"Needless to say, he doesn't even mention Bill Gates throughout the entire article."
Why should he? When's the last time Bill Gates publicly trashed Apple? Jobs trashes Microsoft every year, and went overboard this time. If you're going to trash another company publcly, expect to be called on it.
Seems that WGA errs on the side of the user, resulting in false negatives, which is good. This doesn't prove that there are tons of false positives, quite the contrary.
I think OSX has it pretty much right with software installation - drag this "file" into your Applications directory. Done.
Isn't that better than MSI or make/make install?
Apple disagrees with you. Apple's own software uses installation packages that launch installation apps just like MSIs do. When's the last time you installed an iWork or iLife app?
Those looking for an answer to the posed question, "Just what has Microsfot been doing for IE7?" regarding CSS, watch this channel 9 video IE7: CSS Support?.
But all of those fixes are far more important than ACID2, and the notion promoted by this thread, that IE7 is basically no better than IE6, is disinformation, pure and simple.
And besides those fixes, IE7's CSS support is much improved over IE6's. Those of you that are truly interested in how IE7 has improved on IE6's CSS support (as the submitter of this article *purports* to by asking what the IE7 team has been doing), watch this channel 9 video IE7 - CSS Support?.
No, it doesn't pass ACID2 yet, but it blows IE6's CSS support away.
The default accounts in Vista don't have admin rights. I know many of you guys seem to make your living bashing MS over XP "requiring" admin to run apps well, but you're going to have to find new arguments soon, or risk looking ignorant as you did in your own post.
"This is the reason we're here. To see the advancements in research and work closely with these guys [white hat hackers] to figure out what's working and what's not working," Fathi said in an interview with eWEEK immediately after the presentation. "We've already fixed that path [of attack]... It's beta software that will have bugs. That [attack scenario] has already been fixed in later builds," Fathi said.
I hate to tell you this, but the hack to allow unsigned drivers had (and is) already been fixed in the latest Vista builds. http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/185371
That's what you *want* to be the case so you can keep bashing Microsoft. Admit it - deep down you'd rather have Vista be insecure than secure, which is pretty sad on your part.
You miss the point. Microsoft knows that your worst case scenario is possible. But they have enough confidence in their code to risk that, and risk it in public view. They think that even if a genuine "black hat" finds a hole and keeps it to himself, the hole won't be major, and that there will be relatively few instances of that in any case. If they're wrong, then yes, there will be many 0-day exploits when vista is released. But theyr'e confident that that won't be the case.
BTW, I was under the impression that "Black Hats" is just the name of this annual conference and that the guys attending aren't really criminals and the like (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Then again, maybe you could just use the Microsoft logo (and the normal Windows logo for Windows topics), like a site with credibility would do. Just a thought.
In the 90's, Linux advocates used "stability" as their main argument against Windows. Microsoft took that argument away with XP (regardless of the idiotic BSOD comments tossed around these parts).
From 2001 to now, Linux advocates have used "security" as their main argument against Windows. Microsoft is in the process of taking that argument away.
Soon, Linux advocates will be left with "price" as their main argument (glossing over the fact that startup price is insignificant compared to total cost of ownership), which the public really doesn't care about (they'll just think that Linux is free because it's not worth paying for).
OpenOffice is not "100% compatible" because it just so happens that Microsoft's closed document standards are, unfortunately, the "accepted" standard for documentation - this is due to clever Microsoft marketing, not a fault of OpenOffice. ODF and RTF are open formats that are supported by OpenOffice.
I hate to break it to you, but OO.o isn't 100% compatible with MS Office because doesn't have 100% of the features of MS Office. Who cares about the file format, when you don't support all the features in the first place?
And hence, why close source shops don't kater to the linux market.
For when you say "open source apps" you include the right to redistribute the app or derivations of said app for free to others, right? So it's clear why a company that wants to make money by selling software won't have any desire to open source their app. And since you demand only open source apps, closed source shops won't have anything to do with you or your platform.
To the GP: You say that OSS community doesn't want Nvidia to open source their driver (which is wrong, I've seen many demands for just that), they only want them to provide an open spec so the OSS community can write its own drivers.
Did you ever think that Nvidia doesn't want their hardware run by homebrew drivers, because they'll catch the flack when those drivers act whacky? Joe Blow buys some Lindows machine with some OSS Nvidia driver written by who-the-hell-knows, and when that driver acts up, Nvidia gets the blame. I understand Nvidia perfectly on this issue.
Who are you to lecture NVidia on whether open sourcing their driver code would make them sell more hardware? They obviously disagree, and they have every right and standing to do so (more standing than you, by far). And because they disagree, the OSS community bashes them at every turn. It is the OSS community that needs to grow up and get over itself.
I don't care about Real's "bad reputation", I just don't like having to make sure to uncheck the "Install this super app!" checkboxes whenever downloading software. If I had occasion to download Real Player, I don't want to have to make sure to uncheck the "Download Firefox" checkbox. And the same goes for all other bundled software. It's bad enough that Google Toolbar comes bundled with everything alread (as an opt-out checkbox); I don't like Google Toolbar, have no need for it, and don't like having it shoved down my throat. I wouldn't like Firefox shoved down my throat either.
(btw, I use Opera, FF, and IE7 interchangably, just whatever I feel like using at the time; I don't care about the browser war stuff.)
"If I give you an idea, I still have it. My wealth has stayed the same; yours has increased; the net gain is 100%."
Wrong. Your wealth decreased, as you no longer have exclusive rights to the idea. The value of the idea (i.e. the as yet unrealized potential of it) decreased.
Here's another example: Let's say Company A hacked Company B's computers to "steal" Company B's trade secrets (business plans, blueprints, etc). Such is referred to as "stealing" trade secrets, even though Company B still has the info that was obtained by Company A. The notion that "ideas can't be stolen" is something made up by IP pirates looking to sleep better at night.
Here's the bottom line: If someone puts IP on the open market for sale, and you take it (or copy it) without authorization (i.e. paying for it), then you've done something immoral. You can rationalize it all you want (well, the seller didn't lose any tangible thing, so it's OK to just take/copy it), but you know deep down that you're in the wrong.
There are many restrictions on the use of hardware that you may have purchased. For example, in my state, one is prohibited from converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic weapon. One is prohibited from converting a HAM radio to a radio that interferes with the AM/FM bands. There are tons of other examples. So, there is no "right" to do with owned hardware whatever you please.
There's nothing stopping Apple from doing just that. And Microsoft must charge Apple the same price as any other OEM, no more, no less (well, depending on volume), so Apple would be treated just like any other Windows OEM if they decided to go that way. Mac fanboys would be furious.
You realize that Microsoft made that video themselves, don't you? Poking fun at themselves and recognizing that they've used cluttered packaging is the first step to fixing the problem. Oh, and it has nothing to do with hardware designs, or do you consider Microsoft's mice and whatnot to be cluttered?
The article says that *every* BR disc released so far has very slow menus.
Now, about that Blu-ray menu navigation system. While much ink has been spilled on the slow-as-molasses start up times of Toshiba's first-gen HD DVD players, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Blu-ray's atrocious menu access times. The Blu-ray may boot up a disc quicker, but with every single Blu-ray disc I've played (Warner or otherwise), clicking between menu options is not only slower than HD DVD, but also even standard DVD. Even simple functions like selecting a submenu or accessing a scene are accompanied by a little icon I call the "hourglass of doom." This symbol will pop up for as long as two or three seconds and the disc's menu animation will stall as the deck access the next chunk of information off the disc. What gives? Even on a standard DVD you can click between submenus almost seamlessly. Quite frankly, with Blu-ray, I feel like I'm playing an old PlayStation 2 game, not cruising around a next-gen high-def disc seamlessly.
BR and HD-DVD have different audio standards and different menu mechanisms (HD-DVD uses iHD (an MS developed system, I think based on XML); BR uses BD-J, a Java based system). Right now, it appears that BR's menu system is lacking.
Now, about that Blu-ray menu navigation system. While much ink has been spilled on the slow-as-molasses start up times of Toshiba's first-gen HD DVD players, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Blu-ray's atrocious menu access times. The Blu-ray may boot up a disc quicker, but with every single Blu-ray disc I've played (Warner or otherwise), clicking between menu options is not only slower than HD DVD, but also even standard DVD. Even simple functions like selecting a submenu or accessing a scene are accompanied by a little icon I call the "hourglass of doom." This symbol will pop up for as long as two or three seconds and the disc's menu animation will stall as the deck access the next chunk of information off the disc. What gives? Even on a standard DVD you can click between submenus almost seamlessly. Quite frankly, with Blu-ray, I feel like I'm playing an old PlayStation 2 game, not cruising around a next-gen high-def disc seamlessly.
According to the article, BR's menu navigation sucks badly.
Now, about that Blu-ray menu navigation system. While much ink has been spilled on the slow-as-molasses start up times of Toshiba's first-gen HD DVD players, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Blu-ray's atrocious menu access times. The Blu-ray may boot up a disc quicker, but with every single Blu-ray disc I've played (Warner or otherwise), clicking between menu options is not only slower than HD DVD, but also even standard DVD. Even simple functions like selecting a submenu or accessing a scene are accompanied by a little icon I call the "hourglass of doom." This symbol will pop up for as long as two or three seconds and the disc's menu animation will stall as the deck access the next chunk of information off the disc. What gives? Even on a standard DVD you can click between submenus almost seamlessly. Quite frankly, with Blu-ray, I feel like I'm playing an old PlayStation 2 game, not cruising around a next-gen high-def disc seamlessly.
Slashdot Mirror
"Needless to say, he doesn't even mention Bill Gates throughout the entire article."
Why should he? When's the last time Bill Gates publicly trashed Apple? Jobs trashes Microsoft every year, and went overboard this time. If you're going to trash another company publcly, expect to be called on it.
Seems that WGA errs on the side of the user, resulting in false negatives, which is good. This doesn't prove that there are tons of false positives, quite the contrary.
Apple disagrees with you. Apple's own software uses installation packages that launch installation apps just like MSIs do. When's the last time you installed an iWork or iLife app?
Those looking for an answer to the posed question, "Just what has Microsfot been doing for IE7?" regarding CSS, watch this channel 9 video IE7: CSS Support?.
But all of those fixes are far more important than ACID2, and the notion promoted by this thread, that IE7 is basically no better than IE6, is disinformation, pure and simple.
And besides those fixes, IE7's CSS support is much improved over IE6's. Those of you that are truly interested in how IE7 has improved on IE6's CSS support (as the submitter of this article *purports* to by asking what the IE7 team has been doing), watch this channel 9 video IE7 - CSS Support?.
No, it doesn't pass ACID2 yet, but it blows IE6's CSS support away.
The default accounts in Vista don't have admin rights. I know many of you guys seem to make your living bashing MS over XP "requiring" admin to run apps well, but you're going to have to find new arguments soon, or risk looking ignorant as you did in your own post.
Also, Microsoft says that the hack allowing unsigned drivers to be injected into the system has already been fixed in the latest builds.
I hate to tell you this, but the hack to allow unsigned drivers had (and is) already been fixed in the latest Vista builds.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/185371
"> Moving ToDos into Mail is interesting."
Apple copying directly from Microsoft MacBU's Entourage app (not to mention Outlook)?
And Spaces looks like a straight copy from Xerox's Rooms app for Win3.1.
That's what you *want* to be the case so you can keep bashing Microsoft. Admit it - deep down you'd rather have Vista be insecure than secure, which is pretty sad on your part.
You miss the point. Microsoft knows that your worst case scenario is possible. But they have enough confidence in their code to risk that, and risk it in public view. They think that even if a genuine "black hat" finds a hole and keeps it to himself, the hole won't be major, and that there will be relatively few instances of that in any case. If they're wrong, then yes, there will be many 0-day exploits when vista is released. But theyr'e confident that that won't be the case.
BTW, I was under the impression that "Black Hats" is just the name of this annual conference and that the guys attending aren't really criminals and the like (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Then again, maybe you could just use the Microsoft logo (and the normal Windows logo for Windows topics), like a site with credibility would do. Just a thought.
In the 90's, Linux advocates used "stability" as their main argument against Windows. Microsoft took that argument away with XP (regardless of the idiotic BSOD comments tossed around these parts).
From 2001 to now, Linux advocates have used "security" as their main argument against Windows. Microsoft is in the process of taking that argument away.
Soon, Linux advocates will be left with "price" as their main argument (glossing over the fact that startup price is insignificant compared to total cost of ownership), which the public really doesn't care about (they'll just think that Linux is free because it's not worth paying for).
OpenOffice is not "100% compatible" because it just so happens that Microsoft's closed document standards are, unfortunately, the "accepted" standard for documentation - this is due to clever Microsoft marketing, not a fault of OpenOffice. ODF and RTF are open formats that are supported by OpenOffice.
I hate to break it to you, but OO.o isn't 100% compatible with MS Office because doesn't have 100% of the features of MS Office. Who cares about the file format, when you don't support all the features in the first place?
And hence, why close source shops don't kater to the linux market.
For when you say "open source apps" you include the right to redistribute the app or derivations of said app for free to others, right? So it's clear why a company that wants to make money by selling software won't have any desire to open source their app. And since you demand only open source apps, closed source shops won't have anything to do with you or your platform.
To the GP:
You say that OSS community doesn't want Nvidia to open source their driver (which is wrong, I've seen many demands for just that), they only want them to provide an open spec so the OSS community can write its own drivers.
Did you ever think that Nvidia doesn't want their hardware run by homebrew drivers, because they'll catch the flack when those drivers act whacky? Joe Blow buys some Lindows machine with some OSS Nvidia driver written by who-the-hell-knows, and when that driver acts up, Nvidia gets the blame. I understand Nvidia perfectly on this issue.
Who are you to lecture NVidia on whether open sourcing their driver code would make them sell more hardware? They obviously disagree, and they have every right and standing to do so (more standing than you, by far). And because they disagree, the OSS community bashes them at every turn. It is the OSS community that needs to grow up and get over itself.
I don't care about Real's "bad reputation", I just don't like having to make sure to uncheck the "Install this super app!" checkboxes whenever downloading software. If I had occasion to download Real Player, I don't want to have to make sure to uncheck the "Download Firefox" checkbox. And the same goes for all other bundled software. It's bad enough that Google Toolbar comes bundled with everything alread (as an opt-out checkbox); I don't like Google Toolbar, have no need for it, and don't like having it shoved down my throat. I wouldn't like Firefox shoved down my throat either.
(btw, I use Opera, FF, and IE7 interchangably, just whatever I feel like using at the time; I don't care about the browser war stuff.)
"If I give you an idea, I still have it. My wealth has stayed the same; yours has increased; the net gain is 100%."
Wrong. Your wealth decreased, as you no longer have exclusive rights to the idea. The value of the idea (i.e. the as yet unrealized potential of it) decreased.
Here's another example:
Let's say Company A hacked Company B's computers to "steal" Company B's trade secrets (business plans, blueprints, etc). Such is referred to as "stealing" trade secrets, even though Company B still has the info that was obtained by Company A. The notion that "ideas can't be stolen" is something made up by IP pirates looking to sleep better at night.
Here's the bottom line:
If someone puts IP on the open market for sale, and you take it (or copy it) without authorization (i.e. paying for it), then you've done something immoral. You can rationalize it all you want (well, the seller didn't lose any tangible thing, so it's OK to just take/copy it), but you know deep down that you're in the wrong.
There are many restrictions on the use of hardware that you may have purchased. For example, in my state, one is prohibited from converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic weapon. One is prohibited from converting a HAM radio to a radio that interferes with the AM/FM bands. There are tons of other examples. So, there is no "right" to do with owned hardware whatever you please.
There's nothing stopping Apple from doing just that. And Microsoft must charge Apple the same price as any other OEM, no more, no less (well, depending on volume), so Apple would be treated just like any other Windows OEM if they decided to go that way. Mac fanboys would be furious.
You realize that Microsoft made that video themselves, don't you? Poking fun at themselves and recognizing that they've used cluttered packaging is the first step to fixing the problem. Oh, and it has nothing to do with hardware designs, or do you consider Microsoft's mice and whatnot to be cluttered?