I do own an air-cooled VW in the city, and it's fun driving past people who have overheated due to a limited amount of cooling volume.
I'm fairly sure that this is a case of not maintaining the vehicle and making sure the coolant level is topped off, than an actual design failure of the cooling system. This may have been what you meant by "limited amount of cooling volume".
Unless you're an idiot, you don't use 100% anti-freeze in your car. You mix it 50/50 with water. The reason for this is that while ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) has a lower freezing point, it is worse at conducting heat than water. With a 50/50 mix, you lower the freezing point enough so that your radiator doesn't crack in the winter, but you can still cool the engine in the summer.
While I'm not saying that there isn't prior art, one could certainly argue that LED style screens and LED light bulbs are two completely different applications. You are not worried about how white the white on an LED screen is, because it is not used as a light source. I know the text only says "anyone who blends colored LEDs".
I agree with some of the other posters. As long as there is no extra charge, and you can "opt-out" by 'proving' you have a secure service, I would be for ISP level firewalling of some ports. Once it begins to limit my ability to use the internet, however, is where it stops.
As for common carrier status, while my ISP (optonline) does allow incoming connections, the EULA states that no servers are to be run (ha). I am not familiar enough with common carrier regulations to know if this is acceptable.
Well you have to start somewhere. Sure, changing it now doesn't help current installations. Does that mean it shouldn't be done? I'm not really defending MS here, and agree with most of your points.
Look, if you can't trust the software you run, then you can't run any software. Sure in OSS you can look at the source, but until you've reviewed every line of every single thing you're running, and understand it all, you still can't fully trust the software! If someone else/community reviews it, you're still trusting their word. Somewhere there is always a level of trust that you're going to have to apply.
I mean think about it, probably less than 10% of Windows users actually use Windows Update
This "stat", and your other anecdotes, are pulled from nowhere so I see no reason to continue the discussion.
As an IT admin, that is your perogative, and that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the software not having the ability to do a fairly common, and useful, task. You can turn it off by default, but by removing it you begin to limit the functionality of your software, and add very little security.
The cost in question is not the cost of developing the software. It is the cost of technical support required. We're talking about default settings here, which is pretty trivial for MS to change (I would hope). You can still argue that it's a design decision, but it's not a decision that was made in any way by the coders and software designers.
I'm not saying that the people are stupid. I used the term "stupid user" in quotes for a reason. It is what most people say around here (also used a lot is Joe Sixpack).
I'm hard pressed to agree that it is MS responsiblity to account for every user. If everyone started using Linux, as some people here wish would happen, would it be the responsibility of Linus and the OSS community to make Linux easier to use and configure for the masses? I know the counter argument will be made that Linux, in general, ships secure. Part of my argument in the parent was that MS should change their default settings. However if a user wanted to modify the default settings to extend the usability, they may have to know some things to be able to keep the box secure while running that service. So the user would have to learn something about Linux to do action X while keeping it secure. By your definition, Linux can never be secure. I also don't believe that computers or Windows are sold as appliances. The car analogy doesn't hold because a car has one use, transportation. Because computers can be used for just about anything, it is inherently much more difficult, or impossible, to design for every situation, application, and configuration settings that a user is going to use. To use a classic example: If a user is going to run as admin all the time, there is going to be a risk. But there is no way to prevent a user from running as admin all the time; in Linux or Windows.
It's so hard for me to argue for or against DRM because it is still in its infancy.
On one hand, I am against DRM because it could enable content providers to eliminate "fair-use". We have already seen some of this with copy-protected audio CDs, which I am against. We have also seen it with technologies like Macrovision/CSS, which I am not against on principle, but it is a bit disturbing that you pretty much have to break the law to play DVDs in Linux, or go against OSS principles (if you're into that). (Note: I don't know at this time if there is a linux DVD player that has legally licensed the CSS technologies). However, I don't think companies should be forced to an action just because of OSS principles, at least in the US.
On the other hand, I am not against DRM because I believe that content providers should be able to do what they want with their content, so long as everything is made clear to the user before purchase, if applicable. If they want to include DRM, that is their perogative.
The fact that NPR is quasi-public really complicates the issue because it falls right in the middle of both sides. I cannot imagine a situation where NPR would use DRM in a way that I would object to. So long as I can still access their content for free, I feel that they should be able to do what they want. However, I do use Windows, so I can be confident in the fact that there will always be a player for my platform. If I used another OS, I might not feel the same way.
yes, but what if MS were to argue that viruses have gotten so prevalant and so destructive that it should be the function of the OS to scan for them? I, for one, would agree with that argument, assuming that the built in anti-virus could be disabled/replaced if desired.
The way Windows is "designed" is inherently insecure, and probably impossible to make secure
The thing is, that just isn't true. Any time a "windows is so insecure" post like this comes up, there are hundreds of responses from responsible windows users, like myself, about how we run Windows and have no problems. Many of Windows' problems come from default options that should not be enabled. Another large chunk of it comes from stupid users not patching. It's easy to fix the one, and the other is hardly MS' fault. Sure, there are some design flaws with Windows; one would be stupid to not admit that. To say it can "never be secure" is pure FUD.
Choices made based on financial reasons aren't design decisions. They're management/marketing decisions. I wouldn't escalate most of the issues indicated here to design flaws because they can be fixed merely by MS modifying the default install, without even going into the underlying OS operation.
Well, I would have no problem with that, but doubt it would actually stop much of the "dumb user" type problems. If someone wants to run an attachment, and they can't run it by double clicking, they still probably have the skill to save it to the desktop and double click it there. The trick is knowing when to trust the sender and attachment, and what attachement types not to run.
The thing is, even though it is partially taxpayer funded, NPR still owns its content (I'm assuming that there isn't a clause in the funding that causes all content to be made public. I severly doubt this is the case). Actually, according to their page, they are actually a private organization. If they want DRM, why shouldn't they be allowed to use it to restrict people from saving and redistributing content? I'm not a DRM fan, but can certainly see how a content producer might be a fan of DRM, and would want it if they are going to put up all of their content online.
While some here would argue against calling mp3 open, I would have no problem with a group like NPR using it.
Well, like i said, I always run as admin, so I wouldn't notice if there were the type of restrictions you speak of. I run as admin mainly for that reason, and because I do change system settings very frequently and would be annoyed by constantly switching accounts. At least in 2000 and XP, you can change the screen resolution without being admin, as was the case in NT.
Also the phrase "when it provides equivalent function" is extremely important. Part of providing function is having a userbase that can accept and play the open format (which format do you advocate btw?).
If an IT admin wants to configure it so that.exe's and the like are stripped, fine. But don't automatically do it for me. On second thought, I would accept the converse: default to strip, and let power users to configure the program to allow attachments. I guess I'm arguing to not de-facto limit the functionality of the program, and by extension, my ability to use the computer.
Deal with what BS again? My company has a competent IT staff, running XP, and we have been unaffected, aside from a little less bandwidth. At home, I keep my system patched, and I have been unaffected.
No, I do not work for NPR. I believe that companies should be able to use whatever protocol they believe is best for their uses. One of NPR's uses includes people being able to listen to their audio. For this, they offer two very widely used streaming audio formats (only Real before a certain archive date). I do not believe that government or public institutions should be forced to use open software if that software does not meet their needs (I am not saying this is the case with NPR). If you do not agree with their choice, you can let them know. Have you tried this by any chance?
While I know *nix, I am not an administrator. I do know, however, that it is fairly simple to secure a Windows box, and that many of the same steps (running a firewall, not running services you don't use) are part of the process. While Windows may come with a few more services on by default than *nix, all it takes is a few mouse clicks to turn them off for good. The most important step in securing a windows box is simply downloading the patches.
Well, the OS software has caught up. The problem is that not all of the application software has caught up, and that is the main reason why many people (including myself) continue to run 2000/XP as administrator.
OTOH, I always keep my (and my family's, who also run as admin) system patched, and have never had a problem with any of the MS problems talked about here. It's so painfully simple to avoid these problems that it's not even funny.
Why are attachments allowed to do *anything* on the computer?
Uhh, because some of us know our way around well enough to get programs from people that we want to run. Saving to HD and then running doesn't change a thing. To say you shouldn't be attaching executables is silly. People should be safe: know who sent them the mail, know what it is they are running, and run an up to date virus scanner, as well as keep their system patched.
If you are talking about automatic running of attachments, that is a different story, but I want my computer to do what I tell it to do.
Yeah I know that one time I was looking for something obscure, I just wasn't getting any pages related to it. Then, finally, on the 55,239,193th page, there it was!
Slashdot Mirror
I do own an air-cooled VW in the city, and it's fun driving past people who have overheated due to a limited amount of cooling volume.
I'm fairly sure that this is a case of not maintaining the vehicle and making sure the coolant level is topped off, than an actual design failure of the cooling system. This may have been what you meant by "limited amount of cooling volume".
Unless you're an idiot, you don't use 100% anti-freeze in your car. You mix it 50/50 with water. The reason for this is that while ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) has a lower freezing point, it is worse at conducting heat than water. With a 50/50 mix, you lower the freezing point enough so that your radiator doesn't crack in the winter, but you can still cool the engine in the summer.
While I'm not saying that there isn't prior art, one could certainly argue that LED style screens and LED light bulbs are two completely different applications. You are not worried about how white the white on an LED screen is, because it is not used as a light source. I know the text only says "anyone who blends colored LEDs".
I agree with some of the other posters. As long as there is no extra charge, and you can "opt-out" by 'proving' you have a secure service, I would be for ISP level firewalling of some ports. Once it begins to limit my ability to use the internet, however, is where it stops.
As for common carrier status, while my ISP (optonline) does allow incoming connections, the EULA states that no servers are to be run (ha). I am not familiar enough with common carrier regulations to know if this is acceptable.
Well you have to start somewhere. Sure, changing it now doesn't help current installations. Does that mean it shouldn't be done? I'm not really defending MS here, and agree with most of your points.
Look, if you can't trust the software you run, then you can't run any software. Sure in OSS you can look at the source, but until you've reviewed every line of every single thing you're running, and understand it all, you still can't fully trust the software! If someone else/community reviews it, you're still trusting their word. Somewhere there is always a level of trust that you're going to have to apply.
I mean think about it, probably less than 10% of Windows users actually use Windows Update
This "stat", and your other anecdotes, are pulled from nowhere so I see no reason to continue the discussion.
As an IT admin, that is your perogative, and that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the software not having the ability to do a fairly common, and useful, task. You can turn it off by default, but by removing it you begin to limit the functionality of your software, and add very little security.
The cost in question is not the cost of developing the software. It is the cost of technical support required. We're talking about default settings here, which is pretty trivial for MS to change (I would hope). You can still argue that it's a design decision, but it's not a decision that was made in any way by the coders and software designers.
I'm not saying that the people are stupid. I used the term "stupid user" in quotes for a reason. It is what most people say around here (also used a lot is Joe Sixpack).
I'm hard pressed to agree that it is MS responsiblity to account for every user. If everyone started using Linux, as some people here wish would happen, would it be the responsibility of Linus and the OSS community to make Linux easier to use and configure for the masses? I know the counter argument will be made that Linux, in general, ships secure. Part of my argument in the parent was that MS should change their default settings. However if a user wanted to modify the default settings to extend the usability, they may have to know some things to be able to keep the box secure while running that service. So the user would have to learn something about Linux to do action X while keeping it secure. By your definition, Linux can never be secure. I also don't believe that computers or Windows are sold as appliances. The car analogy doesn't hold because a car has one use, transportation. Because computers can be used for just about anything, it is inherently much more difficult, or impossible, to design for every situation, application, and configuration settings that a user is going to use. To use a classic example: If a user is going to run as admin all the time, there is going to be a risk. But there is no way to prevent a user from running as admin all the time; in Linux or Windows.
It's so hard for me to argue for or against DRM because it is still in its infancy.
On one hand, I am against DRM because it could enable content providers to eliminate "fair-use". We have already seen some of this with copy-protected audio CDs, which I am against. We have also seen it with technologies like Macrovision/CSS, which I am not against on principle, but it is a bit disturbing that you pretty much have to break the law to play DVDs in Linux, or go against OSS principles (if you're into that). (Note: I don't know at this time if there is a linux DVD player that has legally licensed the CSS technologies). However, I don't think companies should be forced to an action just because of OSS principles, at least in the US.
On the other hand, I am not against DRM because I believe that content providers should be able to do what they want with their content, so long as everything is made clear to the user before purchase, if applicable. If they want to include DRM, that is their perogative.
The fact that NPR is quasi-public really complicates the issue because it falls right in the middle of both sides. I cannot imagine a situation where NPR would use DRM in a way that I would object to. So long as I can still access their content for free, I feel that they should be able to do what they want. However, I do use Windows, so I can be confident in the fact that there will always be a player for my platform. If I used another OS, I might not feel the same way.
yes, but what if MS were to argue that viruses have gotten so prevalant and so destructive that it should be the function of the OS to scan for them? I, for one, would agree with that argument, assuming that the built in anti-virus could be disabled/replaced if desired.
The way Windows is "designed" is inherently insecure, and probably impossible to make secure
The thing is, that just isn't true. Any time a "windows is so insecure" post like this comes up, there are hundreds of responses from responsible windows users, like myself, about how we run Windows and have no problems. Many of Windows' problems come from default options that should not be enabled. Another large chunk of it comes from stupid users not patching. It's easy to fix the one, and the other is hardly MS' fault. Sure, there are some design flaws with Windows; one would be stupid to not admit that. To say it can "never be secure" is pure FUD.
Choices made based on financial reasons aren't design decisions. They're management/marketing decisions. I wouldn't escalate most of the issues indicated here to design flaws because they can be fixed merely by MS modifying the default install, without even going into the underlying OS operation.
Well, I would have no problem with that, but doubt it would actually stop much of the "dumb user" type problems. If someone wants to run an attachment, and they can't run it by double clicking, they still probably have the skill to save it to the desktop and double click it there. The trick is knowing when to trust the sender and attachment, and what attachement types not to run.
The thing is, even though it is partially taxpayer funded, NPR still owns its content (I'm assuming that there isn't a clause in the funding that causes all content to be made public. I severly doubt this is the case). Actually, according to their page, they are actually a private organization. If they want DRM, why shouldn't they be allowed to use it to restrict people from saving and redistributing content? I'm not a DRM fan, but can certainly see how a content producer might be a fan of DRM, and would want it if they are going to put up all of their content online.
While some here would argue against calling mp3 open, I would have no problem with a group like NPR using it.
Well, like i said, I always run as admin, so I wouldn't notice if there were the type of restrictions you speak of. I run as admin mainly for that reason, and because I do change system settings very frequently and would be annoyed by constantly switching accounts. At least in 2000 and XP, you can change the screen resolution without being admin, as was the case in NT.
And what was NPR's response?
Also the phrase "when it provides equivalent function" is extremely important. Part of providing function is having a userbase that can accept and play the open format (which format do you advocate btw?).
If an IT admin wants to configure it so that .exe's and the like are stripped, fine. But don't automatically do it for me. On second thought, I would accept the converse: default to strip, and let power users to configure the program to allow attachments. I guess I'm arguing to not de-facto limit the functionality of the program, and by extension, my ability to use the computer.
Deal with what BS again? My company has a competent IT staff, running XP, and we have been unaffected, aside from a little less bandwidth. At home, I keep my system patched, and I have been unaffected.
No, I do not work for NPR. I believe that companies should be able to use whatever protocol they believe is best for their uses. One of NPR's uses includes people being able to listen to their audio. For this, they offer two very widely used streaming audio formats (only Real before a certain archive date). I do not believe that government or public institutions should be forced to use open software if that software does not meet their needs (I am not saying this is the case with NPR). If you do not agree with their choice, you can let them know. Have you tried this by any chance?
While I know *nix, I am not an administrator. I do know, however, that it is fairly simple to secure a Windows box, and that many of the same steps (running a firewall, not running services you don't use) are part of the process. While Windows may come with a few more services on by default than *nix, all it takes is a few mouse clicks to turn them off for good. The most important step in securing a windows box is simply downloading the patches.
Well, the OS software has caught up. The problem is that not all of the application software has caught up, and that is the main reason why many people (including myself) continue to run 2000/XP as administrator.
OTOH, I always keep my (and my family's, who also run as admin) system patched, and have never had a problem with any of the MS problems talked about here. It's so painfully simple to avoid these problems that it's not even funny.
Lord, give me the strength to forgive those who do not know what they are doing ....
Can he give you the strength to forgive yourself?
Why are attachments allowed to do *anything* on the computer?
Uhh, because some of us know our way around well enough to get programs from people that we want to run. Saving to HD and then running doesn't change a thing. To say you shouldn't be attaching executables is silly. People should be safe: know who sent them the mail, know what it is they are running, and run an up to date virus scanner, as well as keep their system patched.
If you are talking about automatic running of attachments, that is a different story, but I want my computer to do what I tell it to do.
Yeah I know that one time I was looking for something obscure, I just wasn't getting any pages related to it. Then, finally, on the 55,239,193th page, there it was!
Right. Since my functions are usually very simple, I use VB for it. I had forgotten totally about COM.