Most security products are basically after the fact. Does this surprise anyone???
Billion dollar industries have sprung up to address flaws in Windows. Does that surprise anyone?
As the OP says, security products are after the fact solutions. They are intended to band-aid over holes in the product they are ostensibly protecting. They can never fix the actual flaws, nor identify all of the hidden weaknesses.
Given that Windows has more lines of code than just about any other software in existence
Why is that?
Does an OS really need to be so complicated? ReactOS, for example, provides a significant proportion of the functionality of Windows in a fraction of the size.
Surely fewer lines of code mean a smaller attack surface for exploits and vulnerabilities.
In my case, I had to connect over a PPPoE network to get online. The problem (if I recall correctly) was that while Vista had the dialog to connect, Ubuntu did not
Right click NetworkManager (it's on the Menubar), select "Edit Connections", click the "DSL" tab, then the "Add" button. Follow the prompts for your service provider's settings.
I'm amazed you're being modded "Insightful" for being wrong. I guess it shows just how much Slashdot has been infested with Microsoft evangelists.
Tempting other people into crime is bad! The victim is the thief who was forced by his impulses and the owners carelessness into committing the crime
The law wasn't made to protect the car thieves.
It was made to protect pedestrians, other motorists and businesses from 2 tonne projectiles in the hands of unscrupulous criminals. Unlocked cars were regularly being used for ram-raids at the time.
Your mind is, as you say, closed. Anyone who can make themselves believe that a very practical response to a very real problem is "dogma", is beyond help.
I posted the quote from the GPL to remind everybody just how important it has been, not just in creating free software, but also in preserving it.
In any case, a PC-DOS-compatible OS was just as important to the clone business as the BIOS,
No, it was the HARDWARE that mattered. ALL of the suppliers for IBM PCs benefited from the open architecture and off-the-shelf components. Intel has arguably received as much as Microsoft from the "IBM Compatible" business.
At the time, DOS wasn't much more than a bootloader.
For performance reasons, many popular software applications for the IBM-PC bypassed MS-DOS and even the computer's ROM BIOS, and directly wrote to memory and peripherals. For example, a program might directly update the video refresh memory, instead of using MS-DOS calls and device drivers to alter the appearance of the screen. Many such important software packages, (such as the spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3, and Microsoft's own Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0) and especially games, that directly accessed the IBM-PC's hardware, bypassing the BIOS, did not work on computers that were even trivially different from the IBM-PC. So the systems that were not 100% IBM-PC compatible also quickly became just as obsolete as the other completely incompatible systems.
The GPL uses a too narrow definition of freedom to have it be its principle.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.
The ReadBytes code was just one example
If you read TFA (yeah, I know...) you'll see the author has updated that original example with others.
It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says "“You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software". They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...
Try living in the United States for a year. While the U.S. certainly has its own problems, I'd love to hear your report on how awful things are here compared to China.
Slashdot Mirror
Billion dollar industries have sprung up to address flaws in Windows. Does that surprise anyone?
As the OP says, security products are after the fact solutions. They are intended to band-aid over holes in the product they are ostensibly protecting. They can never fix the actual flaws, nor identify all of the hidden weaknesses.
That's never going to happen. Both are open source projects, they share code so will always be at or near parity.
Exactly.
It's not as though Windows exploits are a scarce event. There'll be plenty more where that came from, so you can be semantically correct next time.
Why is that?
Does an OS really need to be so complicated? ReactOS, for example, provides a significant proportion of the functionality of Windows in a fraction of the size.
Surely fewer lines of code mean a smaller attack surface for exploits and vulnerabilities.
Right click NetworkManager (it's on the Menubar), select "Edit Connections", click the "DSL" tab, then the "Add" button. Follow the prompts for your service provider's settings.
I'm amazed you're being modded "Insightful" for being wrong. I guess it shows just how much Slashdot has been infested with Microsoft evangelists.
WTF?
When did you last use Linux?
An honest one.
And Charlie Brooker.
Most common search term: (oYo).
Actually I'm kinda surprised this doesn't work already. Maybe there IS room for Bang to innovate in the text search field.
An opportunity to flood tech sites with more Bingspam, what else do you want?
Microsoft is so desperate for page hits on Bo^Hing, I'm surprised they're not bribing schoolkids with boiled sweets already.
The law wasn't made to protect the car thieves.
It was made to protect pedestrians, other motorists and businesses from 2 tonne projectiles in the hands of unscrupulous criminals. Unlocked cars were regularly being used for ram-raids at the time.
Your mind is, as you say, closed. Anyone who can make themselves believe that a very practical response to a very real problem is "dogma", is beyond help.
I posted the quote from the GPL to remind everybody just how important it has been, not just in creating free software, but also in preserving it.
No, it doesn't.
Proprietary format/protocol lockin.
No, some companies try to make good products.
No, it was the HARDWARE that mattered. ALL of the suppliers for IBM PCs benefited from the open architecture and off-the-shelf components. Intel has arguably received as much as Microsoft from the "IBM Compatible" business.
At the time, DOS wasn't much more than a bootloader.
For performance reasons, many popular software applications for the IBM-PC bypassed MS-DOS and even the computer's ROM BIOS, and directly wrote to memory and peripherals. For example, a program might directly update the video refresh memory, instead of using MS-DOS calls and device drivers to alter the appearance of the screen. Many such important software packages, (such as the spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3, and Microsoft's own Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0) and especially games, that directly accessed the IBM-PC's hardware, bypassing the BIOS, did not work on computers that were even trivially different from the IBM-PC. So the systems that were not 100% IBM-PC compatible also quickly became just as obsolete as the other completely incompatible systems.
No, there was a cheap and nasty OS based on a hacked version of CP/M that came with the original IBM PCs.
When the PC and PC clone market took off, the company making it went along for the ride. They got lucky.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
Clever people.
Sounds like a win/win...
Freedom is the principle.
And all of those with a clue realised Compaq was the company that turned IBM PCs into commodity computers.
The ReadBytes code was just one example
If you read TFA (yeah, I know...) you'll see the author has updated that original example with others.
It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says "“You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software". They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...
By whom?
My memory of the early days of Microsoft was surprise that their nasty behaviour was tolerated.
Your experiences would depend a lot on your choice of recreational activities, though you're almost an order of magnitude more likely to end up in a US prison.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita
Still, I expect if you're wealthy enough, both would be pretty comfortable. It's normally only people on the fringes who suffer.
A gag?