The summary specifies drivers running in kernel mode. Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean userspace drivers are safe?
True, it is coercion, but it seems to be required only for the drivers that could do some serious OS damage.
However, I do want to comment that the threshold box tends to load outside of the window on konqueror - which is ACID2 compliant in the version I am using.
Is "compliant" really a good way of saying "passes the ACID2 test"? ACID2 isn't a standard, it's really just a de facto CSS test. In fact (to my understanding), ACID2 uses some broken CSS to test a browser's ability to downgrade. In my opinion, it's pretty cool when you see the little smiley face show up on your favorite browser:)... but not a complete test of a browser's ability to accurately render to the formal standards.
It also appears that XUL in IE and other applications on Windows is possible through the Mozilla ActiveX control. Will it catch on? Doubt it, if XUL catches on as a means for rich interfaces for remote applications, Microsoft will just write their own implementation before people start using the Mozilla control. Being the gracious company that it is, Microsoft will gladly embrace XUL, and maybe even extend its functionality out of the goodness of their heart.
Windows computers despite the networking or even server capabilities are still built upon the philisophy of Personal Computer where the user has total control but also total responsiblity for what the software does. Microsoft's attempts to somehow augment security on top of this flawed concept is not going to succeed and in fact seems to be going the opposite way. Certainly my w2k box is easier to make secure than XP with its 'security improvements' and it seems Vista will make it impossible for the user to secure the computer that he's supposed to own and control.
IMHO, the concept is not flawed at all, but it has a dependency: the user must be computer-savvy enough to know what software gets installed on his or her computer. I think the reason Microsoft is imposing control over some parts of Windows is so that spyware, etc. isn't installed so quietly. When a user actually know's what's on his or her computer, it's a lot easier to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to.
If a user buys a virus on CD, and installs it, knowing that it's a virus, then it is the user's responsibility. The challenge is making sure the user does know what every program on their computer is supposed to do, which is what I see as one of the goals of Microsoft's OS security improvements (well, "improvements").
Other operating systems have (in general) base systems that are already more secure than Windows, but how is the concept any different? Security is totally the user's responsibility.
I think the AMD/ATI merger definitely needs a new name, and I'd like to propose a couple of suggestions.
First of all, whatever the new name is, I think it should be made by rearranging the letters.
One of my ideas is a name that I feel encompasses the struggle of computer enthusiasts to attain the best technology available: A... DAMIT!
My other idea would be for if they wanted to take a more personal approach to the computer market, and give there company a human name. IT Adam definitely is catchy... I'd remember it...
AMD/ATI, you're welcome to call me if you'd like to use one of those names. We can work out a contract... I won't ask for too much.
They should try this thing on Slashdot... it's quite obvious that the infamous worm Dupe.W32 has infected it.
From McAfee's security report:
The notorious Dupe.W32 worm is a high risk level Trojan that infects community technology sites via poor editing. Symptoms of the Dupe.W32 worm include duplicate posts, sometimes escalating to 3 and beyond. Though the topics that Dupe.W32 reposts are, in general, good topics, the Dupe.W32 worm wreaks its havoc by forcing the users to read through the same story again and again. To avoid being infected by this worm, please ensure that your site's editors are running the latest security updates. If issues arise, try installing Service Pack 2 on your editors.
Seriously, I like this story, it's an innovative use of Google... but each time I read it, it becomes slightly less innovative. My bet's on 5 posts before it's done.
Of course, let's be clear: it is a pompousness that many Mac users seem to have, (which I agree with) but not all.
I may be wrong, I don't see myself from the outside the way others do, but while I think I push that Macs are technically superior (which, in many cases, they are by virtue of operating system, not hardware), I'm not a stranger to acknowledging the things PCs do well (gaming, customizability, etc.). Besides, if I do have any pompousness, it's in computers only, not everyday life. In fact, one of the genuinely nicest people I know is a Mac user, with no side effects. (Now my Mac-using former math teacher... that's another story entirely, which makes him one of the "many").
\joke{Now quit trying to force your erroneous PC-user logic on us and accept the facts: no one listens to PC users anymore.}
Would you claim the Netscape developers said, "Oh, yeah, that whole thing about open standard? That doesn't apply to you. We really own it."???
In my opinion, it's a different issue. True, Microsoft is exercising its monopoly power in both cases (illegally, I will submit), but in the case of the web browser, it was slowly beginning the process of "stealing" the standard, adding their own proprietary additions, with (what I believe was) their original intent to kill every other browser and server platform out there.
In the case of the PDF feature, Microsoft made no modifications (that I am aware of) to the PDF standard-- it couldn't in order to get the PDFs to display properly everywhere else. They're not trying to steal anything, they're encouraging the adoption of an (ironically) already entrenched standard. I can understand adobe being upset over XPS being bundled into Office and Vista, it's a clear abuse of their monopoly power. But PDF support... Microsoft isn't ruining anything, they're contributing to Adobe's monopoly on the format. It's not as if they only included support for XPS. Abuse of power or not, Adobe should be glad that Microsoft is finally onboard, and if PDF is a truly open standard, there shouldn't be much they can do about it. So why is Adobe mad? Either they're morally saddened by the fact that Microsoft is going to use their monopoly to bring Adobe's technology to others in a semi-forcible manner, or they're afraid to lose money. Just a guess, but I don't think it's the former.
MS, however, being a monopolist cannot legally bundle those tools with their existing monopoly and thus bypass the free market. It is against the law.
Very true... not disagreeing with that in any way, shape, or form. But I'm saying, despite the fact that it's illegal, Adobe wouldn't care if they weren't scared of something.
First, apparently MS signed a contract with Adobe about MS's use of PDF and they are breaking it somehow. What it says or how, no one knows.
Not to be disrespectful, but where do you get that idea from? I saw no mention of that in TFA, and while it did elude to talks between Adobe and Microsoft, I got the idea that there was nothing formal. Besides, as you said...
MS, like any other company is free to make PDF generation tools.
... so why should they need a contract? Besides, if the real issue is that it's illegal to distribute the PDF support because of their monopoly, then how does a contract with Adobe make it any better? Doesn't it make it worse?
Why does Adobe automatically lose a lot of market share and MS gain it?
Short answer, IMHO, "Joe User"s. I'll admit, I have absolutely no clue what percentage of PDFs are generated from documents written or opened in any program of the Microsoft Office System... but I'll bet it's pretty darn high. True, Microsoft won't be taking market share only from Adobe-- the usage of free apps like CutePDF will decline too-- but like I mentioned, the Joe User demographic who just buys Acrobat without thinking will probably start a steady decline.
By the way, if I sound "snippy", no disrespect intended, it's been a long day.
Now, I'm a die-hard Mac user, and a big OOo supporter, but let's face it-- they don't have a whole lot of market share. Very little, in fact, compared to Microsoft's products. Not only that, but the market share they do have is much more technology-oriented.
Picture this scenario. Boss Billy walks down to Jim in Accounting, and tells Jim that he wants the company's annual financial report in his inbox by 2:00 that afternoon. Oh, and make it a PDF. I'd be willing to bet you the first thought through Jim's mind isn't "Ooh, I'd better download OpenOffice" or "Let me download a copy of CutePDF." The average computer user isn't very enlightened concerning those kinds of things. What Jim will think is "Hmm, PDF... that's Adobe, isn't it? Let me run down to OfficeMax and buy it."
Adobe doesn't care if the relatively small percentage of Mac and OOo users has access to PDF support (as everyone is supposed to, if it truly is an open format), but if Office implements the technology, Microsoft has just started cutting into their Average Joe User market share-- which is where they make the most of their money I'm sure.
The other major portion of their market share probably comes from professional designers who need more power than what's provided by free Postscript printers and OpenOffice.org. If Office implements parts of the PDF standard that aren't found in the free products, that starts chipping away at another part of their market share. If Microsoft jumps on board with PDF (like everyone else did years ago), Adobe faces a very steep, very fast drop in their Acrobat market share.
So what do they do? They try to pull a Microsoft-style monopoly move and say "Oh, yeah, that whole thing about open standard? That doesn't apply to you. We really own it." As they say, money talks, and if MS puts PDF support in office... to Adobe, money walks.
NetBSD's CGD project is a cryptographic virtual disk that can protect sensitive data while acting like a normal filesystem.
If it acts like a normal filesystem, that means that nothing special needs to be done to access it, provided you have an account with rights to use that filesystem (I'm assuming it needn't be root). So what if the person stealing your laptop gets a hold of your password? How does it become any more secure?
In retrospect, most BSD users probably don't keep their passwords on a sticky note inside their laptop like some Windows users I know...
A few years from now (or more), Microsoft will release a version of IE:Mac "back by popular demand, and now with new features" that curiously and remarkable resembles Safari or Firefox...
As a Mac user: please let the current incarnation of IE:Mac die a slow and painful death.
Personally I'm against any kind of online restriction (even if it means siding with Microsoft:P). But I don't think anyone who has a truly secure computer (meaning, a computer not running Windows) is in any danger.
ISPs want money, and they're not going to crush their customers for using "insecure platforms" unless they really are insecure. Plus, it's not like any mission-critical hardware in any ISP worth it's bandwidth runs Windows-- they'll mostly be powered by some *nix-like OS. Sure, initially their tech support probably won't be too clued-in to the world of open source, but if they want to keep their customers, the ISPs will make sure that they get clued-in, and fast. Even if the management and tech support people aren't top-notch technically, the people in the middle-- the real heart of the ISP-- know what they're doing. Restricting the software that's similar to that used to power the ISP itself would just be stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary specifies drivers running in kernel mode. Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean userspace drivers are safe? True, it is coercion, but it seems to be required only for the drivers that could do some serious OS damage.
Is "compliant" really a good way of saying "passes the ACID2 test"? ACID2 isn't a standard, it's really just a de facto CSS test. In fact (to my understanding), ACID2 uses some broken CSS to test a browser's ability to downgrade. In my opinion, it's pretty cool when you see the little smiley face show up on your favorite browser :)... but not a complete test of a browser's ability to accurately render to the formal standards.
Just a thought.
I agree with your reasoning, but because I'm an annoying nit-picker who needs a hobby (who also happens to extensively enjoy Googling)...
DXULi, a DHTML XUL interpreter for IE
It also appears that XUL in IE and other applications on Windows is possible through the Mozilla ActiveX control. Will it catch on? Doubt it, if XUL catches on as a means for rich interfaces for remote applications, Microsoft will just write their own implementation before people start using the Mozilla control. Being the gracious company that it is, Microsoft will gladly embrace XUL, and maybe even extend its functionality out of the goodness of their heart.
Just my 2 cents.
IMHO, the concept is not flawed at all, but it has a dependency: the user must be computer-savvy enough to know what software gets installed on his or her computer. I think the reason Microsoft is imposing control over some parts of Windows is so that spyware, etc. isn't installed so quietly. When a user actually know's what's on his or her computer, it's a lot easier to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to.
If a user buys a virus on CD, and installs it, knowing that it's a virus, then it is the user's responsibility. The challenge is making sure the user does know what every program on their computer is supposed to do, which is what I see as one of the goals of Microsoft's OS security improvements (well, "improvements").
Other operating systems have (in general) base systems that are already more secure than Windows, but how is the concept any different? Security is totally the user's responsibility.
Just my 2 cents worth.
there company = their company
Sorry, missed it when I proofread my comment!
I think the AMD/ATI merger definitely needs a new name, and I'd like to propose a couple of suggestions.
First of all, whatever the new name is, I think it should be made by rearranging the letters.
One of my ideas is a name that I feel encompasses the struggle of computer enthusiasts to attain the best technology available: A... DAMIT!
My other idea would be for if they wanted to take a more personal approach to the computer market, and give there company a human name. IT Adam definitely is catchy... I'd remember it...
AMD/ATI, you're welcome to call me if you'd like to use one of those names. We can work out a contract... I won't ask for too much.
They should try this thing on Slashdot... it's quite obvious that the infamous worm Dupe.W32 has infected it.
From McAfee's security report:
Seriously, I like this story, it's an innovative use of Google... but each time I read it, it becomes slightly less innovative. My bet's on 5 posts before it's done.
Of course, let's be clear: it is a pompousness that many Mac users seem to have, (which I agree with) but not all.
I may be wrong, I don't see myself from the outside the way others do, but while I think I push that Macs are technically superior (which, in many cases, they are by virtue of operating system, not hardware), I'm not a stranger to acknowledging the things PCs do well (gaming, customizability, etc.). Besides, if I do have any pompousness, it's in computers only, not everyday life. In fact, one of the genuinely nicest people I know is a Mac user, with no side effects. (Now my Mac-using former math teacher... that's another story entirely, which makes him one of the "many").
\joke{Now quit trying to force your erroneous PC-user logic on us and accept the facts: no one listens to PC users anymore.}
(Please note the TeX-style joke ;))
In my opinion, it's a different issue. True, Microsoft is exercising its monopoly power in both cases (illegally, I will submit), but in the case of the web browser, it was slowly beginning the process of "stealing" the standard, adding their own proprietary additions, with (what I believe was) their original intent to kill every other browser and server platform out there.
In the case of the PDF feature, Microsoft made no modifications (that I am aware of) to the PDF standard-- it couldn't in order to get the PDFs to display properly everywhere else. They're not trying to steal anything, they're encouraging the adoption of an (ironically) already entrenched standard. I can understand adobe being upset over XPS being bundled into Office and Vista, it's a clear abuse of their monopoly power. But PDF support... Microsoft isn't ruining anything, they're contributing to Adobe's monopoly on the format. It's not as if they only included support for XPS. Abuse of power or not, Adobe should be glad that Microsoft is finally onboard, and if PDF is a truly open standard, there shouldn't be much they can do about it. So why is Adobe mad? Either they're morally saddened by the fact that Microsoft is going to use their monopoly to bring Adobe's technology to others in a semi-forcible manner, or they're afraid to lose money. Just a guess, but I don't think it's the former.
Very true... not disagreeing with that in any way, shape, or form. But I'm saying, despite the fact that it's illegal, Adobe wouldn't care if they weren't scared of something.
Not to be disrespectful, but where do you get that idea from? I saw no mention of that in TFA, and while it did elude to talks between Adobe and Microsoft, I got the idea that there was nothing formal. Besides, as you said...
... so why should they need a contract? Besides, if the real issue is that it's illegal to distribute the PDF support because of their monopoly, then how does a contract with Adobe make it any better? Doesn't it make it worse?
Short answer, IMHO, "Joe User"s. I'll admit, I have absolutely no clue what percentage of PDFs are generated from documents written or opened in any program of the Microsoft Office System... but I'll bet it's pretty darn high. True, Microsoft won't be taking market share only from Adobe-- the usage of free apps like CutePDF will decline too-- but like I mentioned, the Joe User demographic who just buys Acrobat without thinking will probably start a steady decline.
By the way, if I sound "snippy", no disrespect intended, it's been a long day.
This might be redundant, but here goes...
Now, I'm a die-hard Mac user, and a big OOo supporter, but let's face it-- they don't have a whole lot of market share. Very little, in fact, compared to Microsoft's products. Not only that, but the market share they do have is much more technology-oriented.
Picture this scenario. Boss Billy walks down to Jim in Accounting, and tells Jim that he wants the company's annual financial report in his inbox by 2:00 that afternoon. Oh, and make it a PDF. I'd be willing to bet you the first thought through Jim's mind isn't "Ooh, I'd better download OpenOffice" or "Let me download a copy of CutePDF." The average computer user isn't very enlightened concerning those kinds of things. What Jim will think is "Hmm, PDF... that's Adobe, isn't it? Let me run down to OfficeMax and buy it."
Adobe doesn't care if the relatively small percentage of Mac and OOo users has access to PDF support (as everyone is supposed to, if it truly is an open format), but if Office implements the technology, Microsoft has just started cutting into their Average Joe User market share-- which is where they make the most of their money I'm sure.
The other major portion of their market share probably comes from professional designers who need more power than what's provided by free Postscript printers and OpenOffice.org. If Office implements parts of the PDF standard that aren't found in the free products, that starts chipping away at another part of their market share. If Microsoft jumps on board with PDF (like everyone else did years ago), Adobe faces a very steep, very fast drop in their Acrobat market share.
So what do they do? They try to pull a Microsoft-style monopoly move and say "Oh, yeah, that whole thing about open standard? That doesn't apply to you. We really own it." As they say, money talks, and if MS puts PDF support in office... to Adobe, money walks.
Imagine the appointment reminder cards it would send... or how it would react if someone had to cancel their appointment...
If it acts like a normal filesystem, that means that nothing special needs to be done to access it, provided you have an account with rights to use that filesystem (I'm assuming it needn't be root). So what if the person stealing your laptop gets a hold of your password? How does it become any more secure?
In retrospect, most BSD users probably don't keep their passwords on a sticky note inside their laptop like some Windows users I know...
A few years from now (or more), Microsoft will release a version of IE:Mac "back by popular demand, and now with new features" that curiously and remarkable resembles Safari or Firefox...
As a Mac user: please let the current incarnation of IE:Mac die a slow and painful death.
... I used the wrong "it's" (should be its) and it's bugging me...
Personally I'm against any kind of online restriction (even if it means siding with Microsoft :P). But I don't think anyone who has a truly secure computer (meaning, a computer not running Windows) is in any danger.
ISPs want money, and they're not going to crush their customers for using "insecure platforms" unless they really are insecure. Plus, it's not like any mission-critical hardware in any ISP worth it's bandwidth runs Windows-- they'll mostly be powered by some *nix-like OS. Sure, initially their tech support probably won't be too clued-in to the world of open source, but if they want to keep their customers, the ISPs will make sure that they get clued-in, and fast. Even if the management and tech support people aren't top-notch technically, the people in the middle-- the real heart of the ISP-- know what they're doing. Restricting the software that's similar to that used to power the ISP itself would just be stupid.