Linux is only a kernel. I would be interested to see a comparison between the amount and severity of security flaws found in Linux compared to the amount found in the NT kernel.
It is hard to get real information, even the recent CERT report:
Lumps not only OS Vulnerabilities, but every vulnerability from every piece of software that runs on the OS. So if Joe Blow Developer at IceWarp for example writes insecure crap code it gets listed as a 'Windows' Vulnerbility.
Even if you parse these lists, there is no distinction between kernel and non-kernel vulnerbilities.
At the very least lists like this should be by platform, then organization for products they produce, and not lump everything into what OS the software runs on.
Also note that they list 'updates' and not vulnerbilties, for example a single 'vulnerbility' for OSX is:
Apple Mac OS X Multiple Vulnerabilities
And if you click on the detail, you find that it was not a single vulnerbility but a single 'update' that addressed 50 vulnerbilities.
So if you extrapolated out all the OS level listings from the CERT list, you would find that a single Patch on one line for like Windows addressing one vulnerability is considered to be equal to a Patch for OSX that addressed 20 vulnerabillties.
And yet people try to take a report like this and say *nix is more secure or OSX is more secure or Windows is more secure, when in fact this list is nothing but crap data that is poorly assembled.
I think every OS vendor should do an honest year end report that has to be submitted, and detail, OS, OS Kernel, OS Layers, OS bundled applications, etc...
Security reporting drives me about as nuts as security issues themselves.
I really don't think there are that many people drinking the MS kool aid. People have been switching to Apple desktops and *nix servers fairly steadily, but you're not going to see an overnight change because the cost of migration is so high
In relation to the price of the changes the previous poster brought up, the problem with Apple, is instead of SP1 and SP2, you get 10.3 10.4 with a $100 fee each year.
Even on the desktop, Microsoft at least doesn't charge for updates that are not major releases. SP2 of XP was more of a re-write than almost every OSX.x release even.
SP2 brought in many of the managed and security advancements from the 2003 Server development, in addition to new features, and it only cost a download.
If were were talking about NT4 Servers, I would agree with the above posters argument about why stick with MS, but 2003 Server and even the current Win2k SP have been surprisingly tight on security and updates and fixes have been pretty minor and painless.
Any *nix Sever needs security updates as well, even though they are not as often targeted platforms - so to move to *nix and not keep on top of security and patches would be foolish.
OK, am I the only one who has grown weary of the "oh well, another month, another insain exploit" state of mind in which windows users and admins seem to be willing to accept? Why do people just accept this, I understand a few bugs, and maybe a SINGLE large scale outbreak in something as commonplace as Windows, but this crap is just outright crazy now-a-days.
Have you ever done any *nix administration? Go take a look at the security updates for any *nix variant, OSes are not perfect - PERIOD.
Linux had more holes and patches again in 2005 than NT, just like the previous 5 years. So using your logic, why would anyone trust Linux in a server environment? (Not dissing Linux here, but you have to keep on top of security and fixes no matter what OS or Server OS you are running.)
If you are running a *nix box and not keeping on top of security because you think you are immune you are fool.
MS said for years that Unix is so old. Now Windows is becoming more and more like Unix. What a bunch of idiots these guys are that took them so long to realize that their architecture is flawed and that Unix's architecure is superior.
I think it was Cutler or someone from his team in 1991 that made a comment along these lines, but it wasn't about the age of UNIX, it was the inherent problems in the architecture of UNIX and its limitations.
And if you know anything about NT and its architecture, you will surely realize that not only is there a great deal of difference from UNIX by design, but the direction Microsoft is evolving NT has very little relevance to anything in the UNIX world.
UNIX zealots should flame you as well as NT proponents.
If Microsoft wanted UNIX, they had XENIX and Cutler had full control to make NT a full UNIX implementation/evolution. However the NT team did not want the UNIX limitations, and they were from the UNIX world themselves.
UNIX is great in many ways, but by definition, when you adhere to a base operational specification, you are limiting yourself, no matter how good it is.
NT doesn't have these rules, and whether people like it or not, it doesn't have to adhere to anything but what they want it to do or believe works well, so it by definition it will never have these imposed limitations.
In response to the poster above that sees Microsoft as ripping off Postscript, they have no idea what Microsoft is doing and how it is different than Postscript.
Everyone that thinks MS is ripping anyone off needs to just go to msdn.microsoft.com and read up on what Microsoft is actually doing before slamming it with a generalization. (
Even what I say below, don't take my word for it, take 10min and go look at it. Even if MS is your enemy, it is better to know what they are doing, especially if they are doing something that might be unique or at least innovative one particular field.)
Sure there are similarities as MS new technologies can be used to render things on screen, to a printer, or store it in a document.
One thing that is different is MS is using a XML based format that will allow Windows and applications to pass this information internally from screen to printer to clipboard to document. (Although this isn't a giant leap, but will be handy for a more streamlined protocol internally within the GUI as well as doing remote operations.)
MS's technologies are like the next generation of what Postscript was in the 80s.
It is font independant, has more advanced rendering concepts built in, from blending and transparencies and other normal graphical application types of display that are a bit more advanced than Postscript and what you would normally find in CorelDraw or Illustrator and Photoshop to AutoCad.
It also fully handles 3D dimentional space, animation, control and message handling as well as other forms of media like video, ink, audio and is extensible beyond current media concepts of today.
What probably would be the giant leap is that it even inherently handles modeling and things like collision detection in a 3D space with support for user control and interaction, which is kind of cool for a presentation technology. (Envision how nicely this will adapt to printer technologies that blur displays and printed output - i.e. digital ink)
This is a bit way beyond what Postscript does, although what Postscript does, it does well and shouldn't be dismissed.
But don't say MS is ripping of Postscript, any more than Postscript was ripping off the first Vector drawing formats that predated it.
Which is why I was asking in the base note, since I'd have thought that the successors to NT would have been better architected than they were. Instead, they continue to be riddled with security bugs
Don't confuse security bugs in the Win32 subsystem and NT... They are different things, and NT itself has proven to be less security prone or buggy than almost any OS, even many beloved Open Source OSes.
He answered to the voters in 2004 (though apparantly not to you -- remember that you are not everybody) and the voters told him to keep doing what he was doing for another four years.
Tell that to the people of Ohio... Also while you are at it, recheck the discrepancies in the votes that were accountable on paper - two counties in florida had shifting tallies from the original signed tracked votes to what was report and later turned in (i.e. The ones with the poll worker signatures were NOT used)... Oh and don't forget the millions of votes with no paper trail...
You really believe that areas in Ohio that voted in the 80% range for local and state people that were far left liberals, and yet in the same districts voted almost 80% for Bush? Come on, even Bush family members or the 'right' pundants don't believe this stuff unless they are paid well to do so.
Reality isn't something you like to visit very often?
And from my user point of view, Linux/Unix are doing exactly the same thing as Windows, so these 'architectural concepts' that NT has bring absolutly *nothing*: no better feature, no increased stability.
Truly? Running multiple OS Subsystems is something you do everyday in Linux.
Basically there are no ways to simplify the controls or the interface. SOE/LA really screwed up the interface for the game, even long time (well abled) customers find the new interface a freaking nightmare. (Most of us say it requires 6 hands to play now).
Here is an example if you are a Jedi...
Find NPC to attack. Click or press 6 to tell the system you want your right click skill to be your defense stance. Click your Right Mouse button to activate it. Click or press 8 to tell the system you want to activate your blaster blocking. Right Click Mouse to Activate. Click or press 7 to tell teh system you want to hit harder Ricght Click Mouse to Activate Click or press 3 to tell system your want your right click attack power to be lightning. Left click on target to start attacking it. Right Click to Activate ligtning. (Timer Rolls) Click or press 2 to tell system to use Choke Right Click to choke target Left click many more times or hold it down Do all this whil staying in a 5m range of target using your wasd keys to chase target and then repeat several times all of the above - since all the items above are on short timers and have to be reset, several times even in a simple battle with an NPC of your own level.
Oh, and with the NGE you also have to keep your cursor hovering over the targer at all times, as this is their idea of a 'targeting system'. It is like a sick joke and bad interface version of 1992 Duke Nukem.
Sounds fun uh? Not...
In the old system, you targeted NPC and clicked how you wanted to attack it. You did NOT have to the click on the power and then right click to activate it (redundant UI concept from hell, and in current form is buggy and many times the right click power never fires as you have both mouse buttons down at same time and system gets confused).
Truly imagine a system with no character or creature collision detection and yet they are trying to strap on a targeting system. It is an insane idea at best.
Also, in old system you could also walk and navigate and everything with the mouse and one hand, using the cursor keys or wasd was not necessary but available. (Now you find that even more complex games like CoH are 100 times easier to play and at least have a better line of site, collision detection, and more realistic targeting system.)
The old SWG was a great game that they never let it fulfill itself, the original designers had a great vision that is now completely gone. It was probably the first MMO that had no need for quests or developer created content as such. Players created their own. They made their own adventures and their own content. From Player Cities and housing to guild ran quests. All of which is now worthless, and they are moving the game to a quest based system fully, but yet using crappy beta code for line of site and targetting to make it 'seem' like a FPS.
As for the people saying that a disabled person has no rights here, they are not listening and are really cold hearted and minded.
What if I sold someone here a condo in a building that had wheel chair ramps and such and they bought it because it was easy for them to get in because they are disabled, then a month later, I replace the ramps with stairs and tell them tough luck. Do you not think they would be a little angry? Or should we just tell them to learn to walk or move? Not fair.
Even if this does not fall under the disabilities act, it does fall under bait and switch laws. PERIOD.
(This post is not all directed at the poster I am replying to, it was just a good place to jump into this conversation.)
NT borrowed heavily from DEC VMS, which if it were running on DOS would be like running VMS on top of RSTS.
Just my two cents because I get sick of morons bloviating this crap...
NT borrowed almost NOTHING from the VMS or *nix world. Culter was author of VMS and a brilliant *nix designer, but he also knew the shortcommings of both OS models. NT was designed specifically to be different and not be tied to a *nix or for that matter a VMS architecture.
(In fact Cutler could have made NT a full *nix Windows, as Microsoft owned Xenix at the time, and was willing to go with whatever the Cutler team decided would create the next great OS architecture.)
People can bitch about Windows and specfically Win32, but there is not a whole lof ot NT itself that is flawed or attackable in its design. It is still doing kernel and architectual concepts today that you cannot find any other consumer level OS. PERIOD.
For graphics and sound to work best, commonly used objects are stored in memory, ideally most rapidly accessible by the chipset which makes use of it. If you can pre-load a graphics card with most of your GUI toolkit you can do some amazingly fast rendering.
Ok, this partially true; however, the thing people seem to miss is that when Microsoft dropped Video to Ring0 with NT4 it was to improve video performance for games, specifically WinG and DirectDraw at the time. This was a major performance increase at the time because of the higher level GDI calls of Win32 that were mostly non-accelerated for gaming. ALso at the time 3D accelerated Video Cards were basically non-existent at the time, so machines didn't have a powerful GPU to utilize.
And what this means by them moving the Video back up from Ring0 is of course more stability, so the new NVidia beta build doesn't make the Windows machine lock up when it shouldn't, as most graphic drivers are the root of 99% of all system lockups with Windows, since most users don't run MS certified drivers and are running the latest incarnations.
Additionaly, with the new graphics subsystem concepts in Vista, having Video Drivers in Ring0 is far less important, as the entire WPF is designed to take advantage of the Video GPU from everything from off-screen buffering like OSX, to drawing the entire controls and 3D interfaces.
In fact with the new WPF in Vista, the GPU can even be used to accelerate printing, and creation of XPS graphical/display documents.
So there is no longer a need or reason for the small performance benefits by having the video in Ring0, since the GPU, even older GPUs by today's standards handle all the gaming and now even the new UI controls and 3D vecotoring of the UI.
Basically MS is saying, we are moving to where the GPU will do its job, so we no longer have to compensate software rendering and no longer need Video drivers to have Ring0 access.
Microsoft considered this move with WindowsXP, but with the driver changes needed and the UI still being GDI+ based for most applications, there was still a lot of software rendering taking place. It was only the games that it really didn't matter for as they were already doing DirectX and OpenGL for performance.
My two cents....
(And if you don't believe my post, please go look this stuff up - do your own reseach and not follow the rants of myself or other Slashdot Biases. - Truly, I don't profess to know everything, and my rant is short, you will probably learn more by looking up the stuff I talk about than just reading my or any post and believing it without the poster's personal basis).
I appreciate the rage that my post must have inspired in you. I even further enjoy the condescending and racist responses it invoked.
I especially like your specific references to my typos and grammatical taboos from a post written at 3am as some sort of defining predication of my assessment of Dvorak and also traversing it to my understanding of the fundamentals of English in general.
Your response is enough of a black eye of personal reflection on yourself that I really don't need to even address this issue further.
I have however passed your post around the office; it has made for entertainment for our developers and contributing authors. You see, I actually work in the industry that this post is in reference to, and my assessment of Dvorak is shared throughout the industry.
Now take your racist remarks and crawl back into the cave from which you escaped.
For others reading these posts that seek truth for themselves instead of hand selected posts, just do a Google search for yourself on Dvorak. I stand by my statements.
Yeah, and like every other/. idiot, we should believe you and your bullshit claims?!?
I totally agree, hence why my original post, clearly stated - "Go research this yourself if you are considering one, listening to other slashdotters is 'not' a source for news."
Don't listen to me, nor the general/. thoughts, find out for yourself...
Is it just me, or are there more people here on slashdot talking about this, than actual posts of the problems on all the sites combined.
Even following the links provided by the poster and visiting MS newsgroups, out of the posts, it looks like there are maybe 100 people at the most that have encountered a problem...
Out of the 'how many units', and this is the number of problems experienced to warrant a SlahDot trash thread?
This is a joke, right? Shall we compaire other product releases, take the iPod, iMac, or many HD units or Dell brands or whatever...
In comparison, this is a significantly small number of problems reported in comparision to the number of units that were purchased.
As a side note, my spouse works in the retail gaming industry, and they have had very little reported problems in comparison to the units they have sold.
For example, PS2s sold last week generate more customer calls and returns for errors and crashing on a percentange then they are seeing with the 360.
Weird uh, after so many years, you would think Sony would have the PS2 hardware problem worked out. (And you would not believe the percentage each store has seen with the PS2 where customers brought back units that literally caught on fire, well smoke at least.)
Get off your we hate everything MS does and think for yourself. Go research this yourself if you are considering one, listening to other slashdotters is 'not' a source for news.
If there were really no risk that Microsoft would ever sue him, then he wouldn't have had to stop making it. If you're so sure about this, why don't you go dig up the old VirtualDub code and start distributing it again?
Tons of sites, and companies still DO distribute the origianl VirtualDub program with ASF support. Next time do a quick search instead of assuming and posting what you don't know.
I don't think it's any secret that John Dvorak has turned on Apple, and the last decade has seen an almost unending parade of negative articles by Dvorak regarding Apple and the Mac platform. He's predicted the demise of Apple more times than I can count, and he's made some very unflattering comments about most of Apple's products that have gone on to do very well in the market. (Dvorak was, in fact, the first person I can recall comparing the iBook to a toilet seat, no doubt informing Apple's decision to make the 2001 iBook a more conventional looking laptop.)
I haven't personally seen or read anything pro-Mac or pro-Apple coming from Dvorak since my college days -- and I graduated in 1992. Almost every time a Dvorak article is linked in Slashdot, you will see a flurry of comments posted slamming Dvorak for his anti-Mac bias -- even if the article in question isn't all that biased or anti-anything. That's how much good will Dvorak has burned with the Mac community and with Apple.
I won't bother providing URLs to back up my arguments, as other commenters in this thread have already done the leg-work for me. Instead, I'm going to plead with moderators: won't you please think of the children?
Oh, Really?
"Right now, and as much as x86 users do not want to admit it, the Mac OS is already better than Windows in its modern look and feel as well as its functionality. I see too many smart people with Mac laptops nowadays. - John Dvorak"
Want me to post the links you won't, cause even in the articles where he challenges Apple, he usually gives them more credit than they deserve?
And again, as for someone thinking he is Anti-Mac and Pro-MS is out there. He hates Windows, long after 1992.
He also has been for the last 15yrs and is CURRENTLY an admitted Mac user for his primary computer. Hates Apples does he? - Strange he would use them and not Windows as much as he can uh?
People in the "Mac" world don't like him because he wrote articles that first dropped the rumors of "OSX on Intel" and other things Mac users didn't want to hear and called him crazy over. He has been blunt about Apple, but is STILL a Apple and OSX 'proponent', very much so...
So refer to your couple of articles that he is negative about Apple, and I will paste links to 100s that show him doing the opposite...
then to a Cell and NVidia system when the Cell couldn't be adapted fast enough to do the quality of video they wanted, and now we are finding out the PS3's NVidia subsystem is in the 6800 Class of PC Cards, not even the current 7800s.
This is completely FALSE. I can't believe how garbage like this could get modded +4 interesting.
Wow you are so informed, and yet show you know nothing...
So you are calling NVidia liars, ok sure, you know everything, right? *wink
As the author of the "VirtualDub" video editor described it: Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media Group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although I had reverse engineered it, the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation.
Ok, and the real news story on this from 2000 was... "He was stopped from using the ASF since he reverse-engineered the ASF file spec."
We were all there and remember this story, yet no one remember ths 'point' from it. Other companies have been producing.asf support in their product before and ever since then. Do a freaking search.
Additionally, the components of the.asf and basically all the Windows Media formats have been turned over to a standards body that Microsoft doesn't even have control over anymore, go look up VSC.
If Microsoft wanted to cause harm, the would have 'sued' him, or EVERY company out there that used the.asf format. THEY DIDN'T - EVER, just like I said...
Additionally, this is his story, no Microsoft confirmtion, ever, it could be a great hoax for him not wanting to keep.asf support for political reasons, who knows what you could make up from something that has no evidence but what a 'guy said'...
Microsoft tried to squeeze apple with their patents on the ipod interface. Yes after the ipod came out MS rushed out and got a patent on the interface and tried to squeeze apple for money. Apple told them go suck ass and they never pursued it.
Trademarks are NOT patents, and even precious 'Linux' and 'Apple' and 'Berkley' have all had litigation to protect trademarks, go look it up.
As for the patent... Creative actually holds the patent on this, so explain this Myth that you admit 'never' happened a bit more, please...
do get it. The XBox 360 requires an expensive PC (or PC / TV) running Microsoft software to stream content to it when it is more than capable of doing for itself from its own harddrive. The media playing functionality of XBox is crippleware, pure and simple. There is no logical reason for such a convoluted setup except to drive sales of two Microsoft product lines and to require consumers to buy both in order to use the functionality that one could do in its sleep.
No you don't get it... Using the Harddrive that comes with the premium edition, you can store you photos, music and movies on it, like the original XBox, but with video and photo support from your devices. In this regard it can function as a stand alone hub for your portible devices or a small storage server. This has not changed, but is NOT necessary if you have computers already doing this in your house.
Where it shines is in ALSO having access to all the media on all your computers in the house. As for it needing Media Center, this is a little distorted. It has a Media Center interface, and can work like a Media Center Extender. But the only reason you have to have Media center on another system is to watch 'LIVE' TV on it.
You should be able to watch stored video or listen to stored audio from ANY PC on the LAN in your house.
But can anyone make a server for the Xbox 360 client? For example, can it be made to stream DivX media (that is, MPEG-4 Part 2 video and MP3 audio in an AVI wrapper) from a machine on your LAN running Apache HTTP Server?
Why would you need an HTTP server on your intranet to stream media?
AVI Wrapper? Again, why?
But ya, the 360 can stream most formats, don't know for sure on the DivX though.
VSC is open source WMV format, and I would imagine there is MPeg4 support, even though Microsoft wrote competing technologies, the basis of the MPeg4 codec was written by Micrsoft, for the old timers that remember this stuff.
For full transparency, any formats not support, just have your server convert the codec format of the file when it is requested. Again, you don't need an HTTP server. Although, since Media Center supports viewing HTTP content from online vendors and such, I'm sure you could write one for your media as well, but it would be adding extra fluff that is not needed.
This is just simple file sharing, and a fancy GUI for it on the 360, the nifty part of the media components are the transparency of use and the ease and diversity.
If you compare the Media Center interface for example to even the best 'box' solutions from cable companies, it wins hands down, in addition to the fact you rent movies online and various other nifty items. (And don't ANYONE mention MOXI as being a great box media center solution, use it for a week and you will want to beat the designers yourself.)
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is only a kernel. I would be interested to see a comparison between the amount and severity of security flaws found in Linux compared to the amount found in the NT kernel.
It is hard to get real information, even the recent CERT report:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html
Lumps not only OS Vulnerabilities, but every vulnerability from every piece of software that runs on the OS. So if Joe Blow Developer at IceWarp for example writes insecure crap code it gets listed as a 'Windows' Vulnerbility.
Even if you parse these lists, there is no distinction between kernel and non-kernel vulnerbilities.
At the very least lists like this should be by platform, then organization for products they produce, and not lump everything into what OS the software runs on.
Also note that they list 'updates' and not vulnerbilties, for example a single 'vulnerbility' for OSX is:
Apple Mac OS X Multiple Vulnerabilities
And if you click on the detail, you find that it was not a single vulnerbility but a single 'update' that addressed 50 vulnerbilities.
So if you extrapolated out all the OS level listings from the CERT list, you would find that a single Patch on one line for like Windows addressing one vulnerability is considered to be equal to a Patch for OSX that addressed 20 vulnerabillties.
And yet people try to take a report like this and say *nix is more secure or OSX is more secure or Windows is more secure, when in fact this list is nothing but crap data that is poorly assembled.
I think every OS vendor should do an honest year end report that has to be submitted, and detail, OS, OS Kernel, OS Layers, OS bundled applications, etc...
Security reporting drives me about as nuts as security issues themselves.
More incremental changes like protected memory have made big differences in win2k
I would assume you are meaning DLL isolation, since protected memory has been a part of NT since it was born.
I really don't think there are that many people drinking the MS kool aid. People have been switching to Apple desktops and *nix servers fairly steadily, but you're not going to see an overnight change because the cost of migration is so high
In relation to the price of the changes the previous poster brought up, the problem with Apple, is instead of SP1 and SP2, you get 10.3 10.4 with a $100 fee each year.
Even on the desktop, Microsoft at least doesn't charge for updates that are not major releases. SP2 of XP was more of a re-write than almost every OSX.x release even.
SP2 brought in many of the managed and security advancements from the 2003 Server development, in addition to new features, and it only cost a download.
If were were talking about NT4 Servers, I would agree with the above posters argument about why stick with MS, but 2003 Server and even the current Win2k SP have been surprisingly tight on security and updates and fixes have been pretty minor and painless.
Any *nix Sever needs security updates as well, even though they are not as often targeted platforms - so to move to *nix and not keep on top of security and patches would be foolish.
OK, am I the only one who has grown weary of the "oh well, another month, another insain exploit" state of mind in which windows users and admins seem to be willing to accept? Why do people just accept this, I understand a few bugs, and maybe a SINGLE large scale outbreak in something as commonplace as Windows, but this crap is just outright crazy now-a-days.
Have you ever done any *nix administration? Go take a look at the security updates for any *nix variant, OSes are not perfect - PERIOD.
Linux had more holes and patches again in 2005 than NT, just like the previous 5 years. So using your logic, why would anyone trust Linux in a server environment? (Not dissing Linux here, but you have to keep on top of security and fixes no matter what OS or Server OS you are running.)
If you are running a *nix box and not keeping on top of security because you think you are immune you are fool.
MS said for years that Unix is so old. Now Windows is becoming more and more like Unix. What a bunch of idiots these guys are that took them so long to realize that their architecture is flawed and that Unix's architecure is superior.
I think it was Cutler or someone from his team in 1991 that made a comment along these lines, but it wasn't about the age of UNIX, it was the inherent problems in the architecture of UNIX and its limitations.
And if you know anything about NT and its architecture, you will surely realize that not only is there a great deal of difference from UNIX by design, but the direction Microsoft is evolving NT has very little relevance to anything in the UNIX world.
UNIX zealots should flame you as well as NT proponents.
If Microsoft wanted UNIX, they had XENIX and Cutler had full control to make NT a full UNIX implementation/evolution. However the NT team did not want the UNIX limitations, and they were from the UNIX world themselves.
UNIX is great in many ways, but by definition, when you adhere to a base operational specification, you are limiting yourself, no matter how good it is.
NT doesn't have these rules, and whether people like it or not, it doesn't have to adhere to anything but what they want it to do or believe works well, so it by definition it will never have these imposed limitations.
Very good account of Postscript.
In response to the poster above that sees Microsoft as ripping off Postscript, they have no idea what Microsoft is doing and how it is different than Postscript.
Everyone that thinks MS is ripping anyone off needs to just go to msdn.microsoft.com and read up on what Microsoft is actually doing before slamming it with a generalization. (
Even what I say below, don't take my word for it, take 10min and go look at it. Even if MS is your enemy, it is better to know what they are doing, especially if they are doing something that might be unique or at least innovative one particular field.)
Sure there are similarities as MS new technologies can be used to render things on screen, to a printer, or store it in a document.
One thing that is different is MS is using a XML based format that will allow Windows and applications to pass this information internally from screen to printer to clipboard to document. (Although this isn't a giant leap, but will be handy for a more streamlined protocol internally within the GUI as well as doing remote operations.)
MS's technologies are like the next generation of what Postscript was in the 80s.
It is font independant, has more advanced rendering concepts built in, from blending and transparencies and other normal graphical application types of display that are a bit more advanced than Postscript and what you would normally find in CorelDraw or Illustrator and Photoshop to AutoCad.
It also fully handles 3D dimentional space, animation, control and message handling as well as other forms of media like video, ink, audio and is extensible beyond current media concepts of today.
What probably would be the giant leap is that it even inherently handles modeling and things like collision detection in a 3D space with support for user control and interaction, which is kind of cool for a presentation technology. (Envision how nicely this will adapt to printer technologies that blur displays and printed output - i.e. digital ink)
This is a bit way beyond what Postscript does, although what Postscript does, it does well and shouldn't be dismissed.
But don't say MS is ripping of Postscript, any more than Postscript was ripping off the first Vector drawing formats that predated it.
Which is why I was asking in the base note, since I'd have thought that the successors to NT would have been better architected than they were. Instead, they continue to be riddled with security bugs
Don't confuse security bugs in the Win32 subsystem and NT... They are different things, and NT itself has proven to be less security prone or buggy than almost any OS, even many beloved Open Source OSes.
He answered to the voters in 2004 (though apparantly not to you -- remember that you are not everybody) and the voters told him to keep doing what he was doing for another four years.
Tell that to the people of Ohio... Also while you are at it, recheck the discrepancies in the votes that were accountable on paper - two counties in florida had shifting tallies from the original signed tracked votes to what was report and later turned in (i.e. The ones with the poll worker signatures were NOT used)... Oh and don't forget the millions of votes with no paper trail...
You really believe that areas in Ohio that voted in the 80% range for local and state people that were far left liberals, and yet in the same districts voted almost 80% for Bush? Come on, even Bush family members or the 'right' pundants don't believe this stuff unless they are paid well to do so.
Reality isn't something you like to visit very often?
No it didn't. ASP was interpreted up until ASP.NET.
Actually ASP was server side compiled and cached long before ASP.NET...
And from my user point of view, Linux/Unix are doing exactly the same thing as Windows, so these 'architectural concepts' that NT has bring absolutly *nothing*: no better feature, no increased stability.
Truly? Running multiple OS Subsystems is something you do everyday in Linux.
Interesting... not many people have seen that.
Thought I would respond here...
Basically there are no ways to simplify the controls or the interface. SOE/LA really screwed up the interface for the game, even long time (well abled) customers find the new interface a freaking nightmare. (Most of us say it requires 6 hands to play now).
Here is an example if you are a Jedi...
Find NPC to attack.
Click or press 6 to tell the system you want your right click skill to be your defense stance.
Click your Right Mouse button to activate it.
Click or press 8 to tell the system you want to activate your blaster blocking.
Right Click Mouse to Activate.
Click or press 7 to tell teh system you want to hit harder
Ricght Click Mouse to Activate
Click or press 3 to tell system your want your right click attack power to be lightning.
Left click on target to start attacking it.
Right Click to Activate ligtning. (Timer Rolls)
Click or press 2 to tell system to use Choke
Right Click to choke target
Left click many more times or hold it down
Do all this whil staying in a 5m range of target using your wasd keys to chase target and then repeat several times all of the above - since all the items above are on short timers and have to be reset, several times even in a simple battle with an NPC of your own level.
Oh, and with the NGE you also have to keep your cursor hovering over the targer at all times, as this is their idea of a 'targeting system'. It is like a sick joke and bad interface version of 1992 Duke Nukem.
Sounds fun uh? Not...
In the old system, you targeted NPC and clicked how you wanted to attack it. You did NOT have to the click on the power and then right click to activate it (redundant UI concept from hell, and in current form is buggy and many times the right click power never fires as you have both mouse buttons down at same time and system gets confused).
Truly imagine a system with no character or creature collision detection and yet they are trying to strap on a targeting system. It is an insane idea at best.
Also, in old system you could also walk and navigate and everything with the mouse and one hand, using the cursor keys or wasd was not necessary but available. (Now you find that even more complex games like CoH are 100 times easier to play and at least have a better line of site, collision detection, and more realistic targeting system.)
The old SWG was a great game that they never let it fulfill itself, the original designers had a great vision that is now completely gone. It was probably the first MMO that had no need for quests or developer created content as such. Players created their own. They made their own adventures and their own content. From Player Cities and housing to guild ran quests. All of which is now worthless, and they are moving the game to a quest based system fully, but yet using crappy beta code for line of site and targetting to make it 'seem' like a FPS.
As for the people saying that a disabled person has no rights here, they are not listening and are really cold hearted and minded.
What if I sold someone here a condo in a building that had wheel chair ramps and such and they bought it because it was easy for them to get in because they are disabled, then a month later, I replace the ramps with stairs and tell them tough luck. Do you not think they would be a little angry? Or should we just tell them to learn to walk or move? Not fair.
Even if this does not fall under the disabilities act, it does fall under bait and switch laws. PERIOD.
(This post is not all directed at the poster I am replying to, it was just a good place to jump into this conversation.)
NT borrowed heavily from DEC VMS, which if it were running on DOS would be like running VMS on top of RSTS.
Just my two cents because I get sick of morons bloviating this crap...
NT borrowed almost NOTHING from the VMS or *nix world. Culter was author of VMS and a brilliant *nix designer, but he also knew the shortcommings of both OS models. NT was designed specifically to be different and not be tied to a *nix or for that matter a VMS architecture.
(In fact Cutler could have made NT a full *nix Windows, as Microsoft owned Xenix at the time, and was willing to go with whatever the Cutler team decided would create the next great OS architecture.)
People can bitch about Windows and specfically Win32, but there is not a whole lof ot NT itself that is flawed or attackable in its design. It is still doing kernel and architectual concepts today that you cannot find any other consumer level OS. PERIOD.
For graphics and sound to work best, commonly used objects are stored in memory, ideally most rapidly accessible by the chipset which makes use of it. If you can pre-load a graphics card with most of your GUI toolkit you can do some amazingly fast rendering.
Ok, this partially true; however, the thing people seem to miss is that when Microsoft dropped Video to Ring0 with NT4 it was to improve video performance for games, specifically WinG and DirectDraw at the time. This was a major performance increase at the time because of the higher level GDI calls of Win32 that were mostly non-accelerated for gaming. ALso at the time 3D accelerated Video Cards were basically non-existent at the time, so machines didn't have a powerful GPU to utilize.
And what this means by them moving the Video back up from Ring0 is of course more stability, so the new NVidia beta build doesn't make the Windows machine lock up when it shouldn't, as most graphic drivers are the root of 99% of all system lockups with Windows, since most users don't run MS certified drivers and are running the latest incarnations.
Additionaly, with the new graphics subsystem concepts in Vista, having Video Drivers in Ring0 is far less important, as the entire WPF is designed to take advantage of the Video GPU from everything from off-screen buffering like OSX, to drawing the entire controls and 3D interfaces.
In fact with the new WPF in Vista, the GPU can even be used to accelerate printing, and creation of XPS graphical/display documents.
So there is no longer a need or reason for the small performance benefits by having the video in Ring0, since the GPU, even older GPUs by today's standards handle all the gaming and now even the new UI controls and 3D vecotoring of the UI.
Basically MS is saying, we are moving to where the GPU will do its job, so we no longer have to compensate software rendering and no longer need Video drivers to have Ring0 access.
Microsoft considered this move with WindowsXP, but with the driver changes needed and the UI still being GDI+ based for most applications, there was still a lot of software rendering taking place. It was only the games that it really didn't matter for as they were already doing DirectX and OpenGL for performance.
My two cents....
(And if you don't believe my post, please go look this stuff up - do your own reseach and not follow the rants of myself or other Slashdot Biases. - Truly, I don't profess to know everything, and my rant is short, you will probably learn more by looking up the stuff I talk about than just reading my or any post and believing it without the poster's personal basis).
Yet something that needs speed the most, DirectX 9.0c has portions that are written in .NET - managed code.
Don't believe, go look it up...
But I'm sure 'your' tests are the definitive answer on its performance.
I appreciate the rage that my post must have inspired in you. I even further enjoy the condescending and racist responses it invoked.
I especially like your specific references to my typos and grammatical taboos from a post written at 3am as some sort of defining predication of my assessment of Dvorak and also traversing it to my understanding of the fundamentals of English in general.
Your response is enough of a black eye of personal reflection on yourself that I really don't need to even address this issue further.
I have however passed your post around the office; it has made for entertainment for our developers and contributing authors. You see, I actually work in the industry that this post is in reference to, and my assessment of Dvorak is shared throughout the industry.
Now take your racist remarks and crawl back into the cave from which you escaped.
For others reading these posts that seek truth for themselves instead of hand selected posts, just do a Google search for yourself on Dvorak. I stand by my statements.
Yeah, and like every other /. idiot, we should believe you and your bullshit claims?!?
/. thoughts, find out for yourself...
I totally agree, hence why my original post, clearly stated - "Go research this yourself if you are considering one, listening to other slashdotters is 'not' a source for news."
Don't listen to me, nor the general
Everyone forgets to mention Hubble's 'associate', Humason.
His work was what Hubble's Law is actually founded out, he and Hubble worked together, and he was the one that 'observed' the red shift.
Sagan always took time to credit Humason, but very few other prominent people give him the recognition.
Is it just me, or are there more people here on slashdot talking about this, than actual posts of the problems on all the sites combined.
Even following the links provided by the poster and visiting MS newsgroups, out of the posts, it looks like there are maybe 100 people at the most that have encountered a problem...
Out of the 'how many units', and this is the number of problems experienced to warrant a SlahDot trash thread?
This is a joke, right? Shall we compaire other product releases, take the iPod, iMac, or many HD units or Dell brands or whatever...
In comparison, this is a significantly small number of problems reported in comparision to the number of units that were purchased.
As a side note, my spouse works in the retail gaming industry, and they have had very little reported problems in comparison to the units they have sold.
For example, PS2s sold last week generate more customer calls and returns for errors and crashing on a percentange then they are seeing with the 360.
Weird uh, after so many years, you would think Sony would have the PS2 hardware problem worked out. (And you would not believe the percentage each store has seen with the PS2 where customers brought back units that literally caught on fire, well smoke at least.)
Get off your we hate everything MS does and think for yourself. Go research this yourself if you are considering one, listening to other slashdotters is 'not' a source for news.
If there were really no risk that Microsoft would ever sue him, then he wouldn't have had to stop making it. If you're so sure about this, why don't you go dig up the old VirtualDub code and start distributing it again?
Tons of sites, and companies still DO distribute the origianl VirtualDub program with ASF support. Next time do a quick search instead of assuming and posting what you don't know.
I don't think it's any secret that John Dvorak has turned on Apple, and the last decade has seen an almost unending parade of negative articles by Dvorak regarding Apple and the Mac platform. He's predicted the demise of Apple more times than I can count, and he's made some very unflattering comments about most of Apple's products that have gone on to do very well in the market. (Dvorak was, in fact, the first person I can recall comparing the iBook to a toilet seat, no doubt informing Apple's decision to make the 2001 iBook a more conventional looking laptop.)
I haven't personally seen or read anything pro-Mac or pro-Apple coming from Dvorak since my college days -- and I graduated in 1992. Almost every time a Dvorak article is linked in Slashdot, you will see a flurry of comments posted slamming Dvorak for his anti-Mac bias -- even if the article in question isn't all that biased or anti-anything. That's how much good will Dvorak has burned with the Mac community and with Apple.
I won't bother providing URLs to back up my arguments, as other commenters in this thread have already done the leg-work for me. Instead, I'm going to plead with moderators: won't you please think of the children?
Oh, Really?
"Right now, and as much as x86 users do not want to admit it, the Mac OS is already better than Windows in its modern look and feel as well as its functionality. I see too many smart people with Mac laptops nowadays. - John Dvorak"
Want me to post the links you won't, cause even in the articles where he challenges Apple, he usually gives them more credit than they deserve?
And again, as for someone thinking he is Anti-Mac and Pro-MS is out there. He hates Windows, long after 1992.
He also has been for the last 15yrs and is CURRENTLY an admitted Mac user for his primary computer. Hates Apples does he? - Strange he would use them and not Windows as much as he can uh?
People in the "Mac" world don't like him because he wrote articles that first dropped the rumors of "OSX on Intel" and other things Mac users didn't want to hear and called him crazy over. He has been blunt about Apple, but is STILL a Apple and OSX 'proponent', very much so...
So refer to your couple of articles that he is negative about Apple, and I will paste links to 100s that show him doing the opposite...
then to a Cell and NVidia system when the Cell couldn't be adapted fast enough to do the quality of video they wanted, and now we are finding out the PS3's NVidia subsystem is in the 6800 Class of PC Cards, not even the current 7800s.
This is completely FALSE. I can't believe how garbage like this could get modded +4 interesting.
Wow you are so informed, and yet show you know nothing...
So you are calling NVidia liars, ok sure, you know everything, right? *wink
Here, see if you can click, since you don't know what research is...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25838
As the author of the "VirtualDub" video editor described it:
.asf support in their product before and ever since then. Do a freaking search.
.asf and basically all the Windows Media formats have been turned over to a standards body that Microsoft doesn't even have control over anymore, go look up VSC.
.asf format. THEY DIDN'T - EVER, just like I said...
.asf support for political reasons, who knows what you could make up from something that has no evidence but what a 'guy said'...
Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media Group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although I had reverse engineered it, the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation.
Ok, and the real news story on this from 2000 was... "He was stopped from using the ASF since he reverse-engineered the ASF file spec."
We were all there and remember this story, yet no one remember ths 'point' from it. Other companies have been producing
Additionally, the components of the
If Microsoft wanted to cause harm, the would have 'sued' him, or EVERY company out there that used the
Additionally, this is his story, no Microsoft confirmtion, ever, it could be a great hoax for him not wanting to keep
Microsoft tried to squeeze apple with their patents on the ipod interface. Yes after the ipod came out MS rushed out and got a patent on the interface and tried to squeeze apple for money. Apple told them go suck ass and they never pursued it.
Trademarks are NOT patents, and even precious 'Linux' and 'Apple' and 'Berkley' have all had litigation to protect trademarks, go look it up.
As for the patent...
Creative actually holds the patent on this, so explain this Myth that you admit 'never' happened a bit more, please...
original Office XML format
And yet it is in use on almost EVERY alternative Office Suite...
Explain your myth a bit more, please...
do get it. The XBox 360 requires an expensive PC (or PC / TV) running Microsoft software to stream content to it when it is more than capable of doing for itself from its own harddrive. The media playing functionality of XBox is crippleware, pure and simple. There is no logical reason for such a convoluted setup except to drive sales of two Microsoft product lines and to require consumers to buy both in order to use the functionality that one could do in its sleep.
No you don't get it... Using the Harddrive that comes with the premium edition, you can store you photos, music and movies on it, like the original XBox, but with video and photo support from your devices. In this regard it can function as a stand alone hub for your portible devices or a small storage server. This has not changed, but is NOT necessary if you have computers already doing this in your house.
Where it shines is in ALSO having access to all the media on all your computers in the house. As for it needing Media Center, this is a little distorted. It has a Media Center interface, and can work like a Media Center Extender. But the only reason you have to have Media center on another system is to watch 'LIVE' TV on it.
You should be able to watch stored video or listen to stored audio from ANY PC on the LAN in your house.
But can anyone make a server for the Xbox 360 client? For example, can it be made to stream DivX media (that is, MPEG-4 Part 2 video and MP3 audio in an AVI wrapper) from a machine on your LAN running Apache HTTP Server?
Why would you need an HTTP server on your intranet to stream media?
AVI Wrapper? Again, why?
But ya, the 360 can stream most formats, don't know for sure on the DivX though.
VSC is open source WMV format, and I would imagine there is MPeg4 support, even though Microsoft wrote competing technologies, the basis of the MPeg4 codec was written by Micrsoft, for the old timers that remember this stuff.
For full transparency, any formats not support, just have your server convert the codec format of the file when it is requested. Again, you don't need an HTTP server. Although, since Media Center supports viewing HTTP content from online vendors and such, I'm sure you could write one for your media as well, but it would be adding extra fluff that is not needed.
This is just simple file sharing, and a fancy GUI for it on the 360, the nifty part of the media components are the transparency of use and the ease and diversity.
If you compare the Media Center interface for example to even the best 'box' solutions from cable companies, it wins hands down, in addition to the fact you rent movies online and various other nifty items. (And don't ANYONE mention MOXI as being a great box media center solution, use it for a week and you will want to beat the designers yourself.)