Yes, I might get a call right after my update gets to the uninterruptible part, after I chose to start it.
An aside, the mocking, irritating way of trying to make a point wont win you points. It is the opposite of persuasive.
Back to the point. It is a valid reason, I got to chose the time based on my assessment of the availability of other machines, my staff members, the probability of a call, and other factors as they relate. Also, I am unlikely to decide to interrupt a long running, important running task with an after update reboot.
My understanding is that one has to get Windows 10 Enterprise before one can choose when updates are applied. Am I misinformed?
The only "features" I see in updating from Windows 7 Pro ( my home and work machines ) to even Window 10 Pro are telemetry ( which I dont want ), access to their app store ( which I dont want ), Cortana ( which I dont want ) and forced updates ( which I dont want ) If I am incorrect about Windows 10 Pro allowing deferment, there are three misfeatures in there.
Having an update screw your machine is always concerning.
Doing it manually means that you get to chose when. Normal working hours.... While working... I left my machine running a application that I knew would run a long time, and who's result I really needed the next day. I foolishly had not yet turned off automatic updates. I am sure you see where this is going, the machine updated and rebooted and killed by app. For me, normal working hours is not a concept. If it works for you, awesome, but it does not work for me. I can just see telling my boss:"sorry, I cant tend to this emergency issue, my machine is updating". I need to be able to pick, and having to pay thru the nose for this "privilege" is galling.
"China is an epic dick claiming other countries' islands in the South China Sea China is trying to claim what they believe is theirs in the past. I think if you want to talk about being "dicks" confiscating their land and selling them opium for years would be a real dick move."
The islands that they suddenly 'believe are theirs from the past' are very near other nation/islands who also believe them to be theirs. China is being rather undiplomatic and forceful about it, their claim looks pretty weak. Also, fortifying the islands when they claimed they would not does not seem peaceful.
"North Korea is a total dick with their nukes. - Can you enlighten us with who started this? Go back in history, they had a war to become communist.. someone invaded them and eventually gave up and went home??"
Go back in history, to be sure. Who was it that wanted them to be communist? Russia, exporting communism on their end of their rifles. So, North Korea, with support from Russia and ( eventually ) China, invaded South Korea. So, the US ( and others in the UN ) sent assistance, including troops, to keep the North from succeeding. Seems that those in South Korea didn't want this communism, they could have had it if they wanted it, without war.
Does it matter if NK is communist? Sure, but it is what they have. Be nice if they had chosen it, rather than having it forced on them.
And if they get the laws they want, they know that cyphertext == plaintext? At least for the bad guys.
If the encryption is breakable, the bad guys will be just as able to break it. If some kind of key escrow is used, the bad guys will figure out how to compromise the keys ( bribing devs to insert "bugs", bribing devs to make the keys available to the bad guys in addition to law enforcement, bribing the law enforcement key holders to deliver the keys, etc ).
And any bad guys who want to encrypt their own stuff can make it happen without intentional break-ability outside of the commercially available stuff ( hiring mathematicians and developers, using one time pads, etc )
That is exactly the spirit that leads to downfall. An example, in WWII, the Japanese believed that they were innately superior to others and that they would natural win out despite the logistical realities of their situation. ( I do note that most westerners, including America had a similar belief in their own superiority, one which took decades to tone down* despite the rude awakening that was the Pearl Harbor to Midway part of the Pacific campaign ). No one is innately great. It takes hard work, humility, clear thinking and real striving towards greatness to be great. That is what we and everyone else needs.
* Yes, there is still racism in the US. It is not as bad as it was then. Yes, any racism is bad and I am not attempting to excuse it, but I would guess that if you gave any person a choice to live as a non-white person in America now versus then, they would choose now. Progress is good, continued progress is better yet.
If it is easy to crack for the FBI, it is easy to crack for anyone. Any "back doors" will be converted to front doors ( or windows ) soon enough. And the timing of such a statement. Meltdown and Spectre still in the news, then this.
My take: Windows and Office, they are not adding enough value to the actual product to get us to fork over cash for a new version. So, take the existing product, smash up the UI to make it different, add a few things you could have added ( and, really, are ) to the original product, spin up the hype machine ( new! improved! ) and hope to sell the snot out of it. Oh, and leverage any external events like this to push people onto the new product. Stop selling the old product, do all you can to force people to the new, like no security updates to the insecure product sold after some period. I can sympathize with some of it, supporting too many products is inefficient.
""It's pretty fucking obvious that MS are trying to take advantage of the situation to get more users to finally switch over to Spyware 10 by fearmongering.""
"You are conflating the architectural improvements with the intrusive telemetry. They are two entirely different issues. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who argued in favor of the current kernel design turned around and argued against the always-on telemetry. "
Where does the poster conflate them? The post seemed to be complaining about the intrusive telemetry. Microsoft could make the architectural improvements to 7 and/or 8x, or they could allow people to opt in/out of the telemetry in 10. They don't do either, because they want you to take 10 on. With the telemetry.
Also, note, Microsoft elected to push patches for Meltdown and Spectre for windows 10 this week. The patches for Windows 7 and 8x are available, but you have to wait for them. The patches are available, have to have been tested, or they would not be available, but somehow, it is less important for Windows 7/8 users to have them? I could argue the reverse, there is more security for the larger portion of the user base for Windows 7 and 8 to get priority, as those systems would be running on older equipment. ( My understanding is that the older CPU's are more susceptible to these issues, so if someone has to wait, the newer systems should. )
I agree with the other post, Microsoft is using this to push people onto Window 10.
Yes, but Windows 8.1 is Windows 7 + rearranging the UI so you cant find anything + attempting to force you to use lame walled Garden apps ( aka Metro ) + lame home page "applets" ( aka Metro ) sucking all kinds of CPU and memory to tell you all kinds of things you cant see at the moment and really dont care that much about probably.
If someone builds something that finds a clever device to get thru a wall, do you build a better wall, or do you find some way to keep the device away from the wall? Workaround, keep the device away from the wall. Attackers will find another way to get to the wall. Works as a stopgap. Real fix, wall that is impervious to the device. ( which, to be fair leads to research in new clever device to get thru previously impervious wall )
"that it should be patched in the software affected"
That is code for "we cant update the microcode, it *should* be patched in the CPU, but cant be ( and we dont want to say that ), so, hopefully the software can mitigate".
I think another flaw, the one that I recall as being "the showstopper" was the need to declare string lengths. If you were writing code that needed to handle arbitrary length strings, having to declare a very long string or other workarounds seemed the biggest real complaint of the day.
They were referring to being descendants of the algol programming language line, I believe.
"Unlike C and C++, Java has no concept of undefined behaviour, and does a far more complete job of insulating the programmer from platform-specific quirks."
Very true. Java, benefiting from the experience of the languages that came before it, does a better job of insulating.
From the standpoint of error prone, I'm not certain on these.
"left-to-right", I presume you mean left to right within an operator's precedence level.
As long as the calculation result is correct, does this matter?
W.R.T. overflow/underflow and calculation precision, I would think strict l to r within a precedence level could
give worse results.
"2's comp arith"
As long as the calculation result is correct, does this matter?
On a machine that did not do 2's comp arith, ( assuming it did the arithmetic correctly ), I would think
that forcing 2's comp would lead to poor performance.
"big endian"
As long as the calculation result is correct, does this matter?
Forcing the internals to be big endian on a little endian machine would seem to lead sub-optimal calculations.
For stuff heading "off machine", converting to a common endian-ness would be good, but seems like a
handled problem
"always initialises to zero (never UB), always performs array bounds checking (never UB), always checks for null when dereferencing (never UB), always checks for invalid casts at runtime (never UB), the list goes on and on."
For the enumerated items, for most programmers, for most applications, these are all good things,
but they do have a cost.
NetFlix, Google, etc are not eating the ISP's lunch, they are providing the lunch.
Without content, people would have no reason to pay Comcast et al in the first place. The content providers are the reason people want internet service. Yes, there are ISPs that have merged with content providers, and think that there lunch is getting eaten. So what. If there content is not compelling enough on its own they should not be allowed to remove competitors in that space to make it seem that it is.
I find it interesting that the conservatives out there are mad as heck that the government is stealing from them with taxes and limiting their choices with legislation ( and so many other positions ), but if a corporation does these things they cant seem to get out of their own way in their haste to praise it.
When you tell Joe Six-Pack that the money paid is being extorted where the ISP says "be a shame if your packets didnt make it to our shared customer", I think it will be quite easy. When you add that the ISP probably wont use the money for upgrades, but will just add to their profit margin, I think it will be even easier. When you further add that the moneys taken by force ( what is that line about taxes? ) from the service provider will probably make the provider have to raise their price to Joe Six-Pack, I think it will be easiest of all.
On the political front, when you tell Joe ( you dont mind if I call him Joe, do you ) that the regulations were a result of ISPs throttling service to him, making it so Joe has to use the ISPs service rather than the external service that he likes better and has invested money in, I think that will be easy. When you add that the ISPs were publicly stating that they ought to be able to extort ( though they didnt use that word ) money from the service / sites that he uses or face not being allowed in, I think he would understand. I dont think Joe likes companies picking winners and losers any better than he like government picking them.
It is the consumer who is using the bandwidth. It is, therefor, the consumer who should pay for the usage of the bandwidth.
Nothing that the service/site providers is doing that causes any bandwidth to be used unless the consumer elects to access the service. Access to those services is what the consumer is paying for. If the ISP's are truly in bad financial shape, they need to figure out how to make it work billing their customers. Not by by extorting money from third parties. Note, it is those third parties, the services and sites on the internet that make the internet something that a consumer would want to connect to. So, if anything, the services, if they used the extortion model these ISPs want to use, could say to the ISPs, "no, you pay us, or your customers get squat". ( note, I believe this would be as unethical as the ISPs trying to extort money from the services/site providers, I do not want to see it ).
I have a real hard time figuring out how you can honest look at this and come to the conclusion you did. The services/site providers pay *their* ISPs. I cant see an honest reason why they should pay mine also, that is my job.
I have no problem with a company charging more, when there is a reason beyond "you dont have options" If I order a line, I expect to see a range of prices and services for me to chose from.
If I, as an ISP's customer, am causing additional load, I expect to have to pay for that. It is my opinion that ISP ought not grab money from the sites I visit on a "well, I can shut you out if you dont pay" basis. I cant see it as anything but extortion.
I pay my ISP for my line The services I visit pay their ISPs for their lines. The various ISPs can elect to trade service or charge for service at interconnection ( peering ) depending on circumstances. Everyone has paid. I see no legitimate case for my ISP charging a service/site I visit. If my ISP cannot manage to make a profit from the payments from their customers, man up and figure it out.
I expressed myself badly then, I was trying to say what you said.
While the lines used to transmit the bits are ( I suppose ) owned by the ISPs, I see little difference between this extortion than old time highway robbers. Camp out next to the roads used to transport goods, and take. Rent seeking, I suppose an economist would say.
Where there are privately owned toll lanes, where you pay to use a section of road, would it be OK for me, as the owner of such a roll road to tell commercial vehicles using "my" road "you have to pay more, because your cargo is valuable, and I deserve a cut? Personally, I dont think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I might get a call right after my update gets to the uninterruptible part, after I chose to start it.
An aside, the mocking, irritating way of trying to make a point wont win you points. It is the opposite of persuasive.
Back to the point.
It is a valid reason, I got to chose the time based on my assessment of the availability of other machines, my staff members, the probability of a call, and other factors as they relate. Also, I am unlikely to decide to interrupt a long running, important running task with an after update reboot.
My understanding is that one has to get Windows 10 Enterprise before one can choose when updates are applied. Am I misinformed?
The only "features" I see in updating from Windows 7 Pro ( my home and work machines ) to even Window 10 Pro are telemetry ( which I dont want ), access to their app store ( which I dont want ), Cortana ( which I dont want ) and forced updates ( which I dont want )
If I am incorrect about Windows 10 Pro allowing deferment, there are three misfeatures in there.
Having an update screw your machine is always concerning.
Doing it manually means that you get to chose when. :"sorry, I cant tend to this emergency issue, my machine is updating".
Normal working hours....
While working...
I left my machine running a application that I knew would run a long time, and who's result I really needed the next day.
I foolishly had not yet turned off automatic updates. I am sure you see where this is going, the machine updated and rebooted and killed by app.
For me, normal working hours is not a concept.
If it works for you, awesome, but it does not work for me.
I can just see telling my boss
I need to be able to pick, and having to pay thru the nose for this "privilege" is galling.
"Together they stop terrorists."
Do you, indeed, believe this?
"China is an epic dick claiming other countries' islands in the South China Sea
China is trying to claim what they believe is theirs in the past. I think if you want to talk about being "dicks" confiscating their land and selling them opium for years would be a real dick move."
The islands that they suddenly 'believe are theirs from the past' are very near other nation/islands who also believe them to be theirs. China is being rather undiplomatic and forceful about it, their claim looks pretty weak. Also, fortifying the islands when they claimed they would not does not seem peaceful.
"North Korea is a total dick with their nukes. - Can you enlighten us with who started this? Go back in history, they had a war to become communist.. someone invaded them and eventually gave up and went home??"
Go back in history, to be sure. Who was it that wanted them to be communist? Russia, exporting communism on their end of their rifles. So, North Korea, with support from Russia and ( eventually ) China, invaded South Korea. So, the US ( and others in the UN ) sent assistance, including troops, to keep the North from succeeding. Seems that those in South Korea didn't want this communism, they could have had it if they wanted it, without war.
Does it matter if NK is communist? Sure, but it is what they have. Be nice if they had chosen it, rather than having it forced on them.
And if they get the laws they want, they know that cyphertext == plaintext? At least for the bad guys.
If the encryption is breakable, the bad guys will be just as able to break it.
If some kind of key escrow is used, the bad guys will figure out how to compromise the keys ( bribing devs to insert "bugs", bribing devs to make the keys available to the bad guys in addition to law enforcement, bribing the law enforcement key holders to deliver the keys, etc ).
And any bad guys who want to encrypt their own stuff can make it happen without intentional break-ability outside of the commercially available stuff ( hiring mathematicians and developers, using one time pads, etc )
I know you are being sarcastic, but...
That is exactly the spirit that leads to downfall.
An example, in WWII, the Japanese believed that they were innately superior to others and that they would natural win out despite the logistical realities of their situation. ( I do note that most westerners, including America had a similar belief in their own superiority, one which took decades to tone down* despite the rude awakening that was the Pearl Harbor to Midway part of the Pacific campaign ).
No one is innately great. It takes hard work, humility, clear thinking and real striving towards greatness to be great.
That is what we and everyone else needs.
* Yes, there is still racism in the US. It is not as bad as it was then. Yes, any racism is bad and I am not attempting to excuse it, but I would guess that if you gave any person a choice to live as a non-white person in America now versus then, they would choose now. Progress is good, continued progress is better yet.
If it is easy to crack for the FBI, it is easy to crack for anyone.
Any "back doors" will be converted to front doors ( or windows ) soon enough.
And the timing of such a statement. Meltdown and Spectre still in the news, then this.
My take: Windows and Office, they are not adding enough value to the actual product to get us to fork over cash for a new version.
So, take the existing product, smash up the UI to make it different, add a few things you could have added ( and, really, are ) to the original product, spin up the hype machine ( new! improved! ) and hope to sell the snot out of it. Oh, and leverage any external events like this to push people onto the new product. Stop selling the old product, do all you can to force people to the new, like no security updates to the insecure product sold after some period. I can sympathize with some of it, supporting too many products is inefficient.
""It's pretty fucking obvious that MS are trying to take advantage of the situation to get more users to finally switch over to Spyware 10 by fearmongering.""
"You are conflating the architectural improvements with the intrusive telemetry. They are two entirely different issues. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who argued in favor of the current kernel design turned around and argued against the always-on telemetry. "
Where does the poster conflate them? The post seemed to be complaining about the intrusive telemetry.
Microsoft could make the architectural improvements to 7 and/or 8x, or they could allow people to opt in/out of the telemetry in 10.
They don't do either, because they want you to take 10 on. With the telemetry.
Also, note, Microsoft elected to push patches for Meltdown and Spectre for windows 10 this week. The patches for Windows 7 and 8x are available, but you have to wait for them. The patches are available, have to have been tested, or they would not be available, but somehow, it is less important for Windows 7/8 users to have them? I could argue the reverse, there is more security for the larger portion of the user base for Windows 7 and 8 to get priority, as those systems would be running on older equipment. ( My understanding is that the older CPU's are more susceptible to these issues, so if someone has to wait, the newer systems should. )
I agree with the other post, Microsoft is using this to push people onto Window 10.
Yes, but Windows 8.1 is Windows 7 + rearranging the UI so you cant find anything + attempting to force you to use lame walled Garden apps ( aka Metro ) + lame home page "applets" ( aka Metro ) sucking all kinds of CPU and memory to tell you all kinds of things you cant see at the moment and really dont care that much about probably.
Windows 7 is infinitely superior to Windows 8.1
It allows you to read other processes.
If someone builds something that finds a clever device to get thru a wall, do you build a better wall, or do you find some way to keep the device away from the wall?
Workaround, keep the device away from the wall. Attackers will find another way to get to the wall. Works as a stopgap.
Real fix, wall that is impervious to the device. ( which, to be fair leads to research in new clever device to get thru previously impervious wall )
That is why I say "should be patched in the CPU".
I would expect that working around the OS mitigation will be the next thing to try.
"that it should be patched in the software affected"
That is code for "we cant update the microcode, it *should* be patched in the CPU, but cant be ( and we dont want to say that ), so, hopefully the software can mitigate".
I think another flaw, the one that I recall as being "the showstopper" was the need to declare string lengths.
If you were writing code that needed to handle arbitrary length strings, having to declare a very long string or other workarounds seemed the biggest real complaint of the day.
They were referring to being descendants of the algol programming language line, I believe.
"Unlike C and C++, Java has no concept of undefined behaviour, and does a far more complete job of insulating the programmer from platform-specific quirks."
Very true. Java, benefiting from the experience of the languages that came before it, does a better job of insulating.
"Unlike C/C++, Java enforces left-to-right evaluation order, always uses 2's complement arithmetic (not target-platform specific), always uses big endian (not target-platform specific),"
From the standpoint of error prone, I'm not certain on these.
"left-to-right", I presume you mean left to right within an operator's precedence level.
As long as the calculation result is correct, does this matter?
W.R.T. overflow/underflow and calculation precision, I would think strict l to r within a precedence level could
give worse results.
"2's comp arith"
As long as the calculation result is correct, does this matter?
On a machine that did not do 2's comp arith, ( assuming it did the arithmetic correctly ), I would think
that forcing 2's comp would lead to poor performance.
"big endian"
As long as the calculation result is correct, does this matter?
Forcing the internals to be big endian on a little endian machine would seem to lead sub-optimal calculations.
For stuff heading "off machine", converting to a common endian-ness would be good, but seems like a
handled problem
"always initialises to zero (never UB), always performs array bounds checking (never UB), always checks for null when dereferencing (never UB), always checks for invalid casts at runtime (never UB), the list goes on and on."
For the enumerated items, for most programmers, for most applications, these are all good things,
but they do have a cost.
***Love*** your sig. Fork-n A, man!
NetFlix, Google, etc are not eating the ISP's lunch, they are providing the lunch.
Without content, people would have no reason to pay Comcast et al in the first place. The content providers are the reason people want internet service.
Yes, there are ISPs that have merged with content providers, and think that there lunch is getting eaten.
So what. If there content is not compelling enough on its own they should not be allowed to remove competitors in that space to make it seem that it is.
I find it interesting that the conservatives out there are mad as heck that the government is stealing from them with taxes and limiting their choices with legislation ( and so many other positions ), but if a corporation does these things they cant seem to get out of their own way in their haste to praise it.
When you tell Joe Six-Pack that the money paid is being extorted where the ISP says "be a shame if your packets didnt make it to our shared customer", I think it will be quite easy. When you add that the ISP probably wont use the money for upgrades, but will just add to their profit margin, I think it will be even easier. When you further add that the moneys taken by force ( what is that line about taxes? ) from the service provider will probably make the provider have to raise their price to Joe Six-Pack, I think it will be easiest of all.
On the political front, when you tell Joe ( you dont mind if I call him Joe, do you ) that the regulations were a result of ISPs throttling service to him, making it so Joe has to use the ISPs service rather than the external service that he likes better and has invested money in, I think that will be easy. When you add that the ISPs were publicly stating that they ought to be able to extort ( though they didnt use that word ) money from the service / sites that he uses or face not being allowed in, I think he would understand. I dont think Joe likes companies picking winners and losers any better than he like government picking them.
It is the consumer who is using the bandwidth.
It is, therefor, the consumer who should pay for the usage of the bandwidth.
Nothing that the service/site providers is doing that causes any bandwidth to be used unless the consumer elects to access the service.
Access to those services is what the consumer is paying for. If the ISP's are truly in bad financial shape, they need to figure out how to make it work billing their customers. Not by by extorting money from third parties.
Note, it is those third parties, the services and sites on the internet that make the internet something that a consumer would want to connect to. So, if anything, the services, if they used the extortion model these ISPs want to use, could say to the ISPs, "no, you pay us, or your customers get squat". ( note, I believe this would be as unethical as the ISPs trying to extort money from the services/site providers, I do not want to see it ).
I have a real hard time figuring out how you can honest look at this and come to the conclusion you did.
The services/site providers pay *their* ISPs. I cant see an honest reason why they should pay mine also, that is my job.
That is an awesome analogy. Well put.
Thank you
So, the analogy breaks down.
I have no problem with a company charging more, when there is a reason beyond "you dont have options"
If I order a line, I expect to see a range of prices and services for me to chose from.
If I, as an ISP's customer, am causing additional load, I expect to have to pay for that.
It is my opinion that ISP ought not grab money from the sites I visit on a "well, I can shut you out if you dont pay" basis.
I cant see it as anything but extortion.
I pay my ISP for my line
The services I visit pay their ISPs for their lines.
The various ISPs can elect to trade service or charge for service at interconnection ( peering ) depending on circumstances.
Everyone has paid. I see no legitimate case for my ISP charging a service/site I visit.
If my ISP cannot manage to make a profit from the payments from their customers, man up and figure it out.
No, you were correct, I need to take my previous post "back"..
I got confused on which post of mine was which. Serves me right, trying to post and prep our site for deployment.
Thank you and apologies
I expressed myself badly then, I was trying to say what you said.
While the lines used to transmit the bits are ( I suppose ) owned by the ISPs, I see little difference between this extortion than old time highway robbers.
Camp out next to the roads used to transport goods, and take. Rent seeking, I suppose an economist would say.
Where there are privately owned toll lanes, where you pay to use a section of road, would it be OK for me, as the owner of such a roll road to tell commercial vehicles using "my" road "you have to pay more, because your cargo is valuable, and I deserve a cut? Personally, I dont think so.
Bull pucky.
NN is not about you not being able to pick the service level you want at all.
If you want a faster connection you are quite free to purchase such.
NN is about not allowing the ISP to sell* access to you to those providing online services.
* sell, in this case being extort. "be a darn shame if those bits didnt make it..."