Dude, we're talking once or twice a year in an environment where the PST was stored on a server, not the desktop, and the network barely held together.
To say that the PST performed well in *that* environment was a feat!
Any database needs to be "recovered" from time to time because of issues beyond its control.
Please educate me by sharing a time when an application would need to modify a PST file, when the user doesn't already have Outlook on the machine.
In other words, why *wouldn't* the user have Outlook installed if he is running some kind of PST-modifying program?
And don't say "because he's migrating away from Outlook" because there are utilities that will migrate emails and other objects from a PST file without having Outlook installed.
On the contrary, having Outlook accessible via VBA allows programmers to do some great things by tying in Access and Excel to Outlook.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. What you may not understand is that the PST file is a massive database, and all of the emails, contacts, appointments, inside it are records. Exchange is the same way.
I think the PST database file is a fantastic concept. I've used Outlook and the PST file for slightly more than a decade now, through five versions of Outlook. I've moved it around through multiple workstations, sometimes bringing it onto my laptop for just a week, sometimes sharing it between two computers peusdo-simultaneously, and never had issues. Despite the occasional computer crash, the PST has always been rock-solid for me and never became corrupted.
And I can also say the same for everyone I've ever seen using Outlook in a personal and business environment. At word, Outlook 2000 needed to run the Inbox Cleanup Tool every now and then if there was a bad write, but it always recovered perfectly.
I can think of a reason why your idea of having two-three dozen files (which represent inbox folders) would be better than the one PST file that exists today. Not to mention that the simple act of moving an email from one "file" to another "file" using your concept would take much longer than Outlook's method of simply changing a single field in a record, especially if that email contained a large attachment.
Your complaint seems to be more about the filetype being proprietary than anything else. If you do a little bit of homework, you'll find that the data inside the database is actually quite accessible to developers. Just look at the slew of Outlook plug-ins that exist. You can even tie directly into it via VBA. Microsoft Access lets you connect via a wizard!
No thank you. Keeping everything in one file, albiet sometimes a very large one, has made it VERY easy for me to support Outlook for my clients, even over the phone, and yes this sentence is running on, way too much.
Users tend to create a lot of sub-folders, and folders in sub-folders. While moving things around is usually as simple as drag-and-drop, having all of them stored in one file is great.
I think the warning box that pops up (and blacks out the rest of your desktop) is pretty damn scary to most users and will make them think twice about pressing OK. (Or rather, supplying their password and pressing OK, assuming they are running on default configuration and not a system admin.)
I also think this is the best alternative to just not letting a normal user run a program at all. We have to find a happy medium between security and convinience, and I think this is it.
At which point I would expect the user to go "hmm, this isn't right" and then attempt a virus scan or to stop visiting the website that keeps prompting them.
The UAC is not a magic bullet, but it is a far better solution than anything we have today. Do you have a better idea? Don't let these programs run at all?
So basically Symantec is saying:
1) Sneak in a file with a virus payload
2) Execute that file, triggering the UAC
3) User blindly clicks "OK"
Of course, the point of UAC is to prompt the user when something is trying to run that requires admin privledges. Users know that when they see this box randomly pop up that something unusual is happening.
Unless they just said to install some software or tried to change a setting themselves, seeing this pop up when they visit MySpace or something shouldn't be a problem.
UAC is meant to provide users with an alert saying "something bad may be happening, stop it?" It's not meant to completely lock down your computer to the point where you have to log off and back on as an admin to do anything.
Can we really expect Microsoft's advertising division to have anything to do with their OS Security division?
While a company did get through the cracks here, this is not a "security violation" that we typically ream Microsoft for.
Keep in mind that I can just as easily go to Google and search for "remove spyware" and be served Sponsored Links that will proport to remove my spyware for me, while actually installing more. Why aren't we bashing Google for this?
More like, "Microsoft appologizes because a spyware company bought advertising from them, violating their policy, and the ad was shown to people in Messenger until it was reported and removed.".
warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (11) in/home2/haiku/webapps/website/gallery2/lib/adodb/dr ivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 348. Warning: mysql Cannot connect to server No pictures to see
Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical too. I think the mechanics of having an entire OS and a user's documents on a removable media poses a lot of problems... but I'm trying to think of ways that this could work. I'd like to see people have more choice in OS, especially when they visit computers that aren't theirs (ie: Net Cafes).
The next version of Windows, according to Microsoft, will have the ability to store your profile and documents onto removable media so that if you are sitting at a workstation with this new OS, you can have everything with you. Of course, that could give rise to all new issues.
It's still very interesting and exciting, though. Especially considering that 5 years ago no one could carry around a 4 GB "disk" in their pocket.
All good points, but nothing that the OSS community can't solve, right?
For starters, the OS shouldn't let you delete files that are critical to the OS itself. I believe most OSes have that functionality built in -- or should.
And I imagine that the IT department could have some kind of centralized file server that syncronizes their server with the student's stick whenever it's plugged in.
I'm not saying it's a perfect idea, but I think it's a big step forward than what this article talks about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the point here be to boot fromthe USB to run the OS that is pre-loaded on the stick?
If it's just OSS apps, and you're still requiring Windows OS, then it's not that revolutionary. Why would the user bother with te USB stick if the computer is already booted into Windows and has popular apps loaded?
Not to mention I would suspect that most Net Cafes would prevent booting from a USB device because they want you to run the special "cafe" software they usually have that prompts for your credit card, tracks your time, etc.
Now, if an entire university had a bunch of computer labs with absolutely no pre-installed OS, and gave all their students these USB sticks (with an OS to boot from), then that might be something.
When they discover that 95% or more of them can do everything they need under Linux with an out-of-the-box configuration, they're more likely to consider Linux If that were true, wouldn't they have just chosen Linux/OSS to start with and avoid the possibility of being caught?
... except that businesses with 1 license of Windows running on 250 machines is hardly a "customer" of Microsoft's.
If Microsoft upsets these people into turning to OSS, then there's no lost revenue. They still get the revenue earned from the violation fine. And if the company decides to stick with Microsoft then that's a bonus.
Not to mention it adds value to all of the legitimate businesses out there who paid for their licenses. It removes the "well if they can do it, why can't we?" excuse.
Of course today's internet won't work with this vision... but think that just five years ago the entire concept of YouTube wouldn't have worked because no one could download video in a semi-reliable fashion, let alone upload it, produce it on their sub-$1000 PC, or find an audience who would care.
We have that now. Imagine what we'll have in five years when broadband becomes 5x faster, more reliable, less expensive, etc etc.
I guess I didn't explain my "prediction" very well.
I still think people will continue to sit in front of the TV, via couch, and drink their beer and vege, and fall asleep, etc.
What's going to change is that the content we watch while we do that is going to come from agents, buddy recommendations, and very specialized channels. If you have TiVo you might know where this is going. Now I can crash on my couch and watch TiVo Suggestions rather than whatever is on. That's just the beginning.
I feel that the teenagers and young adults that exist now, and certainly the children who will soon become young adults, have a different outlook because they've been "raised" on the internet.
They know that with a flick of a button they can change to a million other songs, or visit a million other videos on YouTube, and I bet they're frustrated that they only get 1000 channels on their satellite TV.
Of course, having a million stations is pointless if you don't have a friendly way to search for video, find out what your friends are watching, or have an agent recommend shows to you based on your past viewings. I think that's what the internet is going to offer traditional TV in the next couple of years.
So let me get this straight... Microsoft says they're going to release some patches to an operating system in about 5 or 6 months.
And what's wrong with that?
Would the community rather Microsoft not release any patches at all? Or not start working on them this early? Do you really think Microsoft is just going to give everyone a two-year vacation now that Vista has shipped? How responsible would that be?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, we're talking once or twice a year in an environment where the PST was stored on a server, not the desktop, and the network barely held together.
To say that the PST performed well in *that* environment was a feat!
Any database needs to be "recovered" from time to time because of issues beyond its control.
I don't know. But here's an email app on SourceForge written in Java that claims it can import from PST files.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dmailer
I'm sure code can be swiped somehow.
Please educate me by sharing a time when an application would need to modify a PST file, when the user doesn't already have Outlook on the machine.
In other words, why *wouldn't* the user have Outlook installed if he is running some kind of PST-modifying program?
And don't say "because he's migrating away from Outlook" because there are utilities that will migrate emails and other objects from a PST file without having Outlook installed.
On the contrary, having Outlook accessible via VBA allows programmers to do some great things by tying in Access and Excel to Outlook.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. What you may not understand is that the PST file is a massive database, and all of the emails, contacts, appointments, inside it are records. Exchange is the same way.
I think the PST database file is a fantastic concept. I've used Outlook and the PST file for slightly more than a decade now, through five versions of Outlook. I've moved it around through multiple workstations, sometimes bringing it onto my laptop for just a week, sometimes sharing it between two computers peusdo-simultaneously, and never had issues. Despite the occasional computer crash, the PST has always been rock-solid for me and never became corrupted.
And I can also say the same for everyone I've ever seen using Outlook in a personal and business environment. At word, Outlook 2000 needed to run the Inbox Cleanup Tool every now and then if there was a bad write, but it always recovered perfectly.
I can think of a reason why your idea of having two-three dozen files (which represent inbox folders) would be better than the one PST file that exists today. Not to mention that the simple act of moving an email from one "file" to another "file" using your concept would take much longer than Outlook's method of simply changing a single field in a record, especially if that email contained a large attachment.
Your complaint seems to be more about the filetype being proprietary than anything else. If you do a little bit of homework, you'll find that the data inside the database is actually quite accessible to developers. Just look at the slew of Outlook plug-ins that exist. You can even tie directly into it via VBA. Microsoft Access lets you connect via a wizard!
No thank you. Keeping everything in one file, albiet sometimes a very large one, has made it VERY easy for me to support Outlook for my clients, even over the phone, and yes this sentence is running on, way too much.
Users tend to create a lot of sub-folders, and folders in sub-folders. While moving things around is usually as simple as drag-and-drop, having all of them stored in one file is great.
Microsoft and it's distributors do not force anyone to buy Software Assurance.
If this client bought SA, they did so because they expected to upgrade to Vista/2007 in the future.
I think the warning box that pops up (and blacks out the rest of your desktop) is pretty damn scary to most users and will make them think twice about pressing OK. (Or rather, supplying their password and pressing OK, assuming they are running on default configuration and not a system admin.)
I also think this is the best alternative to just not letting a normal user run a program at all. We have to find a happy medium between security and convinience, and I think this is it.
At which point I would expect the user to go "hmm, this isn't right" and then attempt a virus scan or to stop visiting the website that keeps prompting them.
The UAC is not a magic bullet, but it is a far better solution than anything we have today. Do you have a better idea? Don't let these programs run at all?
So basically Symantec is saying:
1) Sneak in a file with a virus payload
2) Execute that file, triggering the UAC
3) User blindly clicks "OK"
Of course, the point of UAC is to prompt the user when something is trying to run that requires admin privledges. Users know that when they see this box randomly pop up that something unusual is happening.
Unless they just said to install some software or tried to change a setting themselves, seeing this pop up when they visit MySpace or something shouldn't be a problem.
UAC is meant to provide users with an alert saying "something bad may be happening, stop it?" It's not meant to completely lock down your computer to the point where you have to log off and back on as an admin to do anything.
Can these robots assemble themselves into a webserver mirror so that we can read the article, please?
Can we really expect Microsoft's advertising division to have anything to do with their OS Security division?
While a company did get through the cracks here, this is not a "security violation" that we typically ream Microsoft for.
Keep in mind that I can just as easily go to Google and search for "remove spyware" and be served Sponsored Links that will proport to remove my spyware for me, while actually installing more. Why aren't we bashing Google for this?
More like, "Microsoft appologizes because a spyware company bought advertising from them, violating their policy, and the ad was shown to people in Messenger until it was reported and removed.".
Cannot connect to server
No pictures to see
Typical Slashdot
Mention haikus and you all
Become smartasses
Only if they're still wrapped in their original TCP/IP packet.
What does this patent, which is actually a clever way to get subsidized computers into underprivledged areas, have to do with schools?
The patent only mentions "school" once, in the context that it can be used "at a business or school".
So if a location opts to install ad-funded computers, then what's so wrong with that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical too. I think the mechanics of having an entire OS and a user's documents on a removable media poses a lot of problems... but I'm trying to think of ways that this could work. I'd like to see people have more choice in OS, especially when they visit computers that aren't theirs (ie: Net Cafes).
The next version of Windows, according to Microsoft, will have the ability to store your profile and documents onto removable media so that if you are sitting at a workstation with this new OS, you can have everything with you. Of course, that could give rise to all new issues.
It's still very interesting and exciting, though. Especially considering that 5 years ago no one could carry around a 4 GB "disk" in their pocket.
All good points, but nothing that the OSS community can't solve, right?
For starters, the OS shouldn't let you delete files that are critical to the OS itself. I believe most OSes have that functionality built in -- or should.
And I imagine that the IT department could have some kind of centralized file server that syncronizes their server with the student's stick whenever it's plugged in.
I'm not saying it's a perfect idea, but I think it's a big step forward than what this article talks about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the point here be to boot fromthe USB to run the OS that is pre-loaded on the stick?
If it's just OSS apps, and you're still requiring Windows OS, then it's not that revolutionary. Why would the user bother with te USB stick if the computer is already booted into Windows and has popular apps loaded?
Not to mention I would suspect that most Net Cafes would prevent booting from a USB device because they want you to run the special "cafe" software they usually have that prompts for your credit card, tracks your time, etc.
Now, if an entire university had a bunch of computer labs with absolutely no pre-installed OS, and gave all their students these USB sticks (with an OS to boot from), then that might be something.
... except that businesses with 1 license of Windows running on 250 machines is hardly a "customer" of Microsoft's.
If Microsoft upsets these people into turning to OSS, then there's no lost revenue. They still get the revenue earned from the violation fine. And if the company decides to stick with Microsoft then that's a bonus.
Not to mention it adds value to all of the legitimate businesses out there who paid for their licenses. It removes the "well if they can do it, why can't we?" excuse.
Of course today's internet won't work with this vision... but think that just five years ago the entire concept of YouTube wouldn't have worked because no one could download video in a semi-reliable fashion, let alone upload it, produce it on their sub-$1000 PC, or find an audience who would care.
We have that now. Imagine what we'll have in five years when broadband becomes 5x faster, more reliable, less expensive, etc etc.
I guess I didn't explain my "prediction" very well.
I still think people will continue to sit in front of the TV, via couch, and drink their beer and vege, and fall asleep, etc.
What's going to change is that the content we watch while we do that is going to come from agents, buddy recommendations, and very specialized channels. If you have TiVo you might know where this is going. Now I can crash on my couch and watch TiVo Suggestions rather than whatever is on. That's just the beginning.
Not so with the next generation.
I feel that the teenagers and young adults that exist now, and certainly the children who will soon become young adults, have a different outlook because they've been "raised" on the internet.
They know that with a flick of a button they can change to a million other songs, or visit a million other videos on YouTube, and I bet they're frustrated that they only get 1000 channels on their satellite TV.
Of course, having a million stations is pointless if you don't have a friendly way to search for video, find out what your friends are watching, or have an agent recommend shows to you based on your past viewings. I think that's what the internet is going to offer traditional TV in the next couple of years.
So let me get this straight... Microsoft says they're going to release some patches to an operating system in about 5 or 6 months.
And what's wrong with that?
Would the community rather Microsoft not release any patches at all? Or not start working on them this early? Do you really think Microsoft is just going to give everyone a two-year vacation now that Vista has shipped? How responsible would that be?
Typical Slashdot response though.