Microsoft's biggest market advantage is the amount of legacy software that supports their platform.
Microsoft's biggest problem, which I noted before Vista was even released, is that we're well invested in third party software and we've figured out how to play well with their previous platform over six long years. Our nest is well feathered. It's comfy and we don't want to leave it. Especially for a cold new future where we have to buy everything and figure everything out all over again. If we have to do that, why stick with the vendor that guarantees we'll feel this pain again in a little while?
The problem, two years later is even deeper because nobody in their right mind bought into this dog, and so they've been burrowing deeper into their XP cave this whole time.
It's probably too late now to save the Microsoft platform. It's been eight years since the 25 October 2001 release of XP. They have before them the task of creating something that's sufficiently similar to save their "Microsoft brand", sufficiently different from their "Vista debacle", and competitive against a swelling sea of free options. It's a lost cause. "If we have to change to something that radically different, and buy/engineer all our software over again, why not get Macs, or try this 'free' thing?"
The app on the other side of em won't give attackers the time of day.
I have to admit I didn't see this the first time and now I have to post again. Application level security is the functional equivalent of no security at all. It's industrial grade stupid. 'Fess up: you work for Microsoft, don't you?
of road warriors, bluetooth, pirate WAPs, Promiscuous mode, and a lot of other modern technologies. Your network is not the hallowed ground you think it is.
The only trusted host on the network is a Known Host with a secure connection. Ever and always. There is no excuse for having open ports ever, let alone by default on a desktop, unless you intend to deliver a service on that port to untrusted strangers.
This has been common knowledge and best practice for at least 15 years.
There's nothing new under the sun. We used to do it with system RAM dedicated to the purpose, back in the '80s.
Back in the stone age, we used to do it with RAM in a drive box. And then with add-in cards that acted like disk but stored RAM. I bet you noticed that RAM costs a lot of money if you need 320 GB of it. For a brief moment so long ago that I forget the date, we did it with something called "bubble memory".
I also talked about this here two or three years ago, before this product was produced, so I look forward to providing some prior art to the inevitable patent troll discussion.
But that's not the point. This is a startup, and they're at a vulnerable cusp in their history. If you need this product I suggest you buy it before somebody discovers the motive and method to kill it. I can think of three motives and two methods offhand, so if I were you I'd get crackin'.
This is unfortunately correct, if not a bit vague. That's what happens I guess when the problems are too numerous to list.
although Windows OSes has progressively improved security over the years there is only so much to be done...
Until they've done what can be done, we're still entitled to gripe. Does it take thirty years to figure out end users don't log in with admin privileges? Because that's how long it's been best practice. Was it two decades ago "no open ports by default" became the standard shipping configuration of a real OS? Was it Wirth who said "sanitize your inputs" or does that wisdom predate even him?
Microsoft is doing fine. See? They've taken over the desktop market. They're making money like they own the mint. They must be doing it right. Let's leave the chef to his muttons.
The question is why it hasn't been meaningfully addressed in Windows for such a long time.
I can agree with that if by "for such a long time" you mean since before Microsoft was a company. They've ignored security best practice for their entire history. It's been a winning strategy before now. Why change?
I'll try again. Vista is a Microsoft product. It's today's Microsoft product. Vista is what Microsoft aspired to be for six long years of product development and testing. Mightily they labored and on that fateful day in August of 2007 they proclaimed "Here you go! This is the product that best represents us!" Vista is today's Microsoft.
So. Do you see what I did there? Microsoft is Vista. Vista is Microsoft. Somewhere a marketing manager is going to cringe when he reads that.
Now in a week or so watch the articles spring up all over the place with just that theme. Because that's what you can do with symbols.
The expected lifetime on the Intel X25-e is about 24 years in an enterprise server. The products of the company in TFA likewise. Use of SLC, sparing, internal error detection and correction, wear levelling and virtual block addressing add up to devices that are not only ridiculously fast - they also last a long time and degrade gracefully (pdf).
Both the Intel SSDs and the IODrive are internally massively parallel.
It's a slam dunk. A no brainer. Two years from now you're going to be explaining to some young kid fresh out of college that "this is how we do it now. Forget that stuff they taught you." Again.
In other words, Yet Another Half-Baked Clustered/Distributed Filesystem we can add to the list of dozens of failed distributed/clustered filesystems.
Um... not even close?
This isn't a clustered/distributed anything. It's also not "virtual".
It's a very real, very fast, local storage for very real computers - servers mostly, but if you've got a few grand to blow on an extreme gaming rig, why not go the extra bit to make your levels load faster?
Their quoted numbers are per PCIe X4 device >100,000 IOPS and >640MB/s both reading and writing, and they have independent benchmarks back that up. They're not kidding. The game has changed. This changes everything about how traditional workloads are configured, when you use a SAN vs local disk, how much throughput your apps can get, how many VMs you can run in a server... basically everything in the server world except where you store the data. You still want to store the data in the SAN for redundancy reasons.
Trust me on this -- after all, my handle is "symbolset". Microsoft is a symbol. It's neither more nor less than that symbol. The symbol is currently attached to the world's most successful software company. The problem with symbols is they mean neither more nor less than the referents they're attached to.
If you attach Vista to Microsoft, that's a negative. The negative attachment may be useful.
When we're totally getting baked with the new BC Shit, we wanna either unplug the keyboard or like totally not post. OK? Cuz otherwise we like totally discount the other stuff we say, like way. K?
I actually bothered to read back your slashdot posts to your very first one. You look like an honest guy.
We disagree about prime motivators, but I have to accept that your objection is sincere and not part of some marketing effort. So then what have I to offer you? I would suggest that you start with Wirth, proceed to Kernighan and Ritchie, and subscribe (and exploit) a subscription to the ACM.
By the time you're read up on the literature CA. 1980, you'll understand my concerns.
The purpose of H1B is not to improve the ability of American business. It's to deplete the IQ of the developing world. Be skimming the cream of the crop we can draw the best minds and prevent them from aiding their local communities.
The flaws in the plan are that genius is far more common than expected, and the net has holes.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's biggest market advantage is the amount of legacy software that supports their platform.
Microsoft's biggest problem, which I noted before Vista was even released, is that we're well invested in third party software and we've figured out how to play well with their previous platform over six long years. Our nest is well feathered. It's comfy and we don't want to leave it. Especially for a cold new future where we have to buy everything and figure everything out all over again. If we have to do that, why stick with the vendor that guarantees we'll feel this pain again in a little while?
The problem, two years later is even deeper because nobody in their right mind bought into this dog, and so they've been burrowing deeper into their XP cave this whole time.
It's probably too late now to save the Microsoft platform. It's been eight years since the 25 October 2001 release of XP. They have before them the task of creating something that's sufficiently similar to save their "Microsoft brand", sufficiently different from their "Vista debacle", and competitive against a swelling sea of free options. It's a lost cause. "If we have to change to something that radically different, and buy/engineer all our software over again, why not get Macs, or try this 'free' thing?"
The app on the other side of em won't give attackers the time of day.
I have to admit I didn't see this the first time and now I have to post again. Application level security is the functional equivalent of no security at all. It's industrial grade stupid. 'Fess up: you work for Microsoft, don't you?
To those who use server OSes....
In terms of a person who uses server OSes like linux, BSD and OS-X I have to ask: "What's a Client Access License and how does it improve my server?"
of road warriors, bluetooth, pirate WAPs, Promiscuous mode, and a lot of other modern technologies. Your network is not the hallowed ground you think it is.
The only trusted host on the network is a Known Host with a secure connection. Ever and always. There is no excuse for having open ports ever, let alone by default on a desktop, unless you intend to deliver a service on that port to untrusted strangers.
This has been common knowledge and best practice for at least 15 years.
About the position of Vice President of the US: "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting."
A Mac fan extolling the merits of the command line.
It's going to take some time to get used to. Forgive me.
There's nothing new under the sun. We used to do it with system RAM dedicated to the purpose, back in the '80s.
Back in the stone age, we used to do it with RAM in a drive box. And then with add-in cards that acted like disk but stored RAM. I bet you noticed that RAM costs a lot of money if you need 320 GB of it. For a brief moment so long ago that I forget the date, we did it with something called "bubble memory".
I also talked about this here two or three years ago, before this product was produced, so I look forward to providing some prior art to the inevitable patent troll discussion.
But that's not the point. This is a startup, and they're at a vulnerable cusp in their history. If you need this product I suggest you buy it before somebody discovers the motive and method to kill it. I can think of three motives and two methods offhand, so if I were you I'd get crackin'.
At least they aren't until you put 16 cores in one box and share the I/O across all the cores, running 40 p2v servers.
Then all tasks are I/O bound. 1/16th of a 4Gbit SAN connection is 32MB/s. 1/40th is 10MB/s in practice. That's sad. That's 1980's I/O.
Why bother?
1. Money.
2. Desire to excel.
Why bother to do anything, really?
The history and culture of Windows....
This is unfortunately correct, if not a bit vague. That's what happens I guess when the problems are too numerous to list.
although Windows OSes has progressively improved security over the years there is only so much to be done...
Until they've done what can be done, we're still entitled to gripe. Does it take thirty years to figure out end users don't log in with admin privileges? Because that's how long it's been best practice. Was it two decades ago "no open ports by default" became the standard shipping configuration of a real OS? Was it Wirth who said "sanitize your inputs" or does that wisdom predate even him?
Microsoft is doing fine. See? They've taken over the desktop market. They're making money like they own the mint. They must be doing it right. Let's leave the chef to his muttons.
Or you could use a modern antivirus like antivirus2009
It stops everything.
Having no open ports.
Having a reliable software repository.
Sanitizing your inputs.
The question is why it hasn't been meaningfully addressed in Windows for such a long time.
I can agree with that if by "for such a long time" you mean since before Microsoft was a company. They've ignored security best practice for their entire history. It's been a winning strategy before now. Why change?
What the hell are you on about?
I'll try again. Vista is a Microsoft product. It's today's Microsoft product. Vista is what Microsoft aspired to be for six long years of product development and testing. Mightily they labored and on that fateful day in August of 2007 they proclaimed "Here you go! This is the product that best represents us!" Vista is today's Microsoft.
So. Do you see what I did there? Microsoft is Vista. Vista is Microsoft. Somewhere a marketing manager is going to cringe when he reads that.
Now in a week or so watch the articles spring up all over the place with just that theme. Because that's what you can do with symbols.
The expected lifetime on the Intel X25-e is about 24 years in an enterprise server. The products of the company in TFA likewise. Use of SLC, sparing, internal error detection and correction, wear levelling and virtual block addressing add up to devices that are not only ridiculously fast - they also last a long time and degrade gracefully (pdf).
Both the Intel SSDs and the IODrive are internally massively parallel.
It's a slam dunk. A no brainer. Two years from now you're going to be explaining to some young kid fresh out of college that "this is how we do it now. Forget that stuff they taught you." Again.
Right before you tell her to get off your lawn.
In other words, Yet Another Half-Baked Clustered/Distributed Filesystem we can add to the list of dozens of failed distributed/clustered filesystems.
Um... not even close?
This isn't a clustered/distributed anything. It's also not "virtual".
It's a very real, very fast, local storage for very real computers - servers mostly, but if you've got a few grand to blow on an extreme gaming rig, why not go the extra bit to make your levels load faster?
Their quoted numbers are per PCIe X4 device >100,000 IOPS and >640MB/s both reading and writing, and they have independent benchmarks back that up. They're not kidding. The game has changed. This changes everything about how traditional workloads are configured, when you use a SAN vs local disk, how much throughput your apps can get, how many VMs you can run in a server... basically everything in the server world except where you store the data. You still want to store the data in the SAN for redundancy reasons.
You will be. You will be.
Probably. I had the peanut sauce at the Thai place for lunch.
Until the FDA starts making food safe, I have no interest in their medical findings. I'm not sick YET.
I worry about the well being of the two folks who modded this off topic. You guys ok? You feeling good? Ok then.
Trust me on this -- after all, my handle is "symbolset". Microsoft is a symbol. It's neither more nor less than that symbol. The symbol is currently attached to the world's most successful software company. The problem with symbols is they mean neither more nor less than the referents they're attached to.
If you attach Vista to Microsoft, that's a negative. The negative attachment may be useful.
I didn't mean to imply that. Sorry. I don't know of any non-hole parts of IE. Maybe somebody else can help you there.
When we're totally getting baked with the new BC Shit, we wanna either unplug the keyboard or like totally not post. OK? Cuz otherwise we like totally discount the other stuff we say, like way. K?
But stinky BC is the shizzle, proper.
Don't worry. IE has so many holes they're no longer news-worthy.
Never forget.
Forgetting is key to getting caught again. You can only catch a cat in the same trap once.
I actually bothered to read back your slashdot posts to your very first one. You look like an honest guy.
We disagree about prime motivators, but I have to accept that your objection is sincere and not part of some marketing effort. So then what have I to offer you? I would suggest that you start with Wirth, proceed to Kernighan and Ritchie, and subscribe (and exploit) a subscription to the ACM.
By the time you're read up on the literature CA. 1980, you'll understand my concerns.
The purpose of H1B is not to improve the ability of American business. It's to deplete the IQ of the developing world. Be skimming the cream of the crop we can draw the best minds and prevent them from aiding their local communities.
The flaws in the plan are that genius is far more common than expected, and the net has holes.