My point refers to the statements Microsoft had made during the antitrust hearings regarding the fact that IE was an integral component of Windows and could not be removed.
Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, and that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free.
A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. Although I completely agree that marketing != software engineering:
Because of the limited nature of POSIX.1, the POSIX subsystem on Windows NT does not provide any support for networking or system security. Many people feel that the inclusion of the POSIX subsytem was really a marketing ploy to increase NT's market penetration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr osofthttp://scilnet.fortlewis.edu/tech/NT-Server/archit ecture.htm
While NT may in fact stand for Nested Task, that may not be the origin of the use of NT in Windows NT.
"In the fall of 1988, Microsoft hired David N. Cutler ("Dave") to lead a new software development effort: to create Microsof's operating system for the 1990's. Dave, a well-known architect of minicomputer systems, quickly assembled a team of engineers to design Microsoft's new technology (NT) operating system." (Custer 1993 p2)
(Finally vindicated for moving this book around with me all over the country for the past 13 years when it has almost zero relevance today.)
It's interesting to note the design goals of the system: Extensibility, portability (including a modular structure), reliability and robustness, multiprocessing and scalability, distributed computing, POSIX compiance, Government-certifiable security
When I first read through this book, I was exited by the goals and looked forward to seeing the evolution of the OS. Even now, many disillusioned years laters, I believe Microsoft set out to create an exemplary product. It seems likely that Microsoft lost their way. (IE is integrated into, and cannot be abstracted from, the OS,etc.) Accomodations kept being made to fulfill market (or marketing's) demands which slowly eroded the fundamental goals of NT's original development resulting in the nearly unmanageable behemoth we're faced with today.
Custer, H. (1993). Inside Windows NT. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
The article mentioned is well over a year old.
The outstanding analysis of data due in 2004 has been completed.
The validity of the information is being questioned
Although it would be fun living inside a football.
The beta announcement mentions you'll need to reactivate:
* Boot from BootCamp partition. Another long awaited feature that lets you boot your 32-bit Windows XP residing on Boot Camp partition directly in Parallels Desktop for Mac.
IMPRORTANT! You need to boot in your Windows XP natively through Boot Camp and install Parallels Tools for Boot Camp package in it before your first boot in Parallels Desktop for Mac.
NOTE! It is not possible to suspend Virtual Machine connected to Boot Camp for integrity reasons.
NOTE! Running Boot Camp in Virtual Machine will need to reactivate your Windows XP installation.
I've been holding onto the hope that VMWare's offering will be released soon as the thought of completely rebuilding my current images from VMWare's format to Parallels isn't terribly pleasant. However, bundled with this beta is the beta for Parallels transporter, which allows you to "migrate" data from a running machine, including a running VMWare machine to a parallels format. I'm testing this out now. It doesn't appear terribly speedy at the moment. Migrating a 60GB image (with 20GB of data) it's been running about 15 minutes and still at the (visually) 3% mark.
However, once this migration is complete I'll be trying the native boot to bootcamp.
If both of these functions work in beta, definitely altering my plans on waiting for VMWare, otherwise I'll wait for the final release of this parallels beta version to make that change.;)
This is the reason I would offer: As soon as a competitor's product to the one you're offering is available natively on the Mac, you'll lose customers. While I agree virtualization is now offering acceptable performance for many Windows-only applications, this virtualization does not integrate well with a Mac user's workflow. Once a native version is available, users will switch. And as Macs gain mind-share and market-share, if this competitive product has cross-platform support, the prospects grow slimmer for single-platform applications.
Now I realize the difficulties in coding for multiple platforms, however there are cross platform frameworks available today to assist with just such endeavors. And while it's likely significant effort, depending on the vendor, it may be a strategic decision to rewrite an app so it's cross platform.
As a point of reference, I'm currently involved in a project which has two major suppliers of a particular function. One has slightly more bells and whistles, the other is cross platform with support for Windows, Linux, and OS X. Both have similar market share, but the client selected the platform with cross platform support over the platform with a bit more functionality.
Just something to think about.
Hardware and drivers for the most part. The current challenge I'm working on is EAP-TLS with wpa_supplicant on the debian box. It's far more straightforward and reliable on OS X or even XP. I don't mean to imply I'm trying to use Apple apps under X. I'm willing to switch over as necessary to Aqua. But a considerable amount of work is done in Terminal or makes use of apps which aren't Apple specific and work just fine under X. I've considered replacing OS X with a linux distro, and likely will once I'm confident I can get the day to day work done I need.
I think you hit the nail on the head, although maybe not intentionally. I'm also wanting to replace the Aqua interface with X while still using OS X. The reason? Customization. I don't want to give up all of the "It Just Works(tm)" stuff in order to tweak the UI to a degree I enjoy. I'm running OS X on an intel Mac and am quite happy with it. The one niggling lack is the inability to tweak my UI in the same way I can with X. I do have another laptop running debian which I've enjoyed tweaking and use for quite a bit. And I'm sure this will set off a storm, but I don't feel I can rely on OpenOffice (specifically) or wine to get some of proprietary work done day to day. OO.o died 4 times Monday afternoon while trying to create a document. (It seemed to happen during a cut and past operation from IE6 under Wine, which I realize is a bit iffy in the first place.) But my point being, I don't yet have the confidence in the available applications to do day to day work, that I can get done under OS X. I don't want to completely remove Aqua, but rather have the ability to disable as needed.
Current wifi is sufficient for a single user on a single AP. However, with the current environment there is no provision for QoS in the shared media environment. VoIP requires consistent data delivery for a good user experience which is provided through QoS. It's not purely a matter of bandwidth.
I can understand your views on the subject of grammar.
However, grammar is the rules which govern a language. As such, language use which does not follow the rules of the language is generally more difficult to read and understand by your readers.
True the previously mentioned use of the word 'to' in place of 'too' is not a significant brain twister. However, instead of reading a sentence once with clear meaning, including proper grammar, often times we will need to read a sentence at least twice to understand what the author meant, rather than what was written.
While this is generally perceived as trivial, consider the amount of time required to re-read a poorly constructed sentence coupled with the vast number of readers digesting the article. The result is an inordinate amount of wasted time.
While I don't suggest striving for perfection in each and every story, I would hope that the editors would make some effort at ensuring that articles are clear for a first read. Grammar is the mechanism which makes this possible.
Appropriate use of grammar is means to an end, not the end itself.
Entrust PKI has the ability to run with either the client installed utilizing their libraries for the various crypto functions, or use the tools native within Windows (2k/XP). I also noticed a few glitches with tools from Entrust in previous versions. The integration has been less problematic in the latest release. However, where Entrust really shines is in certificate management. For the moment they have a significant lead over the MS cert solution. Although I believe the gap is closing with Win2003.
I've used KisMac extensively and the injection process attempts to reinject a packet with a small size believing it to be a protocol packet essentially and therefore deterministic. Having run a two week scan in a very busy campus using KisMac with injection as well as some other tools, I only ended up with approximately 56 bad IV's and no successful crack.
This was about a year ago, their code may have improved in this regard, I'd like to hear if so.
For the past few years, we've all been hearing about how vulnerable WEP is and how it can be cracked with the secret decoder ring found in a cracker jack box.
Yes, there were weak IV's in the initial implementation. But these have been removed from rotation by nearly all vendors.
So I'd like some feedback with real experience cracking 128bit WEP using recent firmware loads on cards and AP's.
Slashdot Mirror
(Finally vindicated for moving this book around with me all over the country for the past 13 years when it has almost zero relevance today.)
It's interesting to note the design goals of the system: Extensibility, portability (including a modular structure), reliability and robustness, multiprocessing and scalability, distributed computing, POSIX compiance, Government-certifiable security
When I first read through this book, I was exited by the goals and looked forward to seeing the evolution of the OS. Even now, many disillusioned years laters, I believe Microsoft set out to create an exemplary product. It seems likely that Microsoft lost their way. (IE is integrated into, and cannot be abstracted from, the OS,etc.) Accomodations kept being made to fulfill market (or marketing's) demands which slowly eroded the fundamental goals of NT's original development resulting in the nearly unmanageable behemoth we're faced with today.
Custer, H. (1993). Inside Windows NT. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
The article mentioned is well over a year old. The outstanding analysis of data due in 2004 has been completed. The validity of the information is being questioned Although it would be fun living inside a football.
IMPRORTANT! You need to boot in your Windows XP natively through Boot Camp and install Parallels Tools for Boot Camp package in it before your first boot in Parallels Desktop for Mac.
NOTE! It is not possible to suspend Virtual Machine connected to Boot Camp for integrity reasons.
NOTE! Running Boot Camp in Virtual Machine will need to reactivate your Windows XP installation.
I've been holding onto the hope that VMWare's offering will be released soon as the thought of completely rebuilding my current images from VMWare's format to Parallels isn't terribly pleasant. However, bundled with this beta is the beta for Parallels transporter, which allows you to "migrate" data from a running machine, including a running VMWare machine to a parallels format. I'm testing this out now. It doesn't appear terribly speedy at the moment. Migrating a 60GB image (with 20GB of data) it's been running about 15 minutes and still at the (visually) 3% mark. However, once this migration is complete I'll be trying the native boot to bootcamp. If both of these functions work in beta, definitely altering my plans on waiting for VMWare, otherwise I'll wait for the final release of this parallels beta version to make that change. ;)
This is the reason I would offer: As soon as a competitor's product to the one you're offering is available natively on the Mac, you'll lose customers. While I agree virtualization is now offering acceptable performance for many Windows-only applications, this virtualization does not integrate well with a Mac user's workflow. Once a native version is available, users will switch. And as Macs gain mind-share and market-share, if this competitive product has cross-platform support, the prospects grow slimmer for single-platform applications. Now I realize the difficulties in coding for multiple platforms, however there are cross platform frameworks available today to assist with just such endeavors. And while it's likely significant effort, depending on the vendor, it may be a strategic decision to rewrite an app so it's cross platform. As a point of reference, I'm currently involved in a project which has two major suppliers of a particular function. One has slightly more bells and whistles, the other is cross platform with support for Windows, Linux, and OS X. Both have similar market share, but the client selected the platform with cross platform support over the platform with a bit more functionality. Just something to think about.
Hardware and drivers for the most part. The current challenge I'm working on is EAP-TLS with wpa_supplicant on the debian box. It's far more straightforward and reliable on OS X or even XP. I don't mean to imply I'm trying to use Apple apps under X. I'm willing to switch over as necessary to Aqua. But a considerable amount of work is done in Terminal or makes use of apps which aren't Apple specific and work just fine under X. I've considered replacing OS X with a linux distro, and likely will once I'm confident I can get the day to day work done I need.
I think you hit the nail on the head, although maybe not intentionally. I'm also wanting to replace the Aqua interface with X while still using OS X. The reason? Customization. I don't want to give up all of the "It Just Works(tm)" stuff in order to tweak the UI to a degree I enjoy. I'm running OS X on an intel Mac and am quite happy with it. The one niggling lack is the inability to tweak my UI in the same way I can with X. I do have another laptop running debian which I've enjoyed tweaking and use for quite a bit. And I'm sure this will set off a storm, but I don't feel I can rely on OpenOffice (specifically) or wine to get some of proprietary work done day to day. OO.o died 4 times Monday afternoon while trying to create a document. (It seemed to happen during a cut and past operation from IE6 under Wine, which I realize is a bit iffy in the first place.) But my point being, I don't yet have the confidence in the available applications to do day to day work, that I can get done under OS X. I don't want to completely remove Aqua, but rather have the ability to disable as needed.
It is not possible to recreate the image of a fingerprint from the template.
Current wifi is sufficient for a single user on a single AP. However, with the current environment there is no provision for QoS in the shared media environment. VoIP requires consistent data delivery for a good user experience which is provided through QoS. It's not purely a matter of bandwidth.
Looks like there's a beta available: http://www.windowsonecare.com/
However, grammar is the rules which govern a language. As such, language use which does not follow the rules of the language is generally more difficult to read and understand by your readers.
True the previously mentioned use of the word 'to' in place of 'too' is not a significant brain twister. However, instead of reading a sentence once with clear meaning, including proper grammar, often times we will need to read a sentence at least twice to understand what the author meant, rather than what was written.
While this is generally perceived as trivial, consider the amount of time required to re-read a poorly constructed sentence coupled with the vast number of readers digesting the article. The result is an inordinate amount of wasted time.
While I don't suggest striving for perfection in each and every story, I would hope that the editors would make some effort at ensuring that articles are clear for a first read. Grammar is the mechanism which makes this possible.
Appropriate use of grammar is means to an end, not the end itself.
Entrust PKI has the ability to run with either the client installed utilizing their libraries for the various crypto functions, or use the tools native within Windows (2k/XP). I also noticed a few glitches with tools from Entrust in previous versions. The integration has been less problematic in the latest release. However, where Entrust really shines is in certificate management. For the moment they have a significant lead over the MS cert solution. Although I believe the gap is closing with Win2003.
tokenrevolt.com
I've used KisMac extensively and the injection process attempts to reinject a packet with a small size believing it to be a protocol packet essentially and therefore deterministic. Having run a two week scan in a very busy campus using KisMac with injection as well as some other tools, I only ended up with approximately 56 bad IV's and no successful crack. This was about a year ago, their code may have improved in this regard, I'd like to hear if so.
For the past few years, we've all been hearing about how vulnerable WEP is and how it can be cracked with the secret decoder ring found in a cracker jack box. Yes, there were weak IV's in the initial implementation. But these have been removed from rotation by nearly all vendors. So I'd like some feedback with real experience cracking 128bit WEP using recent firmware loads on cards and AP's.