Individuals simply cannot point out the obvious flaws in what passes for National Security. While we as individuals are supposed to have some kind of freedom in this way, we don't.
Now, lets get to the reasons why this was the dumbest thing to do.
1. It puts egg of the face of every big federal contractor muscling their way into the "homeland security" budget.
2. We're at war with an enemy and tactical end that won't ever be defined. To maintain that heightened state of fear and social control, this individual must be criminalized. (he's helping the terrists after all.)
3. No contractor has a product ready to replace it. It will be a tough day for the contractors that have to explain this to gov't types.
4. It fires off a "something must be done" storm, that no politician really wants. They've got too much fund raising to do.
5. Whistle blowing is contrary to the nation-state's goals. An individual this smart and not working for the State must be criminalized in order to maintain the heightened state of fear and sustain a compliant population.
Never, and I mean never, should an individual take it upon themselves to publish this kind of information.
Except if you want to be known as "notorious" and probably a felon in prison for a couple of administrations at least.
Hmmm. How about every single OS and systems improvement over the past 5-10 years? Ten years have passed and I still need antivirus, anti-malware and clean out activex nasties from the default browser. Dog forbid I give a Windows OS a public IP address. It's a fembot in mere minutes.
In all fairness, in ten years, what -has- changed is the OS doesn't need the regular rebooting.
"There is only money to lose if they actually had a legitimate security model built-in from the kernel upward." The revenue lost by marketing an OS with an improved security design can easily be quantified. A conservative estimate may be about half of Symantec's market capitalization which stands at USD $10 billion and estimate 2 billion in annual revenue.
There is a disincentive for Microsoft to actually address the issue or provide an API for other developers to profit.
Well, there is quite a bit of successful competition in the space they supposedly have a monopoly in. You mean another OS with a miniscule and relatively unchanged market share in over a decade is "competition?" When the consumer's wallet opens, the money (and much more than a competitive OS market would demand) goes to Microsoft. You are pretending there is competition.
It's obvious I have a strong opinion on the matter and I appreciate your response because it's reasonable, asks good questions and generates discussion. Keep up the good work citizen!
I'm not sure why it is you want to believe that Microsoft will "fix" anything.
They haven't and they won't. Ever.
There is only money to lose if they actually had a legitimate security model built-in from the kernel upward.
Furthermore, signed drivers is not an enhanced security model.
Like every monopoly ever studied, they are destroying wealth (long and boring explanation), putting out an inferior product and making you pay extra for it.
I am asking the following question honestly.
Why do you believe after 95/ME/XP "security" they will do anything to improve when there's absolutely no evidence to support this belief?
I think it's reasonable to assume MS will expoit their monopoly, but do so in a circuitous fashion.
It will probably be a campaign of fear and terror about "threats on the Internet" placed either through direct advertisements or successfully placing stories in the media about terrible things that happen to computer users if they aren't "protected."
This is a common strategy used on a national scale already. It works. It will work for MS too.
1. Stealing information from card holders one-at-a-time with a soon to be illegal device? 2. Card holder data at rest by the thousands in some DB somwhere?
Where is the liability in each instance?
There's no incentive for the banks to do this any differently.
As a sysadmin supporting the usual symantec products, reverently is never a term I would use to speak of their products.
Second, Symantec and others are doomed partially because of their products.
Finally, they are doomed anyway because it fulfills so many objectives at Microsoft. The potential for revenue is too great to turn away and the only path to desktop revenue growth for the OS is to tighten the DRM noose until it is the equivalent of your cable/satellite set top box. Any other path is too risky/difficult.
PIV is a NIST standard. Not set in stone, but they are pretty far along.
Contactless was out because they wanted to use proper PKI. Cryptographic functions over contactless card is too slow.
The Government Printing Office was supposed to subcontract the entire print/perso process to be run in one of their facilities.
I wonder who's software they are using? Anyone have any info?
Bearing Point "handles" the CAC card. I would be very interested to see how much of the whole project was awarded their contracts without any bid process whatsoever. Mind you, Bearing Point doesn't -do- anything. The actual work is subcontracted out.
I can't believe so few people understand this simple fact.
In 2006, there is practically no proprietary hardware between Dell or Apple.
Both Dell and Apple do the following: 1. Design cases 2. Buy OEM'd parts to put in those cases. 3. Put the hardware and software bits together and test, test, test. 4. Have the finished kit assembled in China. 4. Market/Sell the product.
It's easy to see Apple puts more effort into some of those areas and are thus demanding a higher price.
Other than that, I can't believe anyone thinks Dell is so different than Apple. Different products, yes. Very similar product development processes.
FTFA: Microsoft said it was relinquishing all license claims on its Virtual Hard Disk Image Format - new software that will allow computers running on rival products like Apple's OS X or Linux, its chief competitors in operating systems, to simultaneously run Windows.
They aren't giving anything away. In fact, they are going the other way allowing you to run other OS's. It will come as no surprise that it will be very easy to migrate to the MS crack pipe. But won't be able to go any other way.
Matusow said the decision was part of a Microsoft initiative begun in June to make more software available through so-called open source licenses, which enables independent designers to incorporate Microsoft products in their own software that they can then distribute for free.
This is a very good effor to subvert the term "Open Source" into something more business friendly for Microsoft. It appears as the submitter was correctly confused. Score one for Microsoft.
Yes, cripple your country! Better to maintain strict control over a nation in poverty than be in charge of a prosperous one!
1. They are simply attempting to control their citizenry. It's done everywhere in the world. I would argue their solution is more obvious than the more complicated, but no less influential methods used in Western countries like the U.S.
2. Declaring this is the fast path to poverty is a little too careless. It doesn't mean they can't use computers/networks to run the country more efficiently. I'm not keeping track of trade restrictions to Iran, but I'd be interested to hear if you can sell big-time networking/computing infrastructure technology to Iran these days.
It's very easy to make these kinds of assertions without reflecting on the controls in our own countries. Consider this an opportunity to objectively examine the way your government controls it's populace through media access control.
MS and their legions of developers won't do anything differently.
Apologies to all MSDev's out there that -want- to design and implement more security. It is tough when requirements/management/resource restraints prevent it. I've seen it first hand.
FTFA: "The document outlines recommendations for software developers that will help them protect customer privacy"
Bolded emphasis mine. MS and their legions of developers won't do anything differently.
"Discussion." Indeed. This is MS working their coordinated PR effort to make them seem serious about "security." Talk all you want, no one is listening.
Keep in mind, I have to babysit these things for a living. So I am quite happy they don't actually address the issue directly because there will be no shortage of work.
Yes, I have children, and cooking with one hand was the order of the day while she was young.
How about giving the kid a cabinet down-low that she/he can reach put banging/clanging pots/pans/things in there and let her/him go at it while you cook?
Kid screaming? Well, why is that? She/he is telling you something. (like hunger) Distraction only makes the problem worse. As a parent -you- are supposed to be allowing the kid to let that out and emotionally contain him/her while it's happening. This builds up the capacity for the child to contain/process his/her own emotions. TV does not do that.
Speaking as a parent, there are a million ways around the problem for most parents. TV is the laziest.
Caveat: I am definitely a flawed person, so I do some wrong things as a parent too. Letting my kid watch a meaningful amount of television per week is not one of them.
Does anybody really think that the rates of autism really doubled in this time period. Isn't it far more likely that the rate of diagnosis simply went up. What would cause parents to become aware of this unusual condition called autism? Maybe they saw a segment about it on TV?
1. Something is WRONG with your child when they are autistic. You know there is because she/he doesn't act normally. A minimally responsible parent figures out what it is.
3. "retarded" is not a medical condition. That is the social term for a host of developmental problems.
people watch more TV when it's rainy out This is the West. It doesn't rain much... There's no excuse for watching more TV other than babysitting your child for you. I'll go further than that and say there is no reason for children to watch television until at least 5. But this means parents have to raise their children. So it's an unpopular opinion.
Please consider your opinions in this matter as poorly constructed as the science you claim is flawed.
With the "building their own linux kernel" business.
If they need to do that, they might. But I don't see anyone in the business world going above and beyond the minimun necessary to sell something.
Twist up their own Debian-based distro and make it sales/support policy to support only theirs, at a fee they feel the market is willing to buy at. Intentionally avoid testing or supporting any other distro and you've got something that's as good as a proprietary OS. Sure, source/patches may be available, but they aren't going to go to any effort to make them workable outside their version. Nor are they obligated to explain to anyone how to compile the whole thing.
I believe an oracle customer would consider making the switch simply because oracle will support it. It will have a gui that MSCE's can learn to use. And oracle has a shiny new certificate to sell too! I don't think the OS being Linux has anything to do with it.
Cloning is the fastest path to a monopoly on beef production. Put aside "frankencow" or other fear-based rhetoric for a moment.
Like ADM and Cargill in the corn production world, it's only a matter of time before whoever runs the largest beef production factory abuses what's left of smaller production factories.
What happens to the gene pool of cows once cloning starts? I predict you'll narrow it a great deal thereby creating another monoculture. It's easy to argue why monocultures are bad.
In the current political climate in the U.S., this will be welcomed.
More supply means lower prices. Lower prices means more business opportunities.
You mistakenly believe that the market for cattle operates efficiently. There is no reason to believe that the market for cattle would operate any differently than, say the market for desktop computer operating systems. It's exposed to the same amount of legislative influence, graft and corruption required to remain in a market that any other market for goods or services. Another example was the de-regulated power industry that California used for a while. Where was the greater supply of energy at lower prices promised?...which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.
Like most barriers to entry, they are legislated to address two needs: 1. Public perception that "something must be done!" This is why your food supply is one of the safest in the world. Do you want more e-coli in your food supply or less? 2. Protection from competition. This is why quickie-mart capitalism exists. It fulfills the rhetorical need to justify absurd policies.
I doubt there is any opportunity to look at the issue objectively because like most quickie-mart economic believers, it's a belief that has it's own self-satisfying logic to it. No amount of objective analysis of how a market actually works versus your imagined and largely academic concept of how it -should- work will change your postion.
Even if MS intentionally locked up API, naysayers who trumpet a lesser known antivirus/spyware vendor need to understand that they are of little interest to MS.
They go after the #1 money/volume producer in the category. This is the usual "big fish" strategy. Along the way, a bunch of smaller companies in the same category get eaten alive by the onslaught of lock-in and big-ticket marketing budgets. HP and Apple do the same thing.
Symantec has the most to lose in "security". Just as AdobeMedia has the most to lose in a different category.
DISCLAIMERS: 1. I didn't say symantec's products were good. They've got some real stinkers. 2. It's quite likely MS is intentionally locking the vendors out.
RANT: A secure OS addresses security issues by design, from the kernel up. (ex. Linux, BSD) MS "security" is an afterthought cobbled together to appear as if it's useful.
Regretfully, I think it will be years before many consumers get tired of the pop up's asking if their sure, or if they want to add this url to their list of okay url's. (IE on 2003 server does this for -every- URL and subdomain unless you turn it off. Now -that's- secure!?)
She's always afraid to ask me about this stuff because I tell her the truth.
1. You have no privacy. As a result, the average individual is one step away from character assasination whether they know it or not. It's been this way for decades now.
2. Whatever privileges you had before are being taken away. When I explained to her that a Tivo doesn't allow her to "keep" stuff like a VHS tape among a host of other limitations and intrusions. (It's hers to enjoy in her home right? Today. Probably. But tomorrow?) Not to mention the more frequent, "TIVO's great but I wish I could give you a copy to watch. It was great." we get from TIVO owners.
These days, "new" things are cheaper not because they are innovative, but because they are taking features and privileges away from you. It's okay though, because it's the "Free Market" in action. It's the Will Of The People.
My question back is how is that innovative? Is the politicians promise of lower cost and greater service/features being kept? Am I any safer? Is my kid any safer?
The summary lumps generic retailers (newegg) with PC retailers. They are completely different.
NewEgg is a straight retailer. Boxes come in the back door, priced and shipped out the front door. They don't even come in the front door anymore, they just ship them straight from the distributor in many situations.
PC retailers brand Other People's stuff. The Other People are mostly no-name (and some not-so-no-name) pc parts manufacturers. (think computex, & China) Their value is discriminating the good from the bad parts, getting a good price, put them all together and sell at a higher price. From there, they sell them through retailers like newegg.
Completely different businesses each with their own set of problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple as that. They get to capture revenue in the millions from many users easily.
Look at it like a noose. Right now, the noose is loose. 3-5 years, along with Vista's set-top-box OS, the noose will be much tighter.
Now is a great time to switch.
Individuals simply cannot point out the obvious flaws in what passes for National Security. While we as individuals are supposed to have some kind of freedom in this way, we don't.
Now, lets get to the reasons why this was the dumbest thing to do.
1. It puts egg of the face of every big federal contractor muscling their way into the "homeland security" budget.
2. We're at war with an enemy and tactical end that won't ever be defined. To maintain that heightened state of fear and social control, this individual must be criminalized. (he's helping the terrists after all.)
3. No contractor has a product ready to replace it. It will be a tough day for the contractors that have to explain this to gov't types.
4. It fires off a "something must be done" storm, that no politician really wants. They've got too much fund raising to do.
5. Whistle blowing is contrary to the nation-state's goals. An individual this smart and not working for the State must be criminalized in order to maintain the heightened state of fear and sustain a compliant population.
Never, and I mean never, should an individual take it upon themselves to publish this kind of information.
Except if you want to be known as "notorious" and probably a felon in prison for a couple of administrations at least.
Hmmm. How about every single OS and systems improvement over the past 5-10 years?
Ten years have passed and I still need antivirus, anti-malware and clean out activex nasties from the default browser. Dog forbid I give a Windows OS a public IP address. It's a fembot in mere minutes.
In all fairness, in ten years, what -has- changed is the OS doesn't need the regular rebooting.
"There is only money to lose if they actually had a legitimate security model built-in from the kernel upward."
The revenue lost by marketing an OS with an improved security design can easily be quantified. A conservative estimate may be about half of Symantec's market capitalization which stands at USD $10 billion and estimate 2 billion in annual revenue.
There is a disincentive for Microsoft to actually address the issue or provide an API for other developers to profit.
Well, there is quite a bit of successful competition in the space they supposedly have a monopoly in.
You mean another OS with a miniscule and relatively unchanged market share in over a decade is "competition?" When the consumer's wallet opens, the money (and much more than a competitive OS market would demand) goes to Microsoft. You are pretending there is competition.
How exactly are they 'making you pay extra for it'?
There's rent seeking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
There's coercive monopoly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly
There's monopoly profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_profit
Those are good starters.
It's obvious I have a strong opinion on the matter and I appreciate your response because it's reasonable, asks good questions and generates discussion. Keep up the good work citizen!
I'm not sure why it is you want to believe that Microsoft will "fix" anything.
They haven't and they won't. Ever.
There is only money to lose if they actually had a legitimate security model built-in from the kernel upward.
Furthermore, signed drivers is not an enhanced security model.
Like every monopoly ever studied, they are destroying wealth (long and boring explanation), putting out an inferior product and making you pay extra for it.
I am asking the following question honestly.
Why do you believe after 95/ME/XP "security" they will do anything to improve when there's absolutely no evidence to support this belief?
into desktop users and PHB's.
I think it's reasonable to assume MS will expoit their monopoly, but do so in a circuitous fashion.
It will probably be a campaign of fear and terror about "threats on the Internet" placed either through direct advertisements or successfully placing stories in the media about terrible things that happen to computer users if they aren't "protected."
This is a common strategy used on a national scale already. It works. It will work for MS too.
Where is the greater threat?
1. Stealing information from card holders one-at-a-time with a soon to be illegal device?
2. Card holder data at rest by the thousands in some DB somwhere?
Where is the liability in each instance?
There's no incentive for the banks to do this any differently.
As a sysadmin supporting the usual symantec products, reverently is never a term I would use to speak of their products.
Second, Symantec and others are doomed partially because of their products.
Finally, they are doomed anyway because it fulfills so many objectives at Microsoft. The potential for revenue is too great to turn away and the only path to desktop revenue growth for the OS is to tighten the DRM noose until it is the equivalent of your cable/satellite set top box. Any other path is too risky/difficult.
PIV is a NIST standard. Not set in stone, but they are pretty far along.
Contactless was out because they wanted to use proper PKI. Cryptographic functions over contactless card is too slow.
The Government Printing Office was supposed to subcontract the entire print/perso process to be run in one of their facilities.
I wonder who's software they are using? Anyone have any info?
Bearing Point "handles" the CAC card. I would be very interested to see how much of the whole project was awarded their contracts without any bid process whatsoever. Mind you, Bearing Point doesn't -do- anything. The actual work is subcontracted out.
As reported by the researcher on the blog, Microsoft's kernel protection scheme is wide open for some classes of malware.
s ta-rc2-vs-pagefile-attack-and-some.html
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2006/10/vi
I would argue that Internet abuse will happen, as much as it happens to alcohol/gambling/name-your-addiction.
I wonder why the same behaviors are rarely, if ever, studied for television viewing?
I can't believe so few people understand this simple fact.
In 2006, there is practically no proprietary hardware between Dell or Apple.
Both Dell and Apple do the following:
1. Design cases
2. Buy OEM'd parts to put in those cases.
3. Put the hardware and software bits together and test, test, test.
4. Have the finished kit assembled in China.
4. Market/Sell the product.
It's easy to see Apple puts more effort into some of those areas and are thus demanding a higher price.
Other than that, I can't believe anyone thinks Dell is so different than Apple. Different products, yes. Very similar product development processes.
FTFA:
Microsoft said it was relinquishing all license claims on its Virtual Hard Disk Image Format - new software that will allow computers running on rival products like Apple's OS X or Linux, its chief competitors in operating systems, to simultaneously run Windows.
They aren't giving anything away. In fact, they are going the other way allowing you to run other OS's. It will come as no surprise that it will be very easy to migrate to the MS crack pipe. But won't be able to go any other way.
Matusow said the decision was part of a Microsoft initiative begun in June to make more software available through so-called open source licenses, which enables independent designers to incorporate Microsoft products in their own software that they can then distribute for free.
This is a very good effor to subvert the term "Open Source" into something more business friendly for Microsoft. It appears as the submitter was correctly confused. Score one for Microsoft.
Yes, cripple your country! Better to maintain strict control over a nation in poverty than be in charge of a prosperous one!
1. They are simply attempting to control their citizenry. It's done everywhere in the world. I would argue their solution is more obvious than the more complicated, but no less influential methods used in Western countries like the U.S.
2. Declaring this is the fast path to poverty is a little too careless. It doesn't mean they can't use computers/networks to run the country more efficiently. I'm not keeping track of trade restrictions to Iran, but I'd be interested to hear if you can sell big-time networking/computing infrastructure technology to Iran these days.
It's very easy to make these kinds of assertions without reflecting on the controls in our own countries. Consider this an opportunity to objectively examine the way your government controls it's populace through media access control.
MS and their legions of developers won't do anything differently.
Apologies to all MSDev's out there that -want- to design and implement more security. It is tough when requirements/management/resource restraints prevent it. I've seen it first hand.
I typed too quickly.
FTFA: "The document outlines recommendations for software developers that will help them protect customer privacy"
Bolded emphasis mine. MS and their legions of developers won't do anything differently.
"Discussion." Indeed. This is MS working their coordinated PR effort to make them seem serious about "security." Talk all you want, no one is listening.
Keep in mind, I have to babysit these things for a living. So I am quite happy they don't actually address the issue directly because there will be no shortage of work.
Yes, I have children, and cooking with one hand was the order of the day while she was young.
How about giving the kid a cabinet down-low that she/he can reach put banging/clanging pots/pans/things in there and let her/him go at it while you cook?
Kid screaming?
Well, why is that? She/he is telling you something. (like hunger) Distraction only makes the problem worse. As a parent -you- are supposed to be allowing the kid to let that out and emotionally contain him/her while it's happening. This builds up the capacity for the child to contain/process his/her own emotions. TV does not do that.
Speaking as a parent, there are a million ways around the problem for most parents. TV is the laziest.
Caveat: I am definitely a flawed person, so I do some wrong things as a parent too. Letting my kid watch a meaningful amount of television per week is not one of them.
Does anybody really think that the rates of autism really doubled in this time period. Isn't it far more likely that the rate of diagnosis simply went up. What would cause parents to become aware of this unusual condition called autism? Maybe they saw a segment about it on TV?
1. Something is WRONG with your child when they are autistic. You know there is because she/he doesn't act normally. A minimally responsible parent figures out what it is.
2. The medical condition of autism is well-defined. It doesn't just visit the child like a common cold. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/autism.cfm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
3. "retarded" is not a medical condition. That is the social term for a host of developmental problems.
people watch more TV when it's rainy out
This is the West. It doesn't rain much... There's no excuse for watching more TV other than babysitting your child for you. I'll go further than that and say there is no reason for children to watch television until at least 5. But this means parents have to raise their children. So it's an unpopular opinion.
Please consider your opinions in this matter as poorly constructed as the science you claim is flawed.
With the "building their own linux kernel" business.
If they need to do that, they might. But I don't see anyone in the business world going above and beyond the minimun necessary to sell something.
Twist up their own Debian-based distro and make it sales/support policy to support only theirs, at a fee they feel the market is willing to buy at. Intentionally avoid testing or supporting any other distro and you've got something that's as good as a proprietary OS. Sure, source/patches may be available, but they aren't going to go to any effort to make them workable outside their version. Nor are they obligated to explain to anyone how to compile the whole thing.
I believe an oracle customer would consider making the switch simply because oracle will support it. It will have a gui that MSCE's can learn to use. And oracle has a shiny new certificate to sell too! I don't think the OS being Linux has anything to do with it.
Cloning is the fastest path to a monopoly on beef production. Put aside "frankencow" or other fear-based rhetoric for a moment.
Like ADM and Cargill in the corn production world, it's only a matter of time before whoever runs the largest beef production factory abuses what's left of smaller production factories.
What happens to the gene pool of cows once cloning starts? I predict you'll narrow it a great deal thereby creating another monoculture. It's easy to argue why monocultures are bad.
In the current political climate in the U.S., this will be welcomed.
One cow to rule them all....
More supply means lower prices. Lower prices means more business opportunities.
...which means a stronger economic outlook for those who can't afford the high barrier to entry created by the high cost to breed cattle.
You mistakenly believe that the market for cattle operates efficiently. There is no reason to believe that the market for cattle would operate any differently than, say the market for desktop computer operating systems. It's exposed to the same amount of legislative influence, graft and corruption required to remain in a market that any other market for goods or services. Another example was the de-regulated power industry that California used for a while. Where was the greater supply of energy at lower prices promised?
Like most barriers to entry, they are legislated to address two needs:
1. Public perception that "something must be done!"
This is why your food supply is one of the safest in the world. Do you want more e-coli in your food supply or less?
2. Protection from competition.
This is why quickie-mart capitalism exists. It fulfills the rhetorical need to justify absurd policies.
I doubt there is any opportunity to look at the issue objectively because like most quickie-mart economic believers, it's a belief that has it's own self-satisfying logic to it. No amount of objective analysis of how a market actually works versus your imagined and largely academic concept of how it -should- work will change your postion.
Even if MS intentionally locked up API, naysayers who trumpet a lesser known antivirus/spyware vendor need to understand that they are of little interest to MS.
They go after the #1 money/volume producer in the category. This is the usual "big fish" strategy. Along the way, a bunch of smaller companies in the same category get eaten alive by the onslaught of lock-in and big-ticket marketing budgets. HP and Apple do the same thing.
Symantec has the most to lose in "security". Just as AdobeMedia has the most to lose in a different category.
DISCLAIMERS:
1. I didn't say symantec's products were good. They've got some real stinkers.
2. It's quite likely MS is intentionally locking the vendors out.
RANT:
A secure OS addresses security issues by design, from the kernel up. (ex. Linux, BSD) MS "security" is an afterthought cobbled together to appear as if it's useful.
Regretfully, I think it will be years before many consumers get tired of the pop up's asking if their sure, or if they want to add this url to their list of okay url's. (IE on 2003 server does this for -every- URL and subdomain unless you turn it off. Now -that's- secure!?)
This one won't make it to the gold master.
Kind of like stealing from a Las Vegas casino. Won't happen.
Is a perfect example.
She's always afraid to ask me about this stuff because I tell her the truth.
1. You have no privacy. As a result, the average individual is one step away from character assasination whether they know it or not. It's been this way for decades now.
2. Whatever privileges you had before are being taken away. When I explained to her that a Tivo doesn't allow her to "keep" stuff like a VHS tape among a host of other limitations and intrusions. (It's hers to enjoy in her home right? Today. Probably. But tomorrow?) Not to mention the more frequent, "TIVO's great but I wish I could give you a copy to watch. It was great." we get from TIVO owners.
These days, "new" things are cheaper not because they are innovative, but because they are taking features and privileges away from you. It's okay though, because it's the "Free Market" in action. It's the Will Of The People.
My question back is how is that innovative? Is the politicians promise of lower cost and greater service/features being kept? Am I any safer? Is my kid any safer?
The summary lumps generic retailers (newegg) with PC retailers. They are completely different.
NewEgg is a straight retailer. Boxes come in the back door, priced and shipped out the front door. They don't even come in the front door anymore, they just ship them straight from the distributor in many situations.
PC retailers brand Other People's stuff. The Other People are mostly no-name (and some not-so-no-name) pc parts manufacturers. (think computex, & China) Their value is discriminating the good from the bad parts, getting a good price, put them all together and sell at a higher price. From there, they sell them through retailers like newegg.
Completely different businesses each with their own set of problems.
Mutt!