but I've always wondered why it is that abandonware doesn't automatically become public domain
I agree, but Win 3.1 isn't exactly abandonware. Additionally, you could have obtained educational source to it at various times from Microsoft.
Many parts of Win3.1, specifically the Win16 subsystem, still lives and runs on Vista x32 of today. It has been removed from Vista x64. Since it is a subsystem on the NT architecture, the subsystem doesn't realize it is not a full OS, as it thinks it's kernel is the real one, just like Win32 does.
PS With all the 'Open Source' love, has the world really thrown out all the assembly nerds? i.e. 'If we don't have the source, we can't understand it anymore' has become common today, but truly do people forget that access to most binaries is just as 'open' to read, understand and even modify it?
Not that I'm against Open Source, but I truly get tired of the 'if there is no source code available we are too stupid to understand it'. Where are all the die hard 'real' nerds that can dig through assembly as fast as a newcomer can through C source code?
Agree that it is silly to deploy full OSes for anything like these examples from the article provide.
One thing to note is how many companies are STILL using Win9X based Windows for simple deployments, as most of the examples of the BSOD is the Win9X version. OS/2 is still used at a lot of terminal based installation from banks to cash registers, and not only sadly outdated but overkill and underkill at the same time when you consider the hardware it is running on that has been updated.
One thing the article misses is that there are 'small' and stable versions of Windows that would make a better replacement for most of these usage example. (One of the examples is talking about Windows Embedded but the author doesn't realize such a thing exists, as they are referencing the system as 'Windows' when it is a newer Windows Embedded system.
The funny thing is that Microsoft themselves would not support or endorse the usage of Windows (especially Win9X) in the examples given in the article. This is where ignorance of the developers/implementors is the problem, not Windows or Microsoft.
When you can get Windows Embedded or Windows CE for a tiny fraction of the cost, and use any development from 'regular' Windows on these OSes/Devices there is no reason to be deploying a full OS install on devices or device type applications.
I know everyone would like to yell Linux or (insert your favorite OS here) is the best OS to use in these circumstances, but there are times when Windows is the right choice, and does work better, just not a full installation that is poorly done.
As for NT memory leaks and the guy having to go out to reboot the system. That is a bit of hyperbole that is obvious if you know anything about NT or used it even during that timeframe.
1) Windows NT always has had a scheduler
2) NT also has always had a very good set of scripting abilities from a.cmd or DOS.bat file to even VB Basic applications that ran on it when it shipped and took a few seconds to write it to do whatever you needed. (Hence MS adding VB scripting to Windows later on, as this was all too common already for VB to be used more as a scripting tool than as an application development environment.)
So if this guy was going to a physical location to reboot a box, he is either really stupid, insane or lying. Pick one...
At the very least you could put a restart application in the Task Scheduler and have NT freaking reboot itself. Let alone that the chances are the person was using Win16 applications on NT (especially at this timeframe as Win32 development was not easy or widespread at the time.)
So if the application was Win16, just freaking reseting the subsystem would be a reboot for the application and this is without rebooting the entire OS because of the Win16 leak that was contained.
So ya, this part is made up, bad memories, or someone that was really young and stupid not knowing any better, and you can't blame that off to Microsoft, even if it makes them try to feel better about their work...
People are responsible for their actions, PERIOD. The victim could not have done anything to deserve this outcome unless she killed him first, which is a bit impossible.
Even in real life self-defense cases, there are often many other choices than killing someone.
Truly what did she do so horrible? Did she refuse to stop using Windows or told him how great Vista was going to be?
Holy cow, what planet are you doing IT for? What an awesome, insightful response. With facts and information like this, you must be a rocket scientist, right? (geesh)
My IT work? NASA, Lockheed, EDS Europe, you know, some of the 'little' people that are technilogically behind your qualifications, I'm sure...
If you want a game only system, buy the friggin 360. Um, a lot of people play PC games, and also buy 360s. Are you going to seriously try to debate peformance isn't an issue cause gamers should only buy consoles? Really?
Again, Vista is and should be held to a higher standard if they are going to SELL So because they charge for it, they have failed because you don't like it? Maybe if you actually read a few reviews of recent, you might see that Vista isn't the bastard or unstable pile of crap you wish it was. (In a year and half it has less security fixes and problems than 10.5 of OS X has had in less than a year, and this is by a factor of almost 10x.)
You do realize a lot of people charge for their *nix distributions with KDE 4, right? Do you single them out and bitch at them for 'selling' it, cause KDE 4 isn't as mature as it should have been?
(Troll someone else, I don't have time for a non-discussion with you.)
Not really. I've seen the numbers steadily creep up until they're mostly on par, and occasionally better, and occasionally worse, sometimes much worse. Considering it's something that costs over £300 retail, it's not really something that I think anyone is moving towards very rapidly.
I didn't say upgrading to Vista was cheap. I agree MS screwed the dog with the Vista pricing and versions.
(As for buying Vista, it would be cheaper for most people to do the Partner ISV with Microsoft for like $300 and you get a few Vista activations, Office, and a good chunk of MSDN access to other software to test.)
Microsoft also doesn't count on the 'upgrade' market, even though they provide very good upgrade processes. New computer sales is where Vista was targeted, and why a lot of hardware was designed around Vista.
If I was you, I probably wouldn't run out to 'buy' Vista, but when I decided to build a new system or buy a new system, I would ensure it had Vista and my hardware was some of the newer technologies that DO take advantage of Vista. (This includes everything from HD sound chipsets that have Vista features to a DX10.1 card.) I would even throw in Solid State where I could afford it, especially with hybrid drives that Vista not only takes advantage of, but has optimized caching code to make them work blindingly fast.
Another factor in the Vista and performance that most people overlook, is Vista x64. Vista x64 is the first NT 64bit version that is fully supported and works virtually identically to the x32 version. (XP x64 had many shorcomings, where Vista x64 doesn't.) This also includes driver support as all MFRs MUST provide a x64bit driver alongside a 32bit driver for Vista logo requirements usage. This means everything that has been made in recent history has a native x64bit Vista driver now.
The Vista x64 being virtually identical to Vista x32 is not only good for future computing migration, but since it is a TRUE 64bit OS, is optimized to take advantage of everything from Memory addresses, registers, that 64bit offers.
So, Vista x64 runs about 15% faster than Vista x32, and in gaming this makes another jump in performance as well.
Even if the applications are 32bit, running on a 64bit OS core, they get the OS advantages of being 64bit. Vista x64 not only has internal optimizations for x64 that give it a performance boost, but it also allows for 32bit applicaitons to play on the core OS features like memory management. Vista x64 for example shoves two 32bit chunks into one 64bit call or memory space, hence not wasting RAM as other 64bit OSes often do, and this also speeds things up since two 32bit chunks are processed at once. (Often 32bit applications get more of a performance boost on Vista x64 than native 64bit applications because of the Vista design.)
I don't have a handy link, but in reviews Vista x64 has about a 5-10sec longer load time than Vista 32x, but once the OS is up, is consistently faster than Vista x32, jumping on average 15% in performance gains. (Many overclockers would die for a 15% straight performance increase, and yet most of them don't realize just moving to Vista x64 would gain them this over the 32bit version, and it is painless now that Vista x64 has more driver support than even XP SP3 does.
The reason I point this out is in constrat to OSes like OS X, that are 32bit OSes with a few pony tricks that allows applicaitons access to larger 64bit address space, but does nothing at the OS level to optimize or utilize the benefits of 64bit processors.
OK, now this is what you should provide concrete numbers on. 15% better on some vague "PC Mark" benchmark is pretty meaningless, frankly -5% in games is too. But 10x load time improvement?
I don't have a handy link on the 10x load times, but do a search, the reviews are out there. From personal experience, the Superfetch system in Vista usually is so on target that even when I out of the blue decide to load one of my biggest games, I don't even see the HD l
Yes: NVIDIA drivers responsible for nearly 30% of Vista crashes in 2007.
And most of these happened during what phase of the drivers? And how many were hardware specific errors? Additionally, how many of these were from NVidia XPDM drivers being run on Vista, which a lot of gamers 'thought' was a better idea out of pure ignorance?
Also your link proves my point. Out of over 100 million installations, there were 1.5 million crashes in Vista. So a 99% non-fail rate is bad? Hardware itself has a higher fail rate. Hell even Apple hardware has a higher fail rate.
Performance can be measured. I've seen such measurements, none of them show Vista appreciably outperforming XP. If it's so much better, demonstrate it, don't just call me an idiot, cite something.
(Keep in mind that even when Vista was peforming behind XP it was like 2-4fps in games running 60fps.)
OK, so you missed most of the Vista reviews, here are some links I have in my history. I'll let you actually google and read more for yourself:
Yes, Vista has some very impressive aspects, it's very advanced in some areas, but I'll buy it when it actually provides a reasonable amount of benefit to me, thanks, not before.
Use it for a couple of days and you would be surprised how painful going back to XP can be from a 'usability' standpoint especially, let alone watching everything from games to photoshop launch 10x or more faster on Vista than they do on XP.
I do have the feeling though that no matter what I throw out here, you are going to just hate Vista, and that is fine, just don't state your beliefs are based on fact...
Interesting. That sounds a lot like what Xgl was doing in 2004.
Then you would be even more amazed if you understood more about Vista, and saw that XGL still isn't touching what Vista does.
I'm not even knocking XGL here, but you really aren't getting what Vista's WDDM and composer are capable of if you are going to compare it to XGL...
PS XGL really didn't 'exist' outside of the original developers until 2006, and it still is in development. Technically the Vista technologies pre-date XGL, going back to the XBox 360 development process that started around 2002.
More stable, unless you're running certain very common drivers.
Really? Vista suppports 99.9% of the XP drivers, in addition to Vista drivers. And you think Vista is more unstable than XP or has driver issues? -Note: You should actually use Vista, enough the friend of a friend stories. Heck even post any mildly major driver issues with Vista like you describe?
This also sounds like you are forgetting hardware specifically designed for Vista. Are you really going to argue a new system designed for Vista has driver issues?
Why not? I'm not "upgrading" for one game, especially when it's not doing anything it couldn't do in DX9.
Ok, so you admit by proxy you know nothing about DX10. Fine, we will leave this here. (Before you post in the future, you might want to actually read about DX10. Heck even the increased texture sizes alone are a major thing that CAN'T be done with DX9.) Also you don't realize that game developers working on XBox 360 games are using more advanced (DX10) technologies that they can't even use on DX9 or XP.
Sure, some of it looks rather nice, and it sounds good on paper, but from a user standpoint most of that's irrelevent even if it did translate into real world improvements (much of it, seemingly, does not). About the biggest thing most people will notice is slightly smoother window handling
Ok, again you admit you know nothing about the API sets of Vista. Especially if you think they are to 'look nicer' and don't help developers. The Vista APIs are more about developers and development than the 'pretty'. Just like Vista itself, the Flip3D is crap in comparison to the technology actually setting underneath that makes it happen. It isn't just doing an Expose' OS X type of trick, this is a vector composer actually using the 3D GPU functions to speed up drawing operations within the application, not just drawing bitmaps images to surfaces like OS X or even KDE is doing.
the need for more memory and, oh, look, another video driver crash.
Again you are proving you don't use Vista or know much about it either. More memory, ya it does like 1GB to outperform XP and 2GB is even better. (You know, just like Leopard to outperform Tiger.)
Video driver crash? Really? This is the 'least' common crash on Vista. Do you know why?
If the user is using an XP driver or XPDM mode driver, Vista isn't any better than XP at Video stability (kernel level and all).
However, running Vista WDDM drivers (which every card made since the Geforce 5200 years ago has), not only runs mainly in User Mode, but Vista has several layers of video Crash recovery that you can't even get in another OS at this time.
In Vista, you can literally rip the running Video card out of the system (while running a 3D game), and put it back and Vista will fully recover and the game will even recover if it is DirectX based...
Even if the Video driver does manage to crash (which is a trick to happen), Vista recovers with nothing more than a tool tip saying the Video has recovered, in a blink of an eye.
Try this with XP, OS X, Linux or your pick. Rip out a Video card while the OS is running and tell me you get the desktop back just as it was left, and even games are just where they were left. (At best you are going to drop X Windows on *NIX and see a command prompt, but no recovery of the desktop.)
(Vista also supports hotswap RAM and hotswap CPUs, and Microsoft wanted to ensure Video could NOT down a system, hence the level of recovery that works even by killing or removing a video card.)
So don't let me interrupt you, go on and on about how Vista Video crashes, prove how little you know about Vista and are trolling at best.
Lots of people didn't upgrade to Vista. I didn't. It's one of the strange things about gamers
I'm a gamer as well, and on my personal systems I faced the early Vista release problems that a lot of people did. The WDDM was a complete re-write for NVidia and ATI, and by the time they got to a stable level they were behind on optimizations. Also a lot of the optimizations are game specific and work differently than the XPDM, so they needed a lot of customer feedback to even get close to the 6 years of the XP driver optimizations.
Around July-Sept of last year the Vista drivers caught up to XP in everyway, and jumped past XP in many games by as much as 20% or more because of the WDDM and how it can handle GPU scheduling and RAM virtualization.
(The WDDM and RAM Virtualization sounds a bit strange, but it allows Vista users to shove their texture quality to the roof without worrying about running out of VRAM on their GPUs, and with no performance penality.) So not only can Vista run games faster, but now that the WDDM drivers are optimized, it can do so with higher quality game settings.
in order to really get any use out of DX10 for anything more than taking pretty static screenshots, it's gotta be a GOOD video card
Technically this isn't true, but from the current games on the market is true. The games on the market now are DX9/DX10 hybrids using DX9 with some DX10 features turned on, and this is a kill for performance, where DX10 is designed to be about performance as much as more quality.
If current games were DX10 only and using real DX10 engines, even a light ATI 2400 would run the game rather well. DX10 is not much different than the XBox 360, as the XBox technologies are what defined DX10 and even the Vista graphics subsystem changes.
If you look at XBox 360 games that are running on native engines, they are doing DX10 quality with a DX10 equivalent video card that is less powerful than a mid range $100 ATI DX10 card.
So by people like yourself chosing to not move to Vista, the game makers have backed off on DX10 only titles, that were planned, and they would have ran rather well on even cheap DX10 cards with good performance (better than DX9) and better quality.
This is a case of the market and early reluctance to move to Vista killed a lot of new video game development, or at least set developers back to a DX9 path looking to tack on some DX10 features like the larger texture sizes, etc...
KDE 4.0 and 4.1 are not meant to be perfect in every way. They are meant to establish a new scheme of APIs and a new design dynamic. It is a big overhaul that is in its beginnings.
And Vista isn't? Are you new or just Slashdotted?
Vista comes with several new API sets are out of 'in theory' technology in other realms of computing, yet people look at it and think, oh, it isn't much different than XP. It looking and working as much like XP as it does is one of the things Microsoft got right with Vista.
Go read up on the Vista APIs that are not only a foundation in new technologies, but an entire new method of programming, based on some very advanced beyond 'object' programming principles.
Then take a look at the Vista WDDM. It is not just another driver model, but a new video subsystem model that goes from the hybrid kernel/user mode all the way up to the vector based composer.
If you look at the complexity of the WDDM and yet how applications, from GDI and Win32 to OpenGL/DirectX and even overlays look like they did on XP, yet are being processed and drawn by a very new engine and work virtually flawlessly it is quite a feat. As Vista isn't just taking bitmaps of the Windows like KDE is doing or OS X does, but the WDDM shoves a lot of old drawing technology through the 3D GPU, from some basic GDI functions to font rendering and even offers up the 3D GPU for decompressing bitmaps when older applications read and draw them.
Next thing to notice about the WDDM is the GPU scheduler (pre-emptive 3D), virtualization and multi-processor GPU inherent abilities that current no other OS even offers a close substitution.
I actually don't think KDE 4 is bad, and has started the open source world to push forward in thinking beyond clever code and start to think all the way to the end user.
Vista is supposed to be a workstation solution ready for every day production use right now.
It is more stable than XP, more secure than XP, easier for business to deploy (mind numbing easy even), and unless you are trying to get it to run on 512mb, outperforms XP.
Where has Vista failed in this?
I get the whole SlashDot we hate MS, but from a Window's user or business user standpoint, where does Vista fail? There are the mindless ramblings of several people's friend of a friend stories; however, outside of the 'we wish' slashdot world, most Vista users are more than happy and would fight over going back to XP.
You are not forced to upgrade to KDE 4.x, but Vista is required for some of today's games and applications because they don't run in earlier versions. This is the difference.
What games run KDE again? Short of a few desktop games, they are not running 'via KDE', therefore, how would the KDE version have any reference on this?
Vista has a new gaming API, and even in the non-DX10 area included things needed for Windows Live out of the newer networking APIs (i.e. Halo2 Vista only 'originally' release).
Outside of that, games that are Vista only are too few and far between, which is sad because game makers have pulled back full DirectX10 support and instead are delivering hybrid games that have a DX9 engine with some DX10 enhancements turned on. (XBox 360 games are closer to pure DX10 than most DX9/DX10 hybrids being released now.)
We have yet to see a DX10 game that is fully DX10, which will be Vista only.
If a game requires a 'new' version of OpenGL are you going to argue the game is bad?
The difference here is DX10 goes past the basic libraries of OpenGL and older DX9. Since, yes, DX10 does expect the OS to be Vista because it relies on the OS handling GPU scheduling, virtualization, etc.
OpenGL has no OS dependance it can rely on, and can be both good and bad. We know the good side of this, but on the bad side, the level of features or performance it can offer is limited as it can't expect anything from the OS in new technologies. Unlike DX10 that can expect the OS to handle GPU RAM for the application an
Too much legacy, best thing to do is continue to sandbox them as much as possible.
MS is shoving devlopers to either Silverlight or XBAP that have extensive sandboxing/security in comparison. MS has been in the process of killing ActiveX for several years now, next trick is to smack the developers around by making non-internal deployment really freaking hard.
Even Win32/64 has been being killed off slowly, but developers are slow moving creatures sometimes. (This is the biggest reason even people that hate Vista should be rooting for it to replace XP at the very least, as the non-Win32 APIs are its bread and butter, even working directly inside the vector composer of Vista, that XP can't do even if you try running.NET 3.x on it.)
Because they can't dare to mess with Microsoft giant like a little Norwegian company did?
Opera sued them big time for messing around with their application along with releasing a dedicated "Bork edition" release which is a legend already
1) Stuff like this is why you look at the served HTML.
2) You do realize that the 'margin' setting on the MSN style sheets that caused the problem with Opera was either a stupid MSN programmer doing something NOT MSN, or was a very simple accident, since the margin number it received was from a 'calculation'.
MSN is NOT Microsoft, you would be surprised how separate the businesses operate, and isolating Opera users with a messed up page would NOT benefit MSN.
Some interesting MSN info: The MSN datacenter managers and site programmers are borderline retarded having worked with them directly, I would bet on it being an accident and wouldn't be surprised if there aren't tons of coding errors that hit all browsers independantly.
The MSN managers and programmers are the reason Microsoft 'Live' exists, and why MSN groups and other MSN features are all in competition with Live and being replaced by Live services from Microsoft's other divisions OUTSIDE of MSN. MSN is a held over tie to a time when MSN was a folder based compuserve type service and tried to adopt to being a portal site.
Notice that everything from Windows Messenger to even search moved from the MSN teams and was replaced. All Microsoft products shove live.com as the default home page, not MSN.com.
If you ever want to see a day in insanity, go hang out with the MSN datacenter people. I feel sorry for sites like Slate.com, etc that have to work through their operations.
I worked with another 'partner' like Slate and dealing with the MSN people scared the fek out of myself and my team. We even had to fix programming for them and send them instructions for their servers because an 'ok' manager at MSN said his people didn't know how to do something really simple and asked if we would do it for him on the side. Scary...
The fault apparently lies with the Hotmail site, not Mozilla -- maintainer Dave Garrett assigned the bug to Tech Evangelism, explaining: "I'll... move this over to TE, as my guess is this [is] the site's fault (just bad user agent sniffing?)
1) Changing or spoofing agent string doesn't help. Even pretending to be IE, the.js files associated still fail in FF3 WITH THE SAME ERROR.
2) If you look at the page source you can tell that Hotmail is identifying FireFox properly and loading the corresponding javascript, etc specific to FireFox.
So why is the Firefox team assigning this to 'Agent String' or 'Tech Evangelism' again?
Less than thirty seconds on google would show you that you CAN, and exactly how to do it.
Which was my point EXACTLY,re-read my post. I was mocking the fact someone would assert that user access level vulnerbility is NOT major since they could use a USB device to boot hack the OS.
But no. Actually googling something or reading the documentation would take valuable time away from your trolling and astroturfing, wouldn't it? It's much faster and easier to just make shit up.
Just re-read the post before you jump on the wrong person and be a dick.
So why don't you read what I actually WROTE, instead of chiding me for arguments I'm not making?
So you didn't write something silly like: OSX is intrinsically far more secure than Windows ?
This is what I brought contention with and asked for you to explore further if you really believed this...
(I won't bag on you if you want to leave it here. So far you seem to be a bit more honest and respectful than I anticipated, even though you caught my attention by perpetuating some standard SlashDot accepted statements that just don't reflect reality or a real understanding of OS architecture, but are usually classified as ok here because they are anti-MS based.)
So you really think that because it uses a BSD like kernel interface API, it is just more secure then?
How about if I throw you this little fact: Windows XP and Vista have a full BSD subsystem (SUA), does this automatically make Vista and XP even 'more more more more' secure by design? (Or at least software running in the Vista/XP BSD subsystem 'super duper' secure?)
Here is the answer to the trick: What you are saying just re-establishes that you have no idea even what BSD is, and your 'assessment' of OS X and security based on your understanding of its BSD underpinnings don't even make sense, let alone establish any foundation to your argument.
---
And did you Google the security holes in Vista vs OS X yet? Truly go even with OS X 10.5 which is almost a year newer than Vista even. Hint: Not only has 10.5 OS X had more security holes/problems but it also has had several that are far more severe...
I won't do your research for you, but just in case you think I'm trolling here is something from 2007 to wet your whistle: http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39169503,00.htm "While Mac OS X had 234 highly critical vulnerabilities reported in 2007, Vista and XP combined had 23, Ou wrote"
(Just guess what happens to even the staggering 10 to 1 ratio when you take XP out of the equation?)
OSX is intrinsically far more secure than Windows, but all systems have their vulnerabilities.
Really? Shall we have a kernel design discussion here, so the fanbois will FINALLY stop with the OS X uses BSD so it is just more secure by design?
This is repeating myth and fanboi crap, and needs to stop at some point.
So how about today? Lay out how OS X is 'intrinsically' more secure than NT.
(When you get back from Wiki, make sure you also read some whitepapers on NT that are far more detailed than Wiki or even find a copy of Inside NT. If you do this, and understand what you are reading, you won't be so quick to say NT is an insecure design, in fact in theory it is one of the most secure OS architecture designs in consumer OS history.)
PS Here are a few clues for you to check out if you want to really debate this: 1) Read about the reasonings behind the NT design model and why UNIX file/device I/O was thrown out due to its restrictions and inherent insecurity. 2) Check out how NT's security model was designed and works, especially the parts about its object/token based design. 3) Next read up on the granlarity of the token based security system in NT, and how even kernel level processes must obtain permissions each time they process/run. See how this contrasts with most UNIX variants, specifically Linux, BSD, OS X, etc...
---
Truly this 'inherent' insecure myth of Windows really needs to die. Bitch about Win9X all you want(as it had no security in the OS at all), or even heck bitch about Win32 and Microsoft not 'enforcing' NT security in the XP Win32 subsystem all you want. Then remind yourself these are 2002/2003 at best arguments, and in 2008 are borderline insane rants carried over for far too many years.
I'm aware that Window's market share makes them the "low-hanging fruit," but even without considering market share, OSX has fewer security holes than Windows
Really? Compare Vista to OS X... Heck even compare 10.5 to Vista...
When you get back from your research, please post a retraction to your clueless assertion.
Most of the difference seems (to me, YMMV) to be remnants of OSX's background in BSD
Do you even understand what you are trying to state? BSD is not a 'secure' end all OS design. One, I repeat one BSD variant is very secure because of the detail that it is given. When you get outside of this variant/distribution like FreeBSD or OS X the security of BSD from the secure variant has no relevance.
Go look up what BSD is and stop with the insane (Because it uses BSD it is JUST more secure) crap...
People have no freaking clue what BSD is, other than the reputation of ONE BSD variant, and even it has ran into a few holes in the past few years (Google: University Records stolen California) for an example...
I plug in my EVUL USB KEY OF DEWM (into the USB port on the keyboard), go Apple->Restart, it does so, I hold down OPTION, I get to choose to boot off the EUKoD.
Then this is another OS X flaw... If boot privledges cannot be pre-empted from USB or CD/DVD drives, an OS X machine cannot ever be secured...
Want to reconsider stating that you can't preempt USB booting?
Read what you wrote. "Deployment report". Deployments say nothing about reliability.
I'll stop your digging for excuses here...
In the REAL WORLD deployments are monitored from pre-deployment to end of cycle. The term deployments, don't mean 'to deploy' in this context, it means, systems/software installed or to be installed, not just the act of 'installing them'.
Now that you have learned a cool new IT term, go impress your friends, even use it for show and tell if you want.
My first experience with Vista was setting up a computer for my great-aunt. She'd just bought a new computer with Vista pre-installed, and hadn't even opened the boxes. She asked me to set it all up for her... So a few minutes later, it starts up for the first time. "Welcome to Vista -- please enter your name and a password that you can use to log in". So far, so shiny. Then we move the mouse towards the first text box... and it bluescreens. Straight out of the box. The sealed box. From the factory. On first boot. You think they would have noticed that... But I suppose that was before SP1
And hardware failure on new computer couldn't possibly be the problem, it MUST BE VISTA...
And there are 99 million users that are happy with Vista and would disagree...
Rather than admit ignorance or even look to see if there is 'another answer', after people are fed anti-Vista stories they would rather blame Vista than admit they were foolish or it is easier to blame their problems on Vista.
I had a 'friend' bitch about Vista not being able to import pictures off their digital camera. I offered to help, and even as the user was complaining there was no easy way to do it, they were clicking Close on the Import Dialog that was asking for a Tag for the photos to automatically import. They just assumed it was some crap that popped up and never read it.After making them NOT CLOSE the Import dialog, they were embarrased and amazed how much easier it was than they expected and fell in love with Vista.
So if I had been an anti-Vista person do you think they would still like or hate Vista, even though it was their stupidity causing their disdain?
Do your own unofficial study... Users that have just one friend that knows Vista or talks foundly of it love it 99.9% of the time. (And yes I can use a.9% after having dealt with multi-thousand user deployments.)
I have even seen users that after being 'forced' to use Vista at work, end up giving their Macs to their kids and getting a Vista machine at home because they liked it that much better.
Does this mean anything? Not really, but neither does your experience in the general scheme of things... We all have stories, and the influences of the people around change them dramatically.
Chill. Do you work on the Windows development team or do you work in PR?
Just an old school OS theorist and researcher that finds the absent-minded kiddie mentality of SlashDot dangerous to the OSS world.
So I'd say you probably have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, with all your 'expert' experience, that should negate things like a 35,000+ deployment report on my desk that says otherwise?
Ever consider maybe you are a crappy Administrator?
I've seen Linux and HP-UX, Solaris and AIX servers with uptimes measured in years
Linux added in here would draw some serious questions as to your honesty. How many years do you run Linux servers without updates? (Even in closed environments?) Linux (until recently) is not condusive to hotpatching, especially any kernel level updates.
The longest uptime I have personally seen in an 'active' installation is a NT 4.0 box from 1997 (No internet Access, just a large LAN of clients it served including IIS intranet software) and it ran until January of 1999 without a reboot. (Jan 99 reboot was to add storage and RAM, and a service pack was scheduled during downtime.)
So if you want to share anecdotal stories, I would be happy to add 'personal experience' to the dialog. (I Even have a 3yr old Win3.1 VM and a 4yr old XP VM that have never been rebooted... Oooh Awww...)
See how silly this gets, real quick? Most 'personal' experience is crap, as people are either biased, have unique situations, or are really bad administrators that like to blame the Server/Software instead of admitting they feked up...
On the other hand, since this exploit seems to require physical access to the machine to be rooted, you might have some other security concerns to deal with at that point, like keeping the intruder from raiding your fridge on his way out.
What about non personal deployments?
Like corporate installations? Kiosk installations? Any small business that wants to secure a machine? How about a class room that you want kiddies to run games but not wipe the OS?
Physical access MEANS if they can access the hardware (inside the case). It DOES NOT mean typing something on the freaking keyboard, when logged in as a low level user.
In the IT world you password lock boot media, lock cases,etc. If an IT person can't secure a machine without removing the keyboard, there MIGHT be a security problem.
Slashdot Mirror
but I've always wondered why it is that abandonware doesn't automatically become public domain
I agree, but Win 3.1 isn't exactly abandonware. Additionally, you could have obtained educational source to it at various times from Microsoft.
Many parts of Win3.1, specifically the Win16 subsystem, still lives and runs on Vista x32 of today. It has been removed from Vista x64. Since it is a subsystem on the NT architecture, the subsystem doesn't realize it is not a full OS, as it thinks it's kernel is the real one, just like Win32 does.
PS With all the 'Open Source' love, has the world really thrown out all the assembly nerds? i.e. 'If we don't have the source, we can't understand it anymore' has become common today, but truly do people forget that access to most binaries is just as 'open' to read, understand and even modify it?
Not that I'm against Open Source, but I truly get tired of the 'if there is no source code available we are too stupid to understand it'. Where are all the die hard 'real' nerds that can dig through assembly as fast as a newcomer can through C source code?
Agree that it is silly to deploy full OSes for anything like these examples from the article provide.
One thing to note is how many companies are STILL using Win9X based Windows for simple deployments, as most of the examples of the BSOD is the Win9X version. OS/2 is still used at a lot of terminal based installation from banks to cash registers, and not only sadly outdated but overkill and underkill at the same time when you consider the hardware it is running on that has been updated.
One thing the article misses is that there are 'small' and stable versions of Windows that would make a better replacement for most of these usage example. (One of the examples is talking about Windows Embedded but the author doesn't realize such a thing exists, as they are referencing the system as 'Windows' when it is a newer Windows Embedded system.
The funny thing is that Microsoft themselves would not support or endorse the usage of Windows (especially Win9X) in the examples given in the article. This is where ignorance of the developers/implementors is the problem, not Windows or Microsoft.
When you can get Windows Embedded or Windows CE for a tiny fraction of the cost, and use any development from 'regular' Windows on these OSes/Devices there is no reason to be deploying a full OS install on devices or device type applications.
I know everyone would like to yell Linux or (insert your favorite OS here) is the best OS to use in these circumstances, but there are times when Windows is the right choice, and does work better, just not a full installation that is poorly done.
As for NT memory leaks and the guy having to go out to reboot the system. That is a bit of hyperbole that is obvious if you know anything about NT or used it even during that timeframe.
1) Windows NT always has had a scheduler
2) NT also has always had a very good set of scripting abilities from a .cmd or DOS .bat file to even VB Basic applications that ran on it when it shipped and took a few seconds to write it to do whatever you needed. (Hence MS adding VB scripting to Windows later on, as this was all too common already for VB to be used more as a scripting tool than as an application development environment.)
So if this guy was going to a physical location to reboot a box, he is either really stupid, insane or lying. Pick one...
At the very least you could put a restart application in the Task Scheduler and have NT freaking reboot itself. Let alone that the chances are the person was using Win16 applications on NT (especially at this timeframe as Win32 development was not easy or widespread at the time.)
So if the application was Win16, just freaking reseting the subsystem would be a reboot for the application and this is without rebooting the entire OS because of the Win16 leak that was contained.
So ya, this part is made up, bad memories, or someone that was really young and stupid not knowing any better, and you can't blame that off to Microsoft, even if it makes them try to feel better about their work...
So a piece of shit excuse works for you? WTF.
People are responsible for their actions, PERIOD. The victim could not have done anything to deserve this outcome unless she killed him first, which is a bit impossible.
Even in real life self-defense cases, there are often many other choices than killing someone.
Truly what did she do so horrible? Did she refuse to stop using Windows or told him how great Vista was going to be?
Geesh...
Holy cow, what planet are you doing IT for?
What an awesome, insightful response. With facts and information like this, you must be a rocket scientist, right? (geesh)
My IT work? NASA, Lockheed, EDS Europe, you know, some of the 'little' people that are technilogically behind your qualifications, I'm sure...
If you want a game only system, buy the friggin 360.
Um, a lot of people play PC games, and also buy 360s. Are you going to seriously try to debate peformance isn't an issue cause gamers should only buy consoles? Really?
Again, Vista is and should be held to a higher standard if they are going to SELL
So because they charge for it, they have failed because you don't like it? Maybe if you actually read a few reviews of recent, you might see that Vista isn't the bastard or unstable pile of crap you wish it was. (In a year and half it has less security fixes and problems than 10.5 of OS X has had in less than a year, and this is by a factor of almost 10x.)
You do realize a lot of people charge for their *nix distributions with KDE 4, right? Do you single them out and bitch at them for 'selling' it, cause KDE 4 isn't as mature as it should have been?
(Troll someone else, I don't have time for a non-discussion with you.)
Not really. I've seen the numbers steadily creep up until they're mostly on par, and occasionally better, and occasionally worse, sometimes much worse. Considering it's something that costs over £300 retail, it's not really something that I think anyone is moving towards very rapidly.
I didn't say upgrading to Vista was cheap. I agree MS screwed the dog with the Vista pricing and versions.
(As for buying Vista, it would be cheaper for most people to do the Partner ISV with Microsoft for like $300 and you get a few Vista activations, Office, and a good chunk of MSDN access to other software to test.)
Microsoft also doesn't count on the 'upgrade' market, even though they provide very good upgrade processes. New computer sales is where Vista was targeted, and why a lot of hardware was designed around Vista.
If I was you, I probably wouldn't run out to 'buy' Vista, but when I decided to build a new system or buy a new system, I would ensure it had Vista and my hardware was some of the newer technologies that DO take advantage of Vista. (This includes everything from HD sound chipsets that have Vista features to a DX10.1 card.) I would even throw in Solid State where I could afford it, especially with hybrid drives that Vista not only takes advantage of, but has optimized caching code to make them work blindingly fast.
Another factor in the Vista and performance that most people overlook, is Vista x64. Vista x64 is the first NT 64bit version that is fully supported and works virtually identically to the x32 version. (XP x64 had many shorcomings, where Vista x64 doesn't.) This also includes driver support as all MFRs MUST provide a x64bit driver alongside a 32bit driver for Vista logo requirements usage. This means everything that has been made in recent history has a native x64bit Vista driver now.
The Vista x64 being virtually identical to Vista x32 is not only good for future computing migration, but since it is a TRUE 64bit OS, is optimized to take advantage of everything from Memory addresses, registers, that 64bit offers.
So, Vista x64 runs about 15% faster than Vista x32, and in gaming this makes another jump in performance as well.
Even if the applications are 32bit, running on a 64bit OS core, they get the OS advantages of being 64bit. Vista x64 not only has internal optimizations for x64 that give it a performance boost, but it also allows for 32bit applicaitons to play on the core OS features like memory management. Vista x64 for example shoves two 32bit chunks into one 64bit call or memory space, hence not wasting RAM as other 64bit OSes often do, and this also speeds things up since two 32bit chunks are processed at once. (Often 32bit applications get more of a performance boost on Vista x64 than native 64bit applications because of the Vista design.)
I don't have a handy link, but in reviews Vista x64 has about a 5-10sec longer load time than Vista 32x, but once the OS is up, is consistently faster than Vista x32, jumping on average 15% in performance gains. (Many overclockers would die for a 15% straight performance increase, and yet most of them don't realize just moving to Vista x64 would gain them this over the 32bit version, and it is painless now that Vista x64 has more driver support than even XP SP3 does.
The reason I point this out is in constrat to OSes like OS X, that are 32bit OSes with a few pony tricks that allows applicaitons access to larger 64bit address space, but does nothing at the OS level to optimize or utilize the benefits of 64bit processors.
OK, now this is what you should provide concrete numbers on. 15% better on some vague "PC Mark" benchmark is pretty meaningless, frankly -5% in games is too. But 10x load time improvement?
I don't have a handy link on the 10x load times, but do a search, the reviews are out there. From personal experience, the Superfetch system in Vista usually is so on target that even when I out of the blue decide to load one of my biggest games, I don't even see the HD l
Yes: NVIDIA drivers responsible for nearly 30% of Vista crashes in 2007.
And most of these happened during what phase of the drivers? And how many were hardware specific errors? Additionally, how many of these were from NVidia XPDM drivers being run on Vista, which a lot of gamers 'thought' was a better idea out of pure ignorance?
Also your link proves my point. Out of over 100 million installations, there were 1.5 million crashes in Vista. So a 99% non-fail rate is bad? Hardware itself has a higher fail rate. Hell even Apple hardware has a higher fail rate.
Performance can be measured. I've seen such measurements, none of them show Vista appreciably outperforming XP. If it's so much better, demonstrate it, don't just call me an idiot, cite something.
(Keep in mind that even when Vista was peforming behind XP it was like 2-4fps in games running 60fps.)
OK, so you missed most of the Vista reviews, here are some links I have in my history. I'll let you actually google and read more for yourself:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/2070
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/page3.asp
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2007/1/2/6453
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars/3
Yes, Vista has some very impressive aspects, it's very advanced in some areas, but I'll buy it when it actually provides a reasonable amount of benefit to me, thanks, not before.
Use it for a couple of days and you would be surprised how painful going back to XP can be from a 'usability' standpoint especially, let alone watching everything from games to photoshop launch 10x or more faster on Vista than they do on XP.
I do have the feeling though that no matter what I throw out here, you are going to just hate Vista, and that is fine, just don't state your beliefs are based on fact...
Interesting. That sounds a lot like what Xgl was doing in 2004.
Then you would be even more amazed if you understood more about Vista, and saw that XGL still isn't touching what Vista does.
I'm not even knocking XGL here, but you really aren't getting what Vista's WDDM and composer are capable of if you are going to compare it to XGL...
PS XGL really didn't 'exist' outside of the original developers until 2006, and it still is in development. Technically the Vista technologies pre-date XGL, going back to the XBox 360 development process that started around 2002.
More stable, unless you're running certain very common drivers.
Really? Vista suppports 99.9% of the XP drivers, in addition to Vista drivers. And you think Vista is more unstable than XP or has driver issues? -Note: You should actually use Vista, enough the friend of a friend stories. Heck even post any mildly major driver issues with Vista like you describe?
This also sounds like you are forgetting hardware specifically designed for Vista. Are you really going to argue a new system designed for Vista has driver issues?
Why not? I'm not "upgrading" for one game, especially when it's not doing anything it couldn't do in DX9.
Ok, so you admit by proxy you know nothing about DX10. Fine, we will leave this here. (Before you post in the future, you might want to actually read about DX10. Heck even the increased texture sizes alone are a major thing that CAN'T be done with DX9.) Also you don't realize that game developers working on XBox 360 games are using more advanced (DX10) technologies that they can't even use on DX9 or XP.
Here is a quick link to get you started:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2007/2/14/7060
Sure, some of it looks rather nice, and it sounds good on paper, but from a user standpoint most of that's irrelevent even if it did translate into real world improvements (much of it, seemingly, does not). About the biggest thing most people will notice is slightly smoother window handling
Ok, again you admit you know nothing about the API sets of Vista. Especially if you think they are to 'look nicer' and don't help developers. The Vista APIs are more about developers and development than the 'pretty'. Just like Vista itself, the Flip3D is crap in comparison to the technology actually setting underneath that makes it happen. It isn't just doing an Expose' OS X type of trick, this is a vector composer actually using the 3D GPU functions to speed up drawing operations within the application, not just drawing bitmaps images to surfaces like OS X or even KDE is doing.
the need for more memory and, oh, look, another video driver crash.
Again you are proving you don't use Vista or know much about it either. More memory, ya it does like 1GB to outperform XP and 2GB is even better. (You know, just like Leopard to outperform Tiger.)
Video driver crash? Really? This is the 'least' common crash on Vista. Do you know why?
If the user is using an XP driver or XPDM mode driver, Vista isn't any better than XP at Video stability (kernel level and all).
However, running Vista WDDM drivers (which every card made since the Geforce 5200 years ago has), not only runs mainly in User Mode, but Vista has several layers of video Crash recovery that you can't even get in another OS at this time.
In Vista, you can literally rip the running Video card out of the system (while running a 3D game), and put it back and Vista will fully recover and the game will even recover if it is DirectX based...
Even if the Video driver does manage to crash (which is a trick to happen), Vista recovers with nothing more than a tool tip saying the Video has recovered, in a blink of an eye.
Try this with XP, OS X, Linux or your pick. Rip out a Video card while the OS is running and tell me you get the desktop back just as it was left, and even games are just where they were left. (At best you are going to drop X Windows on *NIX and see a command prompt, but no recovery of the desktop.)
(Vista also supports hotswap RAM and hotswap CPUs, and Microsoft wanted to ensure Video could NOT down a system, hence the level of recovery that works even by killing or removing a video card.)
So don't let me interrupt you, go on and on about how Vista Video crashes, prove how little you know about Vista and are trolling at best.
Lots of people didn't upgrade to Vista. I didn't. It's one of the strange things about gamers
I'm a gamer as well, and on my personal systems I faced the early Vista release problems that a lot of people did. The WDDM was a complete re-write for NVidia and ATI, and by the time they got to a stable level they were behind on optimizations. Also a lot of the optimizations are game specific and work differently than the XPDM, so they needed a lot of customer feedback to even get close to the 6 years of the XP driver optimizations.
If you are a gamer now, Vista is the fastest platform. Even with older video cards and older games. For example: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
Around July-Sept of last year the Vista drivers caught up to XP in everyway, and jumped past XP in many games by as much as 20% or more because of the WDDM and how it can handle GPU scheduling and RAM virtualization.
(The WDDM and RAM Virtualization sounds a bit strange, but it allows Vista users to shove their texture quality to the roof without worrying about running out of VRAM on their GPUs, and with no performance penality.) So not only can Vista run games faster, but now that the WDDM drivers are optimized, it can do so with higher quality game settings.
in order to really get any use out of DX10 for anything more than taking pretty static screenshots, it's gotta be a GOOD video card
Technically this isn't true, but from the current games on the market is true. The games on the market now are DX9/DX10 hybrids using DX9 with some DX10 features turned on, and this is a kill for performance, where DX10 is designed to be about performance as much as more quality.
If current games were DX10 only and using real DX10 engines, even a light ATI 2400 would run the game rather well. DX10 is not much different than the XBox 360, as the XBox technologies are what defined DX10 and even the Vista graphics subsystem changes.
If you look at XBox 360 games that are running on native engines, they are doing DX10 quality with a DX10 equivalent video card that is less powerful than a mid range $100 ATI DX10 card.
So by people like yourself chosing to not move to Vista, the game makers have backed off on DX10 only titles, that were planned, and they would have ran rather well on even cheap DX10 cards with good performance (better than DX9) and better quality.
This is a case of the market and early reluctance to move to Vista killed a lot of new video game development, or at least set developers back to a DX9 path looking to tack on some DX10 features like the larger texture sizes, etc...
KDE 4.0 and 4.1 are not meant to be perfect in every way. They are meant to establish a new scheme of APIs and a new design dynamic. It is a big overhaul that is in its beginnings.
And Vista isn't? Are you new or just Slashdotted?
Vista comes with several new API sets are out of 'in theory' technology in other realms of computing, yet people look at it and think, oh, it isn't much different than XP. It looking and working as much like XP as it does is one of the things Microsoft got right with Vista.
Go read up on the Vista APIs that are not only a foundation in new technologies, but an entire new method of programming, based on some very advanced beyond 'object' programming principles.
Then take a look at the Vista WDDM. It is not just another driver model, but a new video subsystem model that goes from the hybrid kernel/user mode all the way up to the vector based composer.
If you look at the complexity of the WDDM and yet how applications, from GDI and Win32 to OpenGL/DirectX and even overlays look like they did on XP, yet are being processed and drawn by a very new engine and work virtually flawlessly it is quite a feat. As Vista isn't just taking bitmaps of the Windows like KDE is doing or OS X does, but the WDDM shoves a lot of old drawing technology through the 3D GPU, from some basic GDI functions to font rendering and even offers up the 3D GPU for decompressing bitmaps when older applications read and draw them.
Next thing to notice about the WDDM is the GPU scheduler (pre-emptive 3D), virtualization and multi-processor GPU inherent abilities that current no other OS even offers a close substitution.
I actually don't think KDE 4 is bad, and has started the open source world to push forward in thinking beyond clever code and start to think all the way to the end user.
Vista is supposed to be a workstation solution ready for every day production use right now.
It is more stable than XP, more secure than XP, easier for business to deploy (mind numbing easy even), and unless you are trying to get it to run on 512mb, outperforms XP.
Where has Vista failed in this?
I get the whole SlashDot we hate MS, but from a Window's user or business user standpoint, where does Vista fail? There are the mindless ramblings of several people's friend of a friend stories; however, outside of the 'we wish' slashdot world, most Vista users are more than happy and would fight over going back to XP.
You are not forced to upgrade to KDE 4.x, but Vista is required for some of today's games and applications because they don't run in earlier versions. This is the difference.
What games run KDE again? Short of a few desktop games, they are not running 'via KDE', therefore, how would the KDE version have any reference on this?
Vista has a new gaming API, and even in the non-DX10 area included things needed for Windows Live out of the newer networking APIs (i.e. Halo2 Vista only 'originally' release).
Outside of that, games that are Vista only are too few and far between, which is sad because game makers have pulled back full DirectX10 support and instead are delivering hybrid games that have a DX9 engine with some DX10 enhancements turned on. (XBox 360 games are closer to pure DX10 than most DX9/DX10 hybrids being released now.)
We have yet to see a DX10 game that is fully DX10, which will be Vista only.
If a game requires a 'new' version of OpenGL are you going to argue the game is bad?
The difference here is DX10 goes past the basic libraries of OpenGL and older DX9. Since, yes, DX10 does expect the OS to be Vista because it relies on the OS handling GPU scheduling, virtualization, etc.
OpenGL has no OS dependance it can rely on, and can be both good and bad. We know the good side of this, but on the bad side, the level of features or performance it can offer is limited as it can't expect anything from the OS in new technologies. Unlike DX10 that can expect the OS to handle GPU RAM for the application an
Or scrap ActiveX controls?
Too much legacy, best thing to do is continue to sandbox them as much as possible.
MS is shoving devlopers to either Silverlight or XBAP that have extensive sandboxing/security in comparison. MS has been in the process of killing ActiveX for several years now, next trick is to smack the developers around by making non-internal deployment really freaking hard.
Even Win32/64 has been being killed off slowly, but developers are slow moving creatures sometimes. (This is the biggest reason even people that hate Vista should be rooting for it to replace XP at the very least, as the non-Win32 APIs are its bread and butter, even working directly inside the vector composer of Vista, that XP can't do even if you try running .NET 3.x on it.)
Because they can't dare to mess with Microsoft giant like a little Norwegian company did?
Opera sued them big time for messing around with their application along with releasing a dedicated "Bork edition" release which is a legend already
1) Stuff like this is why you look at the served HTML.
2) You do realize that the 'margin' setting on the MSN style sheets that caused the problem with Opera was either a stupid MSN programmer doing something NOT MSN, or was a very simple accident, since the margin number it received was from a 'calculation'.
MSN is NOT Microsoft, you would be surprised how separate the businesses operate, and isolating Opera users with a messed up page would NOT benefit MSN.
Some interesting MSN info:
The MSN datacenter managers and site programmers are borderline retarded having worked with them directly, I would bet on it being an accident and wouldn't be surprised if there aren't tons of coding errors that hit all browsers independantly.
The MSN managers and programmers are the reason Microsoft 'Live' exists, and why MSN groups and other MSN features are all in competition with Live and being replaced by Live services from Microsoft's other divisions OUTSIDE of MSN. MSN is a held over tie to a time when MSN was a folder based compuserve type service and tried to adopt to being a portal site.
Notice that everything from Windows Messenger to even search moved from the MSN teams and was replaced. All Microsoft products shove live.com as the default home page, not MSN.com.
If you ever want to see a day in insanity, go hang out with the MSN datacenter people. I feel sorry for sites like Slate.com, etc that have to work through their operations.
I worked with another 'partner' like Slate and dealing with the MSN people scared the fek out of myself and my team. We even had to fix programming for them and send them instructions for their servers because an 'ok' manager at MSN said his people didn't know how to do something really simple and asked if we would do it for him on the side. Scary...
Firefox is being fed broken js/HTML by Hotmail
Possible, but if you change the user agent, and Hotmail thinks your browser is IE7 or IE8 or FF2 it still breaks...
If it was just bad FF .js/HTML then changing the user agent would fix the problem, and it don't.
(Also remember IE8 runs in standards default mode, breaking with IE legacy, so code for it would be pretty pure and shouldn't break on FF3.)
The fault apparently lies with the Hotmail site, not Mozilla -- maintainer Dave Garrett assigned the bug to Tech Evangelism, explaining: "I'll... move this over to TE, as my guess is this [is] the site's fault (just bad user agent sniffing?)
1) Changing or spoofing agent string doesn't help. Even pretending to be IE, the .js files associated still fail in FF3 WITH THE SAME ERROR.
2) If you look at the page source you can tell that Hotmail is identifying FireFox properly and loading the corresponding javascript, etc specific to FireFox.
So why is the Firefox team assigning this to 'Agent String' or 'Tech Evangelism' again?
Less than thirty seconds on google would show you that you CAN, and exactly how to do it.
Which was my point EXACTLY,re-read my post. I was mocking the fact someone would assert that user access level vulnerbility is NOT major since they could use a USB device to boot hack the OS.
But no. Actually googling something or reading the documentation would take valuable time away from your trolling and astroturfing, wouldn't it? It's much faster and easier to just make shit up.
Just re-read the post before you jump on the wrong person and be a dick.
So why don't you read what I actually WROTE, instead of chiding me for arguments I'm not making?
So you didn't write something silly like: OSX is intrinsically far more secure than Windows ?
This is what I brought contention with and asked for you to explore further if you really believed this...
(I won't bag on you if you want to leave it here. So far you seem to be a bit more honest and respectful than I anticipated, even though you caught my attention by perpetuating some standard SlashDot accepted statements that just don't reflect reality or a real understanding of OS architecture, but are usually classified as ok here because they are anti-MS based.)
Take Care...
I've done the research.
So you really think that because it uses a BSD like kernel interface API, it is just more secure then?
How about if I throw you this little fact:
Windows XP and Vista have a full BSD subsystem (SUA), does this automatically make Vista and XP even 'more more more more' secure by design? (Or at least software running in the Vista/XP BSD subsystem 'super duper' secure?)
Here is the answer to the trick:
What you are saying just re-establishes that you have no idea even what BSD is, and your 'assessment' of OS X and security based on your understanding of its BSD underpinnings don't even make sense, let alone establish any foundation to your argument.
---
And did you Google the security holes in Vista vs OS X yet? Truly go even with OS X 10.5 which is almost a year newer than Vista even. Hint: Not only has 10.5 OS X had more security holes/problems but it also has had several that are far more severe...
I won't do your research for you, but just in case you think I'm trolling here is something from 2007 to wet your whistle:
http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39169503,00.htm
"While Mac OS X had 234 highly critical vulnerabilities reported in 2007, Vista and XP combined had 23, Ou wrote"
(Just guess what happens to even the staggering 10 to 1 ratio when you take XP out of the equation?)
Happy researching...
OSX is intrinsically far more secure than Windows, but all systems have their vulnerabilities.
Really? Shall we have a kernel design discussion here, so the fanbois will FINALLY stop with the OS X uses BSD so it is just more secure by design?
This is repeating myth and fanboi crap, and needs to stop at some point.
So how about today? Lay out how OS X is 'intrinsically' more secure than NT.
(When you get back from Wiki, make sure you also read some whitepapers on NT that are far more detailed than Wiki or even find a copy of Inside NT. If you do this, and understand what you are reading, you won't be so quick to say NT is an insecure design, in fact in theory it is one of the most secure OS architecture designs in consumer OS history.)
PS Here are a few clues for you to check out if you want to really debate this:
1) Read about the reasonings behind the NT design model and why UNIX file/device I/O was thrown out due to its restrictions and inherent insecurity.
2) Check out how NT's security model was designed and works, especially the parts about its object/token based design.
3) Next read up on the granlarity of the token based security system in NT, and how even kernel level processes must obtain permissions each time they process/run. See how this contrasts with most UNIX variants, specifically Linux, BSD, OS X, etc...
---
Truly this 'inherent' insecure myth of Windows really needs to die. Bitch about Win9X all you want(as it had no security in the OS at all), or even heck bitch about Win32 and Microsoft not 'enforcing' NT security in the XP Win32 subsystem all you want. Then remind yourself these are 2002/2003 at best arguments, and in 2008 are borderline insane rants carried over for far too many years.
I'm aware that Window's market share makes them the "low-hanging fruit," but even without considering market share, OSX has fewer security holes than Windows
Really? Compare Vista to OS X... Heck even compare 10.5 to Vista...
When you get back from your research, please post a retraction to your clueless assertion.
Most of the difference seems (to me, YMMV) to be remnants of OSX's background in BSD
Do you even understand what you are trying to state? BSD is not a 'secure' end all OS design. One, I repeat one BSD variant is very secure because of the detail that it is given. When you get outside of this variant/distribution like FreeBSD or OS X the security of BSD from the secure variant has no relevance.
Go look up what BSD is and stop with the insane (Because it uses BSD it is JUST more secure) crap...
People have no freaking clue what BSD is, other than the reputation of ONE BSD variant, and even it has ran into a few holes in the past few years (Google: University Records stolen California) for an example...
I plug in my EVUL USB KEY OF DEWM (into the USB port on the keyboard), go Apple->Restart, it does so, I hold down OPTION, I get to choose to boot off the EUKoD.
Then this is another OS X flaw... If boot privledges cannot be pre-empted from USB or CD/DVD drives, an OS X machine cannot ever be secured...
Want to reconsider stating that you can't preempt USB booting?
Read what you wrote. "Deployment report". Deployments say nothing about reliability.
I'll stop your digging for excuses here...
In the REAL WORLD deployments are monitored from pre-deployment to end of cycle. The term deployments, don't mean 'to deploy' in this context, it means, systems/software installed or to be installed, not just the act of 'installing them'.
Now that you have learned a cool new IT term, go impress your friends, even use it for show and tell if you want.
My first experience with Vista was setting up a computer for my great-aunt. She'd just bought a new computer with Vista pre-installed, and hadn't even opened the boxes. She asked me to set it all up for her...
So a few minutes later, it starts up for the first time. "Welcome to Vista -- please enter your name and a password that you can use to log in". So far, so shiny. Then we move the mouse towards the first text box... and it bluescreens.
Straight out of the box. The sealed box. From the factory. On first boot. You think they would have noticed that...
But I suppose that was before SP1
And hardware failure on new computer couldn't possibly be the problem, it MUST BE VISTA...
And there are 99 million users that are happy with Vista and would disagree...
.9% after having dealt with multi-thousand user deployments.)
Rather than admit ignorance or even look to see if there is 'another answer', after people are fed anti-Vista stories they would rather blame Vista than admit they were foolish or it is easier to blame their problems on Vista.
I had a 'friend' bitch about Vista not being able to import pictures off their digital camera. I offered to help, and even as the user was complaining there was no easy way to do it, they were clicking Close on the Import Dialog that was asking for a Tag for the photos to automatically import. They just assumed it was some crap that popped up and never read it.After making them NOT CLOSE the Import dialog, they were embarrased and amazed how much easier it was than they expected and fell in love with Vista.
So if I had been an anti-Vista person do you think they would still like or hate Vista, even though it was their stupidity causing their disdain?
Do your own unofficial study...
Users that have just one friend that knows Vista or talks foundly of it love it 99.9% of the time. (And yes I can use a
I have even seen users that after being 'forced' to use Vista at work, end up giving their Macs to their kids and getting a Vista machine at home because they liked it that much better.
Does this mean anything? Not really, but neither does your experience in the general scheme of things... We all have stories, and the influences of the people around change them dramatically.
Chill. Do you work on the Windows development team or do you work in PR?
Just an old school OS theorist and researcher that finds the absent-minded kiddie mentality of SlashDot dangerous to the OSS world.
So I'd say you probably have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, with all your 'expert' experience, that should negate things like a 35,000+ deployment report on my desk that says otherwise?
Ever consider maybe you are a crappy Administrator?
I've seen Linux and HP-UX, Solaris and AIX servers with uptimes measured in years
Linux added in here would draw some serious questions as to your honesty. How many years do you run Linux servers without updates? (Even in closed environments?) Linux (until recently) is not condusive to hotpatching, especially any kernel level updates.
The longest uptime I have personally seen in an 'active' installation is a NT 4.0 box from 1997 (No internet Access, just a large LAN of clients it served including IIS intranet software) and it ran until January of 1999 without a reboot. (Jan 99 reboot was to add storage and RAM, and a service pack was scheduled during downtime.)
So if you want to share anecdotal stories, I would be happy to add 'personal experience' to the dialog. (I Even have a 3yr old Win3.1 VM and a 4yr old XP VM that have never been rebooted... Oooh Awww...)
See how silly this gets, real quick? Most 'personal' experience is crap, as people are either biased, have unique situations, or are really bad administrators that like to blame the Server/Software instead of admitting they feked up...
On the other hand, since this exploit seems to require physical access to the machine to be rooted, you might have some other security concerns to deal with at that point, like keeping the intruder from raiding your fridge on his way out.
What about non personal deployments?
Like corporate installations?
Kiosk installations?
Any small business that wants to secure a machine?
How about a class room that you want kiddies to run games but not wipe the OS?
Physical access MEANS if they can access the hardware (inside the case). It DOES NOT mean typing something on the freaking keyboard, when logged in as a low level user.
In the IT world you password lock boot media, lock cases,etc. If an IT person can't secure a machine without removing the keyboard, there MIGHT be a security problem.
(SlashDot Editors? WTF?)