NaCl restricts applications to a limited memory region and instruction set, with no possibility of interaction with the outside world
As does Java. Supposedly. NaCl is just another attack vector, and it will fail. There was no need for Google to create yet another attack vector in the browser. They did anyway.
I'm not sure you are familiar with the distinction between an example and an exhaustive description of the scope of a problem.
I am, but I am not sure if you are familiar with the distinction between "a problem, since I have to do it regularly" and "a non-issue, since the issue is limited to something I very rarely do".
At which point it's no more a security risk than JS
You had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek when you wrote that? If not, google JavaScript exploits. There have been many. Once they give full access to your graphics drivers, watch the number of exploits go way up.
Seems like nobody in the industry reads history books about the industry.
The JVM even has run-time security checks, NaCl doesn't. NaCl is less secure than Java and just a tiny bit more secure than ActiveX (which had static checking/sandboxing towards the end).
Native Client is a security disaster waiting to happen. Java (as in applets) is more secure than NaCl, since it offers run-time privilege checking while NaCl only supports static checking. At its base it is exactly like ActiveX in the later years (when MS added static checking) - in other words, something IT professionals should ban on their networks.
If you have to have applications, write Java applets or Silverlight stuff. Both work. Both are significantly safer than NaCl, and both are used very little. Apps and Browsers, never the twain shall meet.
Or, to put it shorter, Google discovered that users are skeptical to this JavaScript cloud-based stuff, so the invented ActiveX. You know, since that was such a brilliant idea. Sheesh!
they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing
They don't so your point is utterly meaningless. At the same time they give you a noticeable (25% on my computer according to Geekbench) performance increase.
In other words, any/. complaining about Win8 is an utter retard who is willing to give up a significant performance increase due to a perceived non-existing "someone moved my cheese" issue.
holding their hands up all day every day messing with a touch screen on a desktop... This is primarily a website for IT and Developers
I use Windows 8 at home (and Ubuntu when I do RoR stuff). I never have to use the Start Screen - though I occasionally use it because I want to (quick glance gives you a lot of information about stocks, news, weather etc). When not using the Start Screen, Win8 is virtually identical to Win7 in day-to-day use. Why would you, as a self-professed IT professional, use the touch aspects of an OS when on a desktop computer? Doesn't that make you just a tad more retarded than the OS you seem to despise?
Windows 8 gives me, according to Geekbench, a 25% performance increase over Windows 7. Granted, it is not 25% in real world use, but it is quite noticeable all the same. Why would any self-professed geek give up a significant performance increase because his religion told him to do so? Doesn't that automatically disqualify you from reading/.?
I got a 25% performance increase according to Geekbench. It doesn't translate to quite that much in the real world, but there is a definite performance increase. I never have to use the Start Screen, so I see no problem with Win8 over Win7. To me the whiners on/. who cry about Win8 do so because they are whiny house wives who should have their computer privileges removed for giving up a decent performance increase based on a tiny and utterly inconsequential "somebody moved my cheese" issue.
I don't hate Windows 8, I just don't see any compelling reason to switch from Windows 7
I'll give you one - and any/. who whines about the Start Screen should have their geek card revoked based on this alone:
This is the geekbench results (64 bit) of first desktop I upgraded from Win7 to Win8. The exact same PC, no hardware changes. It runs an older AMD CPU
Windows 7: 5665
Windows 8: 7103
That's a 25% performance increase. Sorry, if you are so fucking myopic that you will let your religious beliefs, and sorry, the UI change in the real world where you never really have to look at the start scrren from Win7 to Win8 is tiny and insignificant is all about religious beliefs, stand in the way of a 25% performance increase then you are a moron. You are also definitely not a geek. You are a whining house wife who should have her computer privileges revoked.
for many tasks you end up using a mix of Win8 UI and traditional desktop UI apps
Really? I've been using Windows 8 for a while, and I "never" use any Windows 8 Metro (new UI) apps. Ever. I haven't found any that are useful that do not have a better option with a traditional UI. I occasionally glance at the Start Screen, using it as a big "Information about all kinds of shit" type of Window, but not for productivity. I obviously have to run the Metro apps to configure the tiles to show the information I want, but that is either a once-off or a "very, very rarely" situation. I can't see any reason to use Metro apps for productivity tasks on a desktop.
Why would you do such a thing, it seems to be rather counter productive.
You are right, the Transmission & Distribution cost is about 6-8%. The total energy loss (difference in energy in the extracted coal compared to what comes out of the socket) is 65% or so, the majority lost in the production phase, not the T&D phase. My bad.
If you are unable to answer simple questions with anything but lies (I have utterly refuted your BS above) then you are too retarded to engage in conversation with. Get well soon from your brain-removal surgery.
And you seem to be ignorant, confident and dumb. A lethal combination. Lethal to you that is.
This website is more linux oriented... Linux, BSD, etc have the dominant position in the market... makes Microsoft the minority in cloud computing
Wow, you are even dumber than I originally thought, you don't even know the difference between the cloud and the web in general. Go get an education before you come back, your ignorance is currently dwarfing every other aspect of your personality.
So you can understand now why everyone says there is nothing running on it
No, I can see why dumb, ignorant religious nuts say so, they don't have an ounce of knowledge to share between them. As a computer professional I use the tools that work, some times that is Microsoft, some times it is Linux. It is never either or. It is only either or for unemployable religious nuts.
If you've never watched a good, smaller company go under,
Good small companies do not go under (per definition). Shitty small companies with crap products and managers to match go under. If what you are blabbing about was true, there would be no companies making software for Windows.
Let's see... there is nobody using Azure? So there are no iPads and no iPhones in use then? Nobody uses the iCloud? Really?
Oh, what you are saying is that you didn't know Apple didn't have the infrastructure or operating system to build a cloud offering and they therefore had to build the whole thing on Azure (striped on EC2)?
I'd say, with about 100 million iPads out there and almost three times as many iPhones sold, Azure might be the most used cloud infrastructure of all if you discount the email-only cloud Gmail.
Slashdot Mirror
NaCl restricts applications to a limited memory region and instruction set, with no possibility of interaction with the outside world
As does Java. Supposedly. NaCl is just another attack vector, and it will fail. There was no need for Google to create yet another attack vector in the browser. They did anyway.
I'm not sure you are familiar with the distinction between an example and an exhaustive description of the scope of a problem.
I am, but I am not sure if you are familiar with the distinction between "a problem, since I have to do it regularly" and "a non-issue, since the issue is limited to something I very rarely do".
won't go anywhere unless replaced by something better
and that is called "just about anything but not ActiveX or ActiveX light (aka NaCl).
At which point it's no more a security risk than JS
You had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek when you wrote that? If not, google JavaScript exploits. There have been many. Once they give full access to your graphics drivers, watch the number of exploits go way up.
Seems like nobody in the industry reads history books about the industry.
The JVM even has run-time security checks, NaCl doesn't. NaCl is less secure than Java and just a tiny bit more secure than ActiveX (which had static checking/sandboxing towards the end).
Native Client is a security disaster waiting to happen. Java (as in applets) is more secure than NaCl, since it offers run-time privilege checking while NaCl only supports static checking. At its base it is exactly like ActiveX in the later years (when MS added static checking) - in other words, something IT professionals should ban on their networks.
If you have to have applications, write Java applets or Silverlight stuff. Both work. Both are significantly safer than NaCl, and both are used very little. Apps and Browsers, never the twain shall meet.
Or, to put it shorter, Google discovered that users are skeptical to this JavaScript cloud-based stuff, so the invented ActiveX. You know, since that was such a brilliant idea. Sheesh!
Yeah, and since you have do deal with Microsoft update at least five times a day, this is a huge issue. Sigh.
I have to do compatibility testing and dont want to have to install Windows 8, even on a VMWare image.
Next time you post, if you don't want to look like a childish moron, have your mother read through your drivel first.
they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing
They don't so your point is utterly meaningless. At the same time they give you a noticeable (25% on my computer according to Geekbench) performance increase.
In other words, any /. complaining about Win8 is an utter retard who is willing to give up a significant performance increase due to a perceived non-existing "someone moved my cheese" issue.
Now that is retarded.
holding their hands up all day every day messing with a touch screen on a desktop ... This is primarily a website for IT and Developers
I use Windows 8 at home (and Ubuntu when I do RoR stuff). I never have to use the Start Screen - though I occasionally use it because I want to (quick glance gives you a lot of information about stocks, news, weather etc). When not using the Start Screen, Win8 is virtually identical to Win7 in day-to-day use. Why would you, as a self-professed IT professional, use the touch aspects of an OS when on a desktop computer? Doesn't that make you just a tad more retarded than the OS you seem to despise?
Windows 8 gives me, according to Geekbench, a 25% performance increase over Windows 7. Granted, it is not 25% in real world use, but it is quite noticeable all the same. Why would any self-professed geek give up a significant performance increase because his religion told him to do so? Doesn't that automatically disqualify you from reading /.?
I got a 25% performance increase according to Geekbench. It doesn't translate to quite that much in the real world, but there is a definite performance increase. I never have to use the Start Screen, so I see no problem with Win8 over Win7. To me the whiners on /. who cry about Win8 do so because they are whiny house wives who should have their computer privileges removed for giving up a decent performance increase based on a tiny and utterly inconsequential "somebody moved my cheese" issue.
I don't hate Windows 8, I just don't see any compelling reason to switch from Windows 7
I'll give you one - and any /. who whines about the Start Screen should have their geek card revoked based on this alone:
This is the geekbench results (64 bit) of first desktop I upgraded from Win7 to Win8. The exact same PC, no hardware changes. It runs an older AMD CPU
Windows 7: 5665
Windows 8: 7103
That's a 25% performance increase. Sorry, if you are so fucking myopic that you will let your religious beliefs, and sorry, the UI change in the real world where you never really have to look at the start scrren from Win7 to Win8 is tiny and insignificant is all about religious beliefs, stand in the way of a 25% performance increase then you are a moron. You are also definitely not a geek. You are a whining house wife who should have her computer privileges revoked.
for many tasks you end up using a mix of Win8 UI and traditional desktop UI apps
Really? I've been using Windows 8 for a while, and I "never" use any Windows 8 Metro (new UI) apps. Ever. I haven't found any that are useful that do not have a better option with a traditional UI. I occasionally glance at the Start Screen, using it as a big "Information about all kinds of shit" type of Window, but not for productivity. I obviously have to run the Metro apps to configure the tiles to show the information I want, but that is either a once-off or a "very, very rarely" situation. I can't see any reason to use Metro apps for productivity tasks on a desktop.
Why would you do such a thing, it seems to be rather counter productive.
You are right, the Transmission & Distribution cost is about 6-8%. The total energy loss (difference in energy in the extracted coal compared to what comes out of the socket) is 65% or so, the majority lost in the production phase, not the T&D phase. My bad.
Joking or dumb? Transfer of energy through wires incurs a rather significant loss.
4) Producing electricity far away from where it is used is inefficient since transporting electricity is quite inefficient.
If you are unable to answer simple questions with anything but lies (I have utterly refuted your BS above) then you are too retarded to engage in conversation with. Get well soon from your brain-removal surgery.
You seem to be flaming this a lot
And you seem to be ignorant, confident and dumb. A lethal combination. Lethal to you that is.
This website is more linux oriented ... Linux, BSD, etc have the dominant position in the market ... makes Microsoft the minority in cloud computing
Wow, you are even dumber than I originally thought, you don't even know the difference between the cloud and the web in general. Go get an education before you come back, your ignorance is currently dwarfing every other aspect of your personality.
So you can understand now why everyone says there is nothing running on it
No, I can see why dumb, ignorant religious nuts say so, they don't have an ounce of knowledge to share between them. As a computer professional I use the tools that work, some times that is Microsoft, some times it is Linux. It is never either or. It is only either or for unemployable religious nuts.
If you happen to work for microsoft (or own shares in microsoft), please note that Azure is strictly windows and strictly Microsoft
Only for the ignorant bashers. As with any religion, a little knowledge is the cure for your ignorance. I recommend you acquire some.
If you've never watched a good, smaller company go under,
Good small companies do not go under (per definition). Shitty small companies with crap products and managers to match go under. If what you are blabbing about was true, there would be no companies making software for Windows.
Windows mostly.
Azure has nothing running on it
So 100 million iPad users and maybe twice as many iPhone users is nothing? The iCloud runs on Azure.
As quickly as anyone using the iCloud needs it to be.
Let's see... there is nobody using Azure? So there are no iPads and no iPhones in use then? Nobody uses the iCloud? Really?
Oh, what you are saying is that you didn't know Apple didn't have the infrastructure or operating system to build a cloud offering and they therefore had to build the whole thing on Azure (striped on EC2)?
I'd say, with about 100 million iPads out there and almost three times as many iPhones sold, Azure might be the most used cloud infrastructure of all if you discount the email-only cloud Gmail.