"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important.".. "To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors."... "To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. There are different tactical approaches — razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software... expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't."... "In other words, Google's future depends on the Internet staying an open system, and our advocacy of open will grow the web for everyone - including Google."
The key that the wiki page mentions isn't for spying, it's for verifying digital signatures on third party cryptography service provider packages. It was named as such because CSP packages that are exported outside of USA have to receive export approval, something the NSA performed. So the NSAkey was named because it was a digital signature proving that a package had either received proper review or didn't need it (If it was for US only).
Not saying that NSA isn't spying, just that the key mentioned is not used for that purpose.
The only news here is how desperate some people are to show that OSX is vulnerable to malware - even when the malware never is installed on the system...
Are you implying that OSX isn't vulnerable to malware?
WSJ: Apple Moves Closer to Making TV Set [wsj.com] New York Times: What’s Really Next for Apple in Television [nytimes.com] Business Insider: Apple Could Announce New TV This December, Says Top Apple Analyst [businessinsider.com]
I asked for a couple of references that show rumors about a 1Q 2013 Apple TV release, and I get a WSJ link that references sources at Foxconn, some idle speculation from NYT blogs (which is not the same as NYT btw and is extremely unreliable like the blogs on Forbes, Business Insider etc., thought you would know that) and some speculation from Gene Munster? Wow that's quite a low.
And my broken watch is right twice a day. Doesn't change the fact that it is still broken.
Keep telling yourself that. I had no doubts about how things played out, unlike you and the Slashdot story trying to spread FUD about Ballmer leading the Xbox into the holiday division.
Again, quote me the "speculation and misinformation and BS" in my post to which you started replying.
The most likely explanation based on the facts we know is the following:
Re-org is imminent, and Mattrick left due to reason X. Ballmer takes over for now because the reorg is already imminent and he doesn't want to reveal it yet since it will all come out in a few days. So he tells the Xbox team, report to me and concentrate on getting ready for the Xbox holiday release and hopes to avoid people getting complacent over their work on Xbox One, even if for a few days. All this could be true regardless of reason X. You're getting needlessly caught up with reason X which has nothing to do with whether Ballmer will lead the Xbox One release into the holiday season. There might not be an Xbox division even, there's rumors of a new hardware division which includes Surface.
Again, reason X and employment contracts are just a red herring to this article and your post. The crux is that you and the Slashdot story were insinuating that Ballmer is going to lead the Xbox team long term while it was pretty much a given that he was not.
If you want to read some baseless speculation, misinformation and BS read your posts:
Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.... If there is going to be a re-org in a "few days" , there will be new bosses for all parts of MS anyways. And if there is a new boss in a few days, there won't be speculation for the holidays, will there? That makes no sense.
. Google have dropped activesync.http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413283,00.asp (Anyone else forgot how pro Microsoft PCmag was)
The most ironic part of this Windows Phone users used to get gmail messages instantaneously...and now they don't...like Windows Phone was not already second class technology.
Outdated news... Google has dropped nothing.
"Google Extends Windows Phone Exchange ActiveSync Support Until July"
Microsoft announced today that Google has agreed to delay the removal of support for Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync protocol (Google Sync) until July. In the meantime, Microsoft said it is working to build support for the protocols Google will be using going forward, meaning Windows Phone users will still be able to connect to Google services.
Please stop twisting facts or posting misleading stories to further your agenda. Your entire post is bunk.
You're not forced to install antivirus programs nor is there a scheme to prevent you from removing them.
...yet.. just like secure boot on x86 PCs. Boot kits are prevalent on PCs and Secure Boot prevents it while allowing the small percentage of enthusiasts to install alternative OSes on x86. Just because some person wanting to install some OS can't bothered to uncheck a checkbox doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of PC users must be subject to undetectable rootkits.
Its not enough to just include a high megapixel sensor – the lenses conveying the image to the sensor have to be of equally high quality. Together with our partner Carl Zeiss, we yet again pushed the limits of optical design to match the resolution of the 41 megapixel camera sensor. To provide the best optical resolution we increased the number of lenses used from the five in the award-winning Nokia 808 PureView, to six. The first lens element is made of high precision glass, and five of the lenses are moulded high-performance plastic, taking lens manufacturing precision to the next level. The lenses are physically very big for a smartphone, and the optical assembly alone is unique. But that is not all. We put the whole system inside a completely new kind of optical image stabilisation system, which uses an extremely high accuracy sensing system linked to very small motors which actively move the lens. The extremely sharp image projected by the six-element lens system is recorded by the second generation 41MP BSI sensor, capturing even the smallest of details in the scene, including detail not visible to the naked eye.
Its not enough to just include a high megapixel sensor – the lenses conveying the image to the sensor have to be of equally high quality. Together with our partner Carl Zeiss, we yet again pushed the limits of optical design to match the resolution of the 41 megapixel camera sensor. To provide the best optical resolution we increased the number of lenses used from the five in the award-winning Nokia 808 PureView, to six. The first lens element is made of high precision glass, and five of the lenses are moulded high-performance plastic, taking lens manufacturing precision to the next level. The lenses are physically very big for a smartphone, and the optical assembly alone is unique. But that is not all. We put the whole system inside a completely new kind of optical image stabilisation system, which uses an extremely high accuracy sensing system linked to very small motors which actively move the lens. The extremely sharp image projected by the six-element lens system is recorded by the second generation 41MP BSI sensor, capturing even the smallest of details in the scene, including detail not visible to the naked eye.
What *is* the same between the Surface Pro and the Surface (RT), is that UEFI and Secure Boot are being used.
Back to the original topic, this is why people do not want Secure Boot. Here is a company taking the standard and doing *exactly* what people were afraid the company would do with it. It's no longer "speculation."
Is that so? Then why can anyone run Linux on a Surface Pro?
Or do you mean that WindowsRT is doing so well that it will kill PCs will do more harm to user freedom than an iPad? Looks like you are more optimistic about it than MS itself!
If people do not want Secure Boot then why are they falling over each other to buy the iPad with a locked bootloader? Or one of the many Android phones and tablets with locked bootloaders? Or are you just speculating about "people"?
It's like saying Antivirus programs will one day prevent all executables from running just because they have the capability to block any executable and have successfully blocked some.
And all news organizations are 100% right all the time? Since when in the history of news has this been correct? For example in crime reporting: Sources familiar with the matter say suspect A will be arrested shortly. And then it doesn't happen.
Not all. I just quoted four. How you can extrapolate that to all when I specifically said they are not to be trusted as much as reliable ones?
For example in crime reporting: Sources familiar with the matter say suspect A will be arrested shortly. And then it doesn't happen.
The difference should be obvious if you have any background in journalism. It is that reputable organizations like the ones I have listed vet their sources and don't post everything from every anonymous email or tip they get. They spend a minimum time and effort to make sure their reputation stays intact. You can add Reuters and AP to the list I quoted. Most other news organizations just print anything regardless of the reliability of their sources.
So WSJ predicted the iPad. If you weren't following news at the time, SO WAS EVERYONE ELSE
Maybe, but the WSJ article gave the rumors legitimacy and confirmed a lot of things. That article was widely quoted and reported in the media at the time. Why would it be if everyone else was onto the story? In fact in some cases the companies themselves leak things to the big news orgs to generate hype.
Everyone was saying the iTV was coming out Q1 2013. It didn't happen.
Everyone? Care to reference a couple from WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters, AP, Washington Post, NYT that say "from our sources"? Or are you making up things as you go ?
Wow, your failure at reading comprehensions is astounding. Julie Larson-Greene is the new head of Devices and Studio Engineering. She is in charge of the entire group which includes Xbox. Ballmer has not named who will lead Xbox specifically. For now, that person still is Ballmer as far as the public knows.
That made me laugh, you're clutching at straws here. The whole point of the reorg is to have new divisions and heads. Ballmer need not name the head of every small subdivision. Is there even a Xbox division anymore?
This whole Slashdot article is a misleading non-story not worthy of even being posted and only designed to rile up ignorant people who get their MS news only from here or other similar forums and who don't even know about the reorg.
By the way, is an employment contract the same as a non-compete agreement?
Not this again, I got tired of it because you were not willing to concede the point after losing it. In one post you claimed Microsoft had a option not to let go of Mattrick. I replied no they cannot. After a couple of posts you changed your tune saying that Microsoft can't prevent him from leaving if he pays his way out. I am tired of arguing this again and again.
Back to insults I see. You've built all of these posts on speculation and misinformation and seem rather irritated when someone calls you out on your BS.
Did you read your own posts that I quoted? Here they are:
Also why even mention the holidays in a few months if everyone knows that a re-org is coming in the next few days.
Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.
I am totally vindicated in all my points. All my so called speculation and misinformation turned to be actually true because it was based on reliable sources who delivered yet again, while your speculation about Ballmer leading Xbox into the holiday season turned to be total junk. Yet you accuse me of speculation and misinformation?
For example read my post, the reply to your first post in this thread:
You believe everything you read on the internet about Apple? Were you born yesterday? First of all, "according to people familiar with the matter" is not 100%.
Oh god, what the heck? Do you even understand English?
How in the hell is "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" the same as "the internet" ? Do you have sudden amnesia that hits you just after you read my post and before you write a reply? I specifically said that speculation by organizations like that are "NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECULATION ON THE INTERNET".
Do you even read what you yourself quoted from my post???
You seem to lack the basic knowledge that when Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post say "According to people familiar with the matter" they're pretty much 100% right.
How can you even claim that that equates to "believing everything you read on the internet" ? Are you dumb or just acting so?
How many news sites and blogs are on the internet? Hundreds of thousands?
How many news sites and blogs are in the list "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" I count 4.
I feel that I am debating with someone who can't read.
Again you color all speculation the same.
"The sun will rise tomorrow". Is that speculation or fact? Is it at the same level of speculation as Apple will release iPhone 6 tomorrow? Don't you agree that there's different levels of speculation based on probability, track record etc.?
There's informed speculation and there's uninformed speculation.
Second according to your link, WSJ predicted iPad in March. It didn't come out until April: How is that "100% right"?
Oh yes, ignore everything that the WSJ got right and pick on one thing(March could've been the internal plan at Apple in Jan). Also ignore that I said "it's pretty much 100% right". The link was an example about how WSJ had access to real information as opposed to the rest of the internet.
I see you still fail to read the news which broke around 30 mins before your post. Here's your new head of Xbox, Ballmer is not taking over till the holiday season like you were insinuating.
Will you admit you were wrong in your posts below?
Also why even mention the holidays in a few months if everyone knows that a re-org is coming in the next few days.
Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.
If you don't agree that your posts and basically this whole Slashdot article and most of the comments on here are bunk after the news that broke today, you're morally and ethically bankrupt.
Sure, but they will lose Windows 8 certification which gives them marketing, discounts etc.
That's why no OEM currently prevents that option. If you have a reference stating that one does, please provide it. Until then it's just speculation, an OEM can do anything in the future, including blocking Windows from running.
Because it was laid out poorly from the beginning. Had the key architecture not been left up to an ad-hoc distribution mechanism and, instead, been firmly rooted in the UEFI Foundation, then said signing organization could have gone to the UEFI Foundation and gotten a key without involving Microsoft.
That seems like a lot of work and complexity for something that's already feasible.
Vendors can currently ship OS-less machines with secure boot turned off.
Linux vendors can remove MS' key and put in theirs or the distros' if there is one, or just turn it off and then install Linux before shipping it to the user. The user can install/remove keys and enable/disable secure boot as they please.
Secure Boot isn't secure nor is it a security feature. It's sole purpose is to keep Linux off of x86 computers. It's already easy to get around 'Secure Boot so I think it's broken as a concept. Security has to constantly evolve to meet evolving problems. Hardware can't do that.
+3 interesting? What's wrong with Slashdot that posts with the most misinformation are modded up? And then other people take these modded up posts as gospel and keep repeating the FUD.
Can you tell us how it's easy to get around Secure Boot?
Secure Boot isn't secure nor is it a security feature. It's sole purpose is to keep Linux off of x86 computers
Here's a couple of viruses that Secure Boot prevents.
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.
Another bit:
The original MBR and driver component are stored in encrypted form using the same encryption. Driver component hooks ATAPI's DriverStartIo routine where
A great deal of security isn't about what some protocol or device *can* do, it's about how it commonly ends up in real world.
It already successfully prevents many kinds of undetectable rootkits on Windows in the real world.
Initial signing key shouldn't have come in the firmware, it should have been like the TPM, the vendor has the opportunity to 'take ownership' of the platform.
I would certainly prefer that the vendors with razor thin margins of a few bucks a PC/motherboard in Taiwan not be burdened with 'taking ownership' of the platform.
If the argument is that people with piece part systems are put at risk, it's such a small population that has to be using a malicious copy of the media.
Even 1% of PC users would be in the high millions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's curious to see Google pull this.
From http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html
"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important." .. ... ... expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't." ...
"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors."
"To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. There are different tactical approaches — razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software
"In other words, Google's future depends on the Internet staying an open system, and our advocacy of open will grow the web for everyone - including Google."
The entire thing is a good read.
Isn't Microsoft still buying the xbox market (by selling at a loss)?
Consoles are typically sold at a loss which is recouped from game sales(except Nintendo).
Xbox is making money in the past few years.
How so? The advertising figures include Windows 8, not just the Surface.
The key that the wiki page mentions isn't for spying, it's for verifying digital signatures on third party cryptography service provider packages. It was named as such because CSP packages that are exported outside of USA have to receive export approval, something the NSA performed. So the NSAkey was named because it was a digital signature proving that a package had either received proper review or didn't need it (If it was for US only).
Not saying that NSA isn't spying, just that the key mentioned is not used for that purpose.
The only news here is how desperate some people are to show that OSX is vulnerable to malware - even when the malware never is installed on the system...
Are you implying that OSX isn't vulnerable to malware?
WSJ: Apple Moves Closer to Making TV Set [wsj.com]
New York Times: What’s Really Next for Apple in Television [nytimes.com]
Business Insider: Apple Could Announce New TV This December, Says Top Apple Analyst [businessinsider.com]
I asked for a couple of references that show rumors about a 1Q 2013 Apple TV release, and I get a WSJ link that references sources at Foxconn, some idle speculation from NYT blogs (which is not the same as NYT btw and is extremely unreliable like the blogs on Forbes, Business Insider etc., thought you would know that) and some speculation from Gene Munster? Wow that's quite a low.
And my broken watch is right twice a day. Doesn't change the fact that it is still broken.
Keep telling yourself that. I had no doubts about how things played out, unlike you and the Slashdot story trying to spread FUD about Ballmer leading the Xbox into the holiday division.
Again, quote me the "speculation and misinformation and BS" in my post to which you started replying.
The most likely explanation based on the facts we know is the following:
Re-org is imminent, and Mattrick left due to reason X. Ballmer takes over for now because the reorg is already imminent and he doesn't want to reveal it yet since it will all come out in a few days. So he tells the Xbox team, report to me and concentrate on getting ready for the Xbox holiday release and hopes to avoid people getting complacent over their work on Xbox One, even if for a few days. All this could be true regardless of reason X. You're getting needlessly caught up with reason X which has nothing to do with whether Ballmer will lead the Xbox One release into the holiday season. There might not be an Xbox division even, there's rumors of a new hardware division which includes Surface.
Again, reason X and employment contracts are just a red herring to this article and your post. The crux is that you and the Slashdot story were insinuating that Ballmer is going to lead the Xbox team long term while it was pretty much a given that he was not.
If you want to read some baseless speculation, misinformation and BS read your posts:
Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular. ...
If there is going to be a re-org in a "few days" , there will be new bosses for all parts of MS anyways. And if there is a new boss in a few days, there won't be speculation for the holidays, will there? That makes no sense.
That period expired last year. Post anything anti-MS, get upvoted on Slashdot regardless of truth. This site is a joke.
. Google have dropped activesync.http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413283,00.asp (Anyone else forgot how pro Microsoft PCmag was)
The most ironic part of this Windows Phone users used to get gmail messages instantaneously...and now they don't...like Windows Phone was not already second class technology.
Outdated news... Google has dropped nothing.
"Google Extends Windows Phone Exchange ActiveSync Support Until July"
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414917,00.asp
Microsoft announced today that Google has agreed to delay the removal of support for Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync protocol (Google Sync) until July.
In the meantime, Microsoft said it is working to build support for the protocols Google will be using going forward, meaning Windows Phone users will still be able to connect to Google services.
Please stop twisting facts or posting misleading stories to further your agenda. Your entire post is bunk.
Holding out for Linux 3.11 for workgroups.
You're not forced to install antivirus programs nor is there a scheme to prevent you from removing them.
...yet.. just like secure boot on x86 PCs.
Boot kits are prevalent on PCs and Secure Boot prevents it while allowing the small percentage of enthusiasts to install alternative OSes on x86.
Just because some person wanting to install some OS can't bothered to uncheck a checkbox doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of PC users must be subject to undetectable rootkits.
The optics don't fall over. They're very good.
Its not enough to just include a high
megapixel sensor – the lenses conveying the image to
the sensor have to be of equally high quality.
Together with our partner Carl Zeiss, we yet again
pushed the limits of optical design to match the resolution
of the 41 megapixel camera sensor. To provide
the best optical resolution we increased the number of
lenses used from the five in the award-winning Nokia
808 PureView, to six. The first lens element is made of
high precision glass, and five of the lenses are moulded
high-performance plastic, taking lens manufacturing
precision to the next level.
The lenses are physically very big for a smartphone, and
the optical assembly alone is unique. But that is not all.
We put the whole system inside a completely new kind
of optical image stabilisation system, which uses an
extremely high accuracy sensing system linked to very
small motors which actively move the lens.
The extremely sharp image projected by the six-element
lens system is recorded by the second generation 41MP
BSI sensor, capturing even the smallest of details in the
scene, including detail not visible to the naked eye.
What makes you think the lenses are not good?
Its not enough to just include a high
megapixel sensor – the lenses conveying the image to
the sensor have to be of equally high quality.
Together with our partner Carl Zeiss, we yet again
pushed the limits of optical design to match the resolution
of the 41 megapixel camera sensor. To provide
the best optical resolution we increased the number of
lenses used from the five in the award-winning Nokia
808 PureView, to six. The first lens element is made of
high precision glass, and five of the lenses are moulded
high-performance plastic, taking lens manufacturing
precision to the next level.
The lenses are physically very big for a smartphone, and
the optical assembly alone is unique. But that is not all.
We put the whole system inside a completely new kind
of optical image stabilisation system, which uses an
extremely high accuracy sensing system linked to very
small motors which actively move the lens.
The extremely sharp image projected by the six-element
lens system is recorded by the second generation 41MP
BSI sensor, capturing even the smallest of details in the
scene, including detail not visible to the naked eye.
Whitepaper from Nokia on the tech http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/2723846/data/1/-/Lumia1020-whitepaper.pdf
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3964341&cid=44257603
If you're comparing a phone camera with a DSLR then it means it has already won. Anyway, here's more technical details.
Sample photos from the phone http://www.flickr.com/photos/87544844%40N00/sets/72157634597356196/
Review of the photo tech http://pureviewclub.com/2013/15270
Whitepaper from Nokia on the tech http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/2723846/data/1/-/Lumia1020-whitepaper.pdf
Sample photos from the predecessor http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokia808/
Nokia presentation showcasing the phone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Q3bxo7vJI&hd=1
I too have. He's wrong.
What *is* the same between the Surface Pro and the Surface (RT), is that UEFI and Secure Boot are being used.
Back to the original topic, this is why people do not want Secure Boot. Here is a company taking the standard and doing *exactly* what people were afraid the company would do with it. It's no longer "speculation."
Is that so? Then why can anyone run Linux on a Surface Pro?
Or do you mean that WindowsRT is doing so well that it will kill PCs will do more harm to user freedom than an iPad? Looks like you are more optimistic about it than MS itself!
If people do not want Secure Boot then why are they falling over each other to buy the iPad with a locked bootloader? Or one of the many Android phones and tablets with locked bootloaders? Or are you just speculating about "people"?
It's like saying Antivirus programs will one day prevent all executables from running just because they have the capability to block any executable and have successfully blocked some.
And all news organizations are 100% right all the time? Since when in the history of news has this been correct? For example in crime reporting: Sources familiar with the matter say suspect A will be arrested shortly. And then it doesn't happen.
Not all. I just quoted four. How you can extrapolate that to all when I specifically said they are not to be trusted as much as reliable ones?
For example in crime reporting: Sources familiar with the matter say suspect A will be arrested shortly. And then it doesn't happen.
The difference should be obvious if you have any background in journalism. It is that reputable organizations like the ones I have listed vet their sources and don't post everything from every anonymous email or tip they get. They spend a minimum time and effort to make sure their reputation stays intact. You can add Reuters and AP to the list I quoted. Most other news organizations just print anything regardless of the reliability of their sources.
So WSJ predicted the iPad. If you weren't following news at the time, SO WAS EVERYONE ELSE
Maybe, but the WSJ article gave the rumors legitimacy and confirmed a lot of things. That article was widely quoted and reported in the media at the time. Why would it be if everyone else was onto the story? In fact in some cases the companies themselves leak things to the big news orgs to generate hype.
Everyone was saying the iTV was coming out Q1 2013. It didn't happen.
Everyone? Care to reference a couple from WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters, AP, Washington Post, NYT that say "from our sources"? Or are you making up things as you go ?
Wow, your failure at reading comprehensions is astounding. Julie Larson-Greene is the new head of Devices and Studio Engineering. She is in charge of the entire group which includes Xbox. Ballmer has not named who will lead Xbox specifically. For now, that person still is Ballmer as far as the public knows.
That made me laugh, you're clutching at straws here. The whole point of the reorg is to have new divisions and heads. Ballmer need not name the head of every small subdivision. Is there even a Xbox division anymore?
This whole Slashdot article is a misleading non-story not worthy of even being posted and only designed to rile up ignorant people who get their MS news only from here or other similar forums and who don't even know about the reorg.
By the way, is an employment contract the same as a non-compete agreement?
Not this again, I got tired of it because you were not willing to concede the point after losing it. In one post you claimed Microsoft had a option not to let go of Mattrick. I replied no they cannot. After a couple of posts you changed your tune saying that Microsoft can't prevent him from leaving if he pays his way out. I am tired of arguing this again and again.
Back to insults I see. You've built all of these posts on speculation and misinformation and seem rather irritated when someone calls you out on your BS.
Did you read your own posts that I quoted? Here they are:
Also why even mention the holidays in a few months if everyone knows that a re-org is coming in the next few days.
Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.
I am totally vindicated in all my points. All my so called speculation and misinformation turned to be actually true because it was based on reliable sources who delivered yet again, while your speculation about Ballmer leading Xbox into the holiday season turned to be total junk. Yet you accuse me of speculation and misinformation?
For example read my post, the reply to your first post in this thread:
You believe everything you read on the internet about Apple? Were you born yesterday? First of all, "according to people familiar with the matter" is not 100%.
Oh god, what the heck? Do you even understand English?
How in the hell is "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" the same as "the internet" ? Do you have sudden amnesia that hits you just after you read my post and before you write a reply? I specifically said that speculation by organizations like that are "NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECULATION ON THE INTERNET".
Do you even read what you yourself quoted from my post???
You seem to lack the basic knowledge that when Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post say "According to people familiar with the matter" they're pretty much 100% right.
How can you even claim that that equates to "believing everything you read on the internet" ? Are you dumb or just acting so?
How many news sites and blogs are on the internet? Hundreds of thousands?
How many news sites and blogs are in the list "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" I count 4.
I feel that I am debating with someone who can't read.
Again you color all speculation the same.
"The sun will rise tomorrow". Is that speculation or fact? Is it at the same level of speculation as Apple will release iPhone 6 tomorrow? Don't you agree that there's different levels of speculation based on probability, track record etc.?
There's informed speculation and there's uninformed speculation.
Second according to your link, WSJ predicted iPad in March. It didn't come out until April: How is that "100% right"?
Oh yes, ignore everything that the WSJ got right and pick on one thing(March could've been the internal plan at Apple in Jan). Also ignore that I said "it's pretty much 100% right". The link was an example about how WSJ had access to real information as opposed to the rest of the internet.
I see you still fail to read the news which broke around 30 mins before your post. Here's your new head of Xbox, Ballmer is not taking over till the holiday season like you were insinuating.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/Jul13/07-11OneMicrosoft.aspx
Will you admit you were wrong in your posts below?
Also why even mention the holidays in a few months if everyone knows that a re-org is coming in the next few days.
Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.
If you don't agree that your posts and basically this whole Slashdot article and most of the comments on here are bunk after the news that broke today, you're morally and ethically bankrupt.
Windows 8 is not the same as Windows RT.
Windows 8 runs on only x86.
I love how the iPad gets a free pass but the barely selling WindowsRT is a big deal.
Sure, but they will lose Windows 8 certification which gives them marketing, discounts etc.
That's why no OEM currently prevents that option. If you have a reference stating that one does, please provide it. Until then it's just speculation, an OEM can do anything in the future, including blocking Windows from running.
Evil, by telling you what they're doing and you voluntarily doing choosing their products (which you can export the data out any time)? Explain.
Reducing contrast to confuse older folks and people with bad monitors into clicking ads to make more money is pretty evil in my book.
http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3904125&cid=44103749
Why can't I load the key myself from UEFI or another side channel?
You can.
http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-windows-8-uefi-platform/
Typical Slashdot ignorance and blind hatred.
Because it was laid out poorly from the beginning. Had the key architecture not been left up to an ad-hoc distribution mechanism and, instead, been firmly rooted in the UEFI Foundation, then said signing organization could have gone to the UEFI Foundation and gotten a key without involving Microsoft.
What is this UEFI Foundation that you speak of?
That seems like a lot of work and complexity for something that's already feasible.
Vendors can currently ship OS-less machines with secure boot turned off.
Linux vendors can remove MS' key and put in theirs or the distros' if there is one, or just turn it off and then install Linux before shipping it to the user. The user can install/remove keys and enable/disable secure boot as they please.
Secure Boot isn't secure nor is it a security feature. It's sole purpose is to keep Linux off of x86 computers. It's already easy to get around 'Secure Boot so I think it's broken as a concept. Security has to constantly evolve to meet evolving problems. Hardware can't do that.
+3 interesting? What's wrong with Slashdot that posts with the most misinformation are modded up? And then other people take these modded up posts as gospel and keep repeating the FUD.
Can you tell us how it's easy to get around Secure Boot?
Secure Boot isn't secure nor is it a security feature. It's sole purpose is to keep Linux off of x86 computers
Here's a couple of viruses that Secure Boot prevents.
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
I recommend reading atleast the first link.
Here's one juicy bit:
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.
Another bit:
The original MBR and driver component are stored in encrypted form using the same encryption. Driver component hooks ATAPI's DriverStartIo routine where
A great deal of security isn't about what some protocol or device *can* do, it's about how it commonly ends up in real world.
It already successfully prevents many kinds of undetectable rootkits on Windows in the real world.
Initial signing key shouldn't have come in the firmware, it should have been like the TPM, the vendor has the opportunity to 'take ownership' of the platform.
I would certainly prefer that the vendors with razor thin margins of a few bucks a PC/motherboard in Taiwan not be burdened with 'taking ownership' of the platform.
If the argument is that people with piece part systems are put at risk, it's such a small population that has to be using a malicious copy of the media.
Even 1% of PC users would be in the high millions.