"There seems to be about 15% of us that are just so crazy we switched our browsers to Firefox or Opera... I would recommend it."
I thought this was an OS problem, such that any browser would be affected if they run the malicious animated cursor (though IE7 in protected mode would not allow any real damage). No?
"Sure, but this is still a zero-day exploit for everybody who hasn't upgraded to Vista, and everybody who hasn't turned on IE7 Protected Mode. (The MS website seems to imply that IE7 Protected Mode is not the default). That leaves at least 95% of the installed base of desktops vulnerable."
"Zero day"? Did you say, "ZERO DAY"??? OMG!!! It's ARMAGEDDON!!
Sorry, "zero day", while it has meaning, is mainly used for sensationalism. PANIC!!
BTW, on Vista, IE7 does run in protected mode by default.
So does that mean that Microsoft will no longer have a monopoly on "desktop OSes for intel-compatible CPUs"? (Given that Dell will ship Linux systems and OSX also is a desktop OS that uses intel CPUs.) The next time Microsoft's monopoly status is reviewed by the US courts (happens every year), will their monopoly status get revoked, so that their compliance oversight regulations are lifted?
There was an American Dad episode last month called "Black Mystery Month" about a conspiracy to hide the truth regarding George Washington Carver and Peanut Butter. The episode ends with the dad saying, "Hmmm... How can we disseminate information worldwide without proof, but so that people will take is as factual anyway?" (not an exact quote by any means). The next scene shows the dad and his son altering the George Washington Carver article on Wikipedia. LOL
So, Wikipedia's credibility is going down fast when even pop culture is making fun of it.
"A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution."
What's the real difference? Think of it as "virtual" distribution via the Web. GPL was written before the rise of web apps, but as web apps have become more and more used, GPL must change with the times. Imagine that in the next 5 years, 80% of apps are web apps, and GPL doesn't cover them. GPL is pretty much useless then. Imagine that in the future, Microsoft makes a web version of Office. There'd be nothing preventing them from using GPL code in their product without releasing their own code. Hell, Google is probably doing this as we speak. (I know you probably don't care about Google violating the spirit of GPL, but the Microsoft scenario should convince you that this should be fixed.)
"Well, one could naturally believe that it's slow because it checks the content of the file for possible markers that it is a file containing protected content, or something like this."
DRM prevents files from being *played* without authorization. It doesn't prevent them from being *copied*. That's the basis of DRMed files (I refer to files on a harddrive, not files on a protected optical disc). You can copy them, share them, to your heart's content. But you can't *play* them without a license. This issue has nothing to do with DRM. None of the linked articles suggest that either, only slashdot's summary does.
I've always thought of the album as the artist's "work", and a single just one "scene" in it, if you will. I think of albums like Sgt. Pepper, The White Album, That's The Way of The World, Purple Rain, What's Going On, Dark Side of the Moon, Kind of Blue, It Takes A Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back, Electric Ladyland, etc, and am saddened at the thought of those being released simply as individual songs rather than works in and of themselves.
Many slashdotters have claimed that CDs only have one good song plus filler garbage (that's one of the common justifications given for piracy). I've almost *never* found that to be the case. Even when I've bought a CD just for one or two songs, I normally end up liking almost all of the other songs as well. Most CD's aren't in the league of the examples I give above, but most aren't utter trash either.
So I don't consider the demise of the album to be a good thing. I think it sucks, and this "new reality" that music companies must adjust to is not for the better, not by a long shot.
Let's say a Mac user wants to upgrade to new hardware but use the copy of OSX that he already has (removing OSX from his old Mac, so as to stay within the EULA terms of one copy of OSX per Mac). Or, perhaps he bought a copy of OSX at retail and never installed it on any Mac, and wants to use that retail copy on a new Mac.
Should he not be able to get a new Mac without the OS at a cheaper price, since he's going to install on it a copy of the OS that he already has?
I think he should be able to do this. Apple always gets a free pass on these things for whatever reason.
Yeah, they've had it at soapbox.msn.com, but it's only been in beta stage.
Actually, MSN is one of the clients with the new NBC/Universal video thingamagig, so I wonder how that will work with soapbox. And there's already video.msn.com. Of course, Google has both Google Video and YouTube, so I guess having multiple sites is fine.
Lewis Lessig (a god to most slashdotters) would disagree. He'd say that this ad is a direct result of the "mix" culture, where you take previous work and alter it or mix it with others to make a new creation.
The problem is that most slashdotters have bought into the idea that software should be "free", so they want to extend that philosophy to all other forms of IP, whether the creators like it or not.
That "marshal bool properly" problem was simply a bug (God forbid, that a bug could occur in software!!), not a design issue. Furthermore it was over three years ago and has since been fixed. You get an F in FUD'ing.
You're showing your ignorance. Go read a WPF book. I'll recommend one for you: Windows Presentation Foundation Unleashed, by Adam Nathan The notion that you can't get to the 3D scenes, and that all you have is "thumbnails" is absurd.
And if you want to get lower level, D3D is there too.
This is what I don't get. Slashdotters by and large orgasmed over OSX Tiger, whose only compelling feature over Panther was integrated search (and widgets/gadgets, for those that give a damn about that).
Vista adds integrated search (and widgets/gadgets, for thost that give a damn about that) and more over XP, yet the slashdot consenus is that Vista adds nothing compelling.
Which is it? Is integrated search (and widgets/gadgets, for those that give a damn about that) compelling or not? Anyone that thought that Spotlighe was compelling in Tiger must also agree that integrated search is compelling in Vista.
Two problems with including HD-DVD 1. BR is going to beat HD-DVD in the movie format war, so why should Microsoft go thru that unnecessary expense? Xbox 360 Users that really want HD-DVD can get the HD-DVD add-on.
2. Including HD-DVD would make the console cost $600. This would make the PS3's price seem "reasonable" to customers, and customers that wouldn've shunned the PS3 in favor of Xbox360 would be tempted to go with PS3 instead.
LOL Did you really expect the average slashdotter to read the article or the originating blog when the (misleading) summary provided enough fuel for Microsoft-bashing based in ignorance? Slashdotters (generally) would rather be ignorant of a situation if such ignorance allows them to bash someone.
Here's an example of the real issue: Say there's a buffer overflow in IE7. On XP, such would allow a remote attack to take over the whole machine, or, if the user is running as limited rather than admin, then at least the whole user account.
Under Vista, IE7 runs with priveleges even less than the standard limited accounts, such that it can only touch its own directory and registry settings (unless the user explicitly allows it through UI such as File-SaveAs), so the remote exploit would do nothing to the system nor even the user's files.
So, the same exploit on both XP and Vista result in vastly different degrees of danger. That's the issue here, not your strawman that Microsoft claimed that that Vista had zero exploits.
This day and age, people are used to navigating thu websites that have very different UIs among them, and there's no issue. Vista having a different UI than XP will NOT drive anyone to Linux. Other things might, but not UI. Same for Ok27 vis-a-vi OO.o.
Microsoft is coming out with all kinds of excuses for force people to buy Vista. They are trying to make anything new they create artificially incompatible with XP.
Is that why Office 2007, PowerShell, Orcas,.NET 3.0, etc all work on XP?
The double-standards around here are tiring. Apple could've release Spotlight for OSX 10.3. There's "no technical reason" preventing that. Yet they didn't, and Spotlight was heralded as *the* reason to pay to upgrade to 10.4. Yet I heard no talk of Apple "forcing" upgrades by releasing features for 10.4 that could've been made available for 10.3.
On the other hand, Microsoft is bashed regardless of what they do. They make DirectX 10 specific to Vista, and are bashed for not backporting it to XP. They backport.NET 3.0 to XP and are bashed/mocked for reducing incentive to upgrade to Vista (I recall the many slashdot posts mocking Microsoft for backporting.NET 3.0 to XP, "HAHA, Yet another reason not to upgrade to Vista!! MS sucks!!".
Slashdot Mirror
"There seems to be about 15% of us that are just so crazy we switched our browsers to Firefox or Opera... I would recommend it."
I thought this was an OS problem, such that any browser would be affected if they run the malicious animated cursor (though IE7 in protected mode would not allow any real damage). No?
"Sure, but this is still a zero-day exploit for everybody who hasn't upgraded to Vista, and everybody who hasn't turned on IE7 Protected Mode. (The MS website seems to imply that IE7 Protected Mode is not the default). That leaves at least 95% of the installed base of desktops vulnerable."
"Zero day"? Did you say, "ZERO DAY"??? OMG!!! It's ARMAGEDDON!!
Sorry, "zero day", while it has meaning, is mainly used for sensationalism. PANIC!!
BTW, on Vista, IE7 does run in protected mode by default.
So does that mean that Microsoft will no longer have a monopoly on "desktop OSes for intel-compatible CPUs"? (Given that Dell will ship Linux systems and OSX also is a desktop OS that uses intel CPUs.) The next time Microsoft's monopoly status is reviewed by the US courts (happens every year), will their monopoly status get revoked, so that their compliance oversight regulations are lifted?
There was an American Dad episode last month called "Black Mystery Month" about a conspiracy to hide the truth regarding George Washington Carver and Peanut Butter. The episode ends with the dad saying, "Hmmm... How can we disseminate information worldwide without proof, but so that people will take is as factual anyway?" (not an exact quote by any means). The next scene shows the dad and his son altering the George Washington Carver article on Wikipedia. LOL
So, Wikipedia's credibility is going down fast when even pop culture is making fun of it.
"A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution."
What's the real difference? Think of it as "virtual" distribution via the Web.
GPL was written before the rise of web apps, but as web apps have become more and more used, GPL must change with the times. Imagine that in the next 5 years, 80% of apps are web apps, and GPL doesn't cover them. GPL is pretty much useless then. Imagine that in the future, Microsoft makes a web version of Office. There'd be nothing preventing them from using GPL code in their product without releasing their own code. Hell, Google is probably doing this as we speak. (I know you probably don't care about Google violating the spirit of GPL, but the Microsoft scenario should convince you that this should be fixed.)
"Well, one could naturally believe that it's slow because it checks the content of the file for possible markers that it is a file containing protected content, or something like this."
DRM prevents files from being *played* without authorization. It doesn't prevent them from being *copied*. That's the basis of DRMed files (I refer to files on a harddrive, not files on a protected optical disc). You can copy them, share them, to your heart's content. But you can't *play* them without a license. This issue has nothing to do with DRM. None of the linked articles suggest that either, only slashdot's summary does.
"Same system specks but on Linux. Moving 100,000+ files on the same xfs file system. Time: instant."
The issue is "copying" not "moving". No way in hell "copying" 100,000 files is "instant" with any OS.
"It indicates MS completely blew QA on Vista, which isn't surprising since they were going to ship in Jan come hell or high water."
Oh please.
Vista had the largest public beta program in the history of software. If this were a widespread problem, it would've been fixed.
I've always thought of the album as the artist's "work", and a single just one "scene" in it, if you will.
I think of albums like Sgt. Pepper, The White Album, That's The Way of The World, Purple Rain, What's Going On, Dark Side of the Moon, Kind of Blue, It Takes A Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back, Electric Ladyland, etc, and am saddened at the thought of those being released simply as individual songs rather than works in and of themselves.
Many slashdotters have claimed that CDs only have one good song plus filler garbage (that's one of the common justifications given for piracy). I've almost *never* found that to be the case. Even when I've bought a CD just for one or two songs, I normally end up liking almost all of the other songs as well. Most CD's aren't in the league of the examples I give above, but most aren't utter trash either.
So I don't consider the demise of the album to be a good thing. I think it sucks, and this "new reality" that music companies must adjust to is not for the better, not by a long shot.
"People buy new computers and then pay me to uninstall Vista and replace it with XP."
Sounds like BS.
Just where are these people getting these many many XP licenses for you to replace Vista with?
Let's say a Mac user wants to upgrade to new hardware but use the copy of OSX that he already has (removing OSX from his old Mac, so as to stay within the EULA terms of one copy of OSX per Mac). Or, perhaps he bought a copy of OSX at retail and never installed it on any Mac, and wants to use that retail copy on a new Mac.
Should he not be able to get a new Mac without the OS at a cheaper price, since he's going to install on it a copy of the OS that he already has?
I think he should be able to do this. Apple always gets a free pass on these things for whatever reason.
"But undocumented immigrants, who don't usually pay income taxes, still have to pay sales taxes."
Yep.
Same thing for criminals (e.g. drug dealers). Sales taxes are a way to get tax revenue from those that wouldn't report any personal income.
Yeah, they've had it at soapbox.msn.com, but it's only been in beta stage.
Actually, MSN is one of the clients with the new NBC/Universal video thingamagig, so I wonder how that will work with soapbox. And there's already video.msn.com. Of course, Google has both Google Video and YouTube, so I guess having multiple sites is fine.
Lewis Lessig (a god to most slashdotters) would disagree.
He'd say that this ad is a direct result of the "mix" culture, where you take previous work and alter it or mix it with others to make a new creation.
The problem is that most slashdotters have bought into the idea that software should be "free", so they want to extend that philosophy to all other forms of IP, whether the creators like it or not.
That "marshal bool properly" problem was simply a bug (God forbid, that a bug could occur in software!!), not a design issue. Furthermore it was over three years ago and has since been fixed.
You get an F in FUD'ing.
You're showing your ignorance.
Go read a WPF book. I'll recommend one for you:
Windows Presentation Foundation Unleashed, by Adam Nathan
The notion that you can't get to the 3D scenes, and that all you have is "thumbnails" is absurd.
And if you want to get lower level, D3D is there too.
This is what I don't get.
Slashdotters by and large orgasmed over OSX Tiger, whose only compelling feature over Panther was integrated search (and widgets/gadgets, for those that give a damn about that).
Vista adds integrated search (and widgets/gadgets, for thost that give a damn about that) and more over XP, yet the slashdot consenus is that Vista adds nothing compelling.
Which is it? Is integrated search (and widgets/gadgets, for those that give a damn about that) compelling or not? Anyone that thought that Spotlighe was compelling in Tiger must also agree that integrated search is compelling in Vista.
Two problems with including HD-DVD
1. BR is going to beat HD-DVD in the movie format war, so why should Microsoft go thru that unnecessary expense? Xbox 360 Users that really want HD-DVD can get the HD-DVD add-on.
2. Including HD-DVD would make the console cost $600. This would make the PS3's price seem "reasonable" to customers, and customers that wouldn've shunned the PS3 in favor of Xbox360 would be tempted to go with PS3 instead.
Rather than 'biting the hand the fed him', Scoble is leveling harsh public criticism in an attempt to get the company to do better.
LOL
Did you really expect the average slashdotter to read the article or the originating blog when the (misleading) summary provided enough fuel for Microsoft-bashing based in ignorance? Slashdotters (generally) would rather be ignorant of a situation if such ignorance allows them to bash someone.
You're not making sense.
Here's an example of the real issue:
Say there's a buffer overflow in IE7. On XP, such would allow a remote attack to take over the whole machine, or, if the user is running as limited rather than admin, then at least the whole user account.
Under Vista, IE7 runs with priveleges even less than the standard limited accounts, such that it can only touch its own directory and registry settings (unless the user explicitly allows it through UI such as File-SaveAs), so the remote exploit would do nothing to the system nor even the user's files.
So, the same exploit on both XP and Vista result in vastly different degrees of danger. That's the issue here, not your strawman that Microsoft claimed that that Vista had zero exploits.
Yep.
The sad thing is that (as I write this) the bullshit post has been modded as "interesting". Quite sad, that.
This day and age, people are used to navigating thu websites that have very different UIs among them, and there's no issue. Vista having a different UI than XP will NOT drive anyone to Linux. Other things might, but not UI. Same for Ok27 vis-a-vi OO.o.
Is that why Office 2007, PowerShell, Orcas,
The double-standards around here are tiring. Apple could've release Spotlight for OSX 10.3. There's "no technical reason" preventing that. Yet they didn't, and Spotlight was heralded as *the* reason to pay to upgrade to 10.4. Yet I heard no talk of Apple "forcing" upgrades by releasing features for 10.4 that could've been made available for 10.3.
On the other hand, Microsoft is bashed regardless of what they do. They make DirectX 10 specific to Vista, and are bashed for not backporting it to XP. They backport