The problem is that Vista doesn't play well with a software program called Active-X that is widely used in Korean Internet sites.
No, the problem is that incompetently created websites use delicate nonportable nonstandard proprietary software that is only interoperative with one single obsolete platform.
Don't blame Vista; blame people who aren't responsible, experienced, or forward-looking enough to see why complying with standards is so necessary.
Now let's see how people will fix their glaring mistake. Will they "fix" it by repeating it (i.e. rewriting ActiveX controls to be compatible with Vista, so that they can get paid to screw their customers again in 5 years when the next version of Windows comes out) or will they fix it by removing the irresponsible dependencies?
Ran into this with my partner, who is Korean. Her online banking uses incredibly invasive, poorly conceived and programmed software called nProtect. Which installs a bloody device driver to function. It actually blue screened Vista randomly. It does not install without Administrator level access to the machine (obviously). In addition, it required that you run IE7 in Administrator mode when attempting to log in. Also, many many websites did not function reliably with Vista and IE7, their ActiveX controls expecting to have administrator level access to the machine. Advanced technologically? Hardly. Just proprietary and locked in, and not very security conscious. The amount of times I had to click "Allow this website to install an ActiveX control" is just insane, I don't want to think of the amount of remote code execution vulnerabilities present on a machine with all these controls installed. They're pretty much conditioned to allow the website to install any old thing, really, since so many of their websites require it.
Isnt this the same reason they CANT go to Vista, that and MS finally got rid of ActiveX? Oh well, guess their banking apps should NOT have been tied to a OS they have no control over.
Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.
That and, it is like the older anti-freedom groups like the Nazis and the USSR did use extensively.
---"A lot of things that people think of as core IT functions need to disappear into the ether so that the IT organization can properly focus on the value-added [activities]," he said. "Information security, as critical as it is, needs to be taken care of by organizations who live and die by it, who invest the money, time, resources and staff. Why should every company in the world have to build up their own expertise and have to maintain servers and provide security?"
It comes down to ownership and renting..
Would you rather own your home, or rent it? Would you rather rent a car or own it?
Thats right, we can pay Google Apps to take care of our network architecture because we cant be bothered with it... Until they perceive a "non-payment".. What happens then when the lights go out? Do the DNS servers stop working, do the samba servers get rm'ed? Or does the master-password holders (READ google) just shut down every network appliance you all are using?
No, only political extremists that wish to deny us rights enumerated in the Constitution. For example, questioning a certain section would be valid, but those saying "I will not abide by the Constitution", or those saying that they will never support gun rights should be found guilty of treason.
Im not wanting illegalization of "speech". That'd be illegal.
---Arguably, punishing people voting unconstitutionally would violate peaceable assembly.
The people vote for a facade the politican throws out. Actions by the politician should only stick to the politician, unless you live in some weird world...
---The check on laws is not to censor the speech of the lawmakers, it's to have an impartial Supreme Court which can strike down laws which are unconstitutional, like the one you're proposing.
Bullshit. The reason the freedom of speech is enumerated as such is so WE can criticize elected officials.
---And it's worth pointing out that the people who's heads ended up on city gates in Medieval England were usually campaigning for freedom rather than against it.
True, that..
---IHBT, IHL, I know.
This topic I have genuine interest in. Read my journal, and then realize my first strike policy is to hit an article early and with 100% opposite view.
The only way that would happen is if We (the people) worked our way down from the president, while prosecuting them to the fullest extent of TERRORISM laws. Bush isnt the only one who's corrupt, but its our system that is corrupt.
Anybody who speaks against the constitution, and votes as such, should be found guilty of treason. Perhaps England had a good idea about placing heads on pikes at the city gates. It reminds me of the Gadsden slogan: Don't Tread On Me.
---Is a favorite pastime of both parties. The feds have been ignoring the constitution since at least FDR's new deal, and some would say the civil war.
I'd not raise the civil war topic. Many people think it still was over slavery. That's 'publik' education for you.
---If you shout and cheer for the limitless power given by g readings of the interstate commerce clause and the 'general welfare' clause (quip), you're part of the problem. If you think that the constitution wasn't designed to cuff the federal government into a very limited role it's now outgrown, you're part of the problem.
How would you rewrite the interstate commerce clause in that there is no easy loopholes?
---If you really want to get picky on the constitution, then the following goes away:
---Every state and local gun ban
What about felons? Would they still qualify to be legal owners?
---The department of education, the Department of the Interior, HUD, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole lot of others I don't remember.
If I recall correctly, Bush 1 ran partly on dismantling the Department of Education. Didnt happen.
I'd tend to agree, but what happens when you have somebody else that would like to use the computer? Pretty much all OSes are now multi-user.
---If I have an app on one computer, I should be able to copy a single file (or in the case of OS X, what appears as a single file) to another machine and be able to run it.
Hence my questioning of bringing back fat binaries... That would be one way to go about that kind of compatability.
---I shouldn't have to worry that a third-party app I downloaded will break the dependencies of existing apps when I install it. With today's hard drives, the wasted space from multiple copies of libraries is insignificant.
Yes, space stored on the hard disk is insignificant, but those very libraries will have to be loaded into ram. I'd much rather have a global base library that many apps use than a individual library for each app. For example, witness the amount of ram used when you have to load a GTK app within KDE.. Not pretty, not pretty at all.
Well, the kernel does support them as a native data type, and a java interpreter isnt that bad on performance. What you'd lose is the multiuser aspect that is kept true with Linux.
Now, if you disjoin the configs properly to ~ directories, you'd have a good chance... but then it's still java. Do you want library reuse, or simple "big packs of complete software"? If you were to go this route, you might as well just use fat binaries.
And more with QoS would be allowing the usage of 1 line...
Think of this: You have a big pipe CAPABLE of total 2 MiB/s up and down. You could section that off so that you have.5 MiB/s for (video)phones and 1.5 MiB/s for data, or any combination therof. If you needed a few phone lines more, just dedicate more bandwidth up to your total pipe.
The key would be if YOU could control your OWN QoS, not if the companies force it towards you....
The idea that one could vote up or down phrases sound good in theory, but look at kuro5hin.org
That site went that way, along with votable articles, and not many people rate comments there. For a while, trolls were mass-modding down everybodys article, thereby triggering a "hidden user", akin to slashdot's no-post for a day when modded down dramatically.
For starters, use a RPC1 drive. Secondly, view artificially degraded data. Thirdly, any sort of driver development not ordained by the church of MS. Fourthly, have hardware NOT work when your driver was revoked. Finally, just plain quit working due to "tilts" or 'possible registration problem'
---I can't help but think that you guys are missing the point.
Complex problems require complex answers. Simply, DRM is NOT the answer, but what is?
----Anyone building hardware and/or software to play back modern media currently has two choices:
---1) Implement the restrictions and allow the content to be viewable.
---2) Don't allow the content to be viewable at all. (i.e. No HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback, period.)
Or 3) MS Should tell ALL media companies that this is not for thier customers, and refuse to play ANY of these medias until they FIX it.
---Microsoft doesn't create movies or music. Their only interest in implementing these things is so that users have a way of playing content on their operating system. Apple and Linux vendors will also have to bend over for the RIAA and MPAA if they want to be able to support viewing the content. There's a chance that Steve Jobs will bend the universe to his will on this and avoid it, but it's doubtful. Linux users will probably just find ways hack around it, and ignore the fact they're breaking the law (no matter how ill-conceived that law may be; the point is that if Microsoft breaks the same law they would be sued into oblivion. It's simply not an option.).
Why not "break the law" for fair use? If there's no players for Linux of HD based media, why not hack one together?
---Blaming Microsoft for this DRM fiasco is lame. If you don't like DRM, focus your blame on those that deserve it and buy your media from sources that don't promote it.
Wrong. They could simply tell the media companies to screw off and dont come back until the Customers can play their media without worry.
---That said, one thing that could be argued is that Microsoft wields enough money/power that they could fight back against the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and block the media industry's attempts to create such lame DRM policies. Personally I don't believe they have this amount of clout, especially with the antitrust thing still hanging over their head.
Wrong. Antitrust only occurred when bundling components with the OS itself. Refusing to bundle a cripple-system in the OS itself would go FOR the anti-trust lawsuit, so that a 3rd party company could create it, with "permission" from the media companies.
Not really, I do consulting on the side and see many types of setups. Ive seen 4 person law firms that use extensive billing VBA forms set up within Excel and Word, and then large factory setups with the head accountant with a weird setup of many interconnecting tools. Some businesses also didnt bother at all with licensing (they copied a school version, or downloaded it off of some website torrent).
From my experience, many businesses could get away with running OO, unless they deal regularly with other companies (thats most). Then incompatibilities will rear their ugly heads. And guess who gets the blame? The one who suggested it (me).
"I've been using Open Office a bit more lately, and got to thinking: this is much more like my current version of Microsoft Office than Office 2007 will be. Could it be time to try Open Office in the workplace, especially since there is still some time left before Office 2007 will be forced on us by the demands of the product cycle? Are there any IT admins out there thinking about trying Open Office, either with a few users or all of them?"
Notice the aim is looking at business, not your anecdotal stories about your fictional grandmother (I dont know if she exists, nor do I care). I care about facts, and this story aims at business usage of OO vs MS Office.
Right now, in terms of plain old document usage, OO is equally as good as MSO. In terms of scripting compatibility, OO is lagging far behind. If any one section does not work for a business, why would they "switch" and then deal with problems they did not have before?
And last I respond to my answer by arguing if MS ever forces stringent licenses of Office, OO would grow dramatically, and not before.
True, but guessing which 10% of the code doesnt need to be implemented is a joke. Either it's all right, or it fails miserably.
Then again, is a CPA's job for debugging an interface that isnt even properly implemented, or is it to be a certified public accountant (that processes fincial data)?
If I have licenses for 20 machines for Office 2000 and my Excel apps run fine, and they don't run on Open Office, do you think I'll switch?
---Parent is very wrong. I'm one of a couple of devs in my office using Ubuntu as my desktop. I use Open Office and can open all docs that people send to me: Powerpoint, Excel, Word docs. They all work fine. Plus I can export as PDF's and a variety of other formats. The only time I have run into a problem is when people are saving in a very old format like Word97. But then, even Microsoft Office users have the same problem and do the same thing I do... ask the user to resend in a more recent format.
That right there is sad.. that you need to have the experience of a developer and use Linux to maintain usability with OpenOffice. With MS editing tools, yes, you do have occasional format problems, but those can be solved by asking the person to save as another MS format. If worse comes to worst, save as RTF.
However, there's an easier way to get consumers to switch, and thats to say to pay 500$ for Office suite, or FREE for OO. Still, its going to be horrendously confusing, and they'll most likely end up pirating Office anyways.
Well, at first it seems Im wrong, but how to you run scripted Excel worksheets?
We're talking about financials and receiving... Is there a VBA emulator for Open Office, or any open source editing engine? I mean, that actually works properly.
OO is different than the offering at MS, and is "incompatible" with every last feature (bloat) that they offer. Because it's not 100% exactly right, not many businesses will care.. Now if MS gets a cracking on "illegal installs", well, that probably would do the trick.
Are my legal rights when it comes to First Sale doctrine? Once I own a copy, I can do with that ONE copy whatever I want (except copy it).
The watermarking system disallows my LEGAL right of selling that object to somebody else.
Now, what would be interesting would be an online database of all the media conglomerates coming together to create a Ownership Library, in which one can buy a copy right, so that downloading it would be legal. Simply verifying if requested downloader has a copy provided to them could potentially make users on p2p legal.
For example, I'd like to download a new album. I'd go to the ownership library, buy a copy "right", then download from any source I wish (legit provider, or piratebay..). To keep these shares legit, it would potentially request that I have a copy right to access that file share, and after checking that I can own it, allows download. It could keep the users AND sharers from turning into copyright violators.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is that incompetently created websites use delicate nonportable nonstandard proprietary software that is only interoperative with one single obsolete platform.
Don't blame Vista; blame people who aren't responsible, experienced, or forward-looking enough to see why complying with standards is so necessary.
Now let's see how people will fix their glaring mistake. Will they "fix" it by repeating it (i.e. rewriting ActiveX controls to be compatible with Vista, so that they can get paid to screw their customers again in 5 years when the next version of Windows comes out) or will they fix it by removing the irresponsible dependencies?
Ran into this with my partner, who is Korean. Her online banking uses incredibly invasive, poorly conceived and programmed software called nProtect. Which installs a bloody device driver to function. It actually blue screened Vista randomly. It does not install without Administrator level access to the machine (obviously). In addition, it required that you run IE7 in Administrator mode when attempting to log in. Also, many many websites did not function reliably with Vista and IE7, their ActiveX controls expecting to have administrator level access to the machine. Advanced technologically? Hardly. Just proprietary and locked in, and not very security conscious. The amount of times I had to click "Allow this website to install an ActiveX control" is just insane, I don't want to think of the amount of remote code execution vulnerabilities present on a machine with all these controls installed. They're pretty much conditioned to allow the website to install any old thing, really, since so many of their websites require it.
Dup du-wop dupe dee duup duuop
Isnt this the same reason they CANT go to Vista, that and MS finally got rid of ActiveX? Oh well, guess their banking apps should NOT have been tied to a OS they have no control over.
Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.
That and, it is like the older anti-freedom groups like the Nazis and the USSR did use extensively.
To everybody that responded, read my journal.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
---"A lot of things that people think of as core IT functions need to disappear into the ether so that the IT organization can properly focus on the value-added [activities]," he said. "Information security, as critical as it is, needs to be taken care of by organizations who live and die by it, who invest the money, time, resources and staff. Why should every company in the world have to build up their own expertise and have to maintain servers and provide security?"
It comes down to ownership and renting..
Would you rather own your home, or rent it? Would you rather rent a car or own it?
Thats right, we can pay Google Apps to take care of our network architecture because we cant be bothered with it... Until they perceive a "non-payment".. What happens then when the lights go out? Do the DNS servers stop working, do the samba servers get rm'ed? Or does the master-password holders (READ google) just shut down every network appliance you all are using?
Not smart. Not smart at all...
---Yeah, let's crucify all the extremists!
No, only political extremists that wish to deny us rights enumerated in the Constitution. For example, questioning a certain section would be valid, but those saying "I will not abide by the Constitution", or those saying that they will never support gun rights should be found guilty of treason.
Im not wanting illegalization of "speech". That'd be illegal.
---Arguably, punishing people voting unconstitutionally would violate peaceable assembly.
The people vote for a facade the politican throws out. Actions by the politician should only stick to the politician, unless you live in some weird world...
---The check on laws is not to censor the speech of the lawmakers, it's to have an impartial Supreme Court which can strike down laws which are unconstitutional, like the one you're proposing.
Bullshit. The reason the freedom of speech is enumerated as such is so WE can criticize elected officials.
---And it's worth pointing out that the people who's heads ended up on city gates in Medieval England were usually campaigning for freedom rather than against it.
True, that..
---IHBT, IHL, I know.
This topic I have genuine interest in. Read my journal, and then realize my first strike policy is to hit an article early and with 100% opposite view.
The only way that would happen is if We (the people) worked our way down from the president, while prosecuting them to the fullest extent of TERRORISM laws. Bush isnt the only one who's corrupt, but its our system that is corrupt.
Anybody who speaks against the constitution, and votes as such, should be found guilty of treason. Perhaps England had a good idea about placing heads on pikes at the city gates. It reminds me of the Gadsden slogan: Don't Tread On Me.
---Is a favorite pastime of both parties. The feds have been ignoring the constitution since at least FDR's new deal, and some would say the civil war.
I'd not raise the civil war topic. Many people think it still was over slavery. That's 'publik' education for you.
---If you shout and cheer for the limitless power given by g readings of the interstate commerce clause and the 'general welfare' clause (quip), you're part of the problem. If you think that the constitution wasn't designed to cuff the federal government into a very limited role it's now outgrown, you're part of the problem.
How would you rewrite the interstate commerce clause in that there is no easy loopholes?
---If you really want to get picky on the constitution, then the following goes away:
---Every state and local gun ban
What about felons? Would they still qualify to be legal owners?
---The department of education, the Department of the Interior, HUD, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole lot of others I don't remember.
If I recall correctly, Bush 1 ran partly on dismantling the Department of Education. Didnt happen.
---As an end user, absolutely the latter.
I'd tend to agree, but what happens when you have somebody else that would like to use the computer? Pretty much all OSes are now multi-user.
---If I have an app on one computer, I should be able to copy a single file (or in the case of OS X, what appears as a single file) to another machine and be able to run it.
Hence my questioning of bringing back fat binaries... That would be one way to go about that kind of compatability.
---I shouldn't have to worry that a third-party app I downloaded will break the dependencies of existing apps when I install it. With today's hard drives, the wasted space from multiple copies of libraries is insignificant.
Yes, space stored on the hard disk is insignificant, but those very libraries will have to be loaded into ram. I'd much rather have a global base library that many apps use than a individual library for each app. For example, witness the amount of ram used when you have to load a GTK app within KDE.. Not pretty, not pretty at all.
So you want Java .jar 's..
Well, the kernel does support them as a native data type, and a java interpreter isnt that bad on performance. What you'd lose is the multiuser aspect that is kept true with Linux.
Now, if you disjoin the configs properly to ~ directories, you'd have a good chance... but then it's still java. Do you want library reuse, or simple "big packs of complete software"? If you were to go this route, you might as well just use fat binaries.
And more with QoS would be allowing the usage of 1 line...
.5 MiB/s for (video)phones and 1.5 MiB/s for data, or any combination therof. If you needed a few phone lines more, just dedicate more bandwidth up to your total pipe.
Think of this: You have a big pipe CAPABLE of total 2 MiB/s up and down. You could section that off so that you have
The key would be if YOU could control your OWN QoS, not if the companies force it towards you....
The idea that one could vote up or down phrases sound good in theory, but look at kuro5hin.org
That site went that way, along with votable articles, and not many people rate comments there. For a while, trolls were mass-modding down everybodys article, thereby triggering a "hidden user", akin to slashdot's no-post for a day when modded down dramatically.
In other words, it doesnt work.
For starters, use a RPC1 drive.
Secondly, view artificially degraded data.
Thirdly, any sort of driver development not ordained by the church of MS.
Fourthly, have hardware NOT work when your driver was revoked.
Finally, just plain quit working due to "tilts" or 'possible registration problem'
I like mash-up potatoes ;-) They're good with butter and salt.
---I can't help but think that you guys are missing the point.
Complex problems require complex answers. Simply, DRM is NOT the answer, but what is?
----Anyone building hardware and/or software to play back modern media currently has two choices:
---1) Implement the restrictions and allow the content to be viewable.
---2) Don't allow the content to be viewable at all. (i.e. No HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback, period.)
Or 3) MS Should tell ALL media companies that this is not for thier customers, and refuse to play ANY of these medias until they FIX it.
---Microsoft doesn't create movies or music. Their only interest in implementing these things is so that users have a way of playing content on their operating system. Apple and Linux vendors will also have to bend over for the RIAA and MPAA if they want to be able to support viewing the content. There's a chance that Steve Jobs will bend the universe to his will on this and avoid it, but it's doubtful. Linux users will probably just find ways hack around it, and ignore the fact they're breaking the law (no matter how ill-conceived that law may be; the point is that if Microsoft breaks the same law they would be sued into oblivion. It's simply not an option.).
Why not "break the law" for fair use? If there's no players for Linux of HD based media, why not hack one together?
---Blaming Microsoft for this DRM fiasco is lame. If you don't like DRM, focus your blame on those that deserve it and buy your media from sources that don't promote it.
Wrong. They could simply tell the media companies to screw off and dont come back until the Customers can play their media without worry.
---That said, one thing that could be argued is that Microsoft wields enough money/power that they could fight back against the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and block the media industry's attempts to create such lame DRM policies. Personally I don't believe they have this amount of clout, especially with the antitrust thing still hanging over their head.
Wrong. Antitrust only occurred when bundling components with the OS itself. Refusing to bundle a cripple-system in the OS itself would go FOR the anti-trust lawsuit, so that a 3rd party company could create it, with "permission" from the media companies.
I just got the mental image of Mind of Mencia when Mencia "sends" a N64 to a Honduran kid.
All was said was "Screw You Mencia".
Not really, I do consulting on the side and see many types of setups. Ive seen 4 person law firms that use extensive billing VBA forms set up within Excel and Word, and then large factory setups with the head accountant with a weird setup of many interconnecting tools. Some businesses also didnt bother at all with licensing (they copied a school version, or downloaded it off of some website torrent).
From my experience, many businesses could get away with running OO, unless they deal regularly with other companies (thats most). Then incompatibilities will rear their ugly heads. And guess who gets the blame? The one who suggested it (me).
Let us read carefully....
"I've been using Open Office a bit more lately, and got to thinking: this is much more like my current version of Microsoft Office than Office 2007 will be. Could it be time to try Open Office in the workplace, especially since there is still some time left before Office 2007 will be forced on us by the demands of the product cycle? Are there any IT admins out there thinking about trying Open Office, either with a few users or all of them?"
Notice the aim is looking at business, not your anecdotal stories about your fictional grandmother (I dont know if she exists, nor do I care). I care about facts, and this story aims at business usage of OO vs MS Office.
Right now, in terms of plain old document usage, OO is equally as good as MSO. In terms of scripting compatibility, OO is lagging far behind. If any one section does not work for a business, why would they "switch" and then deal with problems they did not have before?
And last I respond to my answer by arguing if MS ever forces stringent licenses of Office, OO would grow dramatically, and not before.
True, but guessing which 10% of the code doesnt need to be implemented is a joke. Either it's all right, or it fails miserably.
Then again, is a CPA's job for debugging an interface that isnt even properly implemented, or is it to be a certified public accountant (that processes fincial data)?
If I have licenses for 20 machines for Office 2000 and my Excel apps run fine, and they don't run on Open Office, do you think I'll switch?
---Parent is very wrong. I'm one of a couple of devs in my office using Ubuntu as my desktop. I use Open Office and can open all docs that people send to me: Powerpoint, Excel, Word docs. They all work fine. Plus I can export as PDF's and a variety of other formats. The only time I have run into a problem is when people are saving in a very old format like Word97. But then, even Microsoft Office users have the same problem and do the same thing I do... ask the user to resend in a more recent format.
That right there is sad.. that you need to have the experience of a developer and use Linux to maintain usability with OpenOffice. With MS editing tools, yes, you do have occasional format problems, but those can be solved by asking the person to save as another MS format. If worse comes to worst, save as RTF.
However, there's an easier way to get consumers to switch, and thats to say to pay 500$ for Office suite, or FREE for OO. Still, its going to be horrendously confusing, and they'll most likely end up pirating Office anyways.
Well, at first it seems Im wrong, but how to you run scripted Excel worksheets?
We're talking about financials and receiving... Is there a VBA emulator for Open Office, or any open source editing engine? I mean, that actually works properly.
Not.
OO is different than the offering at MS, and is "incompatible" with every last feature (bloat) that they offer. Because it's not 100% exactly right, not many businesses will care.. Now if MS gets a cracking on "illegal installs", well, that probably would do the trick.
Are my legal rights when it comes to First Sale doctrine? Once I own a copy, I can do with that ONE copy whatever I want (except copy it).
The watermarking system disallows my LEGAL right of selling that object to somebody else.
Now, what would be interesting would be an online database of all the media conglomerates coming together to create a Ownership Library, in which one can buy a copy right, so that downloading it would be legal. Simply verifying if requested downloader has a copy provided to them could potentially make users on p2p legal.
For example, I'd like to download a new album. I'd go to the ownership library, buy a copy "right", then download from any source I wish (legit provider, or piratebay..). To keep these shares legit, it would potentially request that I have a copy right to access that file share, and after checking that I can own it, allows download. It could keep the users AND sharers from turning into copyright violators.
When will this be used against the Citizens of the US?