harder time arguing that the demand was unwarranted. This is especially true as requirement (a) doesn't require the belief to be reasonable. So all the teacher would have to do is convince the court that he or she believes that the collection of notes is reasonable to prevent future cheating, and the section doesn't apply.
The teacher (if they are in Illinois, or any nubmer of other states with similar laws) was completely within their rights to search the bag and confiscate the work.
Nothing in the article you linked implies that hey was within his rights to confiscate the work, only search the backpack.
Autorun also works if the flash drive pretends it's something else, like a USB CD drive. Then Windows will allow autorun. There are entire lines of USB drives that have this (mis)feature.
Yes, but did the Word 2000 feature actually work, or did they slide it onto the "dare ya" menu item? Note that "whack a mole" does not count. It has to work while *not* disabling some other innocent feature on another page unseen.
I honestly forget if I was using Office 2000 or 2002 for a while, but in whichever it was, yes, that feature worked fine. I used it a small amount as far back as Word 97, and don't recall having any problems with it.
I've seen Microsoft marketing literature which claims that MSVC++ supported namespaces in 1995. Why couldn't anyone else implement this feature so quickly? (Perhaps because no one else thought that successfully parsing "using std" was a complete implementation.)
Do you have more specific complaints? I know a fair bit about C++ and it's development, and it's possible that I could explain what was going on. (In particular, 1995 was pre-standardization, and a lot of things were different then. It's very possible that what MSVC did at that point actually was valid C++ at the time, as much as there was such a thing. Heck, MSVC 6 has oodles of these things -- for loop scoping, typename on templates, no partial specialization... but it was pre-standard.)
Tell me about Microsoft's feature achievements when you can back it up with a long history of 3rd party "ACID for Office" compliance results.
Then why are we talking about OO.org? Does it have one?
If Microsoft can't be bothered by it, nor convinced it's a very, very, bad idea, then autorun should at be limited exclusively to CDs and DVDs
As the other person has mentioned, this doesn't work because it's possible for a USB device to masquerade as a CD drive, and it's easy to find a flash drive that does so.
But that isn't even the whole story, which is that barring that fact, what you describe is exactly the situation. Windows won't autorun things off of what it thinks is a removable drive.
The idea wasn't well thought out from the beginning, but I do think Vista improves it substantially, because by default it won't autorun media that has autorun information, at least AFAIK. Instead, it brings up the same sort of autorun dialog that you get when plugging most USB drives into XP, it's just that one of the options is to run the program that the media specifies.
Personally, I think this is a great point on the convenience/security spectrum, because I always did appreciate the convenience of autorun, but have had a hard time leaving it on because of the security issues.
(Of course, knowing MS, they probably managed to screw things up so that you can still just plain autorun even in Vista...)
Slashdot Mirror
You probably live in a western country - NO PROCESS LIMIT FOR YOU.
As I was corrected yesterday, I'll pass on the favor to you: this is wrong. Unlike XP and Vista, the "starter edition" of Win7 is not the "developing nations" version of Windows. Instead, the starter edition is available worldwide, and is the discounted version intended for Netbooks and similar systems, and it is this version that will have the process limitation. In other words, to run Win7 on a Netbook you either have to put up with the process limitation or pay more for the non-starter edition.
(Win7 will have a developing nations version, called "Home Basic", but this is different. Basically, Home Basic and Starter Editions have swapped since Vista.)
Secondly, this is a major lock in for MS. If by using Firefox, VLC, and a third-party game you can exceede your app limit, but if you use IE, Windows Media Player and some built-in Windows game, you don't.
This is a major [citation needed]. Both show up as separate processes, and since Vista, have little coupling with the rest of Windows components, except the help system which uses the HTML renderer from IE. (Unlike XP and before, when Windows Explorer and IE were very tied together.)
Playing violent video games can cause autism too! Wait 'till Jack Thompson hears about this one!
The exception being XP SP3.
And Windows 2000 SP3 (Aug 2002) and SP4 (Jun 2003; XP was released Oct 2001), which are more definite exceptions you either don't know about or are lying about.
NT4's SP6 security rollup was sort of a mini-service pack, and was released July 2001 (2000 came out in Feb 2000). (Ironically for MS naysayers, the reason that they didn't release a full SP was because they didn't need to release enough patches to make it worthwhile.)
NT 3.51 had a SP5 released, near as I can tell, Aug 1996, a month after NT4. (That's not a very long time though, not like XP SP3, Win2K SP3 or 4, or NT4's SP6 security rollup.)
Looks like we might have people arguing over whether XP or 7 is better... but one thing is for certain, Windows 8 should be the worst Windows since ME based on the Star Trek curse.
"since" ME? I think you meant "including ME". ;-)
My main problem with Star Trek 1 is that it should have been a third the length, and it's a bit silly. Whereas my main problem with Star Trek 5 is that I'm pretty sure it was the result of William Shatner's dog taking a dump onto some paper. Then vomiting on it.
Of course, Windows 9 should then finally be good enough to get most of /.'s Linux population to switch.
I didn't realize that... that's bigger than I thought then.
Why is this getting so much play on /. recently? That's an edition that was available with XP and Vista, and had the exact same restriction. How soon people forget. And if XP and Vista starter editions are any indication, the Win 7 won't even be available outside of basically Asia and Africa.
1. This isn't for arbitrary XP or Vista users; it is (assuming the rumor holds) a program which they will start at some point, so that if you buy a new computer during that time with Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate, you'll get an upgrade to Win 7 when it comes out. This is to reduce the number of people who hold of on buying a new computer until that time.
2. It isn't for XP users at all. There are eleven occurances of "XP" on the linked page, and all but one is in an ad: "* Microsoft Windows Vista® Home Basic, Windows Vista® Starter Edition, and Windows® XP (all editions) are not qualifying products under the program." (emphasis mine).
It's a bit cliche to complain about the editors reading the articles before posting them, but did the poster even read this one?
The work done by Microsoft on Static Driver Verifier isn't new...
Yes, it was.
SLAM was not simply an implementation of existing techniques. Comparing SLAM to Lint is like comparing a safety belt to a life support system. If you really want me to get into what they do differently I can, but that would basically turn into a description of what SLAM actually does. Just for starters, you can't give Lint a description of what a program must or must not do; but this is precisely one of the inputs to SLAM.
SLAM was basically the first remotely effective software model checker for infinite state systems. (My office mate, who knows rather more about software model checking than I do and just submitted a paper to CAV a couple weeks ago, signed off on the accuracy of this system.)
It was also hugely influential in future research outside of MSR in the years since it's publication. It laid essential groundwork for BLAST from Berkeley(3 CAV papers, 1 PLDI, 1 ICSE (with FSE, one of the two top-tier software engineering conferences), 2 POPL), Magic from CMU (1 ICSE paper), Yogi from MSR (1 FSE paper), a couple other projects, and probably a handful of PhD theses.
Again, you quite clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
It's also not new, as static analysis has existed in various forms for quite a while (lint is a form of static analysis).
The work that the SDV is based off of is called SLAM, and it was as much an advance to the field of static analysis as anything people do today is.
Take a look at the publication list from the SLAM project. The research that has gone into it has seen publication in POPL twice (along with PLDI one of the two top-tier conferences in PL), CAV three times (also extremely good), and many other venues.
The BLAST project, which is in some sense a successor to SLAM (not at MSR work), has seen quite a bit of additional publications.
You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about; PL is my research area, so I somewhat do.
Microsoft Research is one of only a couple industry research labs that publishes research of similar quality and quantity to a good research university (another is IBM; Google definitely doesn't). I am much less opposed to MS than most people at /., but I will steadfastly defend MSR.
I mean, can you seriously name one product that's come out of MS R&D that counts as a success (discount anything that's a blatant knockoff of a pre-existing product, embrace and extend/extinguish is not R&D)?
The Static Driver Verifier. Okay, so it's given away free with the DDK, but it indirectly helps them since driver quality is now by far the main stability problem Windows has.
It is a pretty strong implication though, at least for people who don't care much for support. More specifically, care more about saving $$$ than getting support.) I strongly suspect most home users would fall into this category. If MS open sourced Windows but still charged for it, someone would buy it then release it for free. Then all those people who want to save money would go to the person distributing it for free, at least if they knew about it. (They might have to strip it of the Windows trademark, but I still don't think that would increase the value all that much.)
Silly enough for you?
With no Slartibartfast?
No. ;-)
Wow, I just figured the parent was on crack. I couldn't imagine a reason that the type of bulb would affect that, but that was quite interesting.
But at what point should they stop? Should Firefox include pop-up blockers? After all, plugins allow someone to not install it if desired -- even the pop-up blocker. Maybe Firefox should try to decouple CSS rendering -- that can be provided in a plugin, so someone who only needs to see the content can do so without that overhead.
I mean, yes, there's a line somewhere, but I think it's hard to argue that something like this is over it.
No, not the first. Maybe the first to be shipped with the functionality turned on by default.
It's more than "turned on by default"; that suggests there's a checkbox somewhere that is just off. The support isn't even installed by default.
Noscript may have deserved mention in the summary, but there is a difference between "including such protections" and "has such protections available in an add-on", and the difference is much more than between "including such protections turned on by default" and "including such protections turned off by default".
I challenge you to show me where the teacher has an intent to gain, or an intent to cause the student to incur a loss?
This would be easy, or at least I hope it would. Just go to a couple university into econ classes towards the end of class and poll the class to see if any of them found their high school notes helpful. I would bet you could find one or two percent.
The requirement that the teacher has an intent to cause the loss doesn't mean that that has to be the motivation behind the action, at least by my reading.
Now, I agree with you on the other point -- you would have a much harder time arguing that the demand was unwarranted. This is especially true as requirement (a) doesn't require the belief to be reasonable. So all the teacher would have to do is convince the court that he or she believes that the collection of notes is reasonable to prevent future cheating, and the section doesn't apply.
The teacher (if they are in Illinois, or any nubmer of other states with similar laws) was completely within their rights to search the bag and confiscate the work.
Nothing in the article you linked implies that hey was within his rights to confiscate the work, only search the backpack.
I think most are missing a crucial fact here: The student in question is in high school.
They may be missing that fact because it's not mentioned in the summary, and there's no A to FR unless you go and try to find that forum.
b) FlightGear, Xplane etc.
X-plane is a worthy competitor to MSFS, but Flightgear isn't even close.
Autorun also works if the flash drive pretends it's something else, like a USB CD drive. Then Windows will allow autorun. There are entire lines of USB drives that have this (mis)feature.
Yes, but did the Word 2000 feature actually work, or did they slide it onto the "dare ya" menu item? Note that "whack a mole" does not count. It has to work while *not* disabling some other innocent feature on another page unseen.
I honestly forget if I was using Office 2000 or 2002 for a while, but in whichever it was, yes, that feature worked fine. I used it a small amount as far back as Word 97, and don't recall having any problems with it.
I've seen Microsoft marketing literature which claims that MSVC++ supported namespaces in 1995. Why couldn't anyone else implement this feature so quickly? (Perhaps because no one else thought that successfully parsing "using std" was a complete implementation.)
Do you have more specific complaints? I know a fair bit about C++ and it's development, and it's possible that I could explain what was going on. (In particular, 1995 was pre-standardization, and a lot of things were different then. It's very possible that what MSVC did at that point actually was valid C++ at the time, as much as there was such a thing. Heck, MSVC 6 has oodles of these things -- for loop scoping, typename on templates, no partial specialization... but it was pre-standard.)
Tell me about Microsoft's feature achievements when you can back it up with a long history of 3rd party "ACID for Office" compliance results.
Then why are we talking about OO.org? Does it have one?
If Microsoft can't be bothered by it, nor convinced it's a very, very, bad idea, then autorun should at be limited exclusively to CDs and DVDs
As the other person has mentioned, this doesn't work because it's possible for a USB device to masquerade as a CD drive, and it's easy to find a flash drive that does so.
But that isn't even the whole story, which is that barring that fact, what you describe is exactly the situation. Windows won't autorun things off of what it thinks is a removable drive.
The idea wasn't well thought out from the beginning, but I do think Vista improves it substantially, because by default it won't autorun media that has autorun information, at least AFAIK. Instead, it brings up the same sort of autorun dialog that you get when plugging most USB drives into XP, it's just that one of the options is to run the program that the media specifies.
Personally, I think this is a great point on the convenience/security spectrum, because I always did appreciate the convenience of autorun, but have had a hard time leaving it on because of the security issues.
(Of course, knowing MS, they probably managed to screw things up so that you can still just plain autorun even in Vista...)
Why bother hacking one when you can get an HDHomeRun...
It does have a $180 USD price tag though...
Seems to me as if you went a long way towards answering your own question.