Which is not important. I don't care what PC Welt thinks and how much it sells - it's just one source. What makes people think a single "authority" is right? I recall a similar post by Mr Taco where some illuminated "expert" said it there was a huge security hole in the SP2 because it allowed a process to check if a antivirus is installed (querying the "security center" WMI database).
It didn't matter you needed root privileges to do that (the moron put it in their page but "because windows users use windows as root..."). It didn't matter that you could format the disks, steal password from other users, everything - the illuminated moron put in his page that it was a major security bug, that they contacted microsoft and that microsoft didn't seem to see a bug like he was seeing, etc etc. This made it's way in the slashdot front page - and people commenting how insecure XP is, how linux will resolve all their problems....despite the fact it was NOT a bug at all no matter how you look at it
As far as I can tell, I've installed SP2 and nothing like that happened so it's false to my eyes. Dunno what the heck they did to their machines - perhaps their machines were office machines configured to share their disks and SP2 preserved their settings, and opened the firewall ports so it works as before, just like you'd expect from a decent product?
I didn't saw a single line in their page talking if this was a recently installed machine with default config or not. In other words, if this pretends to be a serious "security report", I laught at it. If this is a major publication in germany I don't want to know how are the others.
Oh, so you can see docs and printers of a XP box? What good news sherlock, that's really a feature, not a "security bug". And I still wonder how on eart that "insecurity" didn't happened in my box when I upgraded from SP1 to SP2.
But since a well know and famous page like pcwelt.de (or something like that) says it, we must put it in the slashdot's front page without even checking if it's true!!
It doesn't seems matter all this can be pure FUD It's Windows!!!!1
I can't tell slashdot editors what they have to put in their own page, but I'm not visiting slashdot anymore if this FUD continues. Sure windows sucks - what about putting news about how much it sucks instead of all this senseless FUD?
Fixes like this can be found in any SO changelog, including linux and/or BSDs. Think that Windows XP SP1 has been out for a long time, that windows 2003 (which shares their code base) has been developed and in the development process they must have found some nice & safe improvements.
"News for Microsoft Haters. FUD that matters". I'm a linux user, but seriously, is there chance that editors stop putting fud in the front page?
Here you've some lessons: How about instead of "XP SP2 Can Slow Down Business Apps" you name it "MobilePC detected a SP2 slowdown for bussines apps in their notebooks" or "SP2 bug slowdowns some notebooks" (which is the real issue) or some objetive shit instead of your FUD & subjective crap which tries to imply that there's something wrong with the whole SP2? Sure, Windows sucks, but I love to read news about how much it sucks, not just FUD. Just a wish, I don't collaborate with slashdot so I cant tell people what the content is, but I think your readers will appreciate a raise in the quality of windows posts. Thanks.
I've seen only two crashes here. One when tryig to install a old win 98 "WDM" driver, the other when usign a non-safe SMP version of a winmodem.
AFAIK, Windows XP "core" is just damn stable. Main problemas are drivers, like ie: Nvidia drivers (they're know to be to most common cause of hangs under windows XP...)
in short: those stadistics suck. Windows is quite stable, the 3rd party drivers are not.
4 days? And someone can explain me why KHTML exist at all then? Sure, Im not implying that gecko is better/worse than their counterparts, but it'd have been less work. Having two OSSs projects doing the same is good for the competition, but we already had quite a lot of competition in the we field (ie, opera).
Any plans to slowly move the good parts of gecko into khtml and the good parts of khtml into gecko?
When you want to print something you want to print what the X server really has in the screen (not a "copy" made by the software) so I guess it has sense somewhere...
Its not just that it looks nice. The technology behind it is what matters. The Composite extension for example double-buffers the windows (or something like that, I'm the person to speak about this) so moving your windows is much smoother, and you can notice that even now in this released version, where all those pieces are far from being "rock stable" or "fast". It also allows to have a miniaturized version of your desktop (one which is a _real_ miniaturized version of your desktop, with the miniature of a video player in other virtual desktop being updated, etc) much more easily. Damage can reduce greatly the amount of bandwith used in VNC-like clients, etc.
Shadows and transparencies are just one of the things which you can do with all those toys, but the fact that the pieces behing them are there is what matters, using the hardware to do all this, etc. As a plus, shadows and transparencies are nice (I'd like to have them even in the light window managers at least). I don't know why people is so concerned about "shadows are not useful". This is a win-win situation, no drawbacks.
No. Windows does *not* have this. This is targetted for Lonhorn, implemented in Avalon.
Sure, windows can do some transparency. So does X, but Composite is NOT just about "transparency". Look at the technical details.
...wich is not a surprise. Making those available in all the relevant windows platforms they'll tempt developers to *use* them (the same binary using avalon features may work without modifications in longhorn *and* XP SP$SOMETHING - compare that to avalon only being available for longhorn. Everyone would use just XP features and no longhorn features because fo the extra work needed). It looks to me like they though that everyone would jumpo to Longhorn because of their coolness, but they realized that they would lost what they call "the api wars". Now that they realized that Longhorn can't be 100% true they need to retain people in their new APIs - putting them available for XP is a good way to do that. I'd call that "conserving upwards compatibility" a different version of one of the reasons they're everywhere: "conserving backwards compatibility"
I'm surprised. I'm mean, why wouldn't you expect that SP2 would have new vulnerabilities? Any system has flaws, SP2 is not less. It was a matter of time.
What is *important* about the SP2 is what it does to *solve* the security issues. Automatic update. Firewall enabled by default (no worms for those system services which are always open). When a program tries to "listen" in a port, a windows popups to ask yoy what to do with it (this means you can't have a trojan wiath a remote shell in your system without noticing it - how many linux distros / BSD systems take this approach, eh?)
Well I don't need to list all features. It was quite clear (at least for me, not for the slashdot crow though) that SP2 was going to have vulnerabilities. What is important about the SP2 is that it solves them instead of leaving you a big hole.
How many times have they delayed the SP?
No really, I've lost the count....
The one thing I remember is that the first version was planned before 2004, and it was going to have support for the AMD64. The one real thing they've to do is to force automatic updates and enable the firewall always by default.
Re:FreeBSD vs Linux -- check it out
on
BSD Hacks
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Uh? I'm _RIGHT_. You only deserve to be wrong, if you like.
Seriously, how can anyone take that pile of shit seriously? You've to be drugged to eat that. Hell, I've never used BSD nor I intend to but if you beileve shit like that, lemme give you and advice - kill yourself.
Re:FreeBSD vs Linux -- check it out
on
BSD Hacks
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Do you realize that nobody cares about your shitty and subjective comparison, true?
I didn't even look at a _single_ one. "modularity" does NOT depend on being microkernel or not. It's quite possible to write a pure microkernel with _horrid_ and non-modular APIs.
Changes are way too disruptive, too. Stock linux 2.4 cant go beyond 8/16 cpus and 2.6 is running in 1024 CPUs system. You need to half-rewrite lots of the code.
I don't understand why microkernel people keeps saying that macrokernels are a unmainteinable mess. Modularity does NOT depend on being microkernel or not. It depends on how you code.
Microkernel just "forces" you to do it because you've to run different entities in different process and you've to build a half-decent API around them. But they're not inherently "more modular"; it also doesn't mean that linux can't be quite modular.
Only in the changelogs. Real source don't have all those comments (nor you need them - you _have_ the changelog, the BK changelog, you can see who wrote x line in $foobar file and see the patch which changed it)
That's quite possible but is not _that_ bad. Linux vanilla kernel has to work for all architectures, all kind of machines etc, targetting 1024 cpu boxes erradicates a lot of targets and makes radical changes much easier, after all this is the nice thing about OSS, it allows to do your own stuff. I've heard that SGI 2.4 kernel is just a diferent OS, not linux anymore, and that's understandable, but for 2.6 they seem to want to merge back things - I hope they do well enought, they have indeed marged some changes already:
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2004/view_abstract.p hp?content_key=147
Slashdot Mirror
Which is not important. I don't care what PC Welt thinks and how much it sells - it's just one source. What makes people think a single "authority" is right? I recall a similar post by Mr Taco where some illuminated "expert" said it there was a huge security hole in the SP2 because it allowed a process to check if a antivirus is installed (querying the "security center" WMI database).
It didn't matter you needed root privileges to do that (the moron put it in their page but "because windows users use windows as root..."). It didn't matter that you could format the disks, steal password from other users, everything - the illuminated moron put in his page that it was a major security bug, that they contacted microsoft and that microsoft didn't seem to see a bug like he was seeing, etc etc. This made it's way in the slashdot front page - and people commenting how insecure XP is, how linux will resolve all their problems....despite the fact it was NOT a bug at all no matter how you look at it
As far as I can tell, I've installed SP2 and nothing like that happened so it's false to my eyes. Dunno what the heck they did to their machines - perhaps their machines were office machines configured to share their disks and SP2 preserved their settings, and opened the firewall ports so it works as before, just like you'd expect from a decent product?
I didn't saw a single line in their page talking if this was a recently installed machine with default config or not. In other words, if this pretends to be a serious "security report", I laught at it. If this is a major publication in germany I don't want to know how are the others.
Oh, so you can see docs and printers of a XP box? What good news sherlock, that's really a feature, not a "security bug". And I still wonder how on eart that "insecurity" didn't happened in my box when I upgraded from SP1 to SP2.
= 10284438 or http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122264&cid= 10283379) and docens of other news by MrTaco, etc.
But since a well know and famous page like pcwelt.de (or something like that) says it, we must put it in the slashdot's front page without even checking if it's true!!
Just like the "XP SP2 Can Slow Down Business Apps" (read http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122264&cid
It doesn't seems matter all this can be pure FUD It's Windows!!!!1
I can't tell slashdot editors what they have to put in their own page, but I'm not visiting slashdot anymore if this FUD continues. Sure windows sucks - what about putting news about how much it sucks instead of all this senseless FUD?
Know issue: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17819/a Looks like you need a firmware update ie: no microsoft fault.
"Cowboy C Coder Culture"? They're going for C# for most of their new code...(confirmed by MS employees at longhornblogs.com etc.)
60 seconds is too much for a context menu. GOd knows what your computers have, it works in everyone's else computer...
You know, you aren't obligued to use it.
This is a know issue. SP2 in fact runs *faster* in some workloads because of some fixes:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=815227
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=328264
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=332023
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838884
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=811169
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=815411
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=834937
Fixes like this can be found in any SO changelog, including linux and/or BSDs. Think that Windows XP SP1 has been out for a long time, that windows 2003 (which shares their code base) has been developed and in the development process they must have found some nice & safe improvements.
"News for Microsoft Haters. FUD that matters". I'm a linux user, but seriously, is there chance that editors stop putting fud in the front page?
Here you've some lessons: How about instead of "XP SP2 Can Slow Down Business Apps" you name it "MobilePC detected a SP2 slowdown for bussines apps in their notebooks" or "SP2 bug slowdowns some notebooks" (which is the real issue) or some objetive shit instead of your FUD & subjective crap which tries to imply that there's something wrong with the whole SP2? Sure, Windows sucks, but I love to read news about how much it sucks, not just FUD. Just a wish, I don't collaborate with slashdot so I cant tell people what the content is, but I think your readers will appreciate a raise in the quality of windows posts. Thanks.
I've seen only two crashes here. One when tryig to install a old win 98 "WDM" driver, the other when usign a non-safe SMP version of a winmodem. AFAIK, Windows XP "core" is just damn stable. Main problemas are drivers, like ie: Nvidia drivers (they're know to be to most common cause of hangs under windows XP...) in short: those stadistics suck. Windows is quite stable, the 3rd party drivers are not.
Sp2 is not affected. It smells like the new compiler switch avoided the flaw. One more reason to install SP2 to your friends & parents...
4 days? And someone can explain me why KHTML exist at all then? Sure, Im not implying that gecko is better/worse than their counterparts, but it'd have been less work. Having two OSSs projects doing the same is good for the competition, but we already had quite a lot of competition in the we field (ie, opera). Any plans to slowly move the good parts of gecko into khtml and the good parts of khtml into gecko?
When you want to print something you want to print what the X server really has in the screen (not a "copy" made by the software) so I guess it has sense somewhere...
Its not just that it looks nice. The technology behind it is what matters. The Composite extension for example double-buffers the windows (or something like that, I'm the person to speak about this) so moving your windows is much smoother, and you can notice that even now in this released version, where all those pieces are far from being "rock stable" or "fast". It also allows to have a miniaturized version of your desktop (one which is a _real_ miniaturized version of your desktop, with the miniature of a video player in other virtual desktop being updated, etc) much more easily. Damage can reduce greatly the amount of bandwith used in VNC-like clients, etc.
Shadows and transparencies are just one of the things which you can do with all those toys, but the fact that the pieces behing them are there is what matters, using the hardware to do all this, etc. As a plus, shadows and transparencies are nice (I'd like to have them even in the light window managers at least). I don't know why people is so concerned about "shadows are not useful". This is a win-win situation, no drawbacks.
No. Windows does *not* have this. This is targetted for Lonhorn, implemented in Avalon. Sure, windows can do some transparency. So does X, but Composite is NOT just about "transparency". Look at the technical details.
...wich is not a surprise. Making those available in all the relevant windows platforms they'll tempt developers to *use* them (the same binary using avalon features may work without modifications in longhorn *and* XP SP$SOMETHING - compare that to avalon only being available for longhorn. Everyone would use just XP features and no longhorn features because fo the extra work needed). It looks to me like they though that everyone would jumpo to Longhorn because of their coolness, but they realized that they would lost what they call "the api wars". Now that they realized that Longhorn can't be 100% true they need to retain people in their new APIs - putting them available for XP is a good way to do that. I'd call that "conserving upwards compatibility" a different version of one of the reasons they're everywhere: "conserving backwards compatibility"
groklaw.com redirects to groklaw.net, it seems
I'm surprised. I'm mean, why wouldn't you expect that SP2 would have new vulnerabilities? Any system has flaws, SP2 is not less. It was a matter of time. What is *important* about the SP2 is what it does to *solve* the security issues. Automatic update. Firewall enabled by default (no worms for those system services which are always open). When a program tries to "listen" in a port, a windows popups to ask yoy what to do with it (this means you can't have a trojan wiath a remote shell in your system without noticing it - how many linux distros / BSD systems take this approach, eh?) Well I don't need to list all features. It was quite clear (at least for me, not for the slashdot crow though) that SP2 was going to have vulnerabilities. What is important about the SP2 is that it solves them instead of leaving you a big hole.
How many times have they delayed the SP? No really, I've lost the count.... The one thing I remember is that the first version was planned before 2004, and it was going to have support for the AMD64. The one real thing they've to do is to force automatic updates and enable the firewall always by default.
Uh? I'm _RIGHT_. You only deserve to be wrong, if you like. Seriously, how can anyone take that pile of shit seriously? You've to be drugged to eat that. Hell, I've never used BSD nor I intend to but if you beileve shit like that, lemme give you and advice - kill yourself.
Do you realize that nobody cares about your shitty and subjective comparison, true?
I didn't even look at a _single_ one. "modularity" does NOT depend on being microkernel or not. It's quite possible to write a pure microkernel with _horrid_ and non-modular APIs.
Changes are way too disruptive, too. Stock linux 2.4 cant go beyond 8/16 cpus and 2.6 is running in 1024 CPUs system. You need to half-rewrite lots of the code. I don't understand why microkernel people keeps saying that macrokernels are a unmainteinable mess. Modularity does NOT depend on being microkernel or not. It depends on how you code. Microkernel just "forces" you to do it because you've to run different entities in different process and you've to build a half-decent API around them. But they're not inherently "more modular"; it also doesn't mean that linux can't be quite modular.
Only in the changelogs. Real source don't have all those comments (nor you need them - you _have_ the changelog, the BK changelog, you can see who wrote x line in $foobar file and see the patch which changed it)
There's a debian equivalent for those who like the super-cow power at http://fink.sourceforge.net/
That's quite possible but is not _that_ bad. Linux vanilla kernel has to work for all architectures, all kind of machines etc, targetting 1024 cpu boxes erradicates a lot of targets and makes radical changes much easier, after all this is the nice thing about OSS, it allows to do your own stuff. I've heard that SGI 2.4 kernel is just a diferent OS, not linux anymore, and that's understandable, but for 2.6 they seem to want to merge back things - I hope they do well enought, they have indeed marged some changes already: http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2004/view_abstract.p hp?content_key=147
cluster != single machine