According to the BBC article on this matter, Live One care failed the test because it only detected 99.91% of the malware rather than 100%. And McAfee and the others did better but didn't achieve 100%. So, yes they failed, but at least talk about this in the proper context by using the actual numbers, instead of linking to a blog entry with the sensationalistic headline "Microsoft's Vista anti-virus solution slammed". Does slashdot not even *want* to have any credibility?
Accept that IIS6 is more secure than Apache 2.x. Go to secunia.com and compare the two security records since 2003 (when IIS6 was released). IIS6 has had only three vulnerabilities since then, all minor, and all patch. During the same time period, Apache 2.x has had over 30 vunlerabilities, multiple them rated as "critical", and some are still unpatched today, and others are only partially patched.
So, not only does the article fail at attempting to say why Linux is more secure than windows, the example they use doesn't even show that apache is more secure than IIS.
"...as soon as profit becomes the motivation in ANY area of life, the quality of that area decreases tremendously."
Yeah, that's why the LOTR movies blow away that little "film" you made in your backyard with your camcorder.
"In the case of Microsoft and the internet, this is quite obvious. Sure, they are financially successful, but they have as yet to prove themselves on the technical front."
Is that why Excel 2007 blows away your little calculator app that you wrote in your basement? Give me a break.
I didn't even bother to read the rest of your drivel (other than to skim it to see if there was any indication of intelligence; there was not).
When are you going to understand that information wants to be free?
Music, films, software, games, are nothing more than ideas, and ideas can NOT be the property of one individual. They are to be shared by all mankind. To wrap ideas in DRM and charge money for them is an affront to humanity, itself!!
GIVE ME LIBERTY (TO ENJOY ANY AND ALL DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYMENT), OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!
First, what's it matter where the DRM is implemented, either app-level or OS-level? It's still DRM. You're splitting hairs in order to be able to trash MS while defending your beloved Steve Jobs.
When OSX Leopard comes out, with the exact same DRM that Vista uses to play next-gen movie discs, *then* will you come to slashdot and trash them. I think not; you'll find some other lame excuse to avoide criticizing Jobs.
Oh, and every hardware player that plays next-gen DVDs, also implements this exact same DRM. How many times have you trashed Panasonic, Samsung, JVC, Philips, etc, for implementing that DRM in their players? Zero? Those dedicated hardware players are orders of magnitude more prevelant when it comes to playing movie discs than computers are, yet you let them get off scott free, while trasing MS for implementing that same DRM in an OS that will not nearly be used as much for movie disc playback in the first place.
You, sir, have ZERO consistencoy and therefore ZERO credibility on this issue.
This MS-sponsored converter converts between ODF and OOXML, both of which are publicly spec'ed. So it can be *perfect* in theory. OO.o's conversion converts between ODF and OO.o's best guess as to what the binary.DOC format is. And OO.o's best guess is pretty poor for anything but the simplest of documents.
Microsoft makes lots of stuff that target home users rather than big business.
Is Media Center fuctionality, bundled as part of Vista, meant to appeal to corporate users or home users? Is Xbox 360 meant to appeal to coporate users or home users? Are Windows Movie Maker, WMP, DVD-maker, etc, meant to appeal to coporate users or home users? Is MSN Messenger meant to appeal to coporate users or home users? etc.
But it is a fact that big business and small business are the lion's share of *paying* customers, so it makes sense that Microsoft would cater to them.
Yours is the most idiotic post on this thread yet. You use the word "criminal" and "criminality" over and over, yet neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft has ever been accused of a "crime" let alone convicted of one. Did you ever take civics? Learn the difference between civil law and criminal law before you start spouting about "criminality". If you can't bash Microsoft without resorting to distortions (like "Microsoft is a convicted criminal organization1!!", then why should we lend any weight at all to your rants?
BTW, if MS/DOJ and MS/EU cases *were* criminal rather than civil cases, then "conviction" would have required a unanimous jury verdict of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than the much lower burden of proof used for civil cases, which is "preponderence of evidence" (which means 50% of the evidence + 1), as determined by a single judge (who turned out to be a moron). The case against MS wouldn't have met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden and MS would have walked scot free. So be glad that the case was merely civil rather than criminal. But don't then run around like a deranged lunatic screaming over and over that the MS cases were criminal when they have not been.
I noticed a downturn in slashdot bashing of MS in 2005 and the first part of 2006, but since then it has increased to its former heights, only this time it's much more shrill, and largely devoid of logic. A bunch of ranting poppinjays, screaming about DRM and the like, most of which is FUD and most of which normal people don't give a damn about. It's as if slashdotters instinctively recognized that MS-bashing was losing steam, both here and in the normal world, so the ratcheted up the bashing with any and every excuse, they could come up with, no matter how flimsy.
There is a DRM flag that, if turned on, causes players to downres the picture to 570p if you don't have HDCP monitor. But NO discs currently use that flag, nor are any scheduled to do so until at least 2010.
Second, every dedicated hardware player implements that very same DRM. Why aren't you frothing at the mouth over that?
Third, Mac OSX Leopard will implement that very same DRM. (Note that Apple is a member of BDA (blu ray disc assoc), and will abide by the BDA provisions.)
Wake me up when you, the UK Greens, and slashdottes of your ilk condemn dedicated hardware players and OSX Leopard for this DRM thing. Until then, STFU.
"If the Vista DRM cripples legitimately purchased media you will see public backlash but as long as the public doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes they won't care until it affects them."
The Vista DRM is the exact same as that in dedicated players (and OSX Leopard, for that matter). Since the dedicated hardware players are used much more than computers to watch movie discs (dedicated players probably perform 100,000 times more playback hours than computers), the dedicated players would cause any such backlash.
For instance, the only "crippling" we've heard about is that if you try to play a protected disc through a digital connection to a non-HDCP screen (or whatever, I'm unsure of the terminology), then the picture is downgraded to 570p. (No current disc has this provision and none are scheduled to until at least 2010.) This will happen for both Vista, OSX, and dedicated players. Since dedicated players get waaaay more playtime, people will notice the problem on dedicated players waaaay more than Vista (or OSX).
This is why I don't understand why you guys spent so much time bitching about Vista and not saying a word about the same DRM that's in dedicated players. You guys boycott and badmouth Vista over DRM, yet go out and buy these dedicated players without blinking an eye. And I bet you're like most people, in that you'll watch movie discs on dedicated players more than computers, so it would seem that you'd be more concerned about the DRM on those players than on some OS, but logic has never been an attribute that slashdotters possess.
I would hope not. First, Microsoft already announced that they are submitting XPS to ISO/ECMA. Adobe's announcement is a reaction to that.
Second, XPS has more features than PDF, creates smaller file sizes, and is more easily manipulatable (that is, to make a program that manipulates XPS, you just take any XML parser and add the XPS semantics).
Plus, Adobe reserves that right to sue anyone that uses PDF. They used legal threats to force Microsoft to remove PDF support from Office 2007 (out of the box; MS still provides a free PDF plugin for download). And that was wrt the current ISO PDF standard (PDF 1.4 I think), so simply being an ISO standard doesn't mean that Adobe won't sue anyone that uses it at their whim, for whatever reason they see fit.
MS has covenant not to sue anyone that uses XPS (covenant not to sue is standard MS practice for the standards they release to ISO, ECMA, etc).
According to the above posts, Norway is pissed that iTMS's DRM locks you into Apple hardware, and is therefore illegal (nevermind that iTMS songs do play on any Mac and Windows computer via the iTunes app).
But what about video game consoles? If one wants to play "Gears of War", one is locked into Microsoft's Xbox 360 hardware. Same for any console wrt games exclusive to that console. Is Norway going to outlaw video game consoles as well?
Re:How long before vista's SUPER DRM is banded?
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Vista's "SUPER DRM" doesn't lock you into any particular hardware. That DRM is required for HD-DVD and BR playback, but any HD-DVD and BR player as well as OSX Leopard also implement that same DRM and can therefore play those discs. So there's no hardware lockin, unlike with iTMS DRM'ed songs, which only play on Apple's hardware as far as portable players are concerned.
(If you widen your view beyond portable players, then iTMS isn't *that* locked in since iTMS songs do play on regular Macs and Windows computers via the iTunes app).
iTMS's DRM only "forces you to use specific hardware" for portable digital music players. If you're listening to iTMS songs on a computer, you are not forced to use any "specific hardware", as any Mac or Windows compouter will do (though you do need to use specific software, the iTunes player).
If someone made a stripped-down portable handheld windows computer that did nothing but run the iTunes app, you'd have a portable player that supported iTMS songs. Maybe someone should try that.
"they might criticize OSS, but at least a.9 release is a.9. what the hell, I run OS X."
you criticize Microsoft for not calling Vista a.9 release then publicly pat yourself on the back for using OSX, which wasn't usable until 10.2 (or even 10.3)? OSX 10.0 wasn't even a.9 quality release, yet you say nothing about that.
Oh, and the reason so many OSS projects are 0.9 or lower version numbers is so they have an excuse for the lack of polish, lack of usability for non-geeks, the little quirks, etc. And notice that most of these projects *never* reach 1.0 or higher, as they never meet mass usability quality.
"And I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to expect that Apple would take advantage of that situation, though I doubt they'd implement all the restrictions MS has.
Apple is a member of BDA (BluRay Disc Assoc) and will certainly implement the full DRM.
"Surely they could have put up SOME resistance to DRM."
Put up "resistance" and therefore not be able to (legally) play the discs at all? How come people demand that MS put up "resistance", yet not Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Pioneer, Philips, RCA, etc, whose dedicated players account for probably 10,000 more hours of optical disc playback than Windows does? If all of those manufacturers of hardware players implement the DRM, then MS's resistance would be futile and stupid. Those hardware player manufacturers have way more power than Microsoft does regarding media playback. Yet the same folks that bitch about Windows implementing DRM and swear they won't use Vista because of it, have no problem at all rushing out to buy hardware players that implement the same frikkin DRM. If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, don't buy any hardware players or discs. Vista is largely irrelevant wrt this matter.
"In other news, one blogger believes that Vista is the first Microsoft OS since Windows 3.1 to have regressed in usability from its predecessor"
Since when does "one blogger"'s view qualify as "news"? I'm sure at least "one blogger" thinks that OSX sucks or at least "one blogger" thinks that Linux sucks. Would that qualify as "news" as well?
The quality of the "news stories" that slashdot carries has gone downhill drastically in recent months.
"There is public information Microsoft doesn't like. "
What you refer to as "public information" is actually disinformation put into Wikipedia by ODF-advocates. Who cares if they were paid directly by IBM or not? The fact is, they favor ODF and hate OOXML, and wrote the disinformation regarding OOXML in that light. That disinformation *needs* to be corrected. Or are you trying to "win" your format jihad via a disinformation propaganda campaign. IBM is certainly doing your dirty work by spreading FUD regarding OOXML, but do you really want Wikipedia to be used in that manner?)
Looks like an Apple apologist came out of the woodwork. Or an Apple shill or astroturfer. OK, Jobs apologist, name one other company that charges you $10 to enable full screen video playback in their media player.
And some idiots modded your nonsense as +5 "Insightful"?
Slashdot Mirror
Brian Jones, head of Microsoft's OOXML effort, seems to have no problem with Texas' bill.
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/default.aspx
According to the BBC article on this matter, Live One care failed the test because it only detected 99.91% of the malware rather than 100%. And McAfee and the others did better but didn't achieve 100%. So, yes they failed, but at least talk about this in the proper context by using the actual numbers, instead of linking to a blog entry with the sensationalistic headline "Microsoft's Vista anti-virus solution slammed". Does slashdot not even *want* to have any credibility?
Accept that IIS6 is more secure than Apache 2.x. Go to secunia.com and compare the two security records since 2003 (when IIS6 was released). IIS6 has had only three vulnerabilities since then, all minor, and all patch. During the same time period, Apache 2.x has had over 30 vunlerabilities, multiple them rated as "critical", and some are still unpatched today, and others are only partially patched.
So, not only does the article fail at attempting to say why Linux is more secure than windows, the example they use doesn't even show that apache is more secure than IIS.
"...as soon as profit becomes the motivation in ANY area of life, the quality of that area decreases tremendously."
Yeah, that's why the LOTR movies blow away that little "film" you made in your backyard with your camcorder.
"In the case of Microsoft and the internet, this is quite obvious. Sure, they are financially successful, but they have as yet to prove themselves on the technical front."
Is that why Excel 2007 blows away your little calculator app that you wrote in your basement?
Give me a break.
I didn't even bother to read the rest of your drivel (other than to skim it to see if there was any indication of intelligence; there was not).
When are you going to understand that information wants to be free?
Music, films, software, games, are nothing more than ideas, and ideas can NOT be the property of one individual. They are to be shared by all mankind. To wrap ideas in DRM and charge money for them is an affront to humanity, itself!!
GIVE ME LIBERTY (TO ENJOY ANY AND ALL DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYMENT), OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!
First, what's it matter where the DRM is implemented, either app-level or OS-level? It's still DRM. You're splitting hairs in order to be able to trash MS while defending your beloved Steve Jobs.
When OSX Leopard comes out, with the exact same DRM that Vista uses to play next-gen movie discs, *then* will you come to slashdot and trash them. I think not; you'll find some other lame excuse to avoide criticizing Jobs.
Oh, and every hardware player that plays next-gen DVDs, also implements this exact same DRM. How many times have you trashed Panasonic, Samsung, JVC, Philips, etc, for implementing that DRM in their players? Zero? Those dedicated hardware players are orders of magnitude more prevelant when it comes to playing movie discs than computers are, yet you let them get off scott free, while trasing MS for implementing that same DRM in an OS that will not nearly be used as much for movie disc playback in the first place.
You, sir, have ZERO consistencoy and therefore ZERO credibility on this issue.
This MS-sponsored converter converts between ODF and OOXML, both of which are publicly spec'ed. So it can be *perfect* in theory. .DOC format is. And OO.o's best guess is pretty poor for anything but the simplest of documents.
OO.o's conversion converts between ODF and OO.o's best guess as to what the binary
Microsoft makes lots of stuff that target home users rather than big business.
Is Media Center fuctionality, bundled as part of Vista, meant to appeal to corporate users or home users?
Is Xbox 360 meant to appeal to coporate users or home users?
Are Windows Movie Maker, WMP, DVD-maker, etc, meant to appeal to coporate users or home users?
Is MSN Messenger meant to appeal to coporate users or home users?
etc.
But it is a fact that big business and small business are the lion's share of *paying* customers, so it makes sense that Microsoft would cater to them.
LOLOLOL
How old are you, twelve?
Oh, and stop using the term "evil" for anything you have a beef with. You guys overuse that word so much that it has almost no meaning around here.
Yours is the most idiotic post on this thread yet.
You use the word "criminal" and "criminality" over and over, yet neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft has ever been accused of a "crime" let alone convicted of one. Did you ever take civics? Learn the difference between civil law and criminal law before you start spouting about "criminality". If you can't bash Microsoft without resorting to distortions (like "Microsoft is a convicted criminal organization1!!", then why should we lend any weight at all to your rants?
BTW, if MS/DOJ and MS/EU cases *were* criminal rather than civil cases, then "conviction" would have required a unanimous jury verdict of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than the much lower burden of proof used for civil cases, which is "preponderence of evidence" (which means 50% of the evidence + 1), as determined by a single judge (who turned out to be a moron). The case against MS wouldn't have met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden and MS would have walked scot free. So be glad that the case was merely civil rather than criminal. But don't then run around like a deranged lunatic screaming over and over that the MS cases were criminal when they have not been.
I noticed a downturn in slashdot bashing of MS in 2005 and the first part of 2006, but since then it has increased to its former heights, only this time it's much more shrill, and largely devoid of logic. A bunch of ranting poppinjays, screaming about DRM and the like, most of which is FUD and most of which normal people don't give a damn about. It's as if slashdotters instinctively recognized that MS-bashing was losing steam, both here and in the normal world, so the ratcheted up the bashing with any and every excuse, they could come up with, no matter how flimsy.
There is a DRM flag that, if turned on, causes players to downres the picture to 570p if you don't have HDCP monitor. But NO discs currently use that flag, nor are any scheduled to do so until at least 2010.
Second, every dedicated hardware player implements that very same DRM. Why aren't you frothing at the mouth over that?
Third, Mac OSX Leopard will implement that very same DRM. (Note that Apple is a member of BDA (blu ray disc assoc), and will abide by the BDA provisions.)
Wake me up when you, the UK Greens, and slashdottes of your ilk condemn dedicated hardware players and OSX Leopard for this DRM thing. Until then, STFU.
Ever consider the fact that the US has probably creates a million times more IP than Sweden, and so US govt would care more about protecting IP?
"If the Vista DRM cripples legitimately purchased media you will see public backlash but as long as the public doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes they won't care until it affects them."
The Vista DRM is the exact same as that in dedicated players (and OSX Leopard, for that matter). Since the dedicated hardware players are used much more than computers to watch movie discs (dedicated players probably perform 100,000 times more playback hours than computers), the dedicated players would cause any such backlash.
For instance, the only "crippling" we've heard about is that if you try to play a protected disc through a digital connection to a non-HDCP screen (or whatever, I'm unsure of the terminology), then the picture is downgraded to 570p. (No current disc has this provision and none are scheduled to until at least 2010.) This will happen for both Vista, OSX, and dedicated players. Since dedicated players get waaaay more playtime, people will notice the problem on dedicated players waaaay more than Vista (or OSX).
This is why I don't understand why you guys spent so much time bitching about Vista and not saying a word about the same DRM that's in dedicated players. You guys boycott and badmouth Vista over DRM, yet go out and buy these dedicated players without blinking an eye. And I bet you're like most people, in that you'll watch movie discs on dedicated players more than computers, so it would seem that you'd be more concerned about the DRM on those players than on some OS, but logic has never been an attribute that slashdotters possess.
I would hope not.
First, Microsoft already announced that they are submitting XPS to ISO/ECMA. Adobe's announcement is a reaction to that.
Second, XPS has more features than PDF, creates smaller file sizes, and is more easily manipulatable (that is, to make a program that manipulates XPS, you just take any XML parser and add the XPS semantics).
Plus, Adobe reserves that right to sue anyone that uses PDF. They used legal threats to force Microsoft to remove PDF support from Office 2007 (out of the box; MS still provides a free PDF plugin for download). And that was wrt the current ISO PDF standard (PDF 1.4 I think), so simply being an ISO standard doesn't mean that Adobe won't sue anyone that uses it at their whim, for whatever reason they see fit.
MS has covenant not to sue anyone that uses XPS (covenant not to sue is standard MS practice for the standards they release to ISO, ECMA, etc).
"For once and for all, if this Vista is as full of DRM as it sounds, I will not use it. For anything, ever."
Do you really mean that, "For once and for all" part? I sure hope so, becaues that means now that you've made your declaration, you'll shut up right?
Get this through your head: NOBODY GIVES A DAMN WHAT OS YOU USE!
According to the above posts, Norway is pissed that iTMS's DRM locks you into Apple hardware, and is therefore illegal (nevermind that iTMS songs do play on any Mac and Windows computer via the iTunes app).
But what about video game consoles? If one wants to play "Gears of War", one is locked into Microsoft's Xbox 360 hardware. Same for any console wrt games exclusive to that console. Is Norway going to outlaw video game consoles as well?
Vista's "SUPER DRM" doesn't lock you into any particular hardware. That DRM is required for HD-DVD and BR playback, but any HD-DVD and BR player as well as OSX Leopard also implement that same DRM and can therefore play those discs. So there's no hardware lockin, unlike with iTMS DRM'ed songs, which only play on Apple's hardware as far as portable players are concerned.
(If you widen your view beyond portable players, then iTMS isn't *that* locked in since iTMS songs do play on regular Macs and Windows computers via the iTunes app).
iTMS's DRM only "forces you to use specific hardware" for portable digital music players. If you're listening to iTMS songs on a computer, you are not forced to use any "specific hardware", as any Mac or Windows compouter will do (though you do need to use specific software, the iTunes player).
If someone made a stripped-down portable handheld windows computer that did nothing but run the iTunes app, you'd have a portable player that supported iTMS songs. Maybe someone should try that.
"they might criticize OSS, but at least a .9 release is a .9. what the hell, I run OS X."
.9 release then publicly pat yourself on the back for using OSX, which wasn't usable until 10.2 (or even 10.3)? OSX 10.0 wasn't even a .9 quality release, yet you say nothing about that.
you criticize Microsoft for not calling Vista a
Oh, and the reason so many OSS projects are 0.9 or lower version numbers is so they have an excuse for the lack of polish, lack of usability for non-geeks, the little quirks, etc. And notice that most of these projects *never* reach 1.0 or higher, as they never meet mass usability quality.
"And I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to expect that Apple would take advantage of that situation, though I doubt they'd implement all the restrictions MS has.
Apple is a member of BDA (BluRay Disc Assoc) and will certainly implement the full DRM.
"Surely they could have put up SOME resistance to DRM."
Put up "resistance" and therefore not be able to (legally) play the discs at all? How come people demand that MS put up "resistance", yet not Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Pioneer, Philips, RCA, etc, whose dedicated players account for probably 10,000 more hours of optical disc playback than Windows does? If all of those manufacturers of hardware players implement the DRM, then MS's resistance would be futile and stupid. Those hardware player manufacturers have way more power than Microsoft does regarding media playback. Yet the same folks that bitch about Windows implementing DRM and swear they won't use Vista because of it, have no problem at all rushing out to buy hardware players that implement the same frikkin DRM. If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, don't buy any hardware players or discs. Vista is largely irrelevant wrt this matter.
Since when does "one blogger"'s view qualify as "news"? I'm sure at least "one blogger" thinks that OSX sucks or at least "one blogger" thinks that Linux sucks. Would that qualify as "news" as well?
The quality of the "news stories" that slashdot carries has gone downhill drastically in recent months.
"There is public information Microsoft doesn't like. "
What you refer to as "public information" is actually disinformation put into Wikipedia by ODF-advocates. Who cares if they were paid directly by IBM or not? The fact is, they favor ODF and hate OOXML, and wrote the disinformation regarding OOXML in that light. That disinformation *needs* to be corrected. Or are you trying to "win" your format jihad via a disinformation propaganda campaign. IBM is certainly doing your dirty work by spreading FUD regarding OOXML, but do you really want Wikipedia to be used in that manner?)
What the hell are you talking about?
ECMA has just as much credibility as OASIS, if not more.
Looks like an Apple apologist came out of the woodwork. Or an Apple shill or astroturfer.
OK, Jobs apologist, name one other company that charges you $10 to enable full screen video playback in their media player.
And some idiots modded your nonsense as +5 "Insightful"?