One of the strongest reasons Microsoft is putting in the table when comparing Office vs Open source alternatives is the availability of Outlook. We've Openoffice, we've firefox, we've thunderbird, but we didn't have a Outlook alternative.
That was certainly stopping many people from switching to Openoffice. With Evolution ported to windows, it's no longer the case, and having the exchange connector even more. Nice news.
Finally a software product that describes its main characteristic after its name! Of course that was after the market-leader of such trend - "Loooong"horn.
IIRC, longhorn installer will check your graphics card (if it's lower than X fps then...) and will enable or disable 3D functions depending on if you've a good or bad graphics card
In short: the "3d mode" it won't be the one available. There will be a much lighter desktop available (somewhat like current XP or something like that, you'll miss all the 3d stuff but...)
"You can think of it like this," Wickstrand explained. "In terms of the program and window limits, we look at the target customers and understand how they're using their computer, and we created a product that's tailored to their specific usage scenarios. And clearly, that's a feature where more experienced users would feel the limitation, but for a first-time user who's never touched a mouse before, it's quite sufficient."
Yeah, sure. And probably trying to stop people (ie: enterprises) from buying a cheaper XP edition.
And how do you expecto t "anonymize" yourself in a P2P? You can anonymize the searchs (the README says something about proxys) but for downloading the data, how could you be "anonymous"
P2P basis is that everyone sends data to anyone in the net. I don't think it can be "anonymous" - you'll be always connecting to someone's computer to download part of a file. It you want to "anonymize" it you'd have to go trought a central server and that doesn't works because it's centralized. You could play some tricks like freenet does, but for real-world P2P I don't think you can be "anonymous".
"Exec shield" was not copied from PAX, it'd quite hard since the developer of "exec shield" (Ingo Molnar) admits that Pax covers more cases than PAX.
It'd be nice if someone would ask the PAX developers why they modified their test suite to fail under exec shield. Run the pax test suite in a exec shield kernel and all the vulnerability simulations will succeed. That's not why exec shield is bad, it's because the test suite disables exec shield on purpose (you can disable exec shield, that's a feature)
BTW, exec shield is not going in the kernel. Exec shield != "amd NX bit". The amd nx bit support has already gone in the kernel, but I'm not surprised at all that no grsecurity patch is going to the kernel. Grsecurity developers have NEVER submitted their patches to mainstream, they haven't even tried it, they haven't listened to constructive criticism. That's why grsecurity is not in the kernel and LSM is. They have just sit back saying "our stuff is better, use it" without even caring. There're lots of projects that have go poop because of that attitude. Remember the guy who rewrote the whole building infrastructure which never go in mainline? He updated his stuff regularly and critized Linus for not getting his obviosly better alternative. He didn't listen to Linus when he said "ok, just split it in small, individual parts" (like everybody else does) "and I'll merge it". When some other guy started to fix the available building system, the "Better stuff" went poop. Same will happen with LSM. LSM is bad? Well, what will happen if the developers decide to fix it, where will go grsecurity?
I very much prefer a good developers/maintainer than a bad one, so I'll choose LSM at any time even if it is technically inferior. A good maintainer means that in the future he can rewrite his stuff if it's not good enought. That's much better than some guys who sit back in their mailing lists saying "our stuff is better"
And why on earth do you think that they should give you answers to your doubts in THAT text file? What about subscribing to some security mailing lists?
In full-cisclosure they were accussed of not wanting to be "full disclosure" because they asked people not to release exploits for the vulnerabilities for a couple of weeks (the fix was already available, they was asking to give time to users to upgrade)
Those guys are impressive. In particular, Paul Starzetz is the author in most of those kernel holes, along with a guy called Wojciech. They always contact the kernel maintainers before discosing the vulnerability, etc. Basically, they're having the same effect than a security audit. Except that they're doing it for free, so they deserve respect, I think. And yes, Linux is having too many kernel-level vulnerabilities. More than XP if I'm counting them right. Perhaps someone should offer a job to those guys so they can audit parts of the kernel better.
(And I can understand that copyright policy - there're people who probably look at those announcements, ctrl+c and ctrl+v and they release their own announcement twisting dates claiming that they're the guys who found it first)
I don't think so. Peer-to-peer means, well, "peer to peer", and that means everyone gives a bit of their bandwith. You end up sending data from one IP to another. There's no much you can do about it.
I don't think BitTorrent is "centralized" in any way. You can have dozens of trackers, each one in a different server. That's not what I'd call "centralization"
I agree with you, I've tested it and it's pretty impressive. Its way faster than adware and/or spybot and it has advanzed features like enabling/disabling specific modules (there lots of modules, covering from context menu adds to.ini files or registry settings) and it allows to set exceptions for programs (it don't allows to enter you by hand, the program needs to do the evil action and then the program will warn you, this should stop spyware of adding themselves to the exception lists)
It don't eats lots of mem when running in "real time protection" mode. 10 MB. Less than gnome-terminal
It also has a "spyware network", where you seem to agree that your program warns to a "network" and the rest of users will get a "warning" or something. It isn't the way to update the software - that's in another window - it looks to me like a way to protecto comptures in _real_ time. The period of time between updates could be too much.
Although I've not teste GIANT my impression is that they have changed the logo and nothing more (which is not bad if the programs is already right). In fact, the main program is still called GIANTspywaremain.exe...
For games, they spend like 75% of the efforts in the "data" (music, maps, etc etc) and 25% for the game engine, or so I heard. If you buy the graphics engine from another company it might be even less.
Open source, GPL, BSD...all is everything software not "art". Games are a different beast the open source movement don't know how to fight. We need to promote that too - "art" free of copyright issues and perhaps licenses which forces you to release the file you used to develop your 3d map?
Look at Oracle. Did they have a Linux port when nobody used Linux? No, but when Linux started to grow at 30% percent rate in the server market they started to think about it.
Games are a problem of how many people uses it on a desktop, nothing else. And games should be easier to support than a database since in games they spent most of the time in the "data" which depends on the game engine not in the OS, and the game engine can't be that hard with companies like Id. The core problem here is Direct3D but if people starts using linux I don't doubt lots of game companies will consider to create new games in opengl if they can get enought revenue from linux people.
With the current market share linux has is quite difficult to get anything. But if it grows we'll have lots of games, be sure. Heck, just look at doom, halflike, quake. Those games have been ported to linux (or they're in their way), and how much money can they have got those companies from the linux port? Nothing? Or almost nothing, compared with the revenue from the windows clients. That demonstrates that supporting games in linux is not hard, if it were too dificult and with the current lack of interest in the linux port they wouldn't have done it.
You don't need to have a GUI to run NT. It doesn't sounds like something hard to implement - just code a "dummy driver" which does nothing.
BTW, windows embedded allows customers to "customize" what parts of the kernel they want. They can do the same with a "cluster oriented" windows version
And remember, even if windows sucks for cluster it don't means they won't have success. Windows 9x was crappy base to build a OS on it, despite of that everyone bought windows 95.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps that'll attract more users?
Beagle is written in C#, and mono supports windows. Can't be that difficult to port to windows.
One of the strongest reasons Microsoft is putting in the table when comparing Office vs Open source alternatives is the availability of Outlook. We've Openoffice, we've firefox, we've thunderbird, but we didn't have a Outlook alternative.
That was certainly stopping many people from switching to Openoffice. With Evolution ported to windows, it's no longer the case, and having the exchange connector even more. Nice news.
Finally a software product that describes its main characteristic after its name! Of course that was after the market-leader of such trend - "Loooong"horn.
IIRC, longhorn installer will check your graphics card (if it's lower than X fps then...) and will enable or disable 3D functions depending on if you've a good or bad graphics card
In short: the "3d mode" it won't be the one available. There will be a much lighter desktop available (somewhat like current XP or something like that, you'll miss all the 3d stuff but...)
That sucks, Windows 98 (win95 + ie 4 too) could get aa fonts and it didn't load things too much...
What I love is the explanation:
"You can think of it like this," Wickstrand explained. "In terms of the program and window limits, we look at the target customers and understand how they're using their computer, and we created a product that's tailored to their specific usage scenarios. And clearly, that's a feature where more experienced users would feel the limitation, but for a first-time user who's never touched a mouse before, it's quite sufficient."
Yeah, sure. And probably trying to stop people (ie: enterprises) from buying a cheaper XP edition.
I see "Mozilla2:Web Forms 2" in the mirrodot.org mirror, isn't supossed to be competition for Microsoft?
Certainly, I wish they'd have add it "by default". It'd have been great for sales
If they've added TV output and a infrared control remote then it'd have been perfect.
And how do you expecto t "anonymize" yourself in a P2P? You can anonymize the searchs (the README says something about proxys) but for downloading the data, how could you be "anonymous"
P2P basis is that everyone sends data to anyone in the net. I don't think it can be "anonymous" - you'll be always connecting to someone's computer to download part of a file. It you want to "anonymize" it you'd have to go trought a central server and that doesn't works because it's centralized. You could play some tricks like freenet does, but for real-world P2P I don't think you can be "anonymous".
"Exec shield" was not copied from PAX, it'd quite hard since the developer of "exec shield" (Ingo Molnar) admits that Pax covers more cases than PAX.
It'd be nice if someone would ask the PAX developers why they modified their test suite to fail under exec shield. Run the pax test suite in a exec shield kernel and all the vulnerability simulations will succeed. That's not why exec shield is bad, it's because the test suite disables exec shield on purpose (you can disable exec shield, that's a feature)
BTW, exec shield is not going in the kernel. Exec shield != "amd NX bit". The amd nx bit support has already gone in the kernel, but I'm not surprised at all that no grsecurity patch is going to the kernel. Grsecurity developers have NEVER submitted their patches to mainstream, they haven't even tried it, they haven't listened to constructive criticism. That's why grsecurity is not in the kernel and LSM is. They have just sit back saying "our stuff is better, use it" without even caring. There're lots of projects that have go poop because of that attitude. Remember the guy who rewrote the whole building infrastructure which never go in mainline? He updated his stuff regularly and critized Linus for not getting his obviosly better alternative. He didn't listen to Linus when he said "ok, just split it in small, individual parts" (like everybody else does) "and I'll merge it". When some other guy started to fix the available building system, the "Better stuff" went poop. Same will happen with LSM. LSM is bad? Well, what will happen if the developers decide to fix it, where will go grsecurity?
I very much prefer a good developers/maintainer than a bad one, so I'll choose LSM at any time even if it is technically inferior. A good maintainer means that in the future he can rewrite his stuff if it's not good enought. That's much better than some guys who sit back in their mailing lists saying "our stuff is better"
both, which is good, true :)
And why on earth do you think that they should give you answers to your doubts in THAT text file? What about subscribing to some security mailing lists?
In full-cisclosure they were accussed of not wanting to be "full disclosure" because they asked people not to release exploits for the vulnerabilities for a couple of weeks (the fix was already available, they was asking to give time to users to upgrade)
That's the IE way, not nice
I just wrote down them on this commentary on the thread above...http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid= 135324&threshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=172&tid=106&m ode=thread&pid=11291472#11291873
XP has had much less holes in the kernel. Most of the Windows holes are in the system services or in the apps - not in the kernel.
Isec.pl has done a lot for the open source world, they've found lots of vulnerabilities (which is good - vulnerabilities ARE like any other bug):
Take a look at the impressive curriculum of those guys:
d_path() truncating excessive long path name vulnerability
Linux kernel do_brk() lacks argument bound checking
Linux kernel do_mremap() local privilege escalation vulnerability
Linux kernel do_mremap VMA limit local privilege escalation vulnerability
Linux kernel setsockopt MCAST_MSFILTER integer overflow
Linux kernel file offset pointer races
Linux ELF loader vulnerabilities
Linux kernel IGMP vulnerabilities
Linux kernel scm_send local DoS
Linux kernel uselib() privilege elevation
Guess what, they're also the guys who discovered the mozilla hole diclosed today: Heap overflow in Mozilla Browser NNTP code
Those guys are impressive. In particular, Paul Starzetz is the author in most of those kernel holes, along with a guy called Wojciech. They always contact the kernel maintainers before discosing the vulnerability, etc. Basically, they're having the same effect than a security audit. Except that they're doing it for free, so they deserve respect, I think. And yes, Linux is having too many kernel-level vulnerabilities. More than XP if I'm counting them right. Perhaps someone should offer a job to those guys so they can audit parts of the kernel better.
(And I can understand that copyright policy - there're people who probably look at those announcements, ctrl+c and ctrl+v and they release their own announcement twisting dates claiming that they're the guys who found it first)
If you have the crash, edit the few minutes and put it on emule or something
I don't think so. Peer-to-peer means, well, "peer to peer", and that means everyone gives a bit of their bandwith. You end up sending data from one IP to another. There's no much you can do about it.
I don't think BitTorrent is "centralized" in any way. You can have dozens of trackers, each one in a different server. That's not what I'd call "centralization"
I agree with you, I've tested it and it's pretty impressive. Its way faster than adware and/or spybot and it has advanzed features like enabling/disabling specific modules (there lots of modules, covering from context menu adds to .ini files or registry settings) and it allows to set exceptions for programs (it don't allows to enter you by hand, the program needs to do the evil action and then the program will warn you, this should stop spyware of adding themselves to the exception lists)
It don't eats lots of mem when running in "real time protection" mode. 10 MB. Less than gnome-terminal
It also has a "spyware network", where you seem to agree that your program warns to a "network" and the rest of users will get a "warning" or something. It isn't the way to update the software - that's in another window - it looks to me like a way to protecto comptures in _real_ time. The period of time between updates could be too much.
Although I've not teste GIANT my impression is that they have changed the logo and nothing more (which is not bad if the programs is already right). In fact, the main program is still called GIANTspywaremain.exe...
Because games are not about code, but data
For games, they spend like 75% of the efforts in the "data" (music, maps, etc etc) and 25% for the game engine, or so I heard. If you buy the graphics engine from another company it might be even less.
Open source, GPL, BSD...all is everything software not "art". Games are a different beast the open source movement don't know how to fight. We need to promote that too - "art" free of copyright issues and perhaps licenses which forces you to release the file you used to develop your 3d map?
Look at Oracle. Did they have a Linux port when nobody used Linux? No, but when Linux started to grow at 30% percent rate in the server market they started to think about it.
Games are a problem of how many people uses it on a desktop, nothing else. And games should be easier to support than a database since in games they spent most of the time in the "data" which depends on the game engine not in the OS, and the game engine can't be that hard with companies like Id. The core problem here is Direct3D but if people starts using linux I don't doubt lots of game companies will consider to create new games in opengl if they can get enought revenue from linux people.
With the current market share linux has is quite difficult to get anything. But if it grows we'll have lots of games, be sure. Heck, just look at doom, halflike, quake. Those games have been ported to linux (or they're in their way), and how much money can they have got those companies from the linux port? Nothing? Or almost nothing, compared with the revenue from the windows clients. That demonstrates that supporting games in linux is not hard, if it were too dificult and with the current lack of interest in the linux port they wouldn't have done it.
...like?
A modern linux distro has 3D support, programs to use the "internets", listen to radio, watch TV, download photos from your cam, watch DVDs.
Wait, Windows XP don't have a program to see TV or download photos from your camera, its all 3rd party tools. Oops.
There's no point of having a car which turns the engine off every 100 meters and needs to change the whole engine every 100 km.
You don't need to have a GUI to run NT. It doesn't sounds like something hard to implement - just code a "dummy driver" which does nothing.
BTW, windows embedded allows customers to "customize" what parts of the kernel they want. They can do the same with a "cluster oriented" windows version
And remember, even if windows sucks for cluster it don't means they won't have success. Windows 9x was crappy base to build a OS on it, despite of that everyone bought windows 95.