I consider a user with sudo access to be an admin user, because they can administer the machine. Is that so damn hard?
I didn't disagree with that. I made a distinction between them and root. But ok - let's call them admins, that's fine.
The Windows XP administrator is more like root in Linux. You knew this, of course, but if I don't spell it out for you, you will pretend I don't understand.
Wrong. That would be Local System. So you see, you really don't understand.
So getting back to the point: A user without sudo is actually usable, but a standard Windows user is not.
Incorrect. You claim to have tried this many times. So have I. Point out the bugs that make it unusable. I acknowledged there are bugs. I pointed one out myself. They do not make it unusable.
Your counter example of a 1000 data entry monkeys all using the same application(s) does not impress me.
heh. I don't really care what impresses you if you think everyoneis not enabled by default, and in a corporate HQ is a data entry monkey and uses a single application.
You go on to say the mode is not important because grandma's don't use it?
No -- grandma was an example. You complained about the default user in windows being admin. I pointed out that the default user in linux/osx is admin. So it's even-stevens. Geddit?
We're talking security. It's a security advantage to be able to run in that mode more often? Yes, so it counts. Microsoft itself will admit this point, but you won't. Fine!
It's a security advantage to run in that mode. Re-read my posts -- I never claimed it wasn't. The point is - nobody is in that mode by default. So it's even-stevens. Geddit?
Yes, sudo is a security warning. It warns you that your action will require elevated privilege, with the security risk that entails.
Sudo is not a security warning. Period. The sudo guys themselves will take umbrage at that term, I promise you.
1. Console/text based sudo gives you nothing but a password prompt. No warning. Why? Because that's not it's function!!
2. The purpose behind the password prompt is authentication (not warning)
3. In a graphical sudo implementation, in addition to identifying the application, you may print a warning if you wish -- but not every application will do this, so it's a complete fallacy to call sudo itself a security warning.
I've seen security prompted for deleting files I created, and for apps that had no business getting elevated access. I can browse without sudo in Linux, the MS solution is less secure.
Man, you just keep displaying the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Try this. Create a directory. Make root the owner. Give only root access to open it and it's contents (x,r). Then as an admin user (but not evelated), try to browse that directory in nautilus (or graphical file browser of your choice). When you fail to do so, reply back to this thread and acknowledge your ignorance. This test case is identical to the file-copy thing you are complaining about with UAC.
AND it's the reason that it's a very bad idea to invoke it for everything under the sun, like Vista does!
Like what? On a normal day in the office I launch visual studio, outlook, one note (office apps in general), remote desktop, virtual pc (for WM device emulators), windows media player, a bug database app, and god knows what else I'm forgetting. None of this requires a UAC prompt. Over the last month I probably only saw a UAC prompt for FF and Adobe Reader updates. The ubuntu machine I'm typing this on -- I get updates every two days on average!! And y
1. Wrong. Linux has real non-privileged users. A user with sudo is and admin user. So, root, admin, normal user.
You are hashing many different concepts together here. First - the underlying assumption is that we are talking about consumer OS flavors. Second - most/all consumer linuxes and OS X have their standard user in the sudoers file. Third, a user with sudo is not an admin - they are users that have the ability to act as root, but they are not root. There's a difference. Fouth - let's say I concede your point that someone in sudoers is an admin (since practically speaking, that's how it's used) -- we now have the result that by default, consumer linux and OS X setup users as admins. Conclusion - you are wrong about the standard user in Linux / OS X. If you didn't realize from my previous post and this post, I know very well that a user not in sudoers is not an admin. Doesn't matter -- out-of-the-box, no linux gets setup with such users. You said it was funny when I said non-expert users can't use linux. You think Charlie Miller's grandma is going to install Ubuntu, and then setup a standard accout for herself after that? Get real!
You think it's OK to conflate confirmation of actions with security warnings?
UAC is not a security warning. When you click ok on a UAC prompt you are acquiring an elevated token. If you call UAC a security warning you have to call sudo a security warning as well.
You're fine with requesting privilege elevation so often that users learn they have to click "allow" to get any work done
Another myth propagated on/. and you've bought into it without questioning. UAC prompts work absolutely fine. The outcry that led to the redesign in Win7 is a Bad Thing.
Wrong. I have tried to use a non-admin account on Windows many times over the years. It's unusable. This is news to you?? I guess you missed this quote from Jim Allchin at Microsoft
No, this is not news to me. But you're hashing together different concepts. You claimed Windows did not have standard users and that the concept was new to windows and that was an idiotic claim.
"most software developers (including at Microsoft) developed their software assuming that the user would be an administrator." If you don't need to run any software, a Windows standard user should be just fine for you!
True. I wouldn't call it unusable as you did. My previous company had a corporate HQ with over 1000 people in it, and everyone outside of IT (~200 people) were standard users. They worked fine. The most visible bug by far is the inability to look up the calendar in the system tray, but it was very very far from unusable. To address the main point though -- any app that doesn't need admin priviliges, but fails when it is run without them, is a buggy app. Some of those apps come from redmond itself (generally not from the windows team, but from redmond itself). These are bugs in the apps. Not OS 'architectural' deficiencies.
Here's the clincher, "If an administrator performs multiple tasks on the same desktop, then malware may potentially be able to inject or interfere with an elevated process from a non-elevated process." He goes on to explain why they made security compromises in Vista, but all you really need is the title, "Security Features vs. Convenience".
?????
The exact same issue exists on all OSes! It's specific to the process that are interacting, and whether there are holes in these processes. It's the reason to not think of UAC as a security boundary. The same way you should not think of sudo as a security boundary. If you (for example) launch synaptic and 'elevate' to apply some updates, and there is a hole in synaptics that you can exploit to start running stuff as root, then any 'non-priviliged' process can exploit that hole to achieve 'elevation of privilige'. Hence, you sho
I'll ignore your wordplay and cut straight to the facts.
Having real non-privileged users is better than the default admin+UAC of Vista.
Wrong. The default user on Ubuntu (and virtually all desktop linux distros) and OS X, they are in the sudoers file so they are able to elevate to admin rights same as Vista. The mechanism is different (acting as root vs. acquiring an admin token) but has the same net effect. You may be tempted to claim that sudo is superior to UAC (it is not) but instead of speaking on your behalf, I'll wait for you to actually say it before I disabuse you of that notion.
Applications on Linux have always been expected to run without root privilege (not all do), whereas the concept is still new to Windows
Wrong. Windows (NT x.x/2k/XP/Vista) have *always* had support for Admin users vs. standard users. You simply create a user in the standard user group (instead of the admin group). The concept is not in any way new to windows. If you have an XP or 2k or NT machine, try it out and you'll see. There's much more depth to this standard user/admin user support question -- but suffice it to say that your notion of windows not supporting this concept, or it being new somehow is 100% incorrect. In fact NT's system of ACLs, groups, users is much more fine-grained than linux or OS X's and has been from the very first NT version.
Not being as monolithic also helps.
No, it does not. Monolithic design and security are orthogonal concepts. Why do you say it helps? Besides, linux is very specifically a monolithic kernel. Did you not read the legendary flamewar between Torvalds and Tanenbaum? Or are you claiming that OS X is 'architecturally' secure compared to linux by virtue of it's microkernel design?
Distro diversity also makes viruses less successful (not a Mac advantage).
Yes -- distro diversity is a very good thing that linux has going for it. Especially combined with it's low adoption rates. It's simply not worth it for hackers to target Linux. Hasn't that been my point all along?
This groupthink insult is pretty easy throw around, isn't it?
I don't make the allegation lightly. From your last post, I get the feeling that security isn't really your field. So then where did you get these lines based on which you keep attempting to rip windows? Could it be that you're just regurgitating things you've read and accepted without questioning?
45% of web servers run Apache, and most of those run Linux - including the web's biggest sites. Millions of internet accessible machines. Not worth writing a virus? I can only assume this lie helps you put up with Windows.
Web sites get compromised all the time. You personally don't feel the pain so you're less aware (if not completely unaware) of it. Securing your data center / ops / servers is a whole field of study by itself. Do you think any corporation worth it's salt installs Intrepid Ibex out of the box and makes it accessible outside the DMZ? Why don't we see more OS X servers if they are so 'architecturally' secure? For an enterprise web/app server, security is feature #1.
You mean the one that starts with, "I'll leave Linux out of the equation..."?
You may have misunderstood the context. His point = my point = the main point. He said, he'll leave linux out of the equation because his grandma (aka prototypical non-expert user) will not be able to use it for the several years yet. i.e. for at least the foreseeable future, linux is of zero interest to malware writers because it will simply not have the numbers. So leave it out of the equation. This guy knows what he's talking about -- you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him based on those 7 words you quoted.
Oh by the way, this is someone who is promoting his expertise in compromising platforms, so he does have an incentive to overstate the need for his services.
But he didn't do that. He specifically stated that Mac vulns aren't worth much since Macs aren't targets.
I'm telling you, the notion that Windows is swiss cheese and Macs/Linux are vaults is a complete fallacy.
You're really going out on a limb there. Never mind that that isn't my point. Architecturally Linux and OS X are less susceptible to viruses.
You just said that wasn't your point, and then you went and stated exactly the same thing in different words. See -- this claim about linux and OS X being 'architecturally' less susceptible to viruses is just another form of slashdot groupthink -- repeated oft, and seldom challenged, so people think they can just say that, and it's a sufficient explanation in and of itself. What is it about Linux and OS-X that you think is so architecturally sound? If we get into the nuts and bolts, perhaps one or both of us will be better for it. I have a feeling this will involve a comparison of sudo and UAC at some point, and I thoroughly look forward to that.
So, if you want to explain away the last ten years of internet facing Windows systems getting exploited even when they're not browsing or running any web services that's your business.
There are many attack vectors that do not rely on web browsing or a service listening on a port, etc.
Besides, I'm not trying to explain away anything. I'm just refuting the notion that Vista is fundamentally insecure while Linux and OS X are 'architecturally' secure. That claim holds absolutely no water.
Let's end it here then. Script-kiddies are not the problem.
I believe that was my point. It applied to the part where you said 'people write viruses for fun' or words to that effect.
I think the best thing about having switched to Linux is not needing to buy an anti-virus solution, which then needs to be maintained and which bogs down performance even when it's running properly. If Windows 7 doesn't need that, then great - it's about time.
If you enjoy running AV-free, if that's a high-priority for you, you have definitely made the right choice in sticking with Linux. OS X also remains a good choice with that criteria in mind. People running Win7 will be very brave if they run it sans AV. This has no bearing on the central point of our thread though (of all three platforms being vulnerable, but only one getting targeted).
And there's also not needing to manually remove a virus when it gets you before the update is disseminated (again, conficker). Real story, real hours of lost productivity, real money being spent on an A/V licenses. This only happens on Windows, so bring on the excuses - that's all they are.
Look -- you're right about the real story/productivity loss and especially revenue loss. That's what I keep trying to explain -- malware is very serious business. The losses are very real on one side, and the gains are very real on the other. Now do this -- roll back even 5 years on all three platforms and ask yourself -- which one
Who forced you to buy a laptop with windows on it?
The PC maker does. And MS forces the PC maker to make that decision through licensing deals.
If you want a PC, your choices for computers with Windows far outstrip the choices for those without Windows.
It is not incumbent upon MS to make your non-windows choices compelling. You have your choices (however good/bad), and that is sufficient to prove, for once and for all, that MS did not force you to buy a laptop with windows on it. If you don't like your linux laptop choices, if you don't like the Mac choices, MS cannot fix that for you.
Is it the same way that Apple forces you to buy OS-X[sic]?
This is a silly argument. The dynamics between MS and the PC makers is different from the dynamics of Apple and the Mac makers (i.e., Apple and itself).
My analogy is only to show you how easily you're able to see the logic in one situation, but revert to groupthink in the other. Apple (by virtue of their dynamic) find it convenient to offer just one OS choice (their own OS). Some PC OEM by virtue of their dynamic find it most convenient to offer only one OS choice (Windows). How did this result in MS forcing you to buy windows? For linux, it's possible that a bunch of factors make it very difficult for OEMs to offer it to customers -- such as lack of drivers, high customer support call volume, inability to staff enough customer support knowledgeable about linux, perhaps lack of automated install options, perhaps lack of image install options (I don't know, I'm just guessing). Either way, once the OEM has done their math and decided not to offer linux -- how do we make the logical leap of blaming this on MS?
It's high time people on this site grow up and stop repeating this shit ad ifinitum. Freaking victim complex, I tell ya..
Worse is those that would blame the victim. MS shouldn't be forcing Windows on the PC makers, but the PC makers have no choice other than to develop their own OS. It's gotten so bad for them that many are doing just that, based on Linux, but in the mean time, the PC buying Slashdot crowd is subject to having to pay for an OS they may not want.
The guilty part here is MS. The PC makers are accomplices. The consumer is the victim.
MS cannot force Windows on the PC makers. Read the US DOJ consent decree from 2000. It's been 9 years since then!! The PC buying slashdot crowd need to grow some gonads if they're buying windows PCs 'against their will'. If you really want something you should be prepared to make some sacrifices and support your cause. One of those sacrifices should never be your intellect. Let me explain:
If you want linux, if you want OEMs to offer linux, if you want linux to 'succeed' (become mainstream not necessarily equal to success, but that seems the be the goal of people, hence the quotes). If you want these things, you should be prepared to buy a linux laptop from an OEM that offers it (thereby supporting their business model). Your sacrifice was that maybe there was a cooler laptop you could have bought from dell/hp/vaio/whoever, but they didn't offer it with linux so you didn't buy it. Your sacrifice could be that the linux OEM doesn't have high-volumes so maybe their laptops cost a bit more. But you grew a freaking pair, made a sacrifice, and supported your cause.
Now on to the intellect part. As I mentioned above - it's been a really long-ass time since MS has had the option to force OEMs to only offer windows (exclusivity contracts), or disguise them using say marketing co-ops, or anything like that. MS simply cannot force anything on the OEM. Simply effing cannot. That being the case, anytime anybody posts the tired and overused "MS forced Vista on me" comment, they have essentially bought in to slashdot's groupthink. They've bought in to something that is re
If I had a dime for every post saying "Vista is swiss cheese", I'd be richer than Bill Gates. If I only had a dime for every such post that got modded "Insightful", I'd probably still make the Forbes top 50 list of richest people in the world. For a site intended for nerds we've got an awful lot of sheep here.
If there are 25 million each on Mac and Linux (I don't know the real numbers), then that is enough to be targeted....
Let me just point you in the direction of somebody who knows better than both of us, and is an authority on the subject:
Charlie Miller Interview
It's a short interview (10 minute read), but if you just want the part of it that's relevant to this thread, see Miller's third reply on page 6. If you want a seed of original thought so you can be free from slashdot's effing groupthink, read the whole interview.
Note: I am not claiming Vista is unhackable or anything stupid like that. I am not claiming Macs/linux are swiss cheese or anythiing stupid like that. I'm telling you, the notion that Windows is swiss cheese and Macs/Linux are vaults is a complete fallacy. It's repeated ad nauseum on slashdot, and like anything else, if it's repeated (and left unchallenged) often enough, people will just assume its true. Again - read the interview, and understand that there's a whole world of grey between the black and white this site presents.
This claim that nobody wants to write a virus for Mac and Linux is becoming laughable.
Sadly, that simply isn't true. The script-kiddies writing viruses for fun are probably just using something they picked up on metaspoilt. No self-respecting AV will fail to catch that. So how will this fictitious mac/linux virus even propagate with all these windows boxes/webmail AV scanners to pass through? These days, you actually have to write something really effing sophisticated for it to actually propagate (probably like conficker). And the penalty of getting tracked down for something like that is guaranteed jail time. The motivation for taking on these risks, is purely financial gain. Once you establish that as your motive, the choice of OS to exploit is a foregone conclusion.
Is that MS's fault? Is there not one single OEM that will sell you a windows-free laptop in Belgium? If not, do you suggest that MS start supplying linux in Belgium? Besides interpreting my post in the most pedantic manner possible, do you actually have a point here?
Eeepc is not a laptop.
Oh I see - it's a netbook! My frickin bad dude.
If linux does not have sufficient demand in Belgium for OEMs to offer it as an option, who's fault is that? Remember, MS cannot force the OEM into an exclusivity clause. The consent decree took care of that, and if it wasn't enough, the EU reinforced it with their own action.
Who forced you to buy a laptop with windows on it? Is it the same way that Apple forces you to buy OS-X?
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=anavml
http://eeepc.asus.com/global/products.html?n=0
It's high time people on this site grow up and stop repeating this shit ad ifinitum. Freaking victim complex, I tell ya..
I'd say there is enough installed base of Linux and Mac OS users
That's the whole issue with your theory -- there isn't.
OS-X + Linux represent around 5% to 8% of the installed base worldwide (can't remember the exact number now). We're talking about every single version of OS-X and every single flavor of linux combined. Which of these versions will you target as a hacker? Neither -- you'll just stick with good ol' Windows. Bottom line - none of these OSes is impenetrable or secure per se. Only one of them is a target. Net effect, of course, is that if you don't want to deal with the hassles of securing your machine, OS-X / Linux are good choices.
A perpetual subscription to an anti-virus program is considered normal. How come I never see this in the TCO calculations that MS/Gartner likes to spew out?
You do see it, and you should. Any TCO calculation without it isn't worth its weight in paper.
I sincerely hope, and I'll give them credit, if Windows 7 is finally better.
You already should (give them credit). Vista is already a vast improvement relative to XP, Linux, OS-X. As I said, the reason OS-X, Linux are safe options is because the math doesn't add up for the hackers. As long as that remains the case, any user who wants to avoid AV software should consider them.
It's a security feature. If you're not on the network, you've achieved some serious attack surface reduction!:)
The funny thing about/. articles related to MS: MS is always either so powerless that it resorts to begging for stuff or it's so powerful, that it's forcing stuff down people's throats at will. Strange thing that.
I assume you're using XP SP2? As one poster suggested, slipstreaming SP3 should reduce your pain siginificantly.
Win7 will reduce/eliminate the pain to the extent that as a new OS, there won't be many critical updates to apply on installing the OS, but naturally that will change with time. Also, considering it's stability in Beta, a Win7 SP1 might take longer than usual (pure speculation on my part) - so relief won't be imminent.
OTOH, there's some hope that if you take basic precautions (antivirus, regular updates, don't install crapware, don't click on spammy links), you won't need to re-install Win7. I've had this experience with Vista over the last 2 years (of running it without it's state deteriorating in any way -- and especially not to the point of needing a reinstall) -- but I might be a tad paranoid in terms of the precautions I take.
That's an interesting thought - but I don't think it'll ever happen.
Consider:
1. Tons of IP in XP has been licensed by MS. They don't have the rights to open that up even if they want to. Recall the alcatel-lucent patents for example.
2. Recall the multiple years of effort that went into Sun opening up Solaris and then Java. Sun had commercial incentive to do that - they were trying to infuse new life into Solaris. MS doesn't have the financial incentive to take on the costs associated with going through the codebase to remove the IP it can't release.
3. And then there's MS's responsibility to it's shareholders. The windows code base represents probably the company's most valuable asset. They certainly can't give away something like that without at least letting their shareholders vote on it or something.
It's a "pushy upgrade" when you've been happy with XP, your new computer is capable of running XP, but you can't get anything but Vista on it. They're forcing an OS choice on you.
Nobody forced anything on you. You have XP on your old machine. You can buy a new machine with Vista. You could buy a mac. You could run linux on your old machine/new machine/new mac. You can run Vista on your new mac. Your choice. Nobody can force you to do anything. Among this cornucopia of choice, you seek the one option that is not offered, and claim that it constitutes "forcing" you to one specific other choice (vista on new computer) which it does not. I guess that too is your choice.
Windows XP release version is only 4 1/2 years old
Service Pack 3 fixed many, many, many bugs that Microsoft itself called "critical". So the final, fully usable version of Windows XP has been available less than a year
Vista was an attempt to get people to abandon Windows XP
Vista, was never finished.
+4, Interesting... Wait, What??? That nonsense gets modded +4, Interesting??? Only on slashdot man, only on slashdot..
Let me tell you how it actually works:
The Slashdot story is excessively pro-Microsoft
The tone of an MS article doesn't matter. They're 95% negative, sometimes they're full-on FUD, and sometimes they're just anti-MS pr0n, but in any case they're just there to induce mass hysteria and foaming at the mouth. People (sorry, sheep) just need to be reminded who their enemy is from time to time.
Windows XP release version is only 4 1/2 years old
Maybe I should show you a sales chart of the 3 years you're missing. What do you think people thought they were buying? Do you think they were clamoring for ME or 98 over XP? Try to recall what the state of the art was at that time. Try to recall even what state linux was in at that time, and the fact that MacOS had just finished dying and OS-X had just recently been born. Recall that Firefox wasn't even Phoenix at that time (and Mozilla was still a bloated beast with all the cruft from Netscape still in it). At launch, XP's only legitimate competitor was Windows 2000 -- unless you're on slashdot, in which case Win2k was a dismal failure as well.
Service Pack 3 fixed many, many, many bugs that Microsoft itself called "critical". So the final, fully usable version of Windows XP has been available less than a year
SP3 mostly contained a "roll-up" of critical patches that anybody with an updated system would already have. Pretty good customer service, if you ask me.
Vista was an attempt to get people to abandon Windows XP
Vista was the simply next step in Window's evolution. Show me some software that does not participate in the cycle of continuous improvement/evolution and I'll show you obsolete software (perhaps I'll even show you a company that's out of business).
Vista, was never finished.
By what yardstick? If you're using your non-sequitur logic about critical updates, then by that yardstick there has never been a finished version of windows or linux or any OS for that matter. Maybe BeOS or OS/2 are finished OSes by your logic. I'm using ubuntu 8.10 to type this, and I have a red star/asterisk in the system tray area on the top right telling me that I have critical updates available right now. Or at least it would do that if it were finished enough to display a proper toast - instead I just get an icon and no text. No - Vista at launch was light-years ahead of any desktop Linux - and it's only legitimate competitors are XP and OS-X, and Windows 7 when it comes out.
No, it isn't. I can't steal something that you don't own. The artist only owns the copies that he posess (sic). All other copies are owned by other people.
And how did you get ownership then? Riiight - bit torrent conferred upon you the right to rip off the artist.
Improving the selection by reducing the total spread. Idiocy.
I repeat - the issue is not about improving our selection of music. Read it again.
They sure as hell are victims. Their culture is robbed from out of under them...
You might choose to use the word culture to describe pop music and movies - and you would be right - but calling it culture doesn't change the facts. Stealing is still stealing. They are most certainly not victims.
... by destructive laws that reduce the total spread of art for the purpose to further the traditional rich capitalistic interests.
I did not advocate or defend such laws. I specifically stated these laws (three strikes, and the one from TFA) are bad and encroach on our freedoms.
Only an naive fool falls for the sweet talk about copyright creating more works of art. Economics says otherwise. Copyright at the best can create more variation, but the cost is that the total amount decreases due to inefficency of distribution.
You don't need economic theory here. It's a simple question of right and wrong. Artist creates work and licenses it according to certain terms. Procuring it for free, when the artist expressly forbids it, is stealing. Market efficiency takes a backseat to simple right and wrong.
Just like privatising all water supplies may give you more unique suppliers, but the over all amount of water supplied will go down.
Not a valid analogy. Nobody creates water. Water cannot be digitally reproduced. In any case, as I stated above - the issue here is not economics. The issue is not market efficiency. The issue is not about improving our selection of music or movies. The issue is plain and simple theft.
You see, what you're doing here is blaming the victim. Yes, the victim. Very few file-sharers have the capacity to buy the stuff they download.
If they can't afford something, why should they become entitled to it for free? Music and movies aren't required for survival. This isn't food/water/medicines/education we're talking about. Illegal downloaders are definitely not victims.
They are just tagging along in what is a part of their culture, a culture which the media conglomerate has built very effectively. So, the choice is to be left out of the loop on everyday culture or pirate.
The media conglomerate is doing it's job by creating a desire for their product. Every business strives to do that. Just because the masses have collectively decided that they want to steal stuff, doesn't make it okay.
Also, do you honestly believe that most of the restraints from the government wouldn't happen regardless? Governments want control, they will seize any opportunity to get greater control.
I don't think this is about control. Governments/copyrights holders/people have a serious and intricate problem on their hands here. People aren't willing to give copyright holders their due. Copyright holders turn to DRM / RIAA and other solutions that threaten to trample on our fair-use rights. And the government is caught between the two -- and is ill equipped (by virtue of never being technologically savvy) to make an intelligent choice.
In the end, DRM is actually the best solution. I'm not even half kidding when I say that. I mean DRM is like fluffy bunnies compared to these asinine 3-strikes laws and this particular law that says copyright holders can request IDs, etc. The challenge with DRM is merely interoperability, and safeguarding fair-use rights. From an engineering perspective, both problems are easily solvable. However, no media company would choose to do either. But that's where the government comes in. They could easily force the media company's hand in this matter. But the govt. sadly doesn't understand the problem, and can't possibly imagine the solution because they're just too non-technical.
Publicly accessible meaning the bridge can be accessed by anybody.
If MS needs/wants it, let them build it.
MS will account for 42% of the traffic on the bridge. They are picking up 50% of the tab. Washington state wants it. Microsoft wants it. They're sharing the bill. Everybody's happy. Except the dude living under it.
You and I both know that Microsoft has the funds to build the damned thing without any government help.
What??? They should pay the money because they can afford it?
Their budget is larger than many nation's budgets!!
Not true unless you're talking about countries that are in a desperate state of poverty. But what does that have to do with this bridge? There are people starving to death because of poverty every day. By your own logic you yourself should not even own a computer.
Then, I would have a reason to be grateful to MS, for feeding some construction worker's kids...
Again - they're picking up 50% of the tab. Let's see some of that gratitude now.
Uninformed hating? I hardly think so. What you call hate, I call contempt. And, there are a lot of reasons for that contempt. Perhaps you have looked at my sig? Need an explanation?
Uninformed hate is a fairly kind assessment of your posts. I'd add illogical hate as well.
don't forget the ring of death and all those broken discs we made up... because microsoft always makes quality products!
Read my comment, and TFA again. I didn't claim the RRoD was made up. I've suffered one scratched disk myself. I'm saying, a joystiq poll, and google trends are insufficient data (extremely insufficient in fact) for coming to the conclusion that there is an increase in E74 errors.
It's in the nature of things to become more fragile the more versatile they get.
Actually, it's in the nature of/. to consider a random poll on joystiq (which could easily be hijacked by say, ps3 fanboys or MS haters) and unverifiable data from google trends as irrefutable proof of increased E74 errors.
they have put out a TON on press on sites like Digg and Slashdot to change the mental landscape
You're kidding right?? Of all the MS-hostile sites on the net Slashdot absolutely takes the cake -- nothing you see on this site was place by MS, let me assure you.
I don't think the government or courts need to get involved in this at any point (unless Apple sues someone or someone sues Apple of course - then the courts won't have any option).
I mean, sure the app store is a closed market/process and a damaged one at that. Eventually, if Apple sticks to this model it will drive away developers to other platforms, instead of just driving them away to find app store alternatives as is currently the case. For that to happen, Android/Palm/Symbian/Winmo need to present one or more credible/compelling alternatives to the iphone. That's isn't the case today, and that's why developers won't leave the iphone platform altogether in response to Apple's retarded policies.
Courts/govt. don't need to interfere yet. There are plenty of companies competing with Apple on this front and if they simply do their job well, Apple will have no option but to change its policies if it wants to retain developer mind share. The only situation where this will turn into a monopoly and the govt. needs to step in, is one in which Apple's competitors do a piss-poor job over the next 2 or 3 years.
Sorry, Microsoft, this isn't enough to make me want to drop a couple hundred dollars for.
That has got to be one of the most worthless comments on the internet ever - not just slashdot.
This was a list of 30 items where MS responded to user feedback. They're not new features. And it's not the complete list. If you use that as the basis for evaluating Win7, I can only roll my eyes in exasperation. Don't kid yourself -- only on slashdot will you get '+4 interesting' for that drivel.
Even the individual points you're refuting are flat out wrong in so many cases. For example:
28. Enriching the Device Stage ecosystem
Market-speak for "we're still behind Linux in this but we're trying".
Let me tell you a little secret - Linux (Ubuntu 8.10 which I'm typing this on -- or any other distro) has no functionality of this sort. When the feature was proposed, it was panned roundly on this very site (see the comments) as something that introduced adware into the OS. So which is it? Is Device Stage a terrible feature -- or is it something that Linux perfected and Windows is catching up to? The intellectual honesty on this site is always refreshing.
8. Jump List length
A lot of these seem to be features we should have had ten years ago.
If you actually knew what jump lists were you'd realize how idiotic that comment is. Let me give you a hint -- jump lists are not MRU lists.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider a user with sudo access to be an admin user, because they can administer the machine. Is that so damn hard?
I didn't disagree with that. I made a distinction between them and root. But ok - let's call them admins, that's fine.
The Windows XP administrator is more like root in Linux. You knew this, of course, but if I don't spell it out for you, you will pretend I don't understand.
Wrong. That would be Local System. So you see, you really don't understand.
So getting back to the point: A user without sudo is actually usable, but a standard Windows user is not.
Incorrect. You claim to have tried this many times. So have I. Point out the bugs that make it unusable. I acknowledged there are bugs. I pointed one out myself. They do not make it unusable.
Your counter example of a 1000 data entry monkeys all using the same application(s) does not impress me.
heh. I don't really care what impresses you if you think everyoneis not enabled by default, and in a corporate HQ is a data entry monkey and uses a single application.
You go on to say the mode is not important because grandma's don't use it?
No -- grandma was an example. You complained about the default user in windows being admin. I pointed out that the default user in linux/osx is admin. So it's even-stevens. Geddit?
We're talking security. It's a security advantage to be able to run in that mode more often? Yes, so it counts. Microsoft itself will admit this point, but you won't. Fine!
It's a security advantage to run in that mode. Re-read my posts -- I never claimed it wasn't. The point is - nobody is in that mode by default. So it's even-stevens. Geddit?
Yes, sudo is a security warning. It warns you that your action will require elevated privilege, with the security risk that entails.
Sudo is not a security warning. Period. The sudo guys themselves will take umbrage at that term, I promise you.
1. Console/text based sudo gives you nothing but a password prompt. No warning. Why? Because that's not it's function!!
2. The purpose behind the password prompt is authentication (not warning)
3. In a graphical sudo implementation, in addition to identifying the application, you may print a warning if you wish -- but not every application will do this, so it's a complete fallacy to call sudo itself a security warning.
I've seen security prompted for deleting files I created, and for apps that had no business getting elevated access. I can browse without sudo in Linux, the MS solution is less secure.
Man, you just keep displaying the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Try this. Create a directory. Make root the owner. Give only root access to open it and it's contents (x,r). Then as an admin user (but not evelated), try to browse that directory in nautilus (or graphical file browser of your choice). When you fail to do so, reply back to this thread and acknowledge your ignorance. This test case is identical to the file-copy thing you are complaining about with UAC.
AND it's the reason that it's a very bad idea to invoke it for everything under the sun, like Vista does!
Like what? On a normal day in the office I launch visual studio, outlook, one note (office apps in general), remote desktop, virtual pc (for WM device emulators), windows media player, a bug database app, and god knows what else I'm forgetting. None of this requires a UAC prompt. Over the last month I probably only saw a UAC prompt for FF and Adobe Reader updates. The ubuntu machine I'm typing this on -- I get updates every two days on average!! And y
1. Wrong. Linux has real non-privileged users. A user with sudo is and admin user. So, root, admin, normal user.
You are hashing many different concepts together here. First - the underlying assumption is that we are talking about consumer OS flavors. Second - most/all consumer linuxes and OS X have their standard user in the sudoers file. Third, a user with sudo is not an admin - they are users that have the ability to act as root, but they are not root. There's a difference. Fouth - let's say I concede your point that someone in sudoers is an admin (since practically speaking, that's how it's used) -- we now have the result that by default, consumer linux and OS X setup users as admins. Conclusion - you are wrong about the standard user in Linux / OS X. If you didn't realize from my previous post and this post, I know very well that a user not in sudoers is not an admin. Doesn't matter -- out-of-the-box, no linux gets setup with such users. You said it was funny when I said non-expert users can't use linux. You think Charlie Miller's grandma is going to install Ubuntu, and then setup a standard accout for herself after that? Get real!
You think it's OK to conflate confirmation of actions with security warnings?
UAC is not a security warning. When you click ok on a UAC prompt you are acquiring an elevated token. If you call UAC a security warning you have to call sudo a security warning as well.
You're fine with requesting privilege elevation so often that users learn they have to click "allow" to get any work done
Another myth propagated on /. and you've bought into it without questioning. UAC prompts work absolutely fine. The outcry that led to the redesign in Win7 is a Bad Thing.
Wrong. I have tried to use a non-admin account on Windows many times over the years. It's unusable. This is news to you?? I guess you missed this quote from Jim Allchin at Microsoft
No, this is not news to me. But you're hashing together different concepts. You claimed Windows did not have standard users and that the concept was new to windows and that was an idiotic claim.
"most software developers (including at Microsoft) developed their software assuming that the user would be an administrator." If you don't need to run any software, a Windows standard user should be just fine for you!
True. I wouldn't call it unusable as you did. My previous company had a corporate HQ with over 1000 people in it, and everyone outside of IT (~200 people) were standard users. They worked fine. The most visible bug by far is the inability to look up the calendar in the system tray, but it was very very far from unusable. To address the main point though -- any app that doesn't need admin priviliges, but fails when it is run without them, is a buggy app. Some of those apps come from redmond itself (generally not from the windows team, but from redmond itself). These are bugs in the apps. Not OS 'architectural' deficiencies.
Here's the clincher, "If an administrator performs multiple tasks on the same desktop, then malware may potentially be able to inject or interfere with an elevated process from a non-elevated process." He goes on to explain why they made security compromises in Vista, but all you really need is the title, "Security Features vs. Convenience".
?????
The exact same issue exists on all OSes! It's specific to the process that are interacting, and whether there are holes in these processes. It's the reason to not think of UAC as a security boundary. The same way you should not think of sudo as a security boundary. If you (for example) launch synaptic and 'elevate' to apply some updates, and there is a hole in synaptics that you can exploit to start running stuff as root, then any 'non-priviliged' process can exploit that hole to achieve 'elevation of privilige'. Hence, you sho
Having real non-privileged users is better than the default admin+UAC of Vista.
Wrong. The default user on Ubuntu (and virtually all desktop linux distros) and OS X, they are in the sudoers file so they are able to elevate to admin rights same as Vista. The mechanism is different (acting as root vs. acquiring an admin token) but has the same net effect. You may be tempted to claim that sudo is superior to UAC (it is not) but instead of speaking on your behalf, I'll wait for you to actually say it before I disabuse you of that notion.
Applications on Linux have always been expected to run without root privilege (not all do), whereas the concept is still new to Windows
Wrong. Windows (NT x.x/2k/XP/Vista) have *always* had support for Admin users vs. standard users. You simply create a user in the standard user group (instead of the admin group). The concept is not in any way new to windows. If you have an XP or 2k or NT machine, try it out and you'll see. There's much more depth to this standard user/admin user support question -- but suffice it to say that your notion of windows not supporting this concept, or it being new somehow is 100% incorrect. In fact NT's system of ACLs, groups, users is much more fine-grained than linux or OS X's and has been from the very first NT version.
Not being as monolithic also helps.
No, it does not. Monolithic design and security are orthogonal concepts. Why do you say it helps? Besides, linux is very specifically a monolithic kernel. Did you not read the legendary flamewar between Torvalds and Tanenbaum? Or are you claiming that OS X is 'architecturally' secure compared to linux by virtue of it's microkernel design?
Distro diversity also makes viruses less successful (not a Mac advantage).
Yes -- distro diversity is a very good thing that linux has going for it. Especially combined with it's low adoption rates. It's simply not worth it for hackers to target Linux. Hasn't that been my point all along?
This groupthink insult is pretty easy throw around, isn't it?
I don't make the allegation lightly. From your last post, I get the feeling that security isn't really your field. So then where did you get these lines based on which you keep attempting to rip windows? Could it be that you're just regurgitating things you've read and accepted without questioning?
45% of web servers run Apache, and most of those run Linux - including the web's biggest sites. Millions of internet accessible machines. Not worth writing a virus? I can only assume this lie helps you put up with Windows.
Web sites get compromised all the time. You personally don't feel the pain so you're less aware (if not completely unaware) of it. Securing your data center / ops / servers is a whole field of study by itself. Do you think any corporation worth it's salt installs Intrepid Ibex out of the box and makes it accessible outside the DMZ? Why don't we see more OS X servers if they are so 'architecturally' secure? For an enterprise web/app server, security is feature #1.
Charlie Miller Interview
You mean the one that starts with, "I'll leave Linux out of the equation..."?
You may have misunderstood the context. His point = my point = the main point. He said, he'll leave linux out of the equation because his grandma (aka prototypical non-expert user) will not be able to use it for the several years yet. i.e. for at least the foreseeable future, linux is of zero interest to malware writers because it will simply not have the numbers. So leave it out of the equation. This guy knows what he's talking about -- you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him based on those 7 words you quoted.
Oh by the way, this is someone who is promoting his expertise in compromising platforms, so he does have an incentive to overstate the need for his services.
But he didn't do that. He specifically stated that Mac vulns aren't worth much since Macs aren't targets.
I'm telling you, the notion that Windows is swiss cheese and Macs/Linux are vaults is a complete fallacy.
You're really going out on a limb there. Never mind that that isn't my point. Architecturally Linux and OS X are less susceptible to viruses.
You just said that wasn't your point, and then you went and stated exactly the same thing in different words. See -- this claim about linux and OS X being 'architecturally' less susceptible to viruses is just another form of slashdot groupthink -- repeated oft, and seldom challenged, so people think they can just say that, and it's a sufficient explanation in and of itself. What is it about Linux and OS-X that you think is so architecturally sound? If we get into the nuts and bolts, perhaps one or both of us will be better for it. I have a feeling this will involve a comparison of sudo and UAC at some point, and I thoroughly look forward to that.
So, if you want to explain away the last ten years of internet facing Windows systems getting exploited even when they're not browsing or running any web services that's your business.
There are many attack vectors that do not rely on web browsing or a service listening on a port, etc.
Besides, I'm not trying to explain away anything. I'm just refuting the notion that Vista is fundamentally insecure while Linux and OS X are 'architecturally' secure. That claim holds absolutely no water.
Let's end it here then. Script-kiddies are not the problem.
I believe that was my point. It applied to the part where you said 'people write viruses for fun' or words to that effect.
I think the best thing about having switched to Linux is not needing to buy an anti-virus solution, which then needs to be maintained and which bogs down performance even when it's running properly. If Windows 7 doesn't need that, then great - it's about time.
If you enjoy running AV-free, if that's a high-priority for you, you have definitely made the right choice in sticking with Linux. OS X also remains a good choice with that criteria in mind. People running Win7 will be very brave if they run it sans AV. This has no bearing on the central point of our thread though (of all three platforms being vulnerable, but only one getting targeted).
And there's also not needing to manually remove a virus when it gets you before the update is disseminated (again, conficker). Real story, real hours of lost productivity, real money being spent on an A/V licenses. This only happens on Windows, so bring on the excuses - that's all they are.
Look -- you're right about the real story/productivity loss and especially revenue loss. That's what I keep trying to explain -- malware is very serious business. The losses are very real on one side, and the gains are very real on the other. Now do this -- roll back even 5 years on all three platforms and ask yourself -- which one
Who forced you to buy a laptop with windows on it?
The PC maker does. And MS forces the PC maker to make that decision through licensing deals.
If you want a PC, your choices for computers with Windows far outstrip the choices for those without Windows.
It is not incumbent upon MS to make your non-windows choices compelling. You have your choices (however good/bad), and that is sufficient to prove, for once and for all, that MS did not force you to buy a laptop with windows on it. If you don't like your linux laptop choices, if you don't like the Mac choices, MS cannot fix that for you.
Is it the same way that Apple forces you to buy OS-X[sic]?
This is a silly argument. The dynamics between MS and the PC makers is different from the dynamics of Apple and the Mac makers (i.e., Apple and itself).
My analogy is only to show you how easily you're able to see the logic in one situation, but revert to groupthink in the other. Apple (by virtue of their dynamic) find it convenient to offer just one OS choice (their own OS). Some PC OEM by virtue of their dynamic find it most convenient to offer only one OS choice (Windows). How did this result in MS forcing you to buy windows? For linux, it's possible that a bunch of factors make it very difficult for OEMs to offer it to customers -- such as lack of drivers, high customer support call volume, inability to staff enough customer support knowledgeable about linux, perhaps lack of automated install options, perhaps lack of image install options (I don't know, I'm just guessing). Either way, once the OEM has done their math and decided not to offer linux -- how do we make the logical leap of blaming this on MS?
It's high time people on this site grow up and stop repeating this shit ad ifinitum. Freaking victim complex, I tell ya..
Worse is those that would blame the victim. MS shouldn't be forcing Windows on the PC makers, but the PC makers have no choice other than to develop their own OS. It's gotten so bad for them that many are doing just that, based on Linux, but in the mean time, the PC buying Slashdot crowd is subject to having to pay for an OS they may not want.
The guilty part here is MS. The PC makers are accomplices. The consumer is the victim.
MS cannot force Windows on the PC makers. Read the US DOJ consent decree from 2000. It's been 9 years since then!! The PC buying slashdot crowd need to grow some gonads if they're buying windows PCs 'against their will'. If you really want something you should be prepared to make some sacrifices and support your cause. One of those sacrifices should never be your intellect. Let me explain:
If you want linux, if you want OEMs to offer linux, if you want linux to 'succeed' (become mainstream not necessarily equal to success, but that seems the be the goal of people, hence the quotes). If you want these things, you should be prepared to buy a linux laptop from an OEM that offers it (thereby supporting their business model). Your sacrifice was that maybe there was a cooler laptop you could have bought from dell/hp/vaio/whoever, but they didn't offer it with linux so you didn't buy it. Your sacrifice could be that the linux OEM doesn't have high-volumes so maybe their laptops cost a bit more. But you grew a freaking pair, made a sacrifice, and supported your cause.
Now on to the intellect part. As I mentioned above - it's been a really long-ass time since MS has had the option to force OEMs to only offer windows (exclusivity contracts), or disguise them using say marketing co-ops, or anything like that. MS simply cannot force anything on the OEM. Simply effing cannot. That being the case, anytime anybody posts the tired and overused "MS forced Vista on me" comment, they have essentially bought in to slashdot's groupthink. They've bought in to something that is re
I've heard this argument before.
If I had a dime for every post saying "Vista is swiss cheese", I'd be richer than Bill Gates. If I only had a dime for every such post that got modded "Insightful", I'd probably still make the Forbes top 50 list of richest people in the world. For a site intended for nerds we've got an awful lot of sheep here.
If there are 25 million each on Mac and Linux (I don't know the real numbers), then that is enough to be targeted....
Let me just point you in the direction of somebody who knows better than both of us, and is an authority on the subject:
Charlie Miller Interview
It's a short interview (10 minute read), but if you just want the part of it that's relevant to this thread, see Miller's third reply on page 6. If you want a seed of original thought so you can be free from slashdot's effing groupthink, read the whole interview.
Note: I am not claiming Vista is unhackable or anything stupid like that. I am not claiming Macs/linux are swiss cheese or anythiing stupid like that. I'm telling you, the notion that Windows is swiss cheese and Macs/Linux are vaults is a complete fallacy. It's repeated ad nauseum on slashdot, and like anything else, if it's repeated (and left unchallenged) often enough, people will just assume its true. Again - read the interview, and understand that there's a whole world of grey between the black and white this site presents.
This claim that nobody wants to write a virus for Mac and Linux is becoming laughable.
Sadly, that simply isn't true. The script-kiddies writing viruses for fun are probably just using something they picked up on metaspoilt. No self-respecting AV will fail to catch that. So how will this fictitious mac/linux virus even propagate with all these windows boxes/webmail AV scanners to pass through? These days, you actually have to write something really effing sophisticated for it to actually propagate (probably like conficker). And the penalty of getting tracked down for something like that is guaranteed jail time. The motivation for taking on these risks, is purely financial gain. Once you establish that as your motive, the choice of OS to exploit is a foregone conclusion.
Dell+Linux is not available in Belgium.
Is that MS's fault? Is there not one single OEM that will sell you a windows-free laptop in Belgium? If not, do you suggest that MS start supplying linux in Belgium? Besides interpreting my post in the most pedantic manner possible, do you actually have a point here?
Eeepc is not a laptop.
Oh I see - it's a netbook! My frickin bad dude.
If linux does not have sufficient demand in Belgium for OEMs to offer it as an option, who's fault is that? Remember, MS cannot force the OEM into an exclusivity clause. The consent decree took care of that, and if it wasn't enough, the EU reinforced it with their own action.
Who forced you to buy a laptop with windows on it? Is it the same way that Apple forces you to buy OS-X?
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=anavml
http://eeepc.asus.com/global/products.html?n=0
It's high time people on this site grow up and stop repeating this shit ad ifinitum. Freaking victim complex, I tell ya..
I'd say there is enough installed base of Linux and Mac OS users
That's the whole issue with your theory -- there isn't.
OS-X + Linux represent around 5% to 8% of the installed base worldwide (can't remember the exact number now). We're talking about every single version of OS-X and every single flavor of linux combined. Which of these versions will you target as a hacker? Neither -- you'll just stick with good ol' Windows. Bottom line - none of these OSes is impenetrable or secure per se. Only one of them is a target. Net effect, of course, is that if you don't want to deal with the hassles of securing your machine, OS-X / Linux are good choices.
A perpetual subscription to an anti-virus program is considered normal. How come I never see this in the TCO calculations that MS/Gartner likes to spew out?
You do see it, and you should. Any TCO calculation without it isn't worth its weight in paper.
I sincerely hope, and I'll give them credit, if Windows 7 is finally better.
You already should (give them credit). Vista is already a vast improvement relative to XP, Linux, OS-X. As I said, the reason OS-X, Linux are safe options is because the math doesn't add up for the hackers. As long as that remains the case, any user who wants to avoid AV software should consider them.
It's a security feature. If you're not on the network, you've achieved some serious attack surface reduction! :)
The funny thing about /. articles related to MS: MS is always either so powerless that it resorts to begging for stuff or it's so powerful, that it's forcing stuff down people's throats at will. Strange thing that.
I dont' think anything's been confirmed.
Are you suggesting that the lack of exploits (in the wild or otherwise) on Linux/Non-Windows-OS-of-your-choice indicates a lack of security holes?
I assume you're using XP SP2? As one poster suggested, slipstreaming SP3 should reduce your pain siginificantly.
Win7 will reduce/eliminate the pain to the extent that as a new OS, there won't be many critical updates to apply on installing the OS, but naturally that will change with time. Also, considering it's stability in Beta, a Win7 SP1 might take longer than usual (pure speculation on my part) - so relief won't be imminent.
OTOH, there's some hope that if you take basic precautions (antivirus, regular updates, don't install crapware, don't click on spammy links), you won't need to re-install Win7. I've had this experience with Vista over the last 2 years (of running it without it's state deteriorating in any way -- and especially not to the point of needing a reinstall) -- but I might be a tad paranoid in terms of the precautions I take.
That's an interesting thought - but I don't think it'll ever happen.
Consider:
1. Tons of IP in XP has been licensed by MS. They don't have the rights to open that up even if they want to. Recall the alcatel-lucent patents for example.
2. Recall the multiple years of effort that went into Sun opening up Solaris and then Java. Sun had commercial incentive to do that - they were trying to infuse new life into Solaris. MS doesn't have the financial incentive to take on the costs associated with going through the codebase to remove the IP it can't release.
3. And then there's MS's responsibility to it's shareholders. The windows code base represents probably the company's most valuable asset. They certainly can't give away something like that without at least letting their shareholders vote on it or something.
It's a "pushy upgrade" when you've been happy with XP, your new computer is capable of running XP, but you can't get anything but Vista on it. They're forcing an OS choice on you.
Nobody forced anything on you. You have XP on your old machine. You can buy a new machine with Vista. You could buy a mac. You could run linux on your old machine/new machine/new mac. You can run Vista on your new mac. Your choice. Nobody can force you to do anything. Among this cornucopia of choice, you seek the one option that is not offered, and claim that it constitutes "forcing" you to one specific other choice (vista on new computer) which it does not. I guess that too is your choice.
+4, Interesting... Wait, What??? That nonsense gets modded +4, Interesting??? Only on slashdot man, only on slashdot.. Let me tell you how it actually works:
The Slashdot story is excessively pro-Microsoft
The tone of an MS article doesn't matter. They're 95% negative, sometimes they're full-on FUD, and sometimes they're just anti-MS pr0n, but in any case they're just there to induce mass hysteria and foaming at the mouth. People (sorry, sheep) just need to be reminded who their enemy is from time to time.
Windows XP release version is only 4 1/2 years old
Maybe I should show you a sales chart of the 3 years you're missing. What do you think people thought they were buying? Do you think they were clamoring for ME or 98 over XP? Try to recall what the state of the art was at that time. Try to recall even what state linux was in at that time, and the fact that MacOS had just finished dying and OS-X had just recently been born. Recall that Firefox wasn't even Phoenix at that time (and Mozilla was still a bloated beast with all the cruft from Netscape still in it). At launch, XP's only legitimate competitor was Windows 2000 -- unless you're on slashdot, in which case Win2k was a dismal failure as well.
Service Pack 3 fixed many, many, many bugs that Microsoft itself called "critical". So the final, fully usable version of Windows XP has been available less than a year
SP3 mostly contained a "roll-up" of critical patches that anybody with an updated system would already have. Pretty good customer service, if you ask me.
Vista was an attempt to get people to abandon Windows XP
Vista was the simply next step in Window's evolution. Show me some software that does not participate in the cycle of continuous improvement/evolution and I'll show you obsolete software (perhaps I'll even show you a company that's out of business).
Vista, was never finished.
By what yardstick? If you're using your non-sequitur logic about critical updates, then by that yardstick there has never been a finished version of windows or linux or any OS for that matter. Maybe BeOS or OS/2 are finished OSes by your logic. I'm using ubuntu 8.10 to type this, and I have a red star/asterisk in the system tray area on the top right telling me that I have critical updates available right now. Or at least it would do that if it were finished enough to display a proper toast - instead I just get an icon and no text. No - Vista at launch was light-years ahead of any desktop Linux - and it's only legitimate competitors are XP and OS-X, and Windows 7 when it comes out.
No, it isn't. I can't steal something that you don't own. The artist only owns the copies that he posess (sic). All other copies are owned by other people.
And how did you get ownership then? Riiight - bit torrent conferred upon you the right to rip off the artist.
Improving the selection by reducing the total spread. Idiocy. I repeat - the issue is not about improving our selection of music. Read it again.
They sure as hell are victims. Their culture is robbed from out of under them ...
You might choose to use the word culture to describe pop music and movies - and you would be right - but calling it culture doesn't change the facts. Stealing is still stealing. They are most certainly not victims.
... by destructive laws that reduce the total spread of art for the purpose to further the traditional rich capitalistic interests.
I did not advocate or defend such laws. I specifically stated these laws (three strikes, and the one from TFA) are bad and encroach on our freedoms.
Only an naive fool falls for the sweet talk about copyright creating more works of art. Economics says otherwise. Copyright at the best can create more variation, but the cost is that the total amount decreases due to inefficency of distribution.
You don't need economic theory here. It's a simple question of right and wrong. Artist creates work and licenses it according to certain terms. Procuring it for free, when the artist expressly forbids it, is stealing. Market efficiency takes a backseat to simple right and wrong.
Just like privatising all water supplies may give you more unique suppliers, but the over all amount of water supplied will go down.
Not a valid analogy. Nobody creates water. Water cannot be digitally reproduced. In any case, as I stated above - the issue here is not economics. The issue is not market efficiency. The issue is not about improving our selection of music or movies. The issue is plain and simple theft.
You see, what you're doing here is blaming the victim. Yes, the victim.
Very few file-sharers have the capacity to buy the stuff they download.
If they can't afford something, why should they become entitled to it for free? Music and movies aren't required for survival. This isn't food/water/medicines/education we're talking about. Illegal downloaders are definitely not victims.
They are just tagging along in what is a part of their culture, a culture which the media conglomerate has built very effectively. So, the choice is to be left out of the loop on everyday culture or pirate.
The media conglomerate is doing it's job by creating a desire for their product. Every business strives to do that. Just because the masses have collectively decided that they want to steal stuff, doesn't make it okay.
Also, do you honestly believe that most of the restraints from the government wouldn't happen regardless? Governments want control, they will seize any opportunity to get greater control.
I don't think this is about control. Governments/copyrights holders/people have a serious and intricate problem on their hands here. People aren't willing to give copyright holders their due. Copyright holders turn to DRM / RIAA and other solutions that threaten to trample on our fair-use rights. And the government is caught between the two -- and is ill equipped (by virtue of never being technologically savvy) to make an intelligent choice.
In the end, DRM is actually the best solution. I'm not even half kidding when I say that. I mean DRM is like fluffy bunnies compared to these asinine 3-strikes laws and this particular law that says copyright holders can request IDs, etc. The challenge with DRM is merely interoperability, and safeguarding fair-use rights. From an engineering perspective, both problems are easily solvable. However, no media company would choose to do either. But that's where the government comes in. They could easily force the media company's hand in this matter. But the govt. sadly doesn't understand the problem, and can't possibly imagine the solution because they're just too non-technical.
Publicly accessible meaning the bridge can be accessed by anybody.
If MS needs/wants it, let them build it.
MS will account for 42% of the traffic on the bridge. They are picking up 50% of the tab. Washington state wants it. Microsoft wants it. They're sharing the bill. Everybody's happy. Except the dude living under it.
You and I both know that Microsoft has the funds to build the damned thing without any government help.
What??? They should pay the money because they can afford it?
Their budget is larger than many nation's budgets!!
Not true unless you're talking about countries that are in a desperate state of poverty. But what does that have to do with this bridge? There are people starving to death because of poverty every day. By your own logic you yourself should not even own a computer.
Then, I would have a reason to be grateful to MS, for feeding some construction worker's kids...
Again - they're picking up 50% of the tab. Let's see some of that gratitude now.
Uninformed hating? I hardly think so. What you call hate, I call contempt. And, there are a lot of reasons for that contempt. Perhaps you have looked at my sig? Need an explanation?
Uninformed hate is a fairly kind assessment of your posts. I'd add illogical hate as well.
don't forget the ring of death and all those broken discs we made up... because microsoft always makes quality products!
Read my comment, and TFA again. I didn't claim the RRoD was made up. I've suffered one scratched disk myself. I'm saying, a joystiq poll, and google trends are insufficient data (extremely insufficient in fact) for coming to the conclusion that there is an increase in E74 errors.
It's in the nature of things to become more fragile the more versatile they get.
Actually, it's in the nature of /. to consider a random poll on joystiq (which could easily be hijacked by say, ps3 fanboys or MS haters) and unverifiable data from google trends as irrefutable proof of increased E74 errors.
they have put out a TON on press on sites like Digg and Slashdot to change the mental landscape
You're kidding right?? Of all the MS-hostile sites on the net Slashdot absolutely takes the cake -- nothing you see on this site was place by MS, let me assure you.
I don't think the government or courts need to get involved in this at any point (unless Apple sues someone or someone sues Apple of course - then the courts won't have any option).
I mean, sure the app store is a closed market/process and a damaged one at that. Eventually, if Apple sticks to this model it will drive away developers to other platforms, instead of just driving them away to find app store alternatives as is currently the case. For that to happen, Android/Palm/Symbian/Winmo need to present one or more credible/compelling alternatives to the iphone. That's isn't the case today, and that's why developers won't leave the iphone platform altogether in response to Apple's retarded policies.
Courts/govt. don't need to interfere yet. There are plenty of companies competing with Apple on this front and if they simply do their job well, Apple will have no option but to change its policies if it wants to retain developer mind share. The only situation where this will turn into a monopoly and the govt. needs to step in, is one in which Apple's competitors do a piss-poor job over the next 2 or 3 years.
Considering the previous solution was Flash based, I doubt your reasoning holds water.
Sorry, Microsoft, this isn't enough to make me want to drop a couple hundred dollars for.
That has got to be one of the most worthless comments on the internet ever - not just slashdot.
This was a list of 30 items where MS responded to user feedback. They're not new features. And it's not the complete list. If you use that as the basis for evaluating Win7, I can only roll my eyes in exasperation. Don't kid yourself -- only on slashdot will you get '+4 interesting' for that drivel. Even the individual points you're refuting are flat out wrong in so many cases. For example:
28. Enriching the Device Stage ecosystem Market-speak for "we're still behind Linux in this but we're trying".
Let me tell you a little secret - Linux (Ubuntu 8.10 which I'm typing this on -- or any other distro) has no functionality of this sort. When the feature was proposed, it was panned roundly on this very site (see the comments) as something that introduced adware into the OS. So which is it? Is Device Stage a terrible feature -- or is it something that Linux perfected and Windows is catching up to? The intellectual honesty on this site is always refreshing.
8. Jump List length A lot of these seem to be features we should have had ten years ago.
If you actually knew what jump lists were you'd realize how idiotic that comment is. Let me give you a hint -- jump lists are not MRU lists.