I'm going to quote the question and response again so as we can compare them.
"Can non Vista computers impliment the full functionality of Vista TCP/IP. Can they do so without a license", RS
"They can certainly communicate with Vista happily, with no problems whatsoever (one of the requirements of Compound TCP is that it doesn't break the TCP standard, unlike some other ways of getting past this problem). If they wanted to implement the same features, I think at least some of the features might be patent-protected. Which is a bit rubbish"
Now come off it, you know specifically what was asked - can a non Vista OS provide full functionality without a license. Not whether it could communicate or if Compound TCP would break TCP/IP standard. Which features are not patent protected and does it make a difference to a developer if he can't impliment his own full version without violating some patent. Why patent a specification to TCP/IP at all.
You call me confused yet when I ask you to give some details backing up your statements you respond with 'not entirely sure' and answer the question I didn't ask.
Some earlier not answering the question samples..
Q. "Is such functionality not in IPV6", RS
A. "I think you're still a bit confused here", zootm
According to the article 'the Vista stack has been redesigned from the ground up so it can't be specific implimentation. Why didn't they put these new features in the published RFC for IPv6. I've listed what I could see of what's new in Vista TCP/IP. Is such functionality not in IPV6.
"Receive Window Auto-Tuning and Compound TCP"
"mark the ECN field so that if the network is congested"
"QoS into account"
"tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values"
"throttle the bandwidth of a particular subnet to a particular server"
I recall a case when someone wasn't paid and was enthused to leave the company. He put a logic bomb on the system that disabled it when his account was deleted. The company sued him and won. He had no prior record and given the number of executives being jailed by the SEC I don't think such background checks are of any use.
An aquaintence of mine does IT contractual work and it is generally quite difficult to get money out of people. He did some work for an Architect company who asked him to unlock a password protected zip file containing drawings. You see they were in the habit of not paying for work done. The drawings were for a contract worth £50,000 so talk about being stingy. They used also forget to pay him. He got fed up with chasing up people for non payment so he devised a script that disables the computer after two weeks. When the inevitable phone call comes he 'fixes' it remotely.
What exactly is misleading about the post. Is there *not* a zero day bug in Windows Media player. Does it not relate to WMVCORE.DLL.
"Doesn't affect my Vista machine. Nor my XP Pro machine running IE7 + WMP 11"
What version of WMVCORE.DLL does WMP 11 use and is there a security advisory saying XP is not affected.
""the function at 7D7A8F27 in WMVCORE.DLL version 9.0.0.3250, and at 086E586E in WMVCORE.DLL version 10.0.0.3802"
""I can't help but wonder what it might look like if every time a flaw was discovered in *Nix, and a security advisory.. were released,and slashdotted"
"How often does a kernel update in Linux break something that you now have to update, or sometimes roll back alltogether because they won't work"
It doesn't as you aren't forced to update the kernel. Even if you do you can have multiple versions. The same with the apps. And you would never do a major upgrade on a production machine.
was GG Misleading Post (Score:5, yet another Winpologist getting modded up Insightful)
"The document isn't code, it's COM data objects. They don't need to contain code, in fact they usually contain references to COM objects"
That's just a matter of semantics. A reference to a COM object in a Word doc is the same as a Word doc executing something. COM objects are certanly not data, if written as C++ classes they contain both encapsulated functions and data. As such they can 'do' something. As such the design is flawed. As in opening a Word doc is opening you up to executing someone elses COM data object. As such you have to trust the sender.
"A Word document is a stream of COM data objects. This is one reason why Word documents can't be made backwards compatible"
Is it possible to provide such functionality without turning the document into code. Remember when there was two kind of binary, data and code. If you don't download code then you can't download 'viruses'.
Shouldn't these comments be directed at the relevent web site [groklaw.net]. Apart from her emotional state what do you have to say regarding the NOVL/MS deal
"Could the problem be avoided by opening the any.doc files with OO.org?"
The problem for a lot of msWord users is that the docs don't display or print correctly in OO especially if using lots of embedded frames etc. A simpler solution that would avoid even zero day exploits is to set the Word Viewer to default for Word docs and write a script that deletes normal.doc at boot. Use Firefox or Opera for browsing use thunderbird for email.
"C'mon, did microsoft REALLY say, "'not open or save Word files,' even from trusted sources", davidsyes
"Recommendation: Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted or that are received unexpected from trusted sources. This vulnerability could be exploited when a user opens a file", microsoft.com
was SLASH! KNOCK OFF THE FUD SUBMISSIONS! (Score:5, Interesting)
"PJ sometimes tends to get emotional - which is absolutely fine by me.."
Shouldn't these comments be directed at the relevent web site. Apart from her emotional state what do you have to say regarding the NOVL/MS deal. I notice in your long response you managed to not mention any of the points in the original article by PJ.
"Groklaw is no longer a reliable source of information. Because it is so obviously biased"
You mean like Hilf or Ballmer are unbiased don't you. Will a non Novell version of OpenOffice.org that includes support for OpenXML be in violation of a MS patent.
"What is sooo wrong in the open source license/structure/community whatever, that a deal betweem these two entities or any entities whatsover, can be a threat to open source?
It doesn't make sense"
It sure don't make sense. What is wrong about is that the ink was hardly dry when Ballmer and Hilf was using the agreement to threaten other Linux developers with litigation unless they signed a similar agreement. Finally, as a Novell customer I give Novell no authority to negociate on my behalf with Microsoft. Novell should cancel the agreement immidiatly and return to the fold. Does this answer your question.
Slashdot Mirror
"They can certainly communicate with Vista happily, with no problems whatsoever (one of the requirements of Compound TCP is that it doesn't break the TCP standard, unlike some other ways of getting past this problem). If they wanted to implement the same features, I think at least some of the features might be patent-protected. Which is a bit rubbish"
Now come off it, you know specifically what was asked - can a non Vista OS provide full functionality without a license. Not whether it could communicate or if Compound TCP would break TCP/IP standard. Which features are not patent protected and does it make a difference to a developer if he can't impliment his own full version without violating some patent. Why patent a specification to TCP/IP at all.
You call me confused yet when I ask you to give some details backing up your statements you respond with 'not entirely sure' and answer the question I didn't ask. Some earlier not answering the question samples
Q. "Is such functionality not in IPV6", RS
A. "I think you're still a bit confused here", zootm
was Re:specific implementation
"I think you're still a bit confused here. IP is a protocol"
Can non Vista computers impliment the full functionality of Vista TCP/IP. Can they do so without a license.
According to the article 'the Vista stack has been redesigned from the ground up so it can't be specific implimentation. Why didn't they put these new features in the published RFC for IPv6. I've listed what I could see of what's new in Vista TCP/IP. Is such functionality not in IPV6.
"Receive Window Auto-Tuning and Compound TCP"
"mark the ECN field so that if the network is congested"
"QoS into account"
"tagging of packets with the Diffserv code point values"
"throttle the bandwidth of a particular subnet to a particular server"
"I think you're confused here. This is just a specific implementation of TCP/IP, not a different protocol or anything"
..
Then please go ahead and enlighten me. What does Vista TCP/IP do that requires a specific implementation
was Re:IPV6
What does Vista TCP/IP do that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6">IPV6 cannot and I don't mean such feetures that are welded to the Vista API.
I recall a case when someone wasn't paid and was enthused to leave the company. He put a logic bomb on the system that disabled it when his account was deleted. The company sued him and won. He had no prior record and given the number of executives being jailed by the SEC I don't think such background checks are of any use.
An aquaintence of mine does IT contractual work and it is generally quite difficult to get money out of people. He did some work for an Architect company who asked him to unlock a password protected zip file containing drawings. You see they were in the habit of not paying for work done. The drawings were for a contract worth £50,000 so talk about being stingy. They used also forget to pay him. He got fed up with chasing up people for non payment so he devised a script that disables the computer after two weeks. When the inevitable phone call comes he 'fixes' it remotely.
"its not whether or not a potential employee has a record (imho). It is whether the employee was HONEST about any prior run-ins with the law"
Best not to say, they are usually too stingy to pay for a background check.
"Since when did a "potentially exploitable heap buffer overflow" become a zero-day exploit?"
:)
Happy now
was zero-day exploit (Score:4, lets not talk about the potential flaw)
What exactly is misleading about the post. Is there *not* a zero day bug in Windows Media player. Does it not relate to WMVCORE.DLL.
.. were released,and slashdotted"
"Doesn't affect my Vista machine. Nor my XP Pro machine running IE7 + WMP 11"
What version of WMVCORE.DLL does WMP 11 use and is there a security advisory saying XP is not affected.
""the function at 7D7A8F27 in WMVCORE.DLL version 9.0.0.3250, and at 086E586E in WMVCORE.DLL version 10.0.0.3802"
""I can't help but wonder what it might look like if every time a flaw was discovered in *Nix, and a security advisory
Slashdot has been known to mention bugs in Linux.
"How often does a kernel update in Linux break something that you now have to update, or sometimes roll back alltogether because they won't work"
It doesn't as you aren't forced to update the kernel. Even if you do you can have multiple versions. The same with the apps. And you would never do a major upgrade on a production machine.
was GG Misleading Post (Score:5, yet another Winpologist getting modded up Insightful)
"The document isn't code, it's COM data objects. They don't need to contain code, in fact they usually contain references to COM objects"
That's just a matter of semantics. A reference to a COM object in a Word doc is the same as a Word doc executing something. COM objects are certanly not data, if written as C++ classes they contain both encapsulated functions and data. As such they can 'do' something. As such the design is flawed. As in opening a Word doc is opening you up to executing someone elses COM data object. As such you have to trust the sender.
"A Word document is a stream of COM data objects. This is one reason why Word documents can't be made backwards compatible"
Is it possible to provide such functionality without turning the document into code. Remember when there was two kind of binary, data and code. If you don't download code then you can't download 'viruses'.
"didnt the article say word viewer was affected too?"
Yes it does, in that case use the gmail wordviewer.
"Could the problem be avoided by opening the any .doc files with OO.org?"
The problem for a lot of msWord users is that the docs don't display or print correctly in OO especially if using lots of embedded frames etc. A simpler solution that would avoid even zero day exploits is to set the Word Viewer to default for Word docs and write a script that deletes normal.doc at boot. Use Firefox or Opera for browsing use thunderbird for email.
what about OO.org? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the difference in meaning if any between:
..
"Microsoft suggests that users 'not open or save Word files,' even from trusted sources.", kdawson
and
"Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted or that are received unexpected from trusted sources", MS
was Re:Misleading summary
was Re:Article Summary is Flamebait
"C'mon, did microsoft REALLY say, "'not open or save Word files,' even from trusted sources", davidsyes
"Recommendation: Do not open or save Word files that you receive from un-trusted or that are received unexpected from trusted sources. This vulnerability could be exploited when a user opens a file", microsoft.com
was SLASH! KNOCK OFF THE FUD SUBMISSIONS! (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of a design makes using a word processor dangerous. That by merely opening a text document you can totally compromise the system.
"PJ sometimes tends to get emotional - which is absolutely fine by me .."
Shouldn't these comments be directed at the relevent web site. Apart from her emotional state what do you have to say regarding the NOVL/MS deal. I notice in your long response you managed to not mention any of the points in the original article by PJ.
"Groklaw is no longer a reliable source of information. Because it is so obviously biased"
You mean like Hilf or Ballmer are unbiased don't you. Will a non Novell version of OpenOffice.org that includes support for OpenXML be in violation of a MS patent.
was Sometimes (Score:4, ad hominem )
"What is sooo wrong in the open source license/structure/community whatever, that a deal betweem these two entities or any entities whatsover, can be a threat to open source? It doesn't make sense"
It sure don't make sense. What is wrong about is that the ink was hardly dry when Ballmer and Hilf was using the agreement to threaten other Linux developers with litigation unless they signed a similar agreement. Finally, as a Novell customer I give Novell no authority to negociate on my behalf with Microsoft. Novell should cancel the agreement immidiatly and return to the fold. Does this answer your question.
was Re:The Big Picture
"biometric security measures were fooled 90% of the time by simple attacks like Play-Doh molds"
Will they pay the fine in Windows licenses, like they did in a previous case.
"That isn't the white paper. It is a sales pitch!"
"I agree that they don't do big things that are innovative, and this leads to disconnects as to what innovation is"
.. Noah Snavely (UW), Steve Seitz (UW), and Richard Szeliski (Microsoft Research)"
..
.. I did a quick search and found that it was created by Bungie Labs, a Chicago company that Microsoft acquired six years ago"
..
translation from RedmondSpeak: MS is only percieved to not do innovation only because of 'disconnects' in other peoples perception.
Samples of Ms innovation:
"improved the error messages you get in Internet Explorer"
"improved fonts in Windows with ClearType technology"
'Originally invented by IBM in 1988, subpixel rendering was first commercialized by Microsoft in 1998 as ClearType'
"cool looking charts in Office"
"Our industry just hasn't cared about security either"
You mean Microsoft don't you, the rest of the industry tackled security a long time ago. Since the inception of the Internet in fact.
"when you see things like Photosynth, you realize Microsoft can come back and be innovative"
A 3-D photo gallery. The demo looks good. It is actually one third MS innovation.
"Photosynth is a collaboration between Microsoft and
"Xbox Live, for instance, is very innovative. I can't see the gamer scores of players on any other system. That is innovation"
You're kidding
"Scoble: Ahh, have you ever played Halo? That's from Microsoft too"
""Winer:
""Scoble: Yes, and there's always room for a company that innovates through acquisitions"
""Scoble: Microsoft's Live.com has my blogs listed in the correct order, while Google does not"
Pardon me, I'm feeling a disconnect coming on
"The white paper has been yanked from Symantec's Web site"
Blackberry security overview