It's not required, it's optional. The thing that prevented these guys from doing the install was their partitioning, Vista requires a 100MB partition to installed needed bootloader stuff onto in order to boot from the encrypted partition. The key itself can be kept on a USB disk, no problem, no "fritz" chip.
This only means that it will have 100% critical bug fixes in it that must be pushed out now. They're not a seperate branch, unless you count a patch or two as a seperate branch. It's basically 2.6.x with a single, typically small patch,.y, and labeled as stable.
You have a good point, so let me re-phrase: BitLocker will only encrypt the partition it boots off of, if and only if it is formatted as NTFS. Other exceptions may, but probably won't, exist.
Okay, first off, the article headline is HORRIBLY misleading. BitLocker will NOT ENCRYPT THE ENTIRE DRIVE. It is required that you have a ~100MB partition in order to boot off of, which will then in turn load the needed software into RAM and *then and only then* decrypt the encrypted partition.
Read: This has nothing at all to do with dual booting. Your ability to dual boot will remain completly unchanged, period. This, however, is about your ability to share data between OSs, not your ability to boot two. Learn to write a article headline, please.
FAT32 is dead. Period, get over it, dead. No, I take that back, it still has one use: flash drives, and other forms of removable media. Other than that, IT IS DEAD. Why? Simple: security. From Windows 2000 and on, Microsoft actually put some degree of effort into security. "Some degree?" you ask? End result, due to NTFS, you can actually secure your system. Compared to FAT32 anyways, where a *guest* user can drop a virus as c:\explorer.exe, and then the next time Johnny Admin logs in, it's over. NTFS added actual security measures. ACLs. Execute bit. And, well, quite a bit more. Due to this, I can say the following without doubt that I'm right:
1) BitLocker will ONLY work with NTFS.
2) Vista will do everything they can short of threatening to eat your children to get you to install on NTFS. (Side note: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128 vs. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/libr ary/plan/5025760b-0433-4ba1-a2f4-9338915fdb4b.mspx - Beta1 won't install on FAT32, but according to offical MS docs, it will (eventually, most likely))
3) If you're still using FAT32 as your primary OS partition, you're an idiot.
4) Due to #4, if your defense is, "my [windows] OS can't run on NTFS!", my response is still the same. Go upgrade, you're not helping anyone.
FAT32 is nice for removable media. That's about it.
Okay, okay, okay, phew, let me start breathing again. *deep breath*.
A HAHAHAHAHA.
You, sir, WIN THE INTERNET. That is, without a doubt, the single most accurate statement EVER TO HAVE BEEN SEEN ON SLASHDOT. Not to mention the most well-phrased, and blunt. You, sir, are the winner of all things great. Why? Because you hit the nail square on the head.
Yeah, I know. Which is the one amazingly depressing thing about it. It has so much potential for good, and yet...:(
Personally, I can just hope that it's the ream of click-through wizards that configure the TPM, not the TPM coming pre-configured that way. It sounds like it could work for linux, but, alas, the DMCA... sigh.
I'm just keeping my fingers crossed, that someone, somewhere, will find a way to make it work for better purposes.
Third, the next logical stage of Trusted Computing is hardware locking: motherboards that won't load unsigned boot loaders, or won't access DVD drives or hard drives without being authenticated with Trusted Computing licenses to be held by OS distributions or DVD drive and software vendors. This can be used to block open source operating systems from even booting, or to prevent Trusted Computing managed DVD drives from being able to read DVD's that have Trusted Computing signed DVD's in them without a Trusted Computing signed media player.
Linked through the article, I read the bit on BitLocker, MS's drive-level encryption that has the option of being secured with Trusted Computing chips. I found the steps to activate this almost funny:
Step 1: Turn on the TPM
Click through a bunch of stuff and reboot
Step 2: Set ownership of the TPM
Create the TPM owner password
Odd.... looks to me like the user has access to the key on the TPM (Trusted Platform Module)... huh. Suddenly, motherboards that won't load the trojan'd bootloader that I didn't know of sounds really, really nice. What's that, some script kiddie replaced my kernel with a rootkit? Dare I say it, TPM to the rescue!
Yes, I enjoy my sarcasm. However, since the end-user has the ability to completly reset the TPM module, to set the key, the password, etc... I suddenly want to purchase a computer with TPM installed. Once (okay okay, if) linux + bootloaders can support it, and/or vice-versa, this suddenly became an incredibly useful tool for making sure that your computers boot what you want them to. No more rootkits on the kernel level, or bootloader level, or even MBR level. Period.
Just because it can be used for DRM, doesn't mean that is has to be used for DRM.
"Most of the problems you describe, such as the lack of integration with active directory"..."are microsoft's fault... All of this is done intentionally to make it difficult for you to use a different browser..."
I can promise you there's nothing in active directory specifically designed to prevent firefox from deploying nicely with Active Directory. There are three ways to make this happen, though:
1) Microsoft publishes a document and updates their OS; the group policy controls instead of saying "Internet Explorer" now read "Web Browser". Firefox then reads the registry (group policy) settings and obeys. Problem: people are coding FOR MS. Slashdot erupts, saying "not only do you want us to use IE, you want us to code our programs to work around your faults." 2) Mozilla goes out, adds in active directory group policy support itself. This includes a small addition to group policy, and additional changes in Firefox. (Read: MOZILLA IS 100% CAPABLE OF ADDING AD SUPPORT THEMSELVES, WITHOUT ASKING MICROSOFT TO FIX THEIR OS TO ALLOW IT AND/OR MAKING IT HARD ON THEM. Ahem, moving on...) 3) Some fun "run on user login" scripts to add the registry changes and prefs.js as needed. Is it group policy? No, but it's close enough.
Either way, MS isn't doing anything to prevent AD/Group Policy support for FireFox..
From what I know about Gentoo, as a whole, yes. I run KDE on a 2.4 with 512MB of RAM and have effectively 0 swapping happening (until I fire up a massive Java app, or do like 80 things at once). Gentoo's speed isn't the "-fmad-compile-optimize-h4x", it's just how the OS itself is built and configured by default. I'd say give it a shot. (Though, in all honesty, -O3 actually does help to an extent, but that's another topic.)
How to put this: while there may not be a default gentoo install that includes X, let's say this. Gentoo with all of the frills still boots faster and performs faster than any Fedore Core install period.
I'm not pulling that out of my butt, either, that's from experience. Having both FC and Gentoo installed on identical hardware... gentoo will boot to X far faster than FC can get to a terminal. I have yet to find a distro that matches gentoo in speed, and I'm not saying "pmfg -O3!!three!!11!".
That said, it is an enterprise software package, which makes a good portion of those who use gentoo just pop up and go "Oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........."
He'd be a perfect witness for a lawsuit against Sony concerning this software. In case you didn't notice from TFA, it took him all of a half-hour to rip through the entire software and see just what it does;)
This guy is without a doubt, one of the most knowledgable about the internals of ANY Microsoft OS. He (and his company) have written more top-notch, high grade software than any other company out there (for purposes of exploring just what is on your computer, remote administration, and "peeking under the hood").
On top of that, a majority of their tools are completly free, light, and do the job WELL.
They have tools made to defragment your registry hives, to actually execute a process as another user (don't mention "runas", their stuff takes it to another level), monitor the registry hives for changes, and this disturbingly well-done root kit revealer.
Sysinternals is god when it comes to actually looking at what is wrong with a MS OS, and there's no way around it.
The least you could do is spam quality. I'd guess that there's a reason you're here spamming it, and that is because it's just a bunch of clueless noobs saying "omg plz hlp me crack wpa"...
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.dhmo.org/
Doesn't get any better than that.
I had the same problem with QuickBooks: required admin.
9
Not so it turned out!
http://www.quickbooksgroup.com/webx?14@@.eeb323b/
Enjoy.
It's not required, it's optional. The thing that prevented these guys from doing the install was their partitioning, Vista requires a 100MB partition to installed needed bootloader stuff onto in order to boot from the encrypted partition. The key itself can be kept on a USB disk, no problem, no "fritz" chip.
You DO realize that CE is an operating system, while PXE is... wait wait, get this, a method of booting a device, nothing more?
Not quite.
.y, and labeled as stable.
Well, okay, not close.
The 2.6.x.y series is indeed called "stable".
This only means that it will have 100% critical bug fixes in it that must be pushed out now. They're not a seperate branch, unless you count a patch or two as a seperate branch. It's basically 2.6.x with a single, typically small patch,
You have a good point, so let me re-phrase: BitLocker will only encrypt the partition it boots off of, if and only if it is formatted as NTFS. Other exceptions may, but probably won't, exist.
From the end-user point of view. ;)
;).
Oh, wait, end users don't care. Huh, you got me. Good job
Okay, first off, the article headline is HORRIBLY misleading. BitLocker will NOT ENCRYPT THE ENTIRE DRIVE. It is required that you have a ~100MB partition in order to boot off of, which will then in turn load the needed software into RAM and *then and only then* decrypt the encrypted partition.
r ary/plan/5025760b-0433-4ba1-a2f4-9338915fdb4b.mspx - Beta1 won't install on FAT32, but according to offical MS docs, it will (eventually, most likely))
Read: This has nothing at all to do with dual booting. Your ability to dual boot will remain completly unchanged, period. This, however, is about your ability to share data between OSs, not your ability to boot two. Learn to write a article headline, please.
FAT32 is dead. Period, get over it, dead. No, I take that back, it still has one use: flash drives, and other forms of removable media. Other than that, IT IS DEAD. Why? Simple: security. From Windows 2000 and on, Microsoft actually put some degree of effort into security. "Some degree?" you ask? End result, due to NTFS, you can actually secure your system. Compared to FAT32 anyways, where a *guest* user can drop a virus as c:\explorer.exe, and then the next time Johnny Admin logs in, it's over. NTFS added actual security measures. ACLs. Execute bit. And, well, quite a bit more. Due to this, I can say the following without doubt that I'm right:
1) BitLocker will ONLY work with NTFS.
2) Vista will do everything they can short of threatening to eat your children to get you to install on NTFS. (Side note: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128 vs. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/lib
3) If you're still using FAT32 as your primary OS partition, you're an idiot.
4) Due to #4, if your defense is, "my [windows] OS can't run on NTFS!", my response is still the same. Go upgrade, you're not helping anyone.
FAT32 is nice for removable media. That's about it.
(</troll>)
You think this year is bad?
You ought to take a look at last years April Fools. (Note the page length, number of stores, and content, or lack thereof.)
We haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
Hey Taco, fix yourself! ;)
4 386596009004&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=11
A hahahahahaha....
Okay, okay, okay, phew, let me start breathing again. *deep breath*.
A HAHAHAHAHA.
You, sir, WIN THE INTERNET. That is, without a doubt, the single most accurate statement EVER TO HAVE BEEN SEEN ON SLASHDOT. Not to mention the most well-phrased, and blunt. You, sir, are the winner of all things great. Why? Because you hit the nail square on the head.
Yeah, I know. Which is the one amazingly depressing thing about it. It has so much potential for good, and yet... :(
Personally, I can just hope that it's the ream of click-through wizards that configure the TPM, not the TPM coming pre-configured that way. It sounds like it could work for linux, but, alas, the DMCA... sigh.
I'm just keeping my fingers crossed, that someone, somewhere, will find a way to make it work for better purposes.
Linked through the article, I read the bit on BitLocker, MS's drive-level encryption that has the option of being secured with Trusted Computing chips. I found the steps to activate this almost funny:
Step 1: Turn on the TPM
Step 2: Set ownership of the TPM
Odd.... looks to me like the user has access to the key on the TPM (Trusted Platform Module)... huh. Suddenly, motherboards that won't load the trojan'd bootloader that I didn't know of sounds really, really nice. What's that, some script kiddie replaced my kernel with a rootkit? Dare I say it, TPM to the rescue!
Yes, I enjoy my sarcasm. However, since the end-user has the ability to completly reset the TPM module, to set the key, the password, etc... I suddenly want to purchase a computer with TPM installed. Once (okay okay, if) linux + bootloaders can support it, and/or vice-versa, this suddenly became an incredibly useful tool for making sure that your computers boot what you want them to. No more rootkits on the kernel level, or bootloader level, or even MBR level. Period.
Just because it can be used for DRM, doesn't mean that is has to be used for DRM.
"Most of the problems you describe, such as the lack of integration with active directory"..."are microsoft's fault... All of this is done intentionally to make it difficult for you to use a different browser..."
I can promise you there's nothing in active directory specifically designed to prevent firefox from deploying nicely with Active Directory. There are three ways to make this happen, though:
1) Microsoft publishes a document and updates their OS; the group policy controls instead of saying "Internet Explorer" now read "Web Browser". Firefox then reads the registry (group policy) settings and obeys. Problem: people are coding FOR MS. Slashdot erupts, saying "not only do you want us to use IE, you want us to code our programs to work around your faults."
2) Mozilla goes out, adds in active directory group policy support itself. This includes a small addition to group policy, and additional changes in Firefox. (Read: MOZILLA IS 100% CAPABLE OF ADDING AD SUPPORT THEMSELVES, WITHOUT ASKING MICROSOFT TO FIX THEIR OS TO ALLOW IT AND/OR MAKING IT HARD ON THEM. Ahem, moving on...)
3) Some fun "run on user login" scripts to add the registry changes and prefs.js as needed. Is it group policy? No, but it's close enough.
Either way, MS isn't doing anything to prevent AD/Group Policy support for FireFox..
From what I know about Gentoo, as a whole, yes. I run KDE on a 2.4 with 512MB of RAM and have effectively 0 swapping happening (until I fire up a massive Java app, or do like 80 things at once). Gentoo's speed isn't the "-fmad-compile-optimize-h4x", it's just how the OS itself is built and configured by default. I'd say give it a shot. (Though, in all honesty, -O3 actually does help to an extent, but that's another topic.)
Yes.
BIG yes.
How to put this: while there may not be a default gentoo install that includes X, let's say this. Gentoo with all of the frills still boots faster and performs faster than any Fedore Core install period.
I'm not pulling that out of my butt, either, that's from experience. Having both FC and Gentoo installed on identical hardware... gentoo will boot to X far faster than FC can get to a terminal. I have yet to find a distro that matches gentoo in speed, and I'm not saying "pmfg -O3!!three!!11!".
Nice troll. Very very obvious, but nice.
That said, it is an enterprise software package, which makes a good portion of those who use gentoo just pop up and go "Oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........."
I'd say give it a week and it'll be there.
He'd be a perfect witness for a lawsuit against Sony concerning this software. In case you didn't notice from TFA, it took him all of a half-hour to rip through the entire software and see just what it does ;)
This guy is without a doubt, one of the most knowledgable about the internals of ANY Microsoft OS. He (and his company) have written more top-notch, high grade software than any other company out there (for purposes of exploring just what is on your computer, remote administration, and "peeking under the hood").
On top of that, a majority of their tools are completly free, light, and do the job WELL.
They have tools made to defragment your registry hives, to actually execute a process as another user (don't mention "runas", their stuff takes it to another level), monitor the registry hives for changes, and this disturbingly well-done root kit revealer.
Sysinternals is god when it comes to actually looking at what is wrong with a MS OS, and there's no way around it.
Yes, since every virus out there uses straight "bugged" functions. Let's 'fix' the virus that uses fopen(), k?
I'm pretty sure that was in response to this recent LKML posting by Linus...
:)
Only on slashdot would this level of trolling be modded "insightful."
Grow up. Is linux/OSX better than windows in some ways? Sure. How about you learn to prove a point without senseless bashing though?
People might care when you talk like you know what you're talking about.
Senesless flaming and trolling comes at a dime a dozen.
Your "great Windows Vista Community" scares the ever living crap out of me.
Example: Help me crack it...
Is that......english?
The least you could do is spam quality. I'd guess that there's a reason you're here spamming it, and that is because it's just a bunch of clueless noobs saying "omg plz hlp me crack wpa"...
True. I was going on the parent's math, where 6000 megabits = DVD.
*points at the thread title*
That and typical DVDs are 4.7GB.
"and at up to a gigabit per second while static."
a bits+in+gigabits&btnG=Search.
Equates to six seconds, give or take. Add in your errors to account for the "give or take."
Also see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=6000+meg