Though it doesn't name it in TFA, I'm betting that this also has something to do with the Malicious Software Removal Tool that is a part of normal Windows updates. This is downloaded and installed and run by default if you let Windows Update do its thing without manually configuring which update to install and which to ignore.
When this is run, and it detects known malware, it reports the infection and the full version (Major release, SP number, and updates that are installed) to Microsoft and attempts to remove it.
Since it's run in quiet mode at installation, I'm inclined to believe that this 5% number is pretty reliable on Windows 7 machines, somewhat reliable on Vista machines, and of marginal reliability in regards to XP boxes. Due to the nature of Windows Update settings on those OS', ranging from On by default in Vista and 7, to on if you made it so in XP.
As a sysadmin that helps look after over 10,000 desktops and close to 500 servers, I'm even more inclined to believe that 5% is accurate. Compared to what I was seeing 5 years ago, Malware is/much/ less common now. Despite the fact that it's craftier. Windows users, while still apt to click on everything that they're asked to click on, have a harder time wrecking their systems due to the security subsystem changes that have been made in Vista and 7.
Is Windows secure? Fuck no. Is it infinitely better than it was when XP came out? Unquestionably, and anyone that disagrees with that is too busy trolling Microsoft to see that they have made significant improvements.
I just mean that a standards body couldn't create a globally definitive Standard for a GUI. It's impossible, because there are too many platform and context specific things that do not cross over unilaterally.
There are no officially defined standards I'm aware of, and I looked when we started this discussion, for GUIs across platforms. As this discussion points out, there are a bunch of platform specific standards and best practices, but nothing universal.
I agree that everyone that is significantly involved with computers should know that defined standards are critical to the entire computing ecology. But aside from us, nobody really needs to. They don't need to know how the stuff works any more than I need to know about the inner workings of accounting or marketing or any of that other crap. It's our job to understand this stuff and make it work, it's the accountant's job to make sure I get paid, and marketing's job to make sure I spend that money.
It doesn't and they couldn't, neither could a standards body.
So a standard-UI would have to be a de-facto standard that came about due to usage patterns and widespread industry design principals. So, while not a codified Standard with an RFC number, the UI I described is a standard UI. Standard as defined by the English language definition, that it is the 'normal' thing based upon popular usage.
Your pedanticism over the word 'standard' is the issue here.
Yes, you've customized your installation so that it doesn't fit the standard. What is your point? That your personalized, non-standard UI proves that there is no UI standard?
All mouse/keyboard UIs are essentially the same. *NIX and Windows both have it pretty standard that there is a send to taskbar button, an embiggen/shrink button and a close button in the top right. OSX does something weird which I don't quite understand, but the buttons are still in the top. There's a file menu at the top on all of them. There's a place on the bottom that holds identifiers for running or commonly accessed programs. Windows are square, and have predictable functionality across platforms. The left mouse button activates whatever you click on, right clicking brings up a menu.
All touch based interfaces are essentially the same too. Big selectable icon that launches the app. Notifications and at a glance info is displayed at the top. Swiping side to side switches screens to the side. Swiping up and down makes the list move. Long pressing on app icons moves the app shortcut around. Pinch to zoom, double tap to zoom, two finger twist to rotate, etc. All of that stuff is standard across UIs.
Sure, the animations and style are different, but the UI portion of it is more than style. It's the interfacing that's the important bit, not the fluff that makes it pretty. Imagine moving from iOS to Android and not only is the fluffy stuff different, but now you have to tap the bottom of the screen and then the top to scroll up, and you scroll faster by repeatedly tapping the top. Or long press to zoom, and double tap to exit the application.
There's a reason that anything that requires user interfacing follows whatever the big player does to some extent. It's called usability.
Fair enough. But, Apple was only able to force the majors to remove DRM and was only able to tell NBC to get stuffed after becoming the only game in town. Google cannot do that at this point. They simply don't have the market share.
Plus, Google did just piss off the majors in a HUGE way with Google Music. Apple is still trying to nail down deals, while Google is already offering me 20,000 free cloud based storage songs.
Now, I'm not completely apologetic for Google, I think that this is really shitty that they bowed so hard on the licensing deals that I'm not allowed to use the service. I fully agree that they should do more to ensure that consumers are presented with more solutions and options. But, I don't think that they're in as secure of a position to start issuing the ultimatums that Apple can. When they've "proved themselves" to the majors, they'll be able to force them to allow things like rooted users accessing the 'protected content'. With enough consumer pressure, I'm sure it will happen, just as it did to iTunes.
If it doesn't, I'll be first in line to decry the shitty stance that they're taking on the issue. But as long as I'm able to access Android source and recompile it as I see fit, I'm not going to call questionable licensing decisions in side products, I'm not going to start flagging Android as closed.
I don't think it means anything for the Android platform. I think it sucks that I won't be able to access Movies while running my phone how I want. But, even if I didn't have a rooted phone, I couldn't access movies because I live outside the US. The reason I can't access it outside of the US is the same reason that rooted phones can't access it inside: Content providers and licensing.
If you want to get pissed about locking down content, then look at every piece of licensed content, and how much of it is available outside of your borders. Get pissed off about the fact that international licensing is such a shit show, that I can't even buy mp3s from Amazon's mp3 store, half of the iTunes catalogue isn't available to me, virtually none of the online radio providers work here.
Google wants to provide content to people that people want, because they can make money off of it. But, to avoid lengthy court battles, and providers refusing to profide content, they have to play by the content providers rules. It sucks, I wish that weren't the case. But to try to blame Google, Apple or Amazon for their content having ridiculous restrictions of whatever form, is moronic.
Google dictating the terms of the Android Market being limited does not mean that Android is closed any more than Amazon requiring you to have an Amazon account to use their market does.
1) not because it's too new and the AV defs haven't been updated for it yet. 2) Actively scan the executable when it is accessed, compare it to its definitions, and delete the file before it was executed.
Yeah, an obscure error code such as 0x80000af, which when dropped into Google will generally get you to the MSKB article saying "for that error, do this to fix."
I'll take that over OSX's General Error -4 or at the very best iTunes error: -4. Or Linux's silent crash, go to log file and piece together what happened, or Application Segfault with no other easily identifiable information.
Obviously, the OSX and Linux errors aren't always that bad, but neither are the Windows errors. But give me a unique hex error number over a generic two or three digit error code on OSX any day.
You are aware that Japan has a very large network of transportation trains, many of them high speed, as does much of the rest of the world outside of Texas, right?
You driving your car, along with 1,000 other people driving their cars from Austin to Houston uses orders of magnitude more energy than 15 busses and 2 trains to transport the same 1,000 people the same trip.
Additionally, a commute from the outskirts of Toronto, where I live, to downtown central takes ~2 hours during rush hour, that same trip takes 40 minutes on the subway, so even shorter distances can be more efficient.
Here in Canada, it's pretty awesome to buy your phone outright and not have to stick it out on a contract.
My SO and I bought Nexus S' for $550 outright, and pay less than $80 total for both phones a month. So, our first phone bill was $1180, and each month it's 77something, which I'll just round up to 80. One year = $2,060 between two people. With Rogers, I paid $300 for an iPhone3G, and was paying $120 a month, on a 3 year contract, which put MY bill at $1,775 ($35 sign up fee). My SO paid similarly, which puts our first year on contract at $3,550. Plus, with our current carrier, everything is unlimited, 24/7 North American calling, unlimited data (Capped at 512K up/down if you go over 6GB in a month, but no overage charges), unlimited North American SMS and MMS. I ended up paying probably about $500 in extras over the first year on Rogers as well, data overages, SMS to the US, long distance, etc.
Gee, you're right, I didn't save any money by buying my phone outright. Even with paying the $300 ETF with Rogers, I'm still saving a huge chunk of change.
Neither Windows nor OSX is better than the other in any realm aside from personal preference. They're both stable, they're both riddled with security holes, they both only run some stuff and not others.
I 100% advocate debates like this. Especially ones about trivial and fictional matters.
I really love Tron, and Legacy and 2.0. But unlike some of my other fictional obsessions, I don't know enough about it to actually debate the 'factual' aspects of the universe.
You've made me search out the book now, because I am interested in furthering my knowledge of the canon.
I don't doubt that had someone who/knew/ something about computers would've been able to put more accurate nomenclature in the movies, but as is, we get what we get.
Hats tipped to civil debates all around! Had I any mod points, your arguments would've got them +1 insightful.
While I admit that it must've sucked for the programs inside the grid to be locked there for 1,000 years, that doesn't change that the system was designed to be "free and open." Which to me means, free and open. Whatever happened to the system after CLU took over, and after the board ousted Allen, the system was designed to be free and open. The intent behind the system, prior to Flynn getting trapped inside it, was that it was to be free and open. Which, I guess doesn't mean that Encom was in support of the concepts of OSS, just that Flynn believed in them and wanted information to be free. The physical box that the system was stored in doesn't really mean anything either, as it was just the research station Flynn was using and shouldn't be taken as the final form that the Digital Frontier would eventually take.
Your arcade game point is also totally valid.
My comment about the source being stolen and released was nothing but my being glib.
But, at any rate, after reading your points, I agree, Encom in present day Tron-land, is not a FOSS company. I also tip my hat to you, your knowledge is impressive.
I will offer, that once Flynn took over, it was supposed to be. Barring his being trapped, the principals that Kevin and Allen held would've made it so. Note, that this is just me trying to get any points in a debate with you in which I am clearly outmatched in terms of background knowledge, and thus interpretation of the facts.
In the opening scene when Flynn is talking to Sam, he states that He, Tron and CLU developed a system where all information was free and open and about how beautiful that is.
At the Encom OS 12 release in Legacy Allan asks about the prices charged for Flynn OS, renamed Encom OS, and is then told that the idea of sharing or giving away the software disappeared with Flynn.Then the source is released, which makes the OS open source, even if just due to malicious reasons.
Then Sam is arguing with the security guard on the roof and says "You can't steal something that was designed to be free."
I'm relatively sure there are also other references in Legacy and 2.0 which talk about free and open systems.
I doubt there's anything about it in the first movie though.
As MANY have pointed out, keeping development versions of code closed, and then open sourcing the final product is not closing the software, and has in fact been the preferred version of deploying code used by many organizations.
Slashdot Mirror
Though it doesn't name it in TFA, I'm betting that this also has something to do with the Malicious Software Removal Tool that is a part of normal Windows updates. This is downloaded and installed and run by default if you let Windows Update do its thing without manually configuring which update to install and which to ignore.
When this is run, and it detects known malware, it reports the infection and the full version (Major release, SP number, and updates that are installed) to Microsoft and attempts to remove it.
Since it's run in quiet mode at installation, I'm inclined to believe that this 5% number is pretty reliable on Windows 7 machines, somewhat reliable on Vista machines, and of marginal reliability in regards to XP boxes. Due to the nature of Windows Update settings on those OS', ranging from On by default in Vista and 7, to on if you made it so in XP.
As a sysadmin that helps look after over 10,000 desktops and close to 500 servers, I'm even more inclined to believe that 5% is accurate. Compared to what I was seeing 5 years ago, Malware is /much/ less common now. Despite the fact that it's craftier. Windows users, while still apt to click on everything that they're asked to click on, have a harder time wrecking their systems due to the security subsystem changes that have been made in Vista and 7.
Is Windows secure? Fuck no. Is it infinitely better than it was when XP came out? Unquestionably, and anyone that disagrees with that is too busy trolling Microsoft to see that they have made significant improvements.
I just mean that a standards body couldn't create a globally definitive Standard for a GUI. It's impossible, because there are too many platform and context specific things that do not cross over unilaterally.
There are no officially defined standards I'm aware of, and I looked when we started this discussion, for GUIs across platforms. As this discussion points out, there are a bunch of platform specific standards and best practices, but nothing universal.
I agree that everyone that is significantly involved with computers should know that defined standards are critical to the entire computing ecology. But aside from us, nobody really needs to. They don't need to know how the stuff works any more than I need to know about the inner workings of accounting or marketing or any of that other crap. It's our job to understand this stuff and make it work, it's the accountant's job to make sure I get paid, and marketing's job to make sure I spend that money.
It doesn't and they couldn't, neither could a standards body.
So a standard-UI would have to be a de-facto standard that came about due to usage patterns and widespread industry design principals. So, while not a codified Standard with an RFC number, the UI I described is a standard UI. Standard as defined by the English language definition, that it is the 'normal' thing based upon popular usage.
Your pedanticism over the word 'standard' is the issue here.
So, if Microsoft were to put out a standard that says a GUI has all of the things that I stated, would that appease you?
So what defines a standard then?
Yes, you've customized your installation so that it doesn't fit the standard. What is your point? That your personalized, non-standard UI proves that there is no UI standard?
Not so much really.
All mouse/keyboard UIs are essentially the same. *NIX and Windows both have it pretty standard that there is a send to taskbar button, an embiggen/shrink button and a close button in the top right. OSX does something weird which I don't quite understand, but the buttons are still in the top. There's a file menu at the top on all of them. There's a place on the bottom that holds identifiers for running or commonly accessed programs. Windows are square, and have predictable functionality across platforms. The left mouse button activates whatever you click on, right clicking brings up a menu.
All touch based interfaces are essentially the same too. Big selectable icon that launches the app. Notifications and at a glance info is displayed at the top. Swiping side to side switches screens to the side. Swiping up and down makes the list move. Long pressing on app icons moves the app shortcut around. Pinch to zoom, double tap to zoom, two finger twist to rotate, etc. All of that stuff is standard across UIs.
Sure, the animations and style are different, but the UI portion of it is more than style. It's the interfacing that's the important bit, not the fluff that makes it pretty. Imagine moving from iOS to Android and not only is the fluffy stuff different, but now you have to tap the bottom of the screen and then the top to scroll up, and you scroll faster by repeatedly tapping the top. Or long press to zoom, and double tap to exit the application.
There's a reason that anything that requires user interfacing follows whatever the big player does to some extent. It's called usability.
Fair enough. But, Apple was only able to force the majors to remove DRM and was only able to tell NBC to get stuffed after becoming the only game in town. Google cannot do that at this point. They simply don't have the market share.
Plus, Google did just piss off the majors in a HUGE way with Google Music. Apple is still trying to nail down deals, while Google is already offering me 20,000 free cloud based storage songs.
Now, I'm not completely apologetic for Google, I think that this is really shitty that they bowed so hard on the licensing deals that I'm not allowed to use the service. I fully agree that they should do more to ensure that consumers are presented with more solutions and options. But, I don't think that they're in as secure of a position to start issuing the ultimatums that Apple can. When they've "proved themselves" to the majors, they'll be able to force them to allow things like rooted users accessing the 'protected content'. With enough consumer pressure, I'm sure it will happen, just as it did to iTunes.
If it doesn't, I'll be first in line to decry the shitty stance that they're taking on the issue. But as long as I'm able to access Android source and recompile it as I see fit, I'm not going to call questionable licensing decisions in side products, I'm not going to start flagging Android as closed.
I don't think it means anything for the Android platform. I think it sucks that I won't be able to access Movies while running my phone how I want. But, even if I didn't have a rooted phone, I couldn't access movies because I live outside the US. The reason I can't access it outside of the US is the same reason that rooted phones can't access it inside: Content providers and licensing.
If you want to get pissed about locking down content, then look at every piece of licensed content, and how much of it is available outside of your borders. Get pissed off about the fact that international licensing is such a shit show, that I can't even buy mp3s from Amazon's mp3 store, half of the iTunes catalogue isn't available to me, virtually none of the online radio providers work here.
Google wants to provide content to people that people want, because they can make money off of it. But, to avoid lengthy court battles, and providers refusing to profide content, they have to play by the content providers rules. It sucks, I wish that weren't the case. But to try to blame Google, Apple or Amazon for their content having ridiculous restrictions of whatever form, is moronic.
Google's Android Market != Android
Google dictating the terms of the Android Market being limited does not mean that Android is closed any more than Amazon requiring you to have an Amazon account to use their market does.
The same way it does on Windows.
It would either:
1) not because it's too new and the AV defs haven't been updated for it yet.
2) Actively scan the executable when it is accessed, compare it to its definitions, and delete the file before it was executed.
Most of the time it's going to be #1.
Yeah, an obscure error code such as 0x80000af, which when dropped into Google will generally get you to the MSKB article saying "for that error, do this to fix."
I'll take that over OSX's General Error -4 or at the very best iTunes error: -4. Or Linux's silent crash, go to log file and piece together what happened, or Application Segfault with no other easily identifiable information.
Obviously, the OSX and Linux errors aren't always that bad, but neither are the Windows errors. But give me a unique hex error number over a generic two or three digit error code on OSX any day.
You are aware that Japan has a very large network of transportation trains, many of them high speed, as does much of the rest of the world outside of Texas, right?
You driving your car, along with 1,000 other people driving their cars from Austin to Houston uses orders of magnitude more energy than 15 busses and 2 trains to transport the same 1,000 people the same trip.
Additionally, a commute from the outskirts of Toronto, where I live, to downtown central takes ~2 hours during rush hour, that same trip takes 40 minutes on the subway, so even shorter distances can be more efficient.
I would imagine this would be used to replace current mag-lev trains and conventional trains, not cars. The destination point is senseless.
Cover your tracks by leaving your calling card?
Here in Canada, it's pretty awesome to buy your phone outright and not have to stick it out on a contract.
My SO and I bought Nexus S' for $550 outright, and pay less than $80 total for both phones a month. So, our first phone bill was $1180, and each month it's 77something, which I'll just round up to 80. One year = $2,060 between two people. With Rogers, I paid $300 for an iPhone3G, and was paying $120 a month, on a 3 year contract, which put MY bill at $1,775 ($35 sign up fee). My SO paid similarly, which puts our first year on contract at $3,550. Plus, with our current carrier, everything is unlimited, 24/7 North American calling, unlimited data (Capped at 512K up/down if you go over 6GB in a month, but no overage charges), unlimited North American SMS and MMS. I ended up paying probably about $500 in extras over the first year on Rogers as well, data overages, SMS to the US, long distance, etc.
Gee, you're right, I didn't save any money by buying my phone outright. Even with paying the $300 ETF with Rogers, I'm still saving a huge chunk of change.
The only thing Xbox LIVE gives you over PSN is cross game voice chat and users dumb enough to pay 50 a year for the service.
Looks like Live is also currently offering service to its customers.
Neither Windows nor OSX is better than the other in any realm aside from personal preference. They're both stable, they're both riddled with security holes, they both only run some stuff and not others.
I 100% advocate debates like this. Especially ones about trivial and fictional matters.
I really love Tron, and Legacy and 2.0. But unlike some of my other fictional obsessions, I don't know enough about it to actually debate the 'factual' aspects of the universe.
You've made me search out the book now, because I am interested in furthering my knowledge of the canon.
I don't doubt that had someone who /knew/ something about computers would've been able to put more accurate nomenclature in the movies, but as is, we get what we get.
Hats tipped to civil debates all around! Had I any mod points, your arguments would've got them +1 insightful.
While I admit that it must've sucked for the programs inside the grid to be locked there for 1,000 years, that doesn't change that the system was designed to be "free and open." Which to me means, free and open. Whatever happened to the system after CLU took over, and after the board ousted Allen, the system was designed to be free and open. The intent behind the system, prior to Flynn getting trapped inside it, was that it was to be free and open. Which, I guess doesn't mean that Encom was in support of the concepts of OSS, just that Flynn believed in them and wanted information to be free. The physical box that the system was stored in doesn't really mean anything either, as it was just the research station Flynn was using and shouldn't be taken as the final form that the Digital Frontier would eventually take.
Your arcade game point is also totally valid.
My comment about the source being stolen and released was nothing but my being glib.
But, at any rate, after reading your points, I agree, Encom in present day Tron-land, is not a FOSS company. I also tip my hat to you, your knowledge is impressive.
I will offer, that once Flynn took over, it was supposed to be. Barring his being trapped, the principals that Kevin and Allen held would've made it so. Note, that this is just me trying to get any points in a debate with you in which I am clearly outmatched in terms of background knowledge, and thus interpretation of the facts.
In the opening scene when Flynn is talking to Sam, he states that He, Tron and CLU developed a system where all information was free and open and about how beautiful that is.
At the Encom OS 12 release in Legacy Allan asks about the prices charged for Flynn OS, renamed Encom OS, and is then told that the idea of sharing or giving away the software disappeared with Flynn.Then the source is released, which makes the OS open source, even if just due to malicious reasons.
Then Sam is arguing with the security guard on the roof and says "You can't steal something that was designed to be free."
I'm relatively sure there are also other references in Legacy and 2.0 which talk about free and open systems.
I doubt there's anything about it in the first movie though.
Aside from the fact that Encom is/was a free software company.
As MANY have pointed out, keeping development versions of code closed, and then open sourcing the final product is not closing the software, and has in fact been the preferred version of deploying code used by many organizations.
The first draft was full of calling you an idiot and babbling about how dumb you are and are a big fat poopy butt, I assure you.
Ahh, I redirect the vitriol then.