Pfft. According to research, half of them use Quicktime, Flash Player, or some other browser control nonsense which would slightly delay the minimisation or exit of the program, resulting in what you are watching being plainly visible for several seconds. My research indicates both Opera and Firefox are TERRIBLE for this.
And then you gotta be wary because a lot of software (here's looking at you, Adobe) have license clauses outright forbidding usage on terminal servers of any sort.
Too true. Which is something to take up with the vendors, now, isn't it?
Any bets on whether your biz-specific tool vendor will write you a license rider to let you use it from a server (at the same revenue for him as if you actually had it installed on all the relevant desktops) if you tell him you're working on migration to linux desktops and you REALLY want to stay with him rather than start evaluating the competition's products... In principle, you'd be right. Unfortunately in some industries (I work in public - i.e. government - healthcare) there really isn't any competition for X vendor. I'd be interested in hearing your views on how to deal with that type of situation, as it is probably all too common and I imagine that in the aforesaid cases, the vendor would be quite happy to "call your bluff" so to speak. I'm sure ours isn't the only industry where there isn't a lot of competition (3D modelling comes to mind - is there a Linux version of Maya or Lightwave?)
Because Terminal Server CALs are too damn expensive? Remember, XP only contains CALs for Windows 2000 Server. This rdesktop you link to has NO free CAL, you'd have to buy them all separately for 2000 Server. For 2003 Server you have to buy them all separately anyway. And then you gotta be wary because a lot of software (here's looking at you, Adobe) have license clauses outright forbidding usage on terminal servers of any sort. Yeah, for a home user they can just ignore the license. But that option isn't available to businesses.
Not really, there's a Twitter/Erris post a bit up there, so obviously it has been used at least once (isn't it amusing that you need not even read his posts to know he said "Windoze" or "M$" at least 10 times?)
He's definitely lying, too, because if a program that runs at boot needs UAC to elevate it, Windows doesn't start it and you get a single balloon from Windows Defender in the taskbar telling you that Windows didn't start some of your startup programs because they require elevation. I know, because I had Windows do that to me when I set Proxomitron to start at startup (I think they've adopted the Unixy policy of requiring "root" level access to use well-known ports).
Yeah, but that lends credibility to his statement - Symantec BOUGHT Ghost, not made it. A New Zealand company, Binary Research, made it (oh wow, it's still developed in Auckland).
Your signature couldn't be more right, you moronic fucktard, you DO need a life. I'm not the only one that experiences this thing with Windows. Perhaps I'm just the only one that finds it irritating. I think the only source of vitriol, idiocy and incompetence is you. I fucking give up now, because you're too fucking stupid to understand when to shut the fuck up.
Doesn't matter. Verisign is the authority for.com and.net, any request for domains ending in one of those suffixes needs to be queried against Verisign at some point.
You don't get much dumber. I have many machines, as well as supporting (gah) many others, from XP (not even a service pack!) through Vista. And they all exhibit this irritating behaviour. It's not a fucking third party product, it's built in (bloody irritatingly) to the OS. The bubbles I'm bursting, are the ones still spouting out of your mouth. They're brown coloured and smell bad too.
An NTFS file stream can contain anything, about anything. Hell, I could put a text document there, or XML metadata, and I can even apply it to an installed app!
I also noticed something yesterday that drove me nuts. Apparently, when you copy shit off a network drive or the internet, it tags it in some bizarre manner that causes it to prompt me prior to running it. I had to individually go to the properties of each and every file and click the "Unblock" button to tell it "Yes, I do actually want to run these apps". Just because it's a shitty implementation (and it is, it has to be one of the worse design decisions Microsoft ever made) doesn't mean it isn't there.
Sorry to burst your bubble and expose you for the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth Apple fanboi you are, but you're an idiot.
Also, if you return the game because of the ads, then you've agreed to the license agreement which means you cannot return it on those grounds.
Um... What? How does saying "no" to the EULA mean you've agreed to it? I'm only going to cover this one, leaving others with more localised knowledge to handle the "at what point" questions.
In this one, you would have to have seen the ads to make the call to return it based on the ads. To do this, you'd have to install it. To install it, you need to agree to the EULA. Now, you could theoretically return it based on having read the license and seen the small note on it about the information gathering, so you could return it based on not liking that clause, but that's not because of the ads.
Hold on, what law does refusing to serve someone violate? Contrary to popular belief, retailers may arbitrarily refuse to serve someone, and they are still private property - if they expressly retract the invitation for you to enter their premises (e.g. by refusing to serve you and asking you to leave) you are trespassing. Discrimination only applies if they refuse to serve you on certain grounds (race, religion, sex, orientation, etc).
Also, if you return the game because of the ads, then you've agreed to the license agreement which means you cannot return it on those grounds.
In reality, virtually every motherboard has the Award BootBlock BIOS (or some equivalent) which loads code to do nothing but drive I/O on the removable media and flash the BIOS. Bricking a machine nowadays with a failed BIOS update just isn't possible. The more modern machines will actually notice the failed BIOS and flash it back from the second BIOS with no downtime, and a single reboot.
The core thing here is that there is no way to tag an executable in Windows. You're blowing smoke. See below for more on MS's digital signing strategy. Actually, the one blowing smoke here is you, or have you not heard of NTFS File Streams? You know, where Windows stores all that metadata it keeps on files?
Wait, holy shit that blows up your bottom argument too!
By the way, I never said XP SP2's firewall was good. I simply said it had a Firewall. Windows Vista's firewall is much better.
Um, and it should also be noted that XP will verify the digital signature of an application prior to launching it if you are launching it from a network drive, or by using the browser's "Run from current location" feature.
Protect yourself from potential threats. Any application downloaded to your Mac is tagged. Before it runs for the first time, the system asks for your consent -- telling you when it was downloaded, what application was used to download it, and, if applicable, what URL it came from. This was introduced by Microsoft in Windows XP SP2 Really? It is? Amazing that the only time I'm asked whether I want to run an executable is when I download with a browser. There's no tagging of executables that I'm aware of nor have experienced. Nor is there anyway to tell where an executable came from once it's on your drive. Or maybe there's a new bug to report to MS about XP SP2.... Actually, I've frequently been harassed about applications I downloaded or copied off my network whether I really want to run them (and told at that point whether it's digitally signed). It's bloody annoying, and I bet it will be in OS X too.
# Application-Based Firewall
Gain more control over the built-in firewall. Specify the behavior of specific applications to either allow or block incoming connections. You guessed it; Microsoft, SP2 (it was available in third party firewalls before then of course) SP2's firewall is an add-on application. Yes, it ships with but is not integral too the OS, and can be replaced. It's also a piece of crap, IIRC. There's much easier and more efficient ways of securing your system. (FYI, I don't run it as it's too flaky for what I do and far too big a pain to even try and configure for the port ranges I use - it'd essentially be open) Your argument is a load of crap. The fact is, XP SP2 apparently did have it before OS X (even if it sucks, I imagine OS X's one will suck too). You cannot shrug off a valid argument against your point with strawman arguments like that. And it's not an add-on application. It's an OS feature. In the same way as OS X's new firewall is an OS feature.
# Library Randomization As the GP said, this has been in lots of OSes for a long time, including Windows Vista. And how easy has it been to implement? It's not in XP SP2. How is that relevant?
# Signed Applications
Feel safe with your applications. A digital signature on an application verifies its identity and ensures its integrity. All applications shipped with Leopard are signed by Apple, and third-party software developers can also sign their applications. Again, Microsoft, SP2. I believe MS had signed drivers and DLLs (not applications, just drivers and DLLs) long ago. Guess what, no one does it. When's the last time you had a signed driver or DLL? My sound card, video card, motherboard chipsets, network chipsets, printers, and scanners all came with unsigned drivers, despite being "Made for Windows". Having something and using it effectively are two entirely different things. Those would all be from mom and pop companies, like Creative, nVidia/ATI, MSI/Asus, broadcom, Konica-Minolta/HP, and HP/Epson, respectively. Wow, way to twist the original point to fit your rabid, foaming at the mouth agenda. Microsoft signs all core OS components (ironically, not Internet Explorer) with their digital signature so the OS can verify that they are the legitimate originals. Third parties can choose to sign their code. Interestingly, that's the exact thing that Apple just described. This has been in Windows since Windows 2000.
You're talking out your arse. Exchange will happily serve a (marginally different) Outlook Web Access interface when it detects a non-IE browser. It's not 100% as functional as the IE interface, but it works fine in Firefox/Opera/Safari/Konquerer.
Over here, our OEMs sometimes dump OpenOffice on new PCs. It's cheaper for them then the ridiculous Works Suite, which sucks balls anyway. They then offer discounts for a copy of MS Office, if you want it, as an upgrade option.
What are you talking about? Provided it's used correctly (as an acronym for Stock Keeping Unit) then it's quite appropriate as a reference to a line of products. However, the term is not really relevant to end users (very much relevant to stores, however, who use it as the primary ordering identification mechanism).
Then you mustn't have read page 7 at all. Allow me to quote for you:
(3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs all profits derived by Defendant from its unlawful acts; Incidentally, this would include all profits derived from Monsoon's own work as well, which is pretty scummy.
Slashdot Mirror
Pfft. According to research, half of them use Quicktime, Flash Player, or some other browser control nonsense which would slightly delay the minimisation or exit of the program, resulting in what you are watching being plainly visible for several seconds. My research indicates both Opera and Firefox are TERRIBLE for this.
Too true. Which is something to take up with the vendors, now, isn't it?
Any bets on whether your biz-specific tool vendor will write you a license rider to let you use it from a server (at the same revenue for him as if you actually had it installed on all the relevant desktops) if you tell him you're working on migration to linux desktops and you REALLY want to stay with him rather than start evaluating the competition's products... In principle, you'd be right. Unfortunately in some industries (I work in public - i.e. government - healthcare) there really isn't any competition for X vendor. I'd be interested in hearing your views on how to deal with that type of situation, as it is probably all too common and I imagine that in the aforesaid cases, the vendor would be quite happy to "call your bluff" so to speak. I'm sure ours isn't the only industry where there isn't a lot of competition (3D modelling comes to mind - is there a Linux version of Maya or Lightwave?)
Because Terminal Server CALs are too damn expensive? Remember, XP only contains CALs for Windows 2000 Server. This rdesktop you link to has NO free CAL, you'd have to buy them all separately for 2000 Server. For 2003 Server you have to buy them all separately anyway. And then you gotta be wary because a lot of software (here's looking at you, Adobe) have license clauses outright forbidding usage on terminal servers of any sort. Yeah, for a home user they can just ignore the license. But that option isn't available to businesses.
Not really, there's a Twitter/Erris post a bit up there, so obviously it has been used at least once (isn't it amusing that you need not even read his posts to know he said "Windoze" or "M$" at least 10 times?)
He's definitely lying, too, because if a program that runs at boot needs UAC to elevate it, Windows doesn't start it and you get a single balloon from Windows Defender in the taskbar telling you that Windows didn't start some of your startup programs because they require elevation. I know, because I had Windows do that to me when I set Proxomitron to start at startup (I think they've adopted the Unixy policy of requiring "root" level access to use well-known ports).
Yeah, but that lends credibility to his statement - Symantec BOUGHT Ghost, not made it. A New Zealand company, Binary Research, made it (oh wow, it's still developed in Auckland).
Allow me to ruin the suspense, everyone:
Another One Bites the Dust.
Your signature couldn't be more right, you moronic fucktard, you DO need a life. I'm not the only one that experiences this thing with Windows. Perhaps I'm just the only one that finds it irritating. I think the only source of vitriol, idiocy and incompetence is you. I fucking give up now, because you're too fucking stupid to understand when to shut the fuck up.
Doesn't matter. Verisign is the authority for .com and .net, any request for domains ending in one of those suffixes needs to be queried against Verisign at some point.
You don't get much dumber. I have many machines, as well as supporting (gah) many others, from XP (not even a service pack!) through Vista. And they all exhibit this irritating behaviour. It's not a fucking third party product, it's built in (bloody irritatingly) to the OS. The bubbles I'm bursting, are the ones still spouting out of your mouth. They're brown coloured and smell bad too.
Holy crap, you're STILL full of shit!
An NTFS file stream can contain anything, about anything. Hell, I could put a text document there, or XML metadata, and I can even apply it to an installed app!
I also noticed something yesterday that drove me nuts. Apparently, when you copy shit off a network drive or the internet, it tags it in some bizarre manner that causes it to prompt me prior to running it. I had to individually go to the properties of each and every file and click the "Unblock" button to tell it "Yes, I do actually want to run these apps". Just because it's a shitty implementation (and it is, it has to be one of the worse design decisions Microsoft ever made) doesn't mean it isn't there.
Sorry to burst your bubble and expose you for the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth Apple fanboi you are, but you're an idiot.
agreed to the license agreement which means you cannot return it
on those grounds.
Um... What? How does saying "no" to the EULA mean you've agreed
to it? I'm only going to cover this one, leaving others with more localised knowledge to handle the "at what point" questions.
In this one, you would have to have seen the ads to make the call to return it based on the ads. To do this, you'd have to install it. To install it, you need to agree to the EULA. Now, you could theoretically return it based on having read the license and seen the small note on it about the information gathering, so you could return it based on not liking that clause, but that's not because of the ads.
I have a tip for you: Line Breaks. Noone's gonna read what you just posted, walls of text suck.
Hold on, what law does refusing to serve someone violate? Contrary to popular belief, retailers may arbitrarily refuse to serve someone, and they are still private property - if they expressly retract the invitation for you to enter their premises (e.g. by refusing to serve you and asking you to leave) you are trespassing. Discrimination only applies if they refuse to serve you on certain grounds (race, religion, sex, orientation, etc).
Also, if you return the game because of the ads, then you've agreed to the license agreement which means you cannot return it on those grounds.
In reality, virtually every motherboard has the Award BootBlock BIOS (or some equivalent) which loads code to do nothing but drive I/O on the removable media and flash the BIOS. Bricking a machine nowadays with a failed BIOS update just isn't possible. The more modern machines will actually notice the failed BIOS and flash it back from the second BIOS with no downtime, and a single reboot.
Wait, holy shit that blows up your bottom argument too!
By the way, I never said XP SP2's firewall was good. I simply said it had a Firewall. Windows Vista's firewall is much better.
Um, and it should also be noted that XP will verify the digital signature of an application prior to launching it if you are launching it from a network drive, or by using the browser's "Run from current location" feature.
Well, there's also that Wikipedia links to the first version of the standard at the latex2rtf project site, which contains Microsoft's attribution.
It isn't lower cost than Windows at all. For me to use Mac OS X, I need to go out and buy a new PC.
So it isn't really Open, Low Cost, or Popular. But it does get security.
Or Vista. Vista includes the ability to shadow volumes too (and irritatingly turns it on by default)
Protect yourself from potential threats. Any application downloaded to your Mac is tagged. Before it runs for the first time, the system asks for your consent -- telling you when it was downloaded, what application was used to download it, and, if applicable, what URL it came from. This was introduced by Microsoft in Windows XP SP2 Really? It is? Amazing that the only time I'm asked whether I want to run an executable is when I download with a browser. There's no tagging of executables that I'm aware of nor have experienced. Nor is there anyway to tell where an executable came from once it's on your drive. Or maybe there's a new bug to report to MS about XP SP2.... Actually, I've frequently been harassed about applications I downloaded or copied off my network whether I really want to run them (and told at that point whether it's digitally signed). It's bloody annoying, and I bet it will be in OS X too. # Application-Based Firewall
Gain more control over the built-in firewall. Specify the behavior of specific applications to either allow or block incoming connections. You guessed it; Microsoft, SP2 (it was available in third party firewalls before then of course) SP2's firewall is an add-on application. Yes, it ships with but is not integral too the OS, and can be replaced. It's also a piece of crap, IIRC. There's much easier and more efficient ways of securing your system. (FYI, I don't run it as it's too flaky for what I do and far too big a pain to even try and configure for the port ranges I use - it'd essentially be open) Your argument is a load of crap. The fact is, XP SP2 apparently did have it before OS X (even if it sucks, I imagine OS X's one will suck too). You cannot shrug off a valid argument against your point with strawman arguments like that. And it's not an add-on application. It's an OS feature. In the same way as OS X's new firewall is an OS feature. # Library Randomization As the GP said, this has been in lots of OSes for a long time, including Windows Vista. And how easy has it been to implement? It's not in XP SP2. How is that relevant? # Signed Applications
Feel safe with your applications. A digital signature on an application verifies its identity and ensures its integrity. All applications shipped with Leopard are signed by Apple, and third-party software developers can also sign their applications. Again, Microsoft, SP2. I believe MS had signed drivers and DLLs (not applications, just drivers and DLLs) long ago. Guess what, no one does it. When's the last time you had a signed driver or DLL? My sound card, video card, motherboard chipsets, network chipsets, printers, and scanners all came with unsigned drivers, despite being "Made for Windows". Having something and using it effectively are two entirely different things. Those would all be from mom and pop companies, like Creative, nVidia/ATI, MSI/Asus, broadcom, Konica-Minolta/HP, and HP/Epson, respectively. Wow, way to twist the original point to fit your rabid, foaming at the mouth agenda. Microsoft signs all core OS components (ironically, not Internet Explorer) with their digital signature so the OS can verify that they are the legitimate originals. Third parties can choose to sign their code. Interestingly, that's the exact thing that Apple just described. This has been in Windows since Windows 2000.
Your memory doesn't serve, and your belief is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.rtf
You're talking out your arse. Exchange will happily serve a (marginally different) Outlook Web Access interface when it detects a non-IE browser. It's not 100% as functional as the IE interface, but it works fine in Firefox/Opera/Safari/Konquerer.
Over here, our OEMs sometimes dump OpenOffice on new PCs. It's cheaper for them then the ridiculous Works Suite, which sucks balls anyway. They then offer discounts for a copy of MS Office, if you want it, as an upgrade option.
I believe I once saw Firefox on a new PC too.
What are you talking about? Provided it's used correctly (as an acronym for Stock Keeping Unit) then it's quite appropriate as a reference to a line of products. However, the term is not really relevant to end users (very much relevant to stores, however, who use it as the primary ordering identification mechanism).
by Defendant from its unlawful acts; Incidentally, this would include all profits derived from Monsoon's own work as well, which is pretty scummy.