That must mean that apple's Remote Desktop is a huge vulnerability. Giving the attacker complete control of the victims system, and the ability to execute remote code!
I recall when I last used Windows Defender, it actually has VNC listed for those reasons.
I hear Vista and W7 are/will be much better, and I think that's great, but there are still a bunch of home users online with XP. Easy pickings for those wanting to build a bot net, or other slimy scheme.
XP should show a action prompt, many people choose autorun (default selected item) and tick 'always do this action' check box.
BTW, I am very doubtful that there is a large amount of people getting infected by autorun, which only works on optical disc media, on Seven they removed the 'always' check box action.
This does turn some off from making the switch to Linux, as they've gotten addicted to some of the features or the workflow in these applications.
Is it sad that I find myself almost completely incapable of doing anything in any Photoshop version while I can design pretty websites, software cases in the GIMP?
Lauren is looking for a laptop for under a grand... "Macs don't make a laptop for under $1,000, guess I'm not cool enough to be a Mac owner."
Joe is looking for a car for under $20,000... "Porche doesn't make a car for under $20,000, guess I'm not cool enough to drive a Porche."
This would imply that the Mac has some kind of superiority over Windows (since the Porsche has some unique features over other less expensive cars), but I don't see anything OS X can do that Windows can't.
Even in Apple's own territory, like graphics, Windows out-does OS X since applications like Photoshop are only available in 32bit on OS X while on Windows, there is the possibility to use a 64bit version, making work really well with very large images (due to being able to address more than 3.8GB of RAM). I simply cannot think of any applications where there is no equivalent or better. Sure, there are UI differences, but I don't see it being a significant difference where it's a comparison between, lower range car that has a cooling fan system verses the air conditioning systems in a Porsche.
Hardware wise, there is no significant difference from what I've seen in life span, durability between the brands, all the brands have made crappy hardware and good hardware and Apple is no exception.
In summary, I don't agree with your statement that a Mac is a equivalent to a Porsche in the car industry.
When all your salesforce wants Their blackberry email and calenders seamlessly synchronized with multiple desktops or notebooks, and when you need to be able to wipe a blackberry remotely when it's lost or stolen, then exchange starts to buy something for you.
Unfortunately Exchange is pretty bad at doing that. I remember having to deal with stupid timezone issues with the devices and the exchange server. They had appointments wrong and many other things - a lot easier just having a webbased calendar system that supports ics import/export - since most software has support for that (including addons for Microsoft Outlook).
The first problem has already been solved in SSL's successor, TLS. The "Server Name Indication"[1] extension of TLS allows the client to transmit the desired virtual host before the encryption begins.
I didn't know that had been implemented in HTTPS yet, that's awesome.
Your second problem is not as easy to solve. You could consider CACert[2], a certificate authority based on a web of trust. When I applied for CACert, the assurers were quite serious and checked my identity (ID card, photo and signature) more thoroughly than some ISPs who are reselling commercial certificates. No major browser ships with the CACert root cert but fortunately it's very easy to install!
No, that is not a option. I already can't get half the people to login on a HTTPS site because it's self signed and adding the certificate is just as easy as running a downloadable executable. I ended up moving it to regular HTTP to escape the stupidity of people telling me "Firefox says the page is not found" (in reality, firefox gave them an error page, and they 'saw' it a page not found message - couldn't convince them to even read the error page). While some IE users said the website is not secure and couldn't figure out how to get it to work. Worst was, I had given them a direct link to a executable that would install the certs etc. correctly and they couldn't get to doing that (I don't understand how they installed Firefox or their instant messengers if they can't do that).
Gee, I have written applications for 30 years without those APIs and I haven't found "wrap open() and close() and remove everything in your temporary directory when you start up" driving up the cost to create an application "insanely". ESPECIALLY when they've already written that code.
It's nothing about storing data in a temporary directory, those flags when set simultaneously actually keep a file(s) in RAM like tmpfs or just partial parts of the file unless there isn't enough RAM to keep there. Replicating the logic to determine whether to keep the data in memory, what part of the data, determining memory usage of other applications and intercepting calls to free memory before the other applications actually use it etc.
Sorry, that's a lot more difficult to do than a few simple open(), close(), read(), write() functions alone.
I host near a few hundred websites on one of my servers, it has one IP address. A HTTPS cert does not support virtualhosts, not to mention, each subdomain/domain used requires a new cert that costs money, to work without popping up errors that scares users away.
If you resolve these problems, I'll gladly make HTTPS an option.
I've seen people say things like this, but I've never seen a breakdown of the missing features or APIs in Windows 2000 that MAKE support cost so much.
I have. One example is the lack of the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY and FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE attributes not existing on older Windows versions (pre WinXP SP2), driving up the cost to create a high performance application insanely to reimplement all that logic.
Tens of thousands of old and working computers head to the e-waste dumps in China and Africa every time Firefox dumps an old platform of Linux, Mac or Windows.
Is the fact that it is so damn noisy. The fan is bad enough but the fact I will be watching a video from my computer and the drive is spinning. WTF is that for?
Hey, it is supposed to 'support' windows 95 in the sense that they say it will probably run on it, it is not supposed to really "work" on it, ouch?
Then why don't they just state that instead of saying the minimum requirements is Windows 95?
To be honest, I am not ever going to understand people that a) Want to keep their old computers while b) Want to run windows on them. They are already getting all the apps incompatible with their windows versions.
In my case, there is some good amateur radio software out there that won't run on any Windows higher than Win98. There is also some games that don't run on NT based Windows at all.
There are modern Linux distros out there that will run on their old computers, much faster than windows 95, and accept it, they are really much better than windows 95 (Yes, we are talking about 14 years of a gap here)...
To be perfectly honest, I've not found a modern graphical (xserver) Linux distro for older PCs that performed better than Windows 95, on older hardware, feel free to point me to one though.
But ok, since that's what you want, stick to your proprietary 14 years old OS and run your proprietary browser that allegedly runs in it (They probably just bother compiling it and do no tests whatsoever (who would really spend that much on 14 years old tech?) ) and be "happy"...
In all honesty, I was replying to the great grand parent who claimed Opera would run on Windows 95 without an issue and I accept the fact that Firefox doesn't officially support Windows 95 or most browsrs these days (although I actually got Firefox to run with a few tricks).
But they require phoning home and take up far more resources.
My copies don't require phoning home. As for taking up more resources, to do the equivalent of what I do in them, it would probably take up even more resources in Win2k.
Both Win2k and XP are in "extended support" mode, according to MS. I'm not quite sure how MS can justify this for an OS that is still being sold by MS.
MS only stopped selling Windows 1.1 last year, what's your point, exactly?
Firefox 3.x doesn't run on OS X below version 10.4
Having developed on OS X and been a user, I have found sometimes great difficulty getting some binaries for older versions of OS X to even operate on 10.4 properly. I don't believe Mozilla corp is to blame for this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall when I last used Windows Defender, it actually has VNC listed for those reasons.
I doubt these people have a checklist of "evil" they can do.
It's likely the creator has no major spam operation thing, and was just interested in having a botnet for launching DDoS attacks.
XP should show a action prompt, many people choose autorun (default selected item) and tick 'always do this action' check box.
BTW, I am very doubtful that there is a large amount of people getting infected by autorun, which only works on optical disc media, on Seven they removed the 'always' check box action.
Is it sad that I find myself almost completely incapable of doing anything in any Photoshop version while I can design pretty websites, software cases in the GIMP?
tinyurl.com doesn't resolve for me.
There, fixed that for you.
Everything worked for me with no tweaking. Drivers, X, wireless, everything!
This would imply that the Mac has some kind of superiority over Windows (since the Porsche has some unique features over other less expensive cars), but I don't see anything OS X can do that Windows can't.
Even in Apple's own territory, like graphics, Windows out-does OS X since applications like Photoshop are only available in 32bit on OS X while on Windows, there is the possibility to use a 64bit version, making work really well with very large images (due to being able to address more than 3.8GB of RAM). I simply cannot think of any applications where there is no equivalent or better. Sure, there are UI differences, but I don't see it being a significant difference where it's a comparison between, lower range car that has a cooling fan system verses the air conditioning systems in a Porsche.
Hardware wise, there is no significant difference from what I've seen in life span, durability between the brands, all the brands have made crappy hardware and good hardware and Apple is no exception.
In summary, I don't agree with your statement that a Mac is a equivalent to a Porsche in the car industry.
Unfortunately Exchange is pretty bad at doing that. I remember having to deal with stupid timezone issues with the devices and the exchange server. They had appointments wrong and many other things - a lot easier just having a webbased calendar system that supports ics import/export - since most software has support for that (including addons for Microsoft Outlook).
I didn't know that had been implemented in HTTPS yet, that's awesome.
No, that is not a option. I already can't get half the people to login on a HTTPS site because it's self signed and adding the certificate is just as easy as running a downloadable executable. I ended up moving it to regular HTTP to escape the stupidity of people telling me "Firefox says the page is not found" (in reality, firefox gave them an error page, and they 'saw' it a page not found message - couldn't convince them to even read the error page). While some IE users said the website is not secure and couldn't figure out how to get it to work. Worst was, I had given them a direct link to a executable that would install the certs etc. correctly and they couldn't get to doing that (I don't understand how they installed Firefox or their instant messengers if they can't do that).
It's nothing about storing data in a temporary directory, those flags when set simultaneously actually keep a file(s) in RAM like tmpfs or just partial parts of the file unless there isn't enough RAM to keep there. Replicating the logic to determine whether to keep the data in memory, what part of the data, determining memory usage of other applications and intercepting calls to free memory before the other applications actually use it etc.
Sorry, that's a lot more difficult to do than a few simple open(), close(), read(), write() functions alone.
I host near a few hundred websites on one of my servers, it has one IP address. A HTTPS cert does not support virtualhosts, not to mention, each subdomain/domain used requires a new cert that costs money, to work without popping up errors that scares users away.
If you resolve these problems, I'll gladly make HTTPS an option.
I have. One example is the lack of the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY and FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE attributes not existing on older Windows versions (pre WinXP SP2), driving up the cost to create a high performance application insanely to reimplement all that logic.
Good, this will help the economy.
There is a paradox in asking a masked man who he is.
However, if you want some pictures of masked protesters, here you go.
I have 31 gamer friends:
31 have PCs (4 have more than one gaming PC too)
6 have 360s
14 have a Wii
2 have a PS3
It's to give you the xbox experience.
Useless? Not at all, pointing out a logical fallacy.
Then why don't they just state that instead of saying the minimum requirements is Windows 95?
In my case, there is some good amateur radio software out there that won't run on any Windows higher than Win98. There is also some games that don't run on NT based Windows at all.
To be perfectly honest, I've not found a modern graphical (xserver) Linux distro for older PCs that performed better than Windows 95, on older hardware, feel free to point me to one though.
In all honesty, I was replying to the great grand parent who claimed Opera would run on Windows 95 without an issue and I accept the fact that Firefox doesn't officially support Windows 95 or most browsrs these days (although I actually got Firefox to run with a few tricks).
My copies don't require phoning home. As for taking up more resources, to do the equivalent of what I do in them, it would probably take up even more resources in Win2k.
Oh you don't need Firefox? No problem then. Why are you posting then?
Fixed that for you.
MS only stopped selling Windows 1.1 last year, what's your point, exactly?
And then there is Microsoft's market share statistics...
http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Competitor_than_Apple
Having developed on OS X and been a user, I have found sometimes great difficulty getting some binaries for older versions of OS X to even operate on 10.4 properly. I don't believe Mozilla corp is to blame for this one.