Your comment is a little - just a LITTLE! - over the top for what Timothy actually wrote. I mean, it *is* a harsh way to find out.
I acknowledged that already "Alright, maybe that's a harsh assessment, but after countless other posts like this I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt."
It's true -- it's a hard way to find out. It's also true that it's a snarky remark and a cheap shot. Timothy and Kdawson (and other editors too) either take cheap shots or propagate outright FUD regarding MS all the time. There is a financial motive -- it drives views and ad-clicks. There is a vested interest (not the site ownership). I am not inclined to give this site and it's editors the benefit of doubt anymore. They've been doing this for years now.
MS basically didn't want to do the whole dog and pony show for the US DOJ and EU's committee -- so they came up with this compromise (PatchGuard in 64-bit OSes only), and in return McAfee and Symantec dropped their objections. These links are actually after the fact (after that agreement was brokered, and the fight contnued for 64-bit windows).
I mean, we know there are technophobes out there. We know there are people who just can't understand the importance of running up to date AV, latest updates etc., or simply can't figure out how to do it -- but seriously -- what can you do for such users. You can make your OS more and more secure with it's default settings. You can make free online scanners available. You can make free AV avialable. In as far as you don't get dragged into court for retarded reasons, you can try to make your kernel not load untrusted modules. You can even try to educate users or warn users (this is not signed, do you really want to run it?). But if they defeat your every measure through sheer ignorance, if they are too ignorant to even know that merely upgrading their OS makes them a bit safer, what can you do beyond just sympathizing with them?
I think that award goes to to Timothy -- our fearless fudding editor. I mean, consider how he ended TFA: "That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.".
Alright, maybe that's a harsh assessment, but after countless other posts like this I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt. Let's recap:
1. The Alureon rootkit isn't new, and should be detected by any AV worth it's salt
2. That being the case, affected users were not running AV, or were infected before they installed their AV.
3. Affected users are running a 10-year old OS.
4. More recent OSes (64-bit Vista and Win7) have inbuilt measures that render Alureon ineffective (PatchGuard - which checks for signatures on kernel modules).
5. 32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions.
6. MS has made online scanning tools, a malware removal tool, and a free AV/security suite (MS security essentials) that any of the affected users could have used, prior to the update, and they would have been fine.
So now, short of forcibly enrolling users in "install and run AV 101", what else could you be calling for, Mr. Timothy (editor) when you say that you think this is a particularly harsh way to find out that you've been infected? What the fuck else do you think MS should do? Go back in time, and fucking add patch guard to XP before they release it? I'm really fucking interested in hearing your opinion on this.
The reason puppy linux fits in 30MB and runs so fast, is because it does barely anything at all. Whatever purpose you use it for, it surely achieves that well, but don't make silly comparisons.
Next, the swap-file isn't "HDD caching". A cache hierarchy works the other way around -- the fastest (and consequently most expensive, and thus smallest) memory types are closest to the processor (L1, followed by L2, often followed by L3), and the slowest (and consequently least expensive, and largest capacity) are further away -- that would be RAM, and then the HDD. Why add the HDD to the hierarchy? 'cos that's what enables you to simulate infinite memory (or enough for the task at hand, even if you exceed your physical RAM -- if you have enough for the task(s) at hand, it doesn't matter that your capacity is actually finite). Long story short -- in theory, you could call just about every form of memory in your computer a cache, except the HDD.
Your 'anecdote' about your brother's Win7 / Vista (were you being snarky, or does your brother dual-boot?) machine, is what is commonly known as "a lie". Win7/3GB RAM/AMD X2 running slower than XP/512MB/P4? Sorry dude -- simply doesn't add up.
And finally, yes, retreiving stuff from the swap file too often kills performance. But who said that the RAM was 'full of crap' on Win7?
If the memory was freed up dynamically as needed then no processes would ever be forced to resort to disk-based virtual memory.
The trouble is, the TFA doesn't actually say (at least not clearly) that the Win7 machines are indeed turning to swap more regularly. It just states that fetching stuff from the swap file is a consequence of running out of RAM and causes perf degradation. So if the Win7 machines are indeed utilizing all available RAM and yet not swapping at a significanly higher rate, it means they're making more optimum use of available RAM.
Not necessarily -- it could be application / system memory that's pre-cached (based on profiling). If at any point, your machine has RAM available, and idle cycles, pre-caching would be a good way to use them. See here.
Not really -- you never get awarded dominance -- you have to work for it. The dominance you work for has a halo effect.
The IE case isn't that clear either. These days everyone and their brother-in-law is talking about the browser being the OS, the network is the computer, etc. etc. The definition of an OS (as pertains to the consumer) is not the pedantic one -- a task scheduler + command shell type thing to control a computer -- it's a fully functioning machine with all the basics for browsing, email, etc. So the line between bundling and good foresight is pretty blurry. In any event, however you want to rule on that line, just be consistent about it. Either it's legal or illegal. It's BS to find all kinds of special cases to bring down the incumbent.
I understand that -- I'm saying that law doesn't make sense. You call it 'abuse'. I call it 'leverage'. Why is it legal at 5% market share and illegal at say 90%? Why can't we have consistent laws instead of these silly piecemeal "you've gotten too big for your boots" patchwork antitrust cases?
How is that a special case? Did you single out an idividual minimum-wage worker for a tax break?
In antitrust law, you literally find a company that has been successful past a point, you figure out the unique individual circumstances that led to that success, and enact special rules on that company making those actions illegal -- but you completely ignore the fact that while stunting this company, the exact same actions taken by other companies could have the same outcome, and you leave them free to operate in the exact way in which you have banned the one company you singled out. Never mind that the 'singling out' is usually politically motivated, after the other companies make sufficient campaign contributions etc.
Face it dude -- antitrust law is bad bad law. Anytime people are playing by different rules, it's a bad thing. If somebody has done something that you consider damaging, but they did so while completely operating within the confines of the law, then don't you think you should fix the freaking law, instead of enacting special cases? Fixing the law, prevents similar future situations. Special cases just fixes this one, but hastens some other company's path to perpetrating the same so-called excesses.
If someone has 90% of the market, I may have to use their product to be compatible with everyone else - i.e. because of network effects
Obviously. But what makes that illegal, or even unethical, or even unfair? Those are the breaks. The incumbent always has an advantage. Deal with it. If not, if you want to use antitrust laws etc. -- at least call it what it is -- a semi-free, regulated market, in which success beyond a point will be punished.
Netscape had all the mindshare and all the marketshare when it all started. They just had to stay one-step ahead of IE all the time, and IE would never have become relevant. Instead they released crap. They got what they deserved, and they should not get any artificial protection for their mistake.
They were not the only party guilty of 'conceding' the market. Are you telling me that everyone had the foresight to see what an important battle ground it would be, but nobody had the engineering resources to create a compelling browser? Bullcrap -- the entire freaking computer industry worldwide laid a goose egg, and then blamed MS for wanting the market badly enough to actually go out there and win it.
The analogy isn't useful. Just make threatening people illegal instead of saying that issuing threats is only illegal if you are physically superior, or possess superior weapons, or have real malicious intent, or are definitely not joking, or other such bull-crap.
Bundling should either be legal or illegal. Closed protocols/file-formats/IP should either be illegal or legal. It's really that simple.
Even your second analogy isn't useful. Just make exclusivity contracts illegal -- problem solved. Doesn't matter if you get lauged at with a 5% market share or taken seriously with a 95% market share. It doesn't matter at what share they give in. If I (as the big player) negotiated that agreement at 49% market share, was it illegal? No? So as my market share grew, an action that I might have taken say 5 years in the past, which was completely legal at the time, becomes illegal now? What the fuck kind of retarded law is that??
The problem come into play when the monopoly starts using their position in an uncompetitive manner, like by requiring system builders to install only your browser, and punishing them if they do otherwise.
Such an arrangement does limit choice -- but it limits choice irrespective of market shares/monopoly status. Either such deals should be legal (at 5% market share or 95% market share) or they should be illegal (at 5% market share or 95% market share). Same rules for all players, and no need for antitrust-law and all the associated politics. Same case with protocols, file-formats, etc. Either everyone is required to license their formats/specs/IP at some pre-determined cost, or nobody is. It makes no fucking sense to always wait for someone to become 80%-of-the-market big and then introduce all kinds of retarded special-cases under which they need to operate.
Your definition isn't off. Competition-law pertains to the 'efficiency' of the pricing mechanism in a market. It actually does make the market less free, to preserve the pricing efficiency (I might be slightly off with the exact term here). But a free market in the strictest sense of the word is one in which the market self-regulates, and hence there are no restrictions like competition-law in a truly free market.
Microsoft's behavior isn't anti-competitive. It's pro-Microsoft. In a truly free market, there's no such thing as anti-competitive behaviour. There's nothing you can do legally at 5% market share that magically becomes illegal at 95%.
The lack of browser options in 2000 was definitely caused by Microsoft's actions -- but any law that calls those actions illegal because of their 95% market share is bad law. The reason Microsoft's actions bore fruit is becuase their competitors conceded the market to them. It's really that simple. Netscape did a piss-poor job, and IE4/5/5.5/6 was light-years better than Netscape at the time. Same case with Opera. They can scream about standards, default installs, or whatever they wany -- they did nothing, absolutely nothing to build a compelling case for end users to care. It's really that simple. If the rest of the industry thought it was such an important battle-ground, then they should not have conceded it to Microsoft -- it's just that simple. The EU is, genuinely, a less-free, over-regulated market compared to the US.
Developers are developers. Most users are not developers. The shortcuts developers (and testers) need, aren't necessarily useful to users. The UI team is fine.
But when you think about it 2/3rd majority is still a majority -- just not a simple majority. Sure, there's all kinds of complexity tacked on, but when you distill it, you get "majority wins".
I hate Limbaugh and Fox News as much as you do -- but democracy is essentially 'majority wins'.. nobody's been able to come up with a better system yet. And it isn't for lack of trying.
I don't know if Google actually has a physical presence in India
They do.. hence the bit about respecting local laws.
But they need to be honest with the Indian users of their service and make it publicly known that their results are filtered due to the laws of that country.... Censorship, when done in the dark is evil. Censorship done in the light of day is slightly less evil.
Try over a billion people:) -- almost three billion if you combine India and China.
I don't have first-hand knowledge, but it seems to me that in China it doesn't matter if people get pissed. Events damaging to the govt. seem to literally disappear from their history, like Tiananmen sq., events in Tibet, and much more. I guess it's a chicken-and-egg thing when it comes to censorship -- you can't get mad about stuff you don't know about. Perhaps people in China just think the 'net has a lot less porn than we know it to have? I mean, you'd just have to censor articles about censoring porn, and after a while the event will disappear from social consciousness.
In India, I guess the redeeming factor is that they are a democracy. Sure there must be tons of people that are pissed about this, but at least they know it's happening to them. At least they can talk about being pissed. The discussion can continue until such time that social attitudes change, and if/when that happens, they can change the law.
So I guess the difference is that in China, the people aren't prudes but the govt. is. In India, the govt will do whatever, but the people are prudes. Or something like that..:P
Not really. People will search for porn whether you server up the right results or not. The search engine that serves up the best porn results will win the search wars (in India, in the world, anywhere). It's bad for business (for Bing's business) as long as competitors (Google) don't do the same. It is respectful of local laws however. India is a democratic country -- if social attitudes are such that they choose to censor themselves, they are within their rights to do that. They can change the relevant laws in the future if social attitudes change. Until then, as pointless as it is to try to prevent people from viewing porn, search engines should do their best to comply.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment is a little - just a LITTLE! - over the top for what Timothy actually wrote. I mean, it *is* a harsh way to find out.
I acknowledged that already "Alright, maybe that's a harsh assessment, but after countless other posts like this I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt."
It's true -- it's a hard way to find out. It's also true that it's a snarky remark and a cheap shot. Timothy and Kdawson (and other editors too) either take cheap shots or propagate outright FUD regarding MS all the time. There is a financial motive -- it drives views and ad-clicks. There is a vested interest (not the site ownership). I am not inclined to give this site and it's editors the benefit of doubt anymore. They've been doing this for years now.
Sure:
MS basically didn't want to do the whole dog and pony show for the US DOJ and EU's committee -- so they came up with this compromise (PatchGuard in 64-bit OSes only), and in return McAfee and Symantec dropped their objections. These links are actually after the fact (after that agreement was brokered, and the fight contnued for 64-bit windows).
Amen to that.
I mean, we know there are technophobes out there. We know there are people who just can't understand the importance of running up to date AV, latest updates etc., or simply can't figure out how to do it -- but seriously -- what can you do for such users. You can make your OS more and more secure with it's default settings. You can make free online scanners available. You can make free AV avialable. In as far as you don't get dragged into court for retarded reasons, you can try to make your kernel not load untrusted modules. You can even try to educate users or warn users (this is not signed, do you really want to run it?). But if they defeat your every measure through sheer ignorance, if they are too ignorant to even know that merely upgrading their OS makes them a bit safer, what can you do beyond just sympathizing with them?
I think that award goes to to Timothy -- our fearless fudding editor. I mean, consider how he ended TFA: "That seems a harsh way to find out that your Windows machine has been rooted.".
Alright, maybe that's a harsh assessment, but after countless other posts like this I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt. Let's recap:
1. The Alureon rootkit isn't new, and should be detected by any AV worth it's salt
2. That being the case, affected users were not running AV, or were infected before they installed their AV.
3. Affected users are running a 10-year old OS.
4. More recent OSes (64-bit Vista and Win7) have inbuilt measures that render Alureon ineffective (PatchGuard - which checks for signatures on kernel modules).
5. 32-bit Vista and Win7 would be immune as well if the AV cartel had not threatened to approach the DOJ with antitrust complaints if MS implemented PatchGuard in the 32-bit versions.
6. MS has made online scanning tools, a malware removal tool, and a free AV/security suite (MS security essentials) that any of the affected users could have used, prior to the update, and they would have been fine.
So now, short of forcibly enrolling users in "install and run AV 101", what else could you be calling for, Mr. Timothy (editor) when you say that you think this is a particularly harsh way to find out that you've been infected? What the fuck else do you think MS should do? Go back in time, and fucking add patch guard to XP before they release it? I'm really fucking interested in hearing your opinion on this.
You mean, the fucking TFA aricle?
"-1 Wrong" on so many levels.
The reason puppy linux fits in 30MB and runs so fast, is because it does barely anything at all. Whatever purpose you use it for, it surely achieves that well, but don't make silly comparisons.
Next, the swap-file isn't "HDD caching". A cache hierarchy works the other way around -- the fastest (and consequently most expensive, and thus smallest) memory types are closest to the processor (L1, followed by L2, often followed by L3), and the slowest (and consequently least expensive, and largest capacity) are further away -- that would be RAM, and then the HDD. Why add the HDD to the hierarchy? 'cos that's what enables you to simulate infinite memory (or enough for the task at hand, even if you exceed your physical RAM -- if you have enough for the task(s) at hand, it doesn't matter that your capacity is actually finite). Long story short -- in theory, you could call just about every form of memory in your computer a cache, except the HDD.
Your 'anecdote' about your brother's Win7 / Vista (were you being snarky, or does your brother dual-boot?) machine, is what is commonly known as "a lie". Win7/3GB RAM/AMD X2 running slower than XP/512MB/P4? Sorry dude -- simply doesn't add up.
And finally, yes, retreiving stuff from the swap file too often kills performance. But who said that the RAM was 'full of crap' on Win7?
If the memory was freed up dynamically as needed then no processes would ever be forced to resort to disk-based virtual memory.
The trouble is, the TFA doesn't actually say (at least not clearly) that the Win7 machines are indeed turning to swap more regularly. It just states that fetching stuff from the swap file is a consequence of running out of RAM and causes perf degradation. So if the Win7 machines are indeed utilizing all available RAM and yet not swapping at a significanly higher rate, it means they're making more optimum use of available RAM.
Not necessarily -- it could be application / system memory that's pre-cached (based on profiling). If at any point, your machine has RAM available, and idle cycles, pre-caching would be a good way to use them. See here.
I guess Devil Mountain or whoever don't know about SuperFetch. Or need publicity.
And I guess slashdot editors don't know about SuperFetch. Or maybe an article like this gets them more traffic, revenue, etc.
The fucking bullshit that passes for articles these days..
Not really -- you never get awarded dominance -- you have to work for it. The dominance you work for has a halo effect.
The IE case isn't that clear either. These days everyone and their brother-in-law is talking about the browser being the OS, the network is the computer, etc. etc. The definition of an OS (as pertains to the consumer) is not the pedantic one -- a task scheduler + command shell type thing to control a computer -- it's a fully functioning machine with all the basics for browsing, email, etc. So the line between bundling and good foresight is pretty blurry. In any event, however you want to rule on that line, just be consistent about it. Either it's legal or illegal. It's BS to find all kinds of special cases to bring down the incumbent.
No -- you merely make murder illegal. For everyone.
I understand that -- I'm saying that law doesn't make sense. You call it 'abuse'. I call it 'leverage'. Why is it legal at 5% market share and illegal at say 90%? Why can't we have consistent laws instead of these silly piecemeal "you've gotten too big for your boots" patchwork antitrust cases?
How is that a special case? Did you single out an idividual minimum-wage worker for a tax break?
In antitrust law, you literally find a company that has been successful past a point, you figure out the unique individual circumstances that led to that success, and enact special rules on that company making those actions illegal -- but you completely ignore the fact that while stunting this company, the exact same actions taken by other companies could have the same outcome, and you leave them free to operate in the exact way in which you have banned the one company you singled out. Never mind that the 'singling out' is usually politically motivated, after the other companies make sufficient campaign contributions etc.
Face it dude -- antitrust law is bad bad law. Anytime people are playing by different rules, it's a bad thing. If somebody has done something that you consider damaging, but they did so while completely operating within the confines of the law, then don't you think you should fix the freaking law, instead of enacting special cases? Fixing the law, prevents similar future situations. Special cases just fixes this one, but hastens some other company's path to perpetrating the same so-called excesses.
If someone has 90% of the market, I may have to use their product to be compatible with everyone else - i.e. because of network effects
Obviously. But what makes that illegal, or even unethical, or even unfair? Those are the breaks. The incumbent always has an advantage. Deal with it. If not, if you want to use antitrust laws etc. -- at least call it what it is -- a semi-free, regulated market, in which success beyond a point will be punished.
Netscape had all the mindshare and all the marketshare when it all started. They just had to stay one-step ahead of IE all the time, and IE would never have become relevant. Instead they released crap. They got what they deserved, and they should not get any artificial protection for their mistake.
They were not the only party guilty of 'conceding' the market. Are you telling me that everyone had the foresight to see what an important battle ground it would be, but nobody had the engineering resources to create a compelling browser? Bullcrap -- the entire freaking computer industry worldwide laid a goose egg, and then blamed MS for wanting the market badly enough to actually go out there and win it.
The analogy isn't useful. Just make threatening people illegal instead of saying that issuing threats is only illegal if you are physically superior, or possess superior weapons, or have real malicious intent, or are definitely not joking, or other such bull-crap.
Bundling should either be legal or illegal. Closed protocols/file-formats/IP should either be illegal or legal. It's really that simple.
Even your second analogy isn't useful. Just make exclusivity contracts illegal -- problem solved. Doesn't matter if you get lauged at with a 5% market share or taken seriously with a 95% market share. It doesn't matter at what share they give in. If I (as the big player) negotiated that agreement at 49% market share, was it illegal? No? So as my market share grew, an action that I might have taken say 5 years in the past, which was completely legal at the time, becomes illegal now? What the fuck kind of retarded law is that??
The problem come into play when the monopoly starts using their position in an uncompetitive manner, like by requiring system builders to install only your browser, and punishing them if they do otherwise.
Such an arrangement does limit choice -- but it limits choice irrespective of market shares/monopoly status. Either such deals should be legal (at 5% market share or 95% market share) or they should be illegal (at 5% market share or 95% market share). Same rules for all players, and no need for antitrust-law and all the associated politics. Same case with protocols, file-formats, etc. Either everyone is required to license their formats/specs/IP at some pre-determined cost, or nobody is. It makes no fucking sense to always wait for someone to become 80%-of-the-market big and then introduce all kinds of retarded special-cases under which they need to operate.
Your definition isn't off. Competition-law pertains to the 'efficiency' of the pricing mechanism in a market. It actually does make the market less free, to preserve the pricing efficiency (I might be slightly off with the exact term here). But a free market in the strictest sense of the word is one in which the market self-regulates, and hence there are no restrictions like competition-law in a truly free market.
Microsoft's behavior isn't anti-competitive. It's pro-Microsoft. In a truly free market, there's no such thing as anti-competitive behaviour. There's nothing you can do legally at 5% market share that magically becomes illegal at 95%.
The lack of browser options in 2000 was definitely caused by Microsoft's actions -- but any law that calls those actions illegal because of their 95% market share is bad law. The reason Microsoft's actions bore fruit is becuase their competitors conceded the market to them. It's really that simple. Netscape did a piss-poor job, and IE4/5/5.5/6 was light-years better than Netscape at the time. Same case with Opera. They can scream about standards, default installs, or whatever they wany -- they did nothing, absolutely nothing to build a compelling case for end users to care. It's really that simple. If the rest of the industry thought it was such an important battle-ground, then they should not have conceded it to Microsoft -- it's just that simple. The EU is, genuinely, a less-free, over-regulated market compared to the US.
Developers are developers. Most users are not developers. The shortcuts developers (and testers) need, aren't necessarily useful to users. The UI team is fine.
But when you think about it 2/3rd majority is still a majority -- just not a simple majority. Sure, there's all kinds of complexity tacked on, but when you distill it, you get "majority wins".
Saying it a thousand times doesn't make it wrong.
I hate Limbaugh and Fox News as much as you do -- but democracy is essentially 'majority wins'.. nobody's been able to come up with a better system yet. And it isn't for lack of trying.
I don't know if Google actually has a physical presence in India
They do.. hence the bit about respecting local laws.
But they need to be honest with the Indian users of their service and make it publicly known that their results are filtered due to the laws of that country .... Censorship, when done in the dark is evil. Censorship done in the light of day is slightly less evil.
Completely agreed, and a great idea at that.
Try over a billion people :) -- almost three billion if you combine India and China.
I don't have first-hand knowledge, but it seems to me that in China it doesn't matter if people get pissed. Events damaging to the govt. seem to literally disappear from their history, like Tiananmen sq., events in Tibet, and much more. I guess it's a chicken-and-egg thing when it comes to censorship -- you can't get mad about stuff you don't know about. Perhaps people in China just think the 'net has a lot less porn than we know it to have? I mean, you'd just have to censor articles about censoring porn, and after a while the event will disappear from social consciousness.
In India, I guess the redeeming factor is that they are a democracy. Sure there must be tons of people that are pissed about this, but at least they know it's happening to them. At least they can talk about being pissed. The discussion can continue until such time that social attitudes change, and if/when that happens, they can change the law.
So I guess the difference is that in China, the people aren't prudes but the govt. is. In India, the govt will do whatever, but the people are prudes. Or something like that.. :P
Not really. People will search for porn whether you server up the right results or not. The search engine that serves up the best porn results will win the search wars (in India, in the world, anywhere). It's bad for business (for Bing's business) as long as competitors (Google) don't do the same. It is respectful of local laws however. India is a democratic country -- if social attitudes are such that they choose to censor themselves, they are within their rights to do that. They can change the relevant laws in the future if social attitudes change. Until then, as pointless as it is to try to prevent people from viewing porn, search engines should do their best to comply.