That's it for Nokia....all the talent has left, and now they sold the last real assets to a troll. M$'s trail of destruction continues.
- credit to phands on IV for pointing this out.
-- BMO
Last real assets? Get real. Those are just a miniscule 500 of the tens of thousands of patents that Nokia holds. Barely a drop in the bucket.
Phands? Is that the same phands who frequents Yahoo Message Boards and trolls them with foul mouthed language? I am not surprised you're hooking up with him/it.
On the other hand, I should've just stopped reading at 'M$'. Usually what follows is juvenile junk, and your post did not fail to disappoint. As usual, no references to back your outlandish claims based on headlines or stock prices.
'..suicide by M$'? Maybe you mean homicide. Your English is as bad as your comprehension skills.
If Microsoft got what it demands, that ARM devices that runs Win 8 be permanently locked, then the only option that I have, as a consumer, is to NOT BUY THAT DEVICE
No point of supporting dictatorial regime, be it political dictatorial, or hardware dictatorial
The elephant in the discussion is the iPad, an ARM based device with a locked bootloade. No one wants to talk about making it illegal, only Windows RT tablets must be outlawed, Apple is free to do whatever they want. Say you bought an iPad on Slashdot, automatically get +5 for not choosing a PC with Windows. But guess what? Apple bans Firefox from the iPad while you can even install Linux on a PC.
>however the serious win from this technology can only be had if the owner of the machine gets to set the key and sign his own boot images. Then you are talking about some serious win.
Umm, thats exactly what Microsoft requires for Windows 8 certification of x86 machines. You can even remove Microsoft's key if you so wish.
I am not denying that such things exist, but there is no reason for the standard to not require a method to install user generated certificates. It does not have to be easy to do, since it would not have to be done frequently: I could generate my own signing key, then sign as many custom bootloaders as a want to. That is the point of "custom mode," but there is a key problem here: there is no guarantee that custom mode will be available, and there is a mandate for ARM devices that run Windows that custom mode be unavailable.
These sorts of design decisions speak volumes about the purpose and scope of the standard. If the purpose of this standard were to protect users from malware, it would not make room for OEMs to lock users out of their own systems (i.e. right now an OEM has to specifically allow users to enable custom mode, as opposed to having to work to prevent users from doing so). Yes, this will make it much harder to create a bootloader virus, but I would view that as a side effect of the real security goal.
The standard? What standard? How will the OEMs be held to that? By what legal force?
Right now Microsoft does require that user loaded keys and a way to turn off secure boot be enabled for Windows 8 certification. They cannot mandate that to the OEMs, because of the anti-trust case, ironically.
Unless you're on ARM, in which case it won't be, so no, it's not always optional.
Huh? There are ARM devices right now like Android tablets that you can go buy some of which have unlocked bootloaders. iPads rule the ARM tablet market, but no one wants to talk about Apple. Raspberry Pi is also an ARM device. How is Microsoft locking those?
So it is entirely optional right now.
Maybe you(and all others) should specify that you're taking about Windows RT devices, not ARM devices, which is terribly misleading, probably intentionally so.
TDL4 is the most recent high tech and widely spread member of the TDSS family rootkit, targeting x64 operating systems too such as Windows Vista and Windows 7. One of the most striking features of TDL4 is that it is able to load its kernel-mode driver on systems with an enforced kernel-mode code signing policy (64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista and 7) and perform kernel-mode hooks with kernel-mode patch protection policy enabled.
When the driver is loaded into kernel-mode address space it overwrites the MBR (Master Boot Record) of the disk by sending SRB (SCSI Request Block) packets directly to the miniport device object, then it initializes its hidden file system. The bootkit’s modules are written into the hidden file system from the dropper.
The TDL4 bootkit controls two areas of the hard drive one is the MBR and other is the hidden file system created at the time of malware deployment. When any application reads the MBR, the bootkit changes data and returns the contents of the clean MBR i.e. prior to the infection, and also it takes care of Infected MBR by protecting it from overwriting.
The hidden file system with the malicious components also gets protected by the bootkit. So if any application is making an attempt to read sectors of the hard disk where the hidden file system is stored, It will return zeroed buffer instead of the original data.
The bootkit contains code that performs additional checks to prevent the malware from the cleanup. At every start of the system TDL4 bootkit driver gets loaded and initialized properly by performing tasks as follows: Reads the contents of the boot sector, compares it with the infected image stored in hidden file system, if it finds any difference between these two images it rewrites the infected image to the boot sector. Sets the DriverObject field of the miniport device object to point to the bootkit’s driver object and also hooks the DriverStartIo field of the miniport’s driver object. If kernel debugging is enabled then this TDL4 does not install any of it’s components.
TDL4 Rootkit hooks the ATAPI driver i.e. standard windows miniport drivers like atapi.sys. It keeps Device Object at lowest in the device stack, which makes a lot harder to dump TDL4 files.
All these striking features have made TDL4 most notorious Windows rootkit and it is also very important to mention that the key to its success is the boot sector infection.....
The original MBR and driver component are stored in encrypted form using the same encryption. Driver component hooks ATAPI's DriverStartIo routine where it monitors for write operations. In case of write operation targeted at the MBR sector, it is changed to read operation. This way it is trying to bypass repair operation by Security Products.
Atleast you'd have some credibility left if you had said that the restrictions could be about DRM also.
I do not want to choose between Fedora and Ubuntu; I want to use whatever distro I fancy, and I want to be able to switch distros without jumping through hoops (yes, there are hoops to jump through now; this move by Canonical does nothing to advance any solution to that problem).
Basically Edweek's beef with Bill Gates is that he's advocating tests for teachers in public schools. Another crime is not supporting unions for teachers in other countries.
That makes you public enemy no. 1 in teachers union's eyes.
So basically, it's a union threat - try to hurt us and we WILL spread nonsense FUD against you.
It has been brought up yes, but if you've missed the overwhelming support and hundreds of posts on Slashdot for the notion that Windows is not as secure as Unix based OSes, then you're blind and have selective vision, which means you're a blind asshole.
Now that we know how malware-free a popular Unix based OS is, out comes blaming the user instead of the OS.
I love it how this fact only comes up when it's Slashdot's darling OS, but the same fact is projected as a failure of Microsoft when it comes to Windows malware in countless +5 insightful comments over the years. Hypocrisy to the core.
I was expecting the usual Microsoft team to get on here and start bashing their longtime partner. Thanks for not disappointing me. See you in the Dell thread!
Wow you make it sound as if Microsoft cheated on their loyal spouse on their 25 year anniversary or something.
These are business entities and do things as long as they make them profits.
>How is it that a bunch of vendors who are basically bound to a single, anti-competitive OS vendor who has shown a propensity for progressing only at a rate they approve of, and only so far as it keeps them on top, are supposed to create something incredibly "innovative?"
Are you talking about Android?
>because the sole goal for any Microsoft partnership is to benefit Microsoft at any cost to the "partner.
Ahh, unlike Apple that overpays Foxconn and its workers. And I bet you'd go around giving extra money when you purchase things, just for the good of your partners. Do you? Why or why not?
I know the prevailing Slashdot wisdom about Microsoft partners and prevalent urban legends and fairy tales, but does someone have any hard numbers on how much revenues and profit the OEMs have made with Windows PC over the past 3 decades? A hundred billion? How about they invest some of those profits to try to one up Apple, Microsoft' Surface and Amazon. How is it Microsoft's fault that OEMs are failing to match Apple?
Lets take Compaq:
In November 1982 Compaq announced their first product, the Compaq Portable, a portable IBM PC compatible personal computer. It was released in March 1983 at $2995, considerably more affordable than the Canadian Hyperion. The Compaq Portable was one of the progenitors of today's laptop; some called it a "suitcase computer" for its size and the look of its case. It was the second IBM PC compatible, being capable of running all software that would run on an IBM PC. It was a commercial success, selling 53,000 units in its first year and generating $111 million in sales revenue. The Compaq Portable was the first in the range of the Compaq Portable series. Compaq was able to market a legal IBM clone because IBM mostly used "off the shelf" parts for their PC. Furthermore, Microsoft had kept the right to license the operating system to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be duplicated was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by using clean room reverse engineering at a cost of $1 million.[12][13][14] Phoenix Technologies would shortly follow their lead, but soon "clone BIOSes" were available from many other companies who reverse engineered IBM's design, then sold their version to the PC clone manufacturers
So without Microsoft, Compaq and IBM clones wouldn't exist. What about Dell?
Dell traces its origins to 1984, when Michael Dell created PCs Limited while a student at the University of Texas at Austin. The dorm-room headquartered company sold IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.[7] Dell dropped out of school in order to focus full-time on his fledgling business, after getting about $300,000 in expansion-capital from his family.
In 1985, the company produced the first computer of its own design, the "Turbo PC", which sold for US$795.[8] PCs Limited advertised its systems in national computer magazines for sale directly to consumers and custom assembled each ordered unit according to a selection of options. The company grossed more than $73 million in its first year of operation.
The company changed its name to "Dell Computer Corporation" in 1988 and began expanding globally. In June 1988, Dell's market capitalization grew by $30 million to $80 million from its June 22 initial public offering of 3.5 million shares at $8.50 a share.[9] In 1992, Fortune magazine included Dell Computer Corporation in its list of the world's 500 largest companies, making Michael Dell the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company ever.[10]
To get back to your analogy, the frog became a Fortune 500 company thanks to the scorpion. Cry me a fucking river.
What about HTC, the big maker of Android phones? Another poor frog, right?
HTC was founded in 1997 by Cher Wang, HT Cho, and Peter Chou.[6] Initially a manufacturer of notebook computers, HTC began designing some of the world's first touch and wireless hand-held devices in 1998.[7] The company has a rich heritage of many "firsts", including creating the first Microsoft-powered smartphone (2002) and the first Microsoft 3G phone (2005).[6] Their first major product was made in 2000 and was one of the world's first touch screen smartphones.
Not to mention the fact that all this lead to prices going from about $5000 each to a very decent machine for $500 and made them affordable to the masses including the 3rd world leading to the PC and internet revolutions which everyone is reaping the benefits of(Including Apple which switched to x86 to drive down costs). If you think Apple hardware is exp
Here is what I learned by Googling that seem to be key differentiators of the 7" Allwinner.
3. My A10 based tablet did not come with market, how can I install Market?
If you are using Gingerbread (Android version 2.3.X) use Tasselhoff's Script. it can be found here 2.3.x Topnotch Tablets A10 scripts download Page
If you are using Ice Cream Sandwich (Android version 4.0.3) use Lordsbm's script. it can be found here Lordsbm's script for all allwinner A10 tablets
If you are using Ice Cream Sandwich for Android version 4.0.3 you might need to use a 4.0.3 variant to get market. http://www.sappasit.go.th/android/ner_ics4.0.3.zip (Before flashing you might want to read Question 10 below for script customizations), Onda owners have provided positive feedback thus far for this script.
If you are using 4.0.3 plus and the newtech25 script does not work. The final options is the XxLorxX Cleaned ICS Script For most tablets newtech25 seems fine. The Cleaned ICS script should only be used if the above fails. Novo 7A owners have provided positive feedback for this script.
4. My A10 based tablet did not come with Google Maps/other google apps? Can I install it?
If you are using Gingerbread (Android version 2.3.X) use the Automod Script. it can be found here 2.3.x Topnotch Tablets A10 scripts download Page. Beware to _not_ use the build.prop from that script as it's compatability may not be good for all tablets. In that package you will find all the google apps in the apks subdirectory. copy them either into your tablets memory or on an sd card and install them.
If you are using Ice Cream Sandwich (http://www.sappasit.go.th/android/ne...r_ics4.0.3.zip (Before flashing you might want to read Question 10 below for script customizations)
And even after all that, getting 3D accel, multimonitor etc. to reliably work has been extremely painful compared to Nvidia binary blobs which pretty much work for common scenarios like fully accel 3d gaming(I remember playing UT2004 a very good FPS on Linux with those drivers). So this means that either AMD/ATI has failed at providing open specs and code or that the community hasn't fully stepped up to convert those specs into "Working(TM)" drivers. Which is it?
Meanwhile, I hope someone sensitive at Nvidia does not take this tongue-in-cheek comment personally and decrease the priority and allocated to the Nvidia binary drivers development because they feel that's it not helping them in the community to do more than their rivals in the business.
I am sorry but your article is full of very misleading information. First of all, you keep referring to WinRT apps as HTML5 Metro apps. Metro or WinRT have absolutely nothing to do with HTML5, except that they *can* be developed in HTML5/CSS/JS. Most Metro WinRT apps will probably be written in XAML on top of VB.NET/C#/C++/C. What have they got to do with HTML5?
I see no mention of WinRT in the whole article, that is what is leading to all the confusion in the comments, because WinRT is the underpinning dev platform for the new Windows 8 apps. That,combined with needless acronym(without expansion) throwing makes it hard to take the article seriously. What are all these great existing.NET CIL apps that "Microsoft must absolutely enable porting or shoot themselves in the foot" ?
Maybe you weren't around in the 1980s. Everything was proprietary and super expensive. MS broke this by licensing MS-DOS to Compaq over IBM's objections. This triggered an avalanche of new companies like Dell and competition between hardware OEMs which drove down prices and made PCs affordable by giving users hardware choice Even Linux started out on x86 compatible chips.
From Compaq's WIki entry:
In November 1982 Compaq announced their first product, the Compaq Portable, a portable IBM PC compatible personal computer. It was released in March 1983 at $2995, considerably more affordable than the Canadian Hyperion. The Compaq Portable was one of the progenitors of today's laptop; some called it a "suitcase computer" for its size and the look of its case. It was the second IBM PC compatible, being capable of running all software that would run on an IBM PC. It was a commercial success, selling 53,000 units in its first year and generating $111 million in sales revenue. The Compaq Portable was the first in the range of the Compaq Portable series. Compaq was able to market a legal IBM clone because IBM mostly used "off the shelf" parts for their PC. Furthermore, Microsoft had kept the right to license the operating system to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be duplicated was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by using clean room reverse engineering at a cost of $1 million.[12][13][14] Phoenix Technologies would shortly follow their lead, but soon "clone BIOSes" were available from many other companies who reverse engineered IBM's design, then sold their version to the PC clone manufacturers.
What about Dell then?
Dell traces its origins to 1984, when Michael Dell created PCs Limited while a student at the University of Texas at Austin. The dorm-room headquartered company sold IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.[7] Dell dropped out of school in order to focus full-time on his fledgling business, after getting about $300,000 in expansion-capital from his family.
In 1985, the company produced the first computer of its own design, the "Turbo PC", which sold for US$795.[8] PCs Limited advertised its systems in national computer magazines for sale directly to consumers and custom assembled each ordered unit according to a selection of options. The company grossed more than $73 million in its first year of operation.
The company changed its name to "Dell Computer Corporation" in 1988 and began expanding globally. In June 1988, Dell's market capitalization grew by $30 million to $80 million from its June 22 initial public offering of 3.5 million shares at $8.50 a share.[9] In 1992, Fortune magazine included Dell Computer Corporation in its list of the world's 500 largest companies, making Michael Dell the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company ever.[10]
Would these companies have succeeded if Microsoft did not license MS-DOS to them? Remember that all we had then were super expensive proprietary hardware, and driving down the costs led to the PC revolution(and then the internet revolution) across the world. Why did Linus start Linux on a x86 and not an Apple? Even Apple switched to x86 hardware in 2005 to drive down costs. Also, having one platform to develop for reduced costs for developers, instead of having of spend a lot of effort to support multiple competing platforms, monoculture has it's advantages and a lot of drawbacks too.
Bill Gates' vision was a computer on every desk, at work and at home(unlike IBM's) and he succeeded. And once he succeeded immensely, instead of turning into another Scrooge Mcduck, he left everything, including the company he founded to work full time helping and visiting the worst off people in the world who can't even afford a phone, forget about a PC and spending tens of billions of dollars on preventing and curing AIDS. It sickens me to see people attacking him for it in various ways, based on their extreme biases like about Netscape self destructi
>Intel would sell boards and CPUs with or without Microsoft. Their stuff isn't Microsoft specific.
Ever heard of the term Wintel? Just look it up.
>HP - HP would be able to sell cheaper servers if it wasn't for the Microsoft tax. I have to buy a windows license to run Linux and you tell me Microsoft are not extracting value they didn't add.
Is this a joke? HP always supported Linux on their servers without requiring a Windows license.
>The companies above may be commercial success stories but you can't attribute that success to a partnership with Microsoft.
Sorry, but you seem to have no clue whatsoever about the history of the PC. Microsoft choosing to license MS-DOS to Compaq so Compaq can make IBM-Compatible PCs by reverse engineering IBM's bios is what triggered the PC revolution by driving up competition and drving up costs and made computers cheap and affordable, or we would be stuck with Apple style prices of $5000 per PC. Even Apple switched to PC platform in 2005 to leverage the cost savings.
Compaq's efforts were possible because IBM had used mostly off-the-shelf parts for their PC, and because Microsoft had kept the right to license MS-DOS to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be copied was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by reverse engineering through clean room design at a cost of $1 million. Although numerous other companies soon followed its lead into the market for PC compatibles, few matched Compaq's remarkable achievement of essentially-complete software compatibility with the IBM PC (typically reaching "95% compatibility" at best) until Phoenix Technologies and others began selling similarly reverse-engineered BIOSs on the open market.[1]
>They would have likely been the same or a bigger success if Microsoft never existed. Servers would still be needed, laptops, phone, and PDAs would still be needed.
No they wouldn't. Look up the history of Dell for example and how it started. We could've easily ended up with proprietary hardware like Apple which would have stunted the expansion of computers across the world due to high cost and slowed down the digital revolution.
>Computer security would be a very much better state without Microsoft and Adobe, botnets and crap like stuxnet are products of an IT world built on insecure and flaky foundations.
Unlikely, look at the loads of patches that Apple releases every time and look at the Flashback worm.
As far as I can remember it's been the same for every company that has dealt with Microsoft. Nokia really self-destructed on that one.
Really? Maybe you need to get your memory checked and also get checked for delusions and hallucinations.
How many tens or hundreds of billions of profit and revenue have Intel,HP, Adobe, Compaq, Dell, Acer, Samsung, HTC(started as a WM OEM), Toshiba, Fujitsu made over the past two and half decades based on their partnership with Microsoft?
To be be fair, this is pretty much what TFA says, but the slashdot headline and summary sucks and totally misses the point.
That means business as usual on Slashdot on MS related stories. Look at the brouhaha over yesterday's story about ALL CAPS menus in Visual Studio. If you read their blog post, they said they were going to make it configurable, but that never stopped all of Slashdot from not even mentioning the option and then going on to bash MS in hundreds of comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Nokia sells patents to a patent troll: suicide by M$ almost complete.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120809005600/en/Vringo-Nokia-Execute-Patent-Purchase-Agreement
That's it for Nokia....all the talent has left, and now they sold the last real assets to a troll. M$'s trail of destruction continues.
- credit to phands on IV for pointing this out.
--
BMO
Last real assets? Get real.
Those are just a miniscule 500 of the tens of thousands of patents that Nokia holds. Barely a drop in the bucket.
Phands? Is that the same phands who frequents Yahoo Message Boards and trolls them with foul mouthed language? I am not surprised you're hooking up with him/it.
On the other hand, I should've just stopped reading at 'M$'. Usually what follows is juvenile junk, and your post did not fail to disappoint. As usual, no references to back your outlandish claims based on headlines or stock prices.
'..suicide by M$'? Maybe you mean homicide. Your English is as bad as your comprehension skills.
Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOO9XxH5Nyo&list=UU6NBj2q25QL4kN8tqwU9c-A&index=2&feature=plcp
If Microsoft got what it demands, that ARM devices that runs Win 8 be permanently locked, then the only option that I have, as a consumer, is to NOT BUY THAT DEVICE
No point of supporting dictatorial regime, be it political dictatorial, or hardware dictatorial
The elephant in the discussion is the iPad, an ARM based device with a locked bootloade. No one wants to talk about making it illegal, only Windows RT tablets must be outlawed, Apple is free to do whatever they want. Say you bought an iPad on Slashdot, automatically get +5 for not choosing a PC with Windows. But guess what? Apple bans Firefox from the iPad while you can even install Linux on a PC.
Related Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql71toSXNRY
UEFI Secure boot secures against boot sector viruses.
Who said anything about BIOS viruses?
If you don't like that license, don't use programs with it and start over with your preferred license. you are not important, the final users are!
Isn't that exactly what Ubuntu is doing here, but the FSF is still objecting?
>When was the last serious "boot sector virus"
Refer to my other post. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2962071&cid=40565349
>however the serious win from this technology can only be had if the owner of the machine gets to set the key and sign his own boot images. Then you are talking about some serious win.
Umm, thats exactly what Microsoft requires for Windows 8 certification of x86 machines. You can even remove Microsoft's key if you so wish.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
I am not denying that such things exist, but there is no reason for the standard to not require a method to install user generated certificates. It does not have to be easy to do, since it would not have to be done frequently: I could generate my own signing key, then sign as many custom bootloaders as a want to. That is the point of "custom mode," but there is a key problem here: there is no guarantee that custom mode will be available, and there is a mandate for ARM devices that run Windows that custom mode be unavailable.
These sorts of design decisions speak volumes about the purpose and scope of the standard. If the purpose of this standard were to protect users from malware, it would not make room for OEMs to lock users out of their own systems (i.e. right now an OEM has to specifically allow users to enable custom mode, as opposed to having to work to prevent users from doing so). Yes, this will make it much harder to create a bootloader virus, but I would view that as a side effect of the real security goal.
The standard? What standard? How will the OEMs be held to that? By what legal force?
Right now Microsoft does require that user loaded keys and a way to turn off secure boot be enabled for Windows 8 certification. They cannot mandate that to the OEMs, because of the anti-trust case, ironically.
It's also optional
Unless you're on ARM, in which case it won't be, so no, it's not always optional.
Huh? There are ARM devices right now like Android tablets that you can go buy some of which have unlocked bootloaders. iPads rule the ARM tablet market, but no one wants to talk about Apple. Raspberry Pi is also an ARM device. How is Microsoft locking those?
So it is entirely optional right now.
Maybe you(and all others) should specify that you're taking about Windows RT devices, not ARM devices, which is terribly misleading, probably intentionally so.
> Restricted boot environments are about DRM, not about securing the system from malware
Really? Here are some references about boot malware which UEFI secure boot can prevent.
http://www.chmag.in/article/sep2011/rootkits-are-back-boot-infection
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/tdl_rootkit_does_64_bit_windows/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217953/Rootkit_infection_requires_Windows_reinstall_says_Microsoft
TDL4 is the most recent high tech and widely spread member of the TDSS family rootkit, targeting x64 operating systems too such as Windows Vista and Windows 7. One of the most striking features of TDL4 is that it is able to load its kernel-mode driver on systems with an enforced kernel-mode code signing policy (64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista and 7) and perform kernel-mode hooks with kernel-mode patch protection policy enabled.
When the driver is loaded into kernel-mode address space it overwrites the MBR (Master Boot Record) of the disk by sending SRB (SCSI Request Block) packets directly to the miniport device object, then it initializes its hidden file system. The bootkit’s modules are written into the hidden file system from the dropper.
The TDL4 bootkit controls two areas of the hard drive one is the MBR and other is the hidden file system created at the time of malware deployment. When any application reads the MBR, the bootkit changes data and returns the contents of the clean MBR i.e. prior to the infection, and also it takes care of Infected MBR by protecting it from overwriting.
The hidden file system with the malicious components also gets protected by the bootkit. So if any application is making an attempt to read sectors of the hard disk where the hidden file system is stored, It will return zeroed buffer instead of the original data.
The bootkit contains code that performs additional checks to prevent the malware from the cleanup. At every start of the system TDL4 bootkit driver gets loaded and initialized properly by performing tasks as follows: Reads the contents of the boot sector, compares it with the infected image stored in hidden file system, if it finds any difference between these two images it rewrites the infected image to the boot sector. Sets the DriverObject field of the miniport device object to point to the bootkit’s driver object and also hooks the DriverStartIo field of the miniport’s driver object. If kernel debugging is enabled then this TDL4 does not install any of it’s components.
TDL4 Rootkit hooks the ATAPI driver i.e. standard windows miniport drivers like atapi.sys. It keeps Device Object at lowest in the device stack, which makes a lot harder to dump TDL4 files.
All these striking features have made TDL4 most notorious Windows rootkit and it is also very important to mention that the key to its success is the boot sector infection. ....
The original MBR and driver component are stored in encrypted form using the same encryption. Driver component hooks ATAPI's DriverStartIo routine where it monitors for write operations. In case of write operation targeted at the MBR sector, it is changed to read operation. This way it is trying to bypass repair operation by Security Products.
Atleast you'd have some credibility left if you had said that the restrictions could be about DRM also.
I do not want to choose between Fedora and Ubuntu; I want to use whatever distro I fancy, and I want to be able to switch distros without jumping through hoops (yes, there are hoops to jump through now; this move by Canonical does nothing to advance any solution to that problem).
Moving one slid
Basically Edweek's beef with Bill Gates is that he's advocating tests for teachers in public schools. Another crime is not supporting unions for teachers in other countries.
That makes you public enemy no. 1 in teachers union's eyes.
So basically, it's a union threat - try to hurt us and we WILL spread nonsense FUD against you.
It has been brought up yes, but if you've missed the overwhelming support and hundreds of posts on Slashdot for the notion that Windows is not as secure as Unix based OSes, then you're blind and have selective vision, which means you're a blind asshole.
Now that we know how malware-free a popular Unix based OS is, out comes blaming the user instead of the OS.
I love it how this fact only comes up when it's Slashdot's darling OS, but the same fact is projected as a failure of Microsoft when it comes to Windows malware in countless +5 insightful comments over the years. Hypocrisy to the core.
anything written in WinRT will work on both machines without even the need to recompile..
That's not true (and given that you can write in C++ for WinRT, would be one hell of a trick). You certainly can write a Metro app that's x86-only.
Wrong, you will be able to target them with one project, even if C++.
http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-30-15-metablogapi/0121.image111_5F00_thumb_5F00_604BA47B.png
http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-30-15-metablogapi/2337.image120_5F00_thumb_5F00_38A7B902.png
I payed $399 for my 64gig Acer Iconia Tablet
Good for all 3 of the owners!
http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/24/acer-cuts-2011-tablet-sales-forecast-in-half-to-2-5m-units-citing-poor-sell-through-competition/
http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/26/acer-to-stick-with-tablets-despite-poor-sales/
I was expecting the usual Microsoft team to get on here and start bashing their longtime partner. Thanks for not disappointing me. See you in the Dell thread!
Wow you make it sound as if Microsoft cheated on their loyal spouse on their 25 year anniversary or something.
These are business entities and do things as long as they make them profits.
E.g. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/03/09/2015233/hp-to-put-webos-on-pcs-in-2012
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/02/09/2316203/hp-unveils-webos-tablet-plans-webos-computer
I was expecting the usual Microsoft haters to show up and sympathize with poor innovative HP being held back by Microsoft, and you didn't disappoint.
>How is it that a bunch of vendors who are basically bound to a single, anti-competitive OS vendor who has shown a propensity for progressing only at a rate they approve of, and only so far as it keeps them on top, are supposed to create something incredibly "innovative?"
Are you talking about Android?
>because the sole goal for any Microsoft partnership is to benefit Microsoft at any cost to the "partner.
Ahh, unlike Apple that overpays Foxconn and its workers. And I bet you'd go around giving extra money when you purchase things, just for the good of your partners. Do you? Why or why not?
I know the prevailing Slashdot wisdom about Microsoft partners and prevalent urban legends and fairy tales, but does someone have any hard numbers on how much revenues and profit the OEMs have made with Windows PC over the past 3 decades? A hundred billion? How about they invest some of those profits to try to one up Apple, Microsoft' Surface and Amazon. How is it Microsoft's fault that OEMs are failing to match Apple?
Lets take Compaq:
In November 1982 Compaq announced their first product, the Compaq Portable, a portable IBM PC compatible personal computer. It was released in March 1983 at $2995, considerably more affordable than the Canadian Hyperion. The Compaq Portable was one of the progenitors of today's laptop; some called it a "suitcase computer" for its size and the look of its case. It was the second IBM PC compatible, being capable of running all software that would run on an IBM PC. It was a commercial success, selling 53,000 units in its first year and generating $111 million in sales revenue. The Compaq Portable was the first in the range of the Compaq Portable series. Compaq was able to market a legal IBM clone because IBM mostly used "off the shelf" parts for their PC. Furthermore, Microsoft had kept the right to license the operating system to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be duplicated was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by using clean room reverse engineering at a cost of $1 million.[12][13][14] Phoenix Technologies would shortly follow their lead, but soon "clone BIOSes" were available from many other companies who reverse engineered IBM's design, then sold their version to the PC clone manufacturers
So without Microsoft, Compaq and IBM clones wouldn't exist. What about Dell?
Dell traces its origins to 1984, when Michael Dell created PCs Limited while a student at the University of Texas at Austin. The dorm-room headquartered company sold IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.[7] Dell dropped out of school in order to focus full-time on his fledgling business, after getting about $300,000 in expansion-capital from his family.
In 1985, the company produced the first computer of its own design, the "Turbo PC", which sold for US$795.[8] PCs Limited advertised its systems in national computer magazines for sale directly to consumers and custom assembled each ordered unit according to a selection of options. The company grossed more than $73 million in its first year of operation.
The company changed its name to "Dell Computer Corporation" in 1988 and began expanding globally. In June 1988, Dell's market capitalization grew by $30 million to $80 million from its June 22 initial public offering of 3.5 million shares at $8.50 a share.[9] In 1992, Fortune magazine included Dell Computer Corporation in its list of the world's 500 largest companies, making Michael Dell the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company ever.[10]
To get back to your analogy, the frog became a Fortune 500 company thanks to the scorpion. Cry me a fucking river.
What about HTC, the big maker of Android phones? Another poor frog, right?
HTC was founded in 1997 by Cher Wang, HT Cho, and Peter Chou.[6] Initially a manufacturer of notebook computers, HTC began designing some of the world's first touch and wireless hand-held devices in 1998.[7] The company has a rich heritage of many "firsts", including creating the first Microsoft-powered smartphone (2002) and the first Microsoft 3G phone (2005).[6] Their first major product was made in 2000 and was one of the world's first touch screen smartphones.
Not to mention the fact that all this lead to prices going from about $5000 each to a very decent machine for $500 and made them affordable to the masses including the 3rd world leading to the PC and internet revolutions which everyone is reaping the benefits of(Including Apple which switched to x86 to drive down costs). If you think Apple hardware is exp
Here is what I learned by Googling that seem to be key differentiators of the 7" Allwinner.
3. My A10 based tablet did not come with market, how can I install Market?
If you are using Gingerbread (Android version 2.3.X) use Tasselhoff's Script. it can be found here
2.3.x Topnotch Tablets A10 scripts download Page
If you are using Ice Cream Sandwich (Android version 4.0.3) use Lordsbm's script. it can be found here
Lordsbm's script for all allwinner A10 tablets
If you are using Ice Cream Sandwich for Android version 4.0.3 you might need to use a 4.0.3 variant to get market. http://www.sappasit.go.th/android/ner_ics4.0.3.zip
(Before flashing you might want to read Question 10 below for script customizations), Onda owners have provided positive feedback thus far for this script.
If you are using 4.0.3 plus and the newtech25 script does not work. The final options is the
XxLorxX Cleaned ICS Script
For most tablets newtech25 seems fine. The Cleaned ICS script should only be used if the above fails. Novo 7A owners have provided positive feedback for this script.
4. My A10 based tablet did not come with Google Maps/other google apps? Can I install it?
If you are using Gingerbread (Android version 2.3.X) use the Automod Script. it can be found here
2.3.x Topnotch Tablets A10 scripts download Page. Beware to _not_ use the build.prop from that script as it's compatability may not be good for all tablets. In that package you will find all the google apps in the apks subdirectory. copy them either into your tablets memory or on an sd card and install them.
If you are using Ice Cream Sandwich (http://www.sappasit.go.th/android/ne...r_ics4.0.3.zip
(Before flashing you might want to read Question 10 below for script customizations)
How is this competitive?
> but I do usually favor AMD's graphics chips since they are more open by nature.
We've been hearing about AMD's opening specs and drivers drivers for what, close to 5 or 6 years now?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/07/09/06/1335230/amd-to-open-ati-specs
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/08/12/30/0337204/amd-releases-open-source-r600700-3d-code
And even after all that, getting 3D accel, multimonitor etc. to reliably work has been extremely painful compared to Nvidia binary blobs which pretty much work for common scenarios like fully accel 3d gaming(I remember playing UT2004 a very good FPS on Linux with those drivers). So this means that either AMD/ATI has failed at providing open specs and code or that the community hasn't fully stepped up to convert those specs into "Working(TM)" drivers. Which is it?
Meanwhile, I hope someone sensitive at Nvidia does not take this tongue-in-cheek comment personally and decrease the priority and allocated to the Nvidia binary drivers development because they feel that's it not helping them in the community to do more than their rivals in the business.
>Hi, I.. wrote the article.
I am sorry but your article is full of very misleading information. First of all, you keep referring to WinRT apps as HTML5 Metro apps. Metro or WinRT have absolutely nothing to do with HTML5, except that they *can* be developed in HTML5/CSS/JS. Most Metro WinRT apps will probably be written in XAML on top of VB.NET/C#/C++/C. What have they got to do with HTML5?
I see no mention of WinRT in the whole article, that is what is leading to all the confusion in the comments, because WinRT is the underpinning dev platform for the new Windows 8 apps. That,combined with needless acronym(without expansion) throwing makes it hard to take the article seriously. What are all these great existing .NET CIL apps that "Microsoft must absolutely enable porting or shoot themselves in the foot" ?
Maybe you weren't around in the 1980s. Everything was proprietary and super expensive. MS broke this by licensing MS-DOS to Compaq over IBM's objections. This triggered an avalanche of new companies like Dell and competition between hardware OEMs which drove down prices and made PCs affordable by giving users hardware choice Even Linux started out on x86 compatible chips.
From Compaq's WIki entry:
In November 1982 Compaq announced their first product, the Compaq Portable, a portable IBM PC compatible personal computer. It was released in March 1983 at $2995, considerably more affordable than the Canadian Hyperion. The Compaq Portable was one of the progenitors of today's laptop; some called it a "suitcase computer" for its size and the look of its case. It was the second IBM PC compatible, being capable of running all software that would run on an IBM PC. It was a commercial success, selling 53,000 units in its first year and generating $111 million in sales revenue. The Compaq Portable was the first in the range of the Compaq Portable series. Compaq was able to market a legal IBM clone because IBM mostly used "off the shelf" parts for their PC. Furthermore, Microsoft had kept the right to license the operating system to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be duplicated was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by using clean room reverse engineering at a cost of $1 million.[12][13][14] Phoenix Technologies would shortly follow their lead, but soon "clone BIOSes" were available from many other companies who reverse engineered IBM's design, then sold their version to the PC clone manufacturers.
What about Dell then?
Dell traces its origins to 1984, when Michael Dell created PCs Limited while a student at the University of Texas at Austin. The dorm-room headquartered company sold IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.[7] Dell dropped out of school in order to focus full-time on his fledgling business, after getting about $300,000 in expansion-capital from his family.
In 1985, the company produced the first computer of its own design, the "Turbo PC", which sold for US$795.[8] PCs Limited advertised its systems in national computer magazines for sale directly to consumers and custom assembled each ordered unit according to a selection of options. The company grossed more than $73 million in its first year of operation.
The company changed its name to "Dell Computer Corporation" in 1988 and began expanding globally. In June 1988, Dell's market capitalization grew by $30 million to $80 million from its June 22 initial public offering of 3.5 million shares at $8.50 a share.[9] In 1992, Fortune magazine included Dell Computer Corporation in its list of the world's 500 largest companies, making Michael Dell the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company ever.[10]
Would these companies have succeeded if Microsoft did not license MS-DOS to them? Remember that all we had then were super expensive proprietary hardware, and driving down the costs led to the PC revolution(and then the internet revolution) across the world. Why did Linus start Linux on a x86 and not an Apple? Even Apple switched to x86 hardware in 2005 to drive down costs. Also, having one platform to develop for reduced costs for developers, instead of having of spend a lot of effort to support multiple competing platforms, monoculture has it's advantages and a lot of drawbacks too.
Bill Gates' vision was a computer on every desk, at work and at home(unlike IBM's) and he succeeded. And once he succeeded immensely, instead of turning into another Scrooge Mcduck, he left everything, including the company he founded to work full time helping and visiting the worst off people in the world who can't even afford a phone, forget about a PC and spending tens of billions of dollars on preventing and curing AIDS. It sickens me to see people attacking him for it in various ways, based on their extreme biases like about Netscape self destructi
>Intel would sell boards and CPUs with or without Microsoft. Their stuff isn't Microsoft specific.
Ever heard of the term Wintel? Just look it up.
>HP - HP would be able to sell cheaper servers if it wasn't for the Microsoft tax. I have to buy a windows license to run Linux and you tell me Microsoft are not extracting value they didn't add.
Is this a joke? HP always supported Linux on their servers without requiring a Windows license.
>The companies above may be commercial success stories but you can't attribute that success to a partnership with Microsoft.
Sorry, but you seem to have no clue whatsoever about the history of the PC. Microsoft choosing to license MS-DOS to Compaq so Compaq can make IBM-Compatible PCs by reverse engineering IBM's bios is what triggered the PC revolution by driving up competition and drving up costs and made computers cheap and affordable, or we would be stuck with Apple style prices of $5000 per PC. Even Apple switched to PC platform in 2005 to leverage the cost savings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Portable
Compaq's efforts were possible because IBM had used mostly off-the-shelf parts for their PC, and because Microsoft had kept the right to license MS-DOS to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be copied was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by reverse engineering through clean room design at a cost of $1 million. Although numerous other companies soon followed its lead into the market for PC compatibles, few matched Compaq's remarkable achievement of essentially-complete software compatibility with the IBM PC (typically reaching "95% compatibility" at best) until Phoenix Technologies and others began selling similarly reverse-engineered BIOSs on the open market.[1]
>They would have likely been the same or a bigger success if Microsoft never existed. Servers would still be needed, laptops, phone, and PDAs would still be needed.
No they wouldn't. Look up the history of Dell for example and how it started. We could've easily ended up with proprietary hardware like Apple which would have stunted the expansion of computers across the world due to high cost and slowed down the digital revolution.
>Computer security would be a very much better state without Microsoft and Adobe, botnets and crap like stuxnet are products of an IT world built on insecure and flaky foundations.
Unlikely, look at the loads of patches that Apple releases every time and look at the Flashback worm.
Were you around in the 1980s?
...face down in the mud, with a sore ass...
...And losing blood fast...
As far as I can remember it's been the same for every company that has dealt with Microsoft. Nokia really self-destructed on that one.
Really? Maybe you need to get your memory checked and also get checked for delusions and hallucinations.
How many tens or hundreds of billions of profit and revenue have Intel,HP, Adobe, Compaq, Dell, Acer, Samsung, HTC(started as a WM OEM), Toshiba, Fujitsu made over the past two and half decades based on their partnership with Microsoft?
To be be fair, this is pretty much what TFA says, but the slashdot headline and summary sucks and totally misses the point.
That means business as usual on Slashdot on MS related stories. Look at the brouhaha over yesterday's story about ALL CAPS menus in Visual Studio. If you read their blog post, they said they were going to make it configurable, but that never stopped all of Slashdot from not even mentioning the option and then going on to bash MS in hundreds of comments.
Slashdot is to MS what Fox News is to Democrats.