Here in south africa, that $15/month gives me a 2GB cap per month. That excludes the line rental - only data. And the fastest DSL line speed is officially 1MB/s but it goes up to 4MB/s if you're lucky. It's another $9-$10 per GB after that.
MS never actually wrote a TCP/IP stack. The one that's still in Windows is the development one (that was quite broken) that they stole from BSD back in the early 90s...
The vulnerabilities can e.g. be exploited by tricking a user into visiting a malicious website or view a malicious email with an affected application linked to libpng.
The WMF issue you're most likely referring to was fixed, whilst still preserving the ability to contain scripting commands inside the image file, implying that the ability to run code embedded in an image is not as incredibly stupid as you make it out to be. Or was that just some ignorant fanboy bullshit from the other side of the fence?
If Apple didn't feel the need to control absolutely everything that goes on on the iPhone with its iron fist, then there wouldnt be a problem. As long as you try to block apps based on subjective criteria like 'obscenity', you will have reviewers that will mis-classify them, whether they're average joes, or experienced, technically-minded people who just happen to be prudes.
The solution is to stop trying to babysit your customers, and let them make up their own minds about what to run on their iPhones. If you're a parent worried about your kids being exposed to "bad stuff", then take a more active interest in what they're looking at and who they're talking to, instead of leaving the parenting up to some random company that you can shout at later if your kids turn into hooligans.
Except if Apple stopped reviewing apps, someone could write a better app than theirs and sell it cheaper, or, someone could write an app that unlocks some retarded network-restricted feature that the network paid Apple a huge chunk of money to block. So at the end of the day, Apple is crippling the products they sell to their customers, in order to make more money from them.
Sure it's capitalism, but it's definitely entirely Apple's fault, not the dumb reviewer that mistakenly blocked the app. I own an ipod, I may buy a macbook at some point in my life, but I'll never buy an iphone while Apple dictates what I can and cannot do with it. If Apple wants to keep all the apps on the istore "clean" then that's fine, but they should then allow rejected apps to be installed anyways from the vendors site or whatever. But by controlling every aspect of the iphone, they deserve every last bit of criticism they get for it.
No, first, go and look up all the sites that debunked Gutmann's paper as being pretty much entirely garbage and fearmongering. In fact, before he revised it a couple of times to remove the most glaring incorrect statements that he originally made, he stated that he hadn't even used Vista, but was basing his assumptions on his understanding of how he expects it to work, based purely on reading other FUD-filled reports from other so-called news sites.
Now YOU gtfo with your arrogant, "think you know everything while not knowing shit" mentality. Honestly, the thing most sorely lacking in slashdot is a "-1, tragically misinformed" mod, so that blatanly incorrect bullshit like every post that links to Gutmann can be labelled as crap.
Short version, Gutmann's paper is pure FUD to the most astronomic degree, and is almost entirely discredited. Please do more research so that a) you are better informed in the future; and b) you stop spreading this FUD
I suggest you read some of these instead of Peter Gutmann's tripe:
You make a valid point, but even in VISTA you can set up your start menu back to look like it did back in Windows 95.
Yes, and apparently for Windows 7, they have finally given in to reason and dropped the classic start menu. Just because you're used to something doesn't mean it's better, it means that right now, its better for you, because you aren't familiar with anything different and potentially better. I'm sure that for at least 90% of users, once they've been using the new interface for a week or two, they'd be just as comfortable as with the old one. It's the initial fear of change that prevents them from spending the time getting used to the new interface in the first place. The menu system 'worked for millions of people' because there was nothing better until the ribbon was introduced.
Obligatory car analogy: I've been driving my 2002 Toyota with no power steering or ABS or pretty much any features, and despite knowing there are better options available to me now, was perfectly happy with it until my parents got a new car 6 months ago with a bunch of fancy features. After having driven their new car, my 2002 model shows its age and clunkiness. Prior to that I'd have brushed off things like power steering and electric mirrors as unnecessary (I have driven in cars with them before, but not often), and steering wheel radio controls as being overly complicated, but after spending a holiday with them driving their car for a while, it actually sucked going back to my own one.
Seeing as how there has been overwhelmingly more positive press than negative for Windows 7, could it be *gasp* that the issue is with your qemu emulator and samba PDC?
I have two cheque accounts and two credit cards across three financial institutions here in South Africa, and I get.pdf statements emailed to me for all of them. One of them packages them in some encrypted form, that requires my ID number to decrypt before opening up the pdf. The others use 'encrypted' pdfs, which require at least Acrobat 5 or something, however they don't ask for any sort of decryption key, so I am confused as to how the encryption actually works. Regardless, I'm sure my banks aren't the only ones that email.pdf statements.
Typical slashdot thinking, reading a few words in the headline or summary and then building up an opinion without actually knowing any of the details. If you read the article, and the followup article, you'll see at least 50 comments all making the same suggestion, even after the author explained why it wouldn't work.
Same reason that thread creation is cheap in Windows but expensive in Linux - different designs to suit different usage methodologies. In the *nix world, its very common to fork off new processes to deal with tasks, whereas in Windows, the trend is to keep everything within the same process, with multiple threads handling various tasks. Either methodology will work in either OS, and Microsoft could redesign Windows to favour processes instead of threads, and Linus et al could redesign Linux to favour threads instead of processes, but due to the way the OS's are currently used, it would be pointless.
Microsoft doesn't charge for driver signing, only Windows Logo certification. All you need to have your driver signed is an account with Verisign (which admittedly does cost about $99).
The driver signing is so that the user can be confident that the driver comes from the manufacturer that it says it's coming from, rather than a trojan pretending to be your video card driver. The logo certification is to indicate that it has passed some set of tests at Microsoft's labs.
Someone did something similar on a production database for the largest cellular provider in South Africa once: UPDATE table SET x = y; (no WHERE clause).
Now, procedure requires that any queries to the db that modify data are between BEGIN TRANSACTION and COMMIT statements. It's a habit I'm trying to get myself into whenever I query any db.
I believe the correct way to put it would have been "Plus you spelled honour wrongly". Consider if you used the word 'incorrect' instead of 'wrong' - "Plus you spelled honour incorrect" is wrong - it should be "Plus you spelled honour incorrectly".
I've used Vista since the day it was released for download on MSDN, and I still don't know what the vista BSOD looks like, because I have never had one. I first used it on a laptop bought in 2004 - 1.7ghz P4M, 512mb ram. It was a little sluggish when using Office 2007, but apart from that it ran fine. After that got stolen I ran the 64 bit version on a 2.0ghz C2D laptop with 2gb of ram, and I can quite honestly say that I have never experienced any of the crashes or incompatibilities or missing drivers that slashdot insists I must have had on a daily basis. About a month ago, I decided to install Server 2008 instead, which is basically Vista SP1 with the additional server components. I'm still waiting to see the BSOD's that I should be seeing. Maybe i'm not using me computer correctly?
But it's pretty much already being done since XP and Vista already, without the need for a separate VM! Windows uses a thing called SxS (side by side) which allows the system to have multiple versions of the same DLL installed. The most visible use of SxS is in the common controls dll. Older apps developed for Win2000 and below get the old version of the common controls with all the cruft from Windows 1.0. The new version of the common controls fixes some stuff but also breaks some compatibility with older versions. The twist is, that in order to get the new version, you have to specifically request it. So, theoretically, if you're requesting the newer dll, you're testing with the newer dll, so your code can be written to not worry about the backwards compatibility stuff.
Eventually, they can move all their libraries to be loaded based on the version requested, allowing them to move forward with the design and drop the backwards compatibility stuff but still provide the old twisted behaviour if the application doesnt specifically request the new stuff. Sure it will be "bloated" in the sense that you have multiple versions of the same libraries on your system, but they're process-isolated and the up side is that they can provide compatibility for all previous versions of windows, along with a slowly evolving newer API.
Running older OS's in a virtual machine introduces more bloat in terms of performance as well as additional complexities - how do applications in the VM communicate with applications running on the native OS? You need to support things like copy/paste between windows seamlessly, applications like to be able to send messages to other windows/applications, which is not allowed between different logon/desktop/security sessions on the same machine, so communicating between applications on different logical machines becomes a lot more complicated, especially with the security implications.
So, there is a mechanism for supporting older versions of windows libraries while still allowing forward movement in terms of dropping cruft and years of backwards compatibility. In theory, they could completely rewrite the entire OS with a completely new API and still run the older apps without a VM by using SxS and loading the older versions of the libraries which already contain all the crap, because apps would need to specifically ask for the newer versions of the libraries in order to have them load.
This seems to be the standard reaction from people who want a new shiny upgraded program but are absolutely stunned when the developers actually attempt to, I dunno, change the program's behavior in some way.
Remind me to quote you whenever slashdot users complain about the ribbon interface in Office 2007, or the interface changes in Vista that make things different from how they were in XP.
At least tablature is better in a sense that you actually have to listen to the song to understand the timing
Not always. I learned to play Stairway to Heaven from tabs without ever having heard the song. When I eventually did, I was quite impressed that I sounded pretty much exactly like the original song. If you have a very good tab, you don't need to have heard the song before, although it does help immensely.
That "analysis" was written by somebody who had never used Vista by the time he wrote his analysis. All of his claims were based off random information he found on the internet, and most of his paper has been debunked across the net. It's funny that the largest section on Peter Gutmann's wikipedia page is dedicated to criticism of his anti-Vista FUD.
Since when does the browser run as an elevated user on Windows? A browser on Windows, even IE (which some people still idiotically believe is tied into the kernel or something similarly retarded), runs as the user that launched it. And with Vista, the browser actually runs with _fewer_ privileges than the normal user account. Or at least IE does./. reported a while ago that Microsoft was working with the Firefox developers to help them run with reduced privileges also.
Why not just rate stories on their frequencies of lies, distortions, unsupported assertions, and factual inaccuracies?
Slashdot is in desperate need of a (-1, Misinformed) or (-1, Incorrect) or (-1, Complete BS) mod option, and has been forever. I can't begin to count the number of posts filled with complete rubbish that get modded up here. Sometimes the posts in question are made sincerely, without the poster being aware that what they're posting is inaccurate. So, the traditional negative mods of Redundant, Flamebait and Troll don't apply. There's Interesting, Informative and Insightful, but where's the Incorrect mod to counter these?
The closest mod that could apply to an innacurate quote would be Redundant, but that's not entirely true either. And posting a reply with a correction almost never balances things out, because the incorrect post almost invariably remains modded highly, and quite often, the correction remains unmodded.
So, the only negative mod that can be applied to inaccurate statements is (-1, Overrated), because most of the time, using any other negative mod gets nailed in metamoderation, because the post isn't necessarily flamebait or trolling.
I know (hope) you were trying to be funny, but you can read MS Office documents without owning Office, and have been able to for at least 8 years or so:
Slashdot Mirror
Here in south africa, that $15/month gives me a 2GB cap per month. That excludes the line rental - only data. And the fastest DSL line speed is officially 1MB/s but it goes up to 4MB/s if you're lucky. It's another $9-$10 per GB after that.
Look at how wrong you are
Oh yes of course, because no non-microsoft image libraries have ever had vulnerabilities... no wait. What's this?
libpng Multiple Vulnerabilities
The WMF issue you're most likely referring to was fixed, whilst still preserving the ability to contain scripting commands inside the image file, implying that the ability to run code embedded in an image is not as incredibly stupid as you make it out to be. Or was that just some ignorant fanboy bullshit from the other side of the fence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_and_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola
It appears you can sue pretty much anything.
If Apple didn't feel the need to control absolutely everything that goes on on the iPhone with its iron fist, then there wouldnt be a problem. As long as you try to block apps based on subjective criteria like 'obscenity', you will have reviewers that will mis-classify them, whether they're average joes, or experienced, technically-minded people who just happen to be prudes.
The solution is to stop trying to babysit your customers, and let them make up their own minds about what to run on their iPhones. If you're a parent worried about your kids being exposed to "bad stuff", then take a more active interest in what they're looking at and who they're talking to, instead of leaving the parenting up to some random company that you can shout at later if your kids turn into hooligans.
Except if Apple stopped reviewing apps, someone could write a better app than theirs and sell it cheaper, or, someone could write an app that unlocks some retarded network-restricted feature that the network paid Apple a huge chunk of money to block. So at the end of the day, Apple is crippling the products they sell to their customers, in order to make more money from them.
Sure it's capitalism, but it's definitely entirely Apple's fault, not the dumb reviewer that mistakenly blocked the app. I own an ipod, I may buy a macbook at some point in my life, but I'll never buy an iphone while Apple dictates what I can and cannot do with it. If Apple wants to keep all the apps on the istore "clean" then that's fine, but they should then allow rejected apps to be installed anyways from the vendors site or whatever. But by controlling every aspect of the iphone, they deserve every last bit of criticism they get for it.
No, first, go and look up all the sites that debunked Gutmann's paper as being pretty much entirely garbage and fearmongering. In fact, before he revised it a couple of times to remove the most glaring incorrect statements that he originally made, he stated that he hadn't even used Vista, but was basing his assumptions on his understanding of how he expects it to work, based purely on reading other FUD-filled reports from other so-called news sites.
Now YOU gtfo with your arrogant, "think you know everything while not knowing shit" mentality. Honestly, the thing most sorely lacking in slashdot is a "-1, tragically misinformed" mod, so that blatanly incorrect bullshit like every post that links to Gutmann can be labelled as crap.
Short version, Gutmann's paper is pure FUD to the most astronomic degree, and is almost entirely discredited. Please do more research so that
a) you are better informed in the future; and
b) you stop spreading this FUD
I suggest you read some of these instead of Peter Gutmann's tripe:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
Hell, even slashdot reported on it here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/0041219
Did you, perhaps, sleep through the whole thing yourself?
Yes, and apparently for Windows 7, they have finally given in to reason and dropped the classic start menu. Just because you're used to something doesn't mean it's better, it means that right now, its better for you, because you aren't familiar with anything different and potentially better. I'm sure that for at least 90% of users, once they've been using the new interface for a week or two, they'd be just as comfortable as with the old one. It's the initial fear of change that prevents them from spending the time getting used to the new interface in the first place. The menu system 'worked for millions of people' because there was nothing better until the ribbon was introduced.
Obligatory car analogy: I've been driving my 2002 Toyota with no power steering or ABS or pretty much any features, and despite knowing there are better options available to me now, was perfectly happy with it until my parents got a new car 6 months ago with a bunch of fancy features. After having driven their new car, my 2002 model shows its age and clunkiness. Prior to that I'd have brushed off things like power steering and electric mirrors as unnecessary (I have driven in cars with them before, but not often), and steering wheel radio controls as being overly complicated, but after spending a holiday with them driving their car for a while, it actually sucked going back to my own one.
Seeing as how there has been overwhelmingly more positive press than negative for Windows 7, could it be *gasp* that the issue is with your qemu emulator and samba PDC?
I have two cheque accounts and two credit cards across three financial institutions here in South Africa, and I get .pdf statements emailed to me for all of them. One of them packages them in some encrypted form, that requires my ID number to decrypt before opening up the pdf. The others use 'encrypted' pdfs, which require at least Acrobat 5 or something, however they don't ask for any sort of decryption key, so I am confused as to how the encryption actually works. .pdf statements.
Regardless, I'm sure my banks aren't the only ones that email
Typical slashdot thinking, reading a few words in the headline or summary and then building up an opinion without actually knowing any of the details. If you read the article, and the followup article, you'll see at least 50 comments all making the same suggestion, even after the author explained why it wouldn't work.
Same reason that thread creation is cheap in Windows but expensive in Linux - different designs to suit different usage methodologies. In the *nix world, its very common to fork off new processes to deal with tasks, whereas in Windows, the trend is to keep everything within the same process, with multiple threads handling various tasks. Either methodology will work in either OS, and Microsoft could redesign Windows to favour processes instead of threads, and Linus et al could redesign Linux to favour threads instead of processes, but due to the way the OS's are currently used, it would be pointless.
Microsoft doesn't charge for driver signing, only Windows Logo certification. All you need to have your driver signed is an account with Verisign (which admittedly does cost about $99).
The driver signing is so that the user can be confident that the driver comes from the manufacturer that it says it's coming from, rather than a trojan pretending to be your video card driver. The logo certification is to indicate that it has passed some set of tests at Microsoft's labs.
Someone did something similar on a production database for the largest cellular provider in South Africa once: UPDATE table SET x = y; (no WHERE clause).
Now, procedure requires that any queries to the db that modify data are between BEGIN TRANSACTION and COMMIT statements. It's a habit I'm trying to get myself into whenever I query any db.
Not exactly what you were looking for, but how's about a dupe with only one story between it and the original?
I believe the correct way to put it would have been "Plus you spelled honour wrongly". Consider if you used the word 'incorrect' instead of 'wrong' - "Plus you spelled honour incorrect" is wrong - it should be "Plus you spelled honour incorrectly".
I've used Vista since the day it was released for download on MSDN, and I still don't know what the vista BSOD looks like, because I have never had one. I first used it on a laptop bought in 2004 - 1.7ghz P4M, 512mb ram. It was a little sluggish when using Office 2007, but apart from that it ran fine. After that got stolen I ran the 64 bit version on a 2.0ghz C2D laptop with 2gb of ram, and I can quite honestly say that I have never experienced any of the crashes or incompatibilities or missing drivers that slashdot insists I must have had on a daily basis. About a month ago, I decided to install Server 2008 instead, which is basically Vista SP1 with the additional server components. I'm still waiting to see the BSOD's that I should be seeing. Maybe i'm not using me computer correctly?
Joel Spolsky explains why the Office formats are so complicated
I believe that same article was covered on slashdot a while ago.
But it's pretty much already being done since XP and Vista already, without the need for a separate VM! Windows uses a thing called SxS (side by side) which allows the system to have multiple versions of the same DLL installed.
The most visible use of SxS is in the common controls dll. Older apps developed for Win2000 and below get the old version of the common controls with all the cruft from Windows 1.0. The new version of the common controls fixes some stuff but also breaks some compatibility with older versions. The twist is, that in order to get the new version, you have to specifically request it. So, theoretically, if you're requesting the newer dll, you're testing with the newer dll, so your code can be written to not worry about the backwards compatibility stuff.
Eventually, they can move all their libraries to be loaded based on the version requested, allowing them to move forward with the design and drop the backwards compatibility stuff but still provide the old twisted behaviour if the application doesnt specifically request the new stuff. Sure it will be "bloated" in the sense that you have multiple versions of the same libraries on your system, but they're process-isolated and the up side is that they can provide compatibility for all previous versions of windows, along with a slowly evolving newer API.
Running older OS's in a virtual machine introduces more bloat in terms of performance as well as additional complexities - how do applications in the VM communicate with applications running on the native OS? You need to support things like copy/paste between windows seamlessly, applications like to be able to send messages to other windows/applications, which is not allowed between different logon/desktop/security sessions on the same machine, so communicating between applications on different logical machines becomes a lot more complicated, especially with the security implications.
So, there is a mechanism for supporting older versions of windows libraries while still allowing forward movement in terms of dropping cruft and years of backwards compatibility. In theory, they could completely rewrite the entire OS with a completely new API and still run the older apps without a VM by using SxS and loading the older versions of the libraries which already contain all the crap, because apps would need to specifically ask for the newer versions of the libraries in order to have them load.
Remind me to quote you whenever slashdot users complain about the ribbon interface in Office 2007, or the interface changes in Vista that make things different from how they were in XP.
Not always. I learned to play Stairway to Heaven from tabs without ever having heard the song. When I eventually did, I was quite impressed that I sounded pretty much exactly like the original song. If you have a very good tab, you don't need to have heard the song before, although it does help immensely.
That "analysis" was written by somebody who had never used Vista by the time he wrote his analysis. All of his claims were based off random information he found on the internet, and most of his paper has been debunked across the net.
It's funny that the largest section on Peter Gutmann's wikipedia page is dedicated to criticism of his anti-Vista FUD.
oh hai, you should read these:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutmann_(computer_scientist)#Criticism_of_Peter_Gutmann.27s_analysis_of_Vista_DRM
Since when does the browser run as an elevated user on Windows? A browser on Windows, even IE (which some people still idiotically believe is tied into the kernel or something similarly retarded), runs as the user that launched it. And with Vista, the browser actually runs with _fewer_ privileges than the normal user account. Or at least IE does. /. reported a while ago that Microsoft was working with the Firefox developers to help them run with reduced privileges also.
Slashdot is in desperate need of a (-1, Misinformed) or (-1, Incorrect) or (-1, Complete BS) mod option, and has been forever. I can't begin to count the number of posts filled with complete rubbish that get modded up here. Sometimes the posts in question are made sincerely, without the poster being aware that what they're posting is inaccurate. So, the traditional negative mods of Redundant, Flamebait and Troll don't apply. There's Interesting, Informative and Insightful, but where's the Incorrect mod to counter these?
The closest mod that could apply to an innacurate quote would be Redundant, but that's not entirely true either. And posting a reply with a correction almost never balances things out, because the incorrect post almost invariably remains modded highly, and quite often, the correction remains unmodded.
So, the only negative mod that can be applied to inaccurate statements is (-1, Overrated), because most of the time, using any other negative mod gets nailed in metamoderation, because the post isn't necessarily flamebait or trolling.
I know (hope) you were trying to be funny, but you can read MS Office documents without owning Office, and have been able to for at least 8 years or so:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3657ce88-7cfa-457a-9aec-f4f827f20cac&displaylang=en