When a company says "we're no longer going to support Windows 3x or Win9x, they should MEAN IT. NO support for the software.
They'd have to be insane to do that. Only an insane OS vendor would get incompatible with the largest collection of software in the history of computing.
they can- for the first time - take the backwards compatibility crap out of Windows and concentrate on providing a stable OS.
No, they can't. The vast majority of Windows 7 users will be running one of the Home editions, which aren't going to have this "Virtual XP" mode. RTFA or just the summary.
Come to us BEFORE you do something potentially stupid
That sounds like typical apologist response. You tried to interpret (or rephrase) the strict policy in a way that makes it sound weaker or milder, or even to appear to be good, non-evil. Read this part again (emphasis mine):
"you have to receive written permission from Mozilla."
Domain Names If you want to include all or part of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from Mozilla. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Almost any use of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name is likely to confuse consumers, thus running afoul of the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing. If you would like to build a Mozilla, Firefox Internet browser or Thunderbird e-mail client promotional site for your region, we encourage you to join an existing official localization project.
You may need to check the definition of Open Source. It doesn't ONLY mean that you can view the source code. It means you can modify it and redistribute it. Before trolling next time, educate yourself here: http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users.
Excuse me if I'm missing something, but aren't eight critical vulnerabilities supposed to be patched in the stable branch instead of a beta branch?
(I also am not entirely sure whether fixing so many critical vulnerabilities should garner applause from Firefox users...)
Yes, and as the OP was asking for "real-life" benchmarks, here they are. Tom's Hardware benchmarked TrueCrypt thoroughly and found practically no overhead.
this stuff is all free and people have volunteered their time to write a lot of it, so why should I be complaining.
I understand what you mean, but once we adopt that way of thinking, it becomes easy to claim "Hey, look, free software is in most cases inferior to commercial software, because it is free."
Nope. If you are a software publisher, you sign your packages locally on your computer, which you can secure quite easily (for example, by never connecting the box to the internet, etc). As soon as you upload the binaries to a server, you stop being able to control/ensure their security.
You're also ignoring the fact that your hosting provider can be:
a) hacked into b) malevolent
If the server is insecure, HTTPS is not going to help you. I'm also not sure why you are ignoring the MD5 attacks, which made algo completely unusable for your purposes.
An MD5 hash cannot verify the authenticity of a file (nor can SHA-2 or any other unkeyed hash algo). And since 2005 (when it was broken) it cannot even verify the integrity of a file.
impulsiveness who could perhaps model a better example of how to live
Just FYI (and seeing this nonsense got modded +5), things like impulsiveness cannot be changed by role models -- they are genetically determined, inborn. Any average psychologist would tell you that temperament can not be changed by being exposed to role models or by growing up next to or with people whose temperament or behavior are different.
Interestingly, the most important thing is missing from the summary -- the prize. So, what the prize is you ask?
An incredible, unbelievable, astonishing and amazing amount of... wtf... fourty (40) US Dollars? Yes, you heard that right! No wonder nobody has shown any interest in participating.
Full quote from the site: Should someone win, they get to keep the drive. They also will receive $40.00 USD and the title "King (or Queen) of Data Recovery".
The access rights were given only to one specific person and are implicitly non-transferable (unless stated otherwise in a registration agreement). Any person publicly disclosing its password is helping others to hack into the system. Any website that willingly and intentionally facilitates such activities is participating in hacking (complicity).
On my desktop, I've never had any of the 3 hard drives fail in the last 12 years that I've been using them, or any time before that for that matter.
Reliability? Dude, you can't be serious. I've head 4 hard drives fail in my two desktop PCs I used in the last couple of years. Two Maxtors and two Seagates (one of them yesterday). Some of them were 7200 some of them were 5400 and one of them was "Enterprise-grade" storage.
From the reliability point of view, hard drives are unbelievable and utter shit.
Yes. The sad truth is that even the researchers themselves engage in FUD spreading. It is much easier to get publicity if you claim "I can break anything (but wait 2 weeks for the full details)." When those full details are revealed (i.e. the fact that there is no real attack is implicitly contained in the paper) it is already too late to undo the FUD. Nobody really cares.
As Schneier wrote (emphasis mine): "this attack doesn't apply to any block cipher -- DES, AES, Blowfish, Twofish, anything else -- in common use; their degree is much too high." Now, correct the misleading summary (or be uninformed FUD spreader like Computerworld).
Slashdot Mirror
When a company says "we're no longer going to support Windows 3x or Win9x, they should MEAN IT. NO support for the software.
They'd have to be insane to do that. Only an insane OS vendor would get incompatible with the largest collection of software in the history of computing.
they can- for the first time - take the backwards compatibility crap out of Windows and concentrate on providing a stable OS.
No, they can't. The vast majority of Windows 7 users will be running one of the Home editions, which aren't going to have this "Virtual XP" mode. RTFA or just the summary.
Come to us BEFORE you do something potentially stupid
That sounds like typical apologist response. You tried to interpret (or rephrase) the strict policy in a way that makes it sound weaker or milder, or even to appear to be good, non-evil. Read this part again (emphasis mine):
"you have to receive written permission from Mozilla."
Mozilla thinks the same way as Wikimedia and obviously disagrees with EFF.
From the official Mozilla/Firefox Trademark Policy
Domain Names
If you want to include all or part of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from Mozilla. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Almost any use of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name is likely to confuse consumers, thus running afoul of the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing. If you would like to build a Mozilla, Firefox Internet browser or Thunderbird e-mail client promotional site for your region, we encourage you to join an existing official localization project.
The age of the domain name is over in my opinion.
Really completely over? So, when you want to read Slashdot, do you type its name in the Google search box?
You may need to check the definition of Open Source. It doesn't ONLY mean that you can view the source code. It means you can modify it and redistribute it. Before trolling next time, educate yourself here:
http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Or does the author of the submission assume that game developer = game publisher?
Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users.
Excuse me if I'm missing something, but aren't eight critical vulnerabilities supposed to be patched in the stable branch instead of a beta branch?
(I also am not entirely sure whether fixing so many critical vulnerabilities should garner applause from Firefox users...)
Yes, and as the OP was asking for "real-life" benchmarks, here they are. Tom's Hardware benchmarked TrueCrypt thoroughly and found practically no overhead.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/truecrypt-security-hdd,2125.html
this stuff is all free and people have volunteered their time to write a lot of it, so why should I be complaining.
I understand what you mean, but once we adopt that way of thinking, it becomes easy to claim "Hey, look, free software is in most cases inferior to commercial software, because it is free."
Do we want that?
Nope. If you are a software publisher, you sign your packages locally on your computer, which you can secure quite easily (for example, by never connecting the box to the internet, etc). As soon as you upload the binaries to a server, you stop being able to control/ensure their security.
You're also ignoring the fact that your hosting provider can be:
a) hacked into
b) malevolent
If the server is insecure, HTTPS is not going to help you. I'm also not sure why you are ignoring the MD5 attacks, which made algo completely unusable for your purposes.
An MD5 hash cannot verify the authenticity of a file (nor can SHA-2 or any other unkeyed hash algo). And since 2005 (when it was broken) it cannot even verify the integrity of a file.
[Windows Mobile market share] dropped from 24% in 2004 to 12% this year.
Of what? Of the smart phone market world-wide? Or US only?
I know one thing for sure, though, that current US/EU www market shares are:
68.67% - Windows XP ...
18.33% - Windows Vista
8.23 - Mac OS X
0.91% - Linux
0.32% - iPhone
0.06% - Windows CE (Mobile)
Considering how young iPhone is, it is beating the crap out of the ancient Windows Mobile.
The source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10
One message to Windows Mobile would be appropriate -- die already.
> Be very unforgiving of any bugs.
Of any bugs? Even of bugs in a new major functionality added in 5.0?
Actually, universe means "observable universe". You confuse universe with space.
impulsiveness who could perhaps model a better example of how to live
Just FYI (and seeing this nonsense got modded +5), things like impulsiveness cannot be changed by role models -- they are genetically determined, inborn. Any average psychologist would tell you that temperament can not be changed by being exposed to role models or by growing up next to or with people whose temperament or behavior are different.
Interestingly, the most important thing is missing from the summary -- the prize. So, what the prize is you ask?
An incredible, unbelievable, astonishing and amazing amount of... wtf... fourty (40) US Dollars? Yes, you heard that right! No wonder nobody has shown any interest in participating.
Full quote from the site: Should someone win, they get to keep the drive. They also will receive $40.00 USD and the title "King (or Queen) of Data Recovery".
The access rights were given only to one specific person and are implicitly non-transferable (unless stated otherwise in a registration agreement). Any person publicly disclosing its password is helping others to hack into the system. Any website that willingly and intentionally facilitates such activities is participating in hacking (complicity).
Bypassing 15 pages of annoying registration to read a newspaper online is 'hacking'? Who knew.
No, but (at least according to US laws) unauthorized access (e.g. using a password that was not issued to you) is hacking, and also a criminal deed.
On my desktop, I've never had any of the 3 hard drives fail in the last 12 years that I've been using them, or any time before that for that matter.
Reliability? Dude, you can't be serious. I've head 4 hard drives fail in my two desktop PCs I used in the last couple of years. Two Maxtors and two Seagates (one of them yesterday). Some of them were 7200 some of them were 5400 and one of them was "Enterprise-grade" storage.
From the reliability point of view, hard drives are unbelievable and utter shit.
To download any of the videos directly, go here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pictures/mathtrek/082208/
Your post, sir, is as misleading as the Computerworld article. Was the ambiguity in it deliberate or unintentional? I hope the latter.
Yes. The sad truth is that even the researchers themselves engage in FUD spreading. It is much easier to get publicity if you claim "I can break anything (but wait 2 weeks for the full details)." When those full details are revealed (i.e. the fact that there is no real attack is implicitly contained in the paper) it is already too late to undo the FUD. Nobody really cares.
As Schneier wrote (emphasis mine): "this attack doesn't apply to any block cipher -- DES, AES, Blowfish, Twofish, anything else -- in common use; their degree is much too high." Now, correct the misleading summary (or be uninformed FUD spreader like Computerworld).