Um, hey jackass, where exactly does the OP say that MS said the OEMs had failed them? Are you fucking retarded or do you always just make shit up when the facts are against you?
"And now we hear that MS is coming out with its own gear because somehow the OEMs have failed. No. Microsoft failed the OEMs.: You're already hiding behind your anonymity so you can hurl all kinds of abuse. Now you wanna claim that OP wasn't you? And do you want to claim that you meant something other than saying that MS was claiming that OEMs had failed?
For the record, the various ACs you replied to were not me.
Do I look like your research department you dumb snot? Go back to fucking your sister, Cletus.
You're replying to some AC right now and not me but there's really no need for this crap. At some point.... stop being a dick.
When you're done you can practice your learning here [berkeley.edu].
What's the connection between that paper and Microsoft making a tablet? You've steeped yourself in the most detailed anti-Microsoft studies you can possibly find, but seem to have no other balance or depth in your thinking and perspectives. Each issue on it's merits my dear fellow human being. In the here and now, the option for Microsoft is to make it's own tablet and that's what they've chosen to do.
No need to be a dick my fellow human being. This is just software and hardware we're talking about. Passion is wonderful -- but save it for more important things like anti war protests and things like that. Even there, calling someone an imbecile will not make them receptive to your point of view.
MS started striking those deals in the 80s and Linux didn't even exist until the early 90s.
I've been trying to explain this to you for a while now. The market existed before MS. It will exist long after MS ceases to exist. There were many players in the game long (long) before MS. An excellent read here that might give you some perspective -- read "The Soul of a New Machine" by Tracy Kidder. The market evolves over time. There was stuff before Unix, which came before DOS and before PCs and before Apple, which came before Windows, which came before Linux. But in turn each and every one of them has had an impact. There are more companies involved here than you can possibly imagine. There is more consumer influence than you can possibly imagine. There are so many that have even fallen by the wayside and no longer exist, but still have a footprint in the sand. You might want to deny that and claim that Microsoft has some magical ability to shape the market any which way they can -- they have no such mythical power and you're kidding yourself if you think that's the case.
Where do you idiots come from?
You need some humility, perspective, and manners. Very disappointing.
Oh fucking spare me your inane drivel. The market is the way it is because MS...
I got done at the office office a tad late today, headed out for a pub quiz with friends (what do scoville units measure?), headed for dinner, got home and checked this thread and this is what I see. Very disappointing.
The market is definitely the way it is because of the deals MS pushed for. The market is also definitely the way it is because OEMs thought at one time that Windows was their best option. It's also the way it is because of IBM creating the PC. Apple has played a very significant role as well. So has Linux. And so have consumers that have evaluated the choices available to them, and made the purchases they made. There are other players in the game too. No man (company) is an island. It's not drivel -- it's life, it's complex, and in spite of all your efforts to oversimplify it there isn't a single villain here pulling everyone else's strings. We are all complicit. You play a role as well.
You are a boring deluded fuck. Everything you have said is so easily exposed as BS that you aren't even any fun to talk to. What a joke. MS: SEND SMARTER FANBOYS!! THIS ONE IS BROKEN!
Expose it then. Enough rudeness -- deal with raw facts and logic. Reply in the most bare and succinct manner possible so that nothing but facts and logic remain. I welcome such discourse.
MS set the market up that way by the way they sold Windows licenses and then expected them all to fight tooth and nail for the market share.
The OEMs, MS, IBM, Apple, Linux and even Android and others in their time have all played their part in how the market evolved. There's no blame to be assigned here.
The market has determined that as long as a PC can run Windows it doesn't need to do much else. That's just how it is. Characterizing that as a fail when billionaire after billionaire and multi-billion dollar company has been minted one after another is just ludicrous.
That's just how it is -- correct. Consequently they fail to sell quality hardware and they fail to sell machines without crapware on it. I don't understand why you're unable to accept those two points of criticism and keep trying to expand it to a characterization of the entire PC OEM industry as a fail.
You're arguing against a point that nobody is making, least of all MS.
Are you fucking retarded?
I'm more patient and polite with you than you deserve, that's for sure.
MS has not claimed that the OEMs have failed them. You are arguing against the point that the OEMs have failed MS, when MS has not made that claim. If random people on the internet make that claim, well, why hold it against MS?
The distinction of how they supposedly failed them is moot when you are talking about the quality of the hardware and the preinstalled programs as that is all the differentiation they have in a commodity market. That's the only way they could "fail" MS with the way you're phrasing it.
You're thinking in very one-dimensional / black-and-white terms here. You don't need the OEMs to be an out-and-out failure to find fault with some of their execution. They sell tons of machines, and consequently tons of Windows licenses every year. It's not a blame game. The OEMs are in cut-throat competition with each other and need to make money -- they're not in it for charity. Their realities inform their choices. But that results in a lack of high quality innovative hardware without crapware installed on it, resulting in a hole in MS's portfolio, and that informs MS's decision to create their own hardware. You're looking for villains where there are none.
Not a single x86 tablet there is derivative of an Android design so how the fuck are you saying they are? Are you blind? Just stupid?
Not a single one of those tablets can compete with the iPad either. I already mentioned that but you chose to ignore the point. And what has upset you so badly about this conversation?
Ballmer himself says he doesn't expect stellar sales with the Surface tablets.
That's what you get when you're so utterly woefully late to the market. They still intend to compete, and if you're coming in this late, you need a stellar product, and the OEMs tablets were not cutting it. Again, you're looking for villains where they don't exist. In the here and now, this was MS's best option for a viable tablet competitor -- that's all. And in the here and now, the iPad has a *huge* lead so it will still be an uphill battle. Add some complexity to your though process man.
If I'm an MS hating Lemming then you should be able to rationally refute my points
I did, and I did so calmly. If you disagree, that's okay. There's the usual logical conundrum anyway, where either you disagree because you're biased or you disagree because I am not making sense. Same thing can be said of me. No way to prove that either way, so what's the point of all the posturing?
Which is precisely why MS is doing this. If the OEMs will only compete on price, then there's a quality/features/innovation hole in the PC lineup. MS is trying to fill that hole. They're already late to the market, and can't afford to wait and see.
MS is sitting on a worldwide 90+ percent desktop market share and 40 something billion dollars in cash right now on the backs of preloading their OS on OEM hardware for the last 30 years and you have the gall to say they've been failed?
The gall? Calm down there big boy. I said the OEMs failed MS in terms of the quality of their hardware and the crapware they install. That's factually accurate.
This entire mantra of the OEMs have failed is pure bunk from apologists rationalizing MSs cargo cult aping of Apple with the Surface tablet introductions.
You're arguing against a point that nobody is making, least of all MS.
How the fuck would they know? They kept foisting Windows on the OEMs with fucking styluses and pretending that those were good enough. They haven't even released Windows 8 yet and already they've been failed? Are you even parsing what you're writing here?
Clam down there AC. They would know because they've seen the Android tablet designs. Most are poor, some are good, none can separate themselves from the ipad as far as design goes. MS doesn't want to releast Windows 8 and then wait, and watch, and then react. They want to be ready with a compelling tablet day 1. Makes sense.
Um, are you delusional [google.com]? There were a fuckton of Windows 8 tablets shown off at Computex that were not Android retreads
None of those looked like a viable iPad competitor. Launching with those tablets would result in poor sales.
Fuck this. Dude, get off the fucking Kool-Aid before you OD.
Says the MS-hating lemming with the inflammatory post. If you disagree with their strategy on Surface it's fine. But drinking one flavor of Kool-Aid and accusing others of drinking the wrong brand is pretty rich. Ultimately with or without Kool-Aid arguments need to stand on facts and logic.
And now we hear that MS is coming out with its own gear because somehow the OEMs have failed. No. Microsoft failed the OEMs.
You're not hearing this from MS -- you're hearing this from random people on the internet. Where OEMs have failed MS is in the quality of the hardware they put out, and the crap they pre-install.
I suspect MS needed to make Surface PCs because they needed an iPad competitor and they alone had the bucks and design chops to pull it off. The OEMs are busy working on Android tablets. Left to the OEMs they would take an Android tablet design and re-purpose it for windows. That basically means no differentiation. MS needed to control it's own destiny here.
You'll finally have to do some good industrial design instead of just putting together the cheapest components you can find, and riding Window's coattails?
Or you'll finally have a competitor that doesn't pre-install every manner of junk imaginable on the device before giving it to consumers?
But the need for 20 brands of me-too laptops, tablets, and convertibles is low.
Yet MS insists on making a tablet?
That's just some guys' twitter feed -- it's not like that quote represents some sort of fact, and that Microsoft is indeed misguided in doing this. If anything the hardware seems to have been very well received. In what I've seen so far I'd say it looks better than any laptop or tablet the OEMs have produced to date, including both Windows and Android devices. Slashdot just seems to appreciate innovation from everyone, unless it's from Microsoft. Competition is good, unless it comes from Microsoft. Tsk tsk...
So this is the stuff that passes for 'insight' these days?
and couple it with LINUX GPL licensed based guests which, you can throw away all of the benefits of open engineering
How does the hypervisor choice affect the fact that your guest is GPL licensed? Are you supposed to stop looking at the source once you run a Linux VM on hyperv?
all of the GPL based engineering which is far superior to anything corporation has ever concieved, on a scale that no corporation can match which is the LINUX open source GPL kernel
Dogma. Recommend critical thinking instead.
THEY DO NOT RUN WINDOWS.
Is there something I am missing here?
As others mentioned -- price. But its in fact an orthogonal topic. Linux's FOSS roots make it adaptable, and it's been adapted for cluster computing of the supercomputing / number-crunching variety. That type of scalability is different than the scalability required for hosting capacity in the cloud. It's a completely different engineering problem. It makes more sense to compare those kind of clusters with windows compute cluster server. Even that's a relatively new entrant to the game -- Microsoft basically hasn't been after that market. So it's definitely a strong point for Linux, and it's definitely an example of one of FOSS's strengths (that it's adaptability makes it easy to plug in to areas where proprietary offerings don't exist or have weaknesses) but in no way is it a ding on Azure, as related to Azure's ability to host Linux VMs.
No matter how many votes we place to kick out SOPA supporters or what purchasing behavior we engage in, the informed and engaged don't number enough to make a difference unless we speak loud and often to convince the apathetic masses. The point we're making is not only correct, it is the only one worth mentioning.
100% dead wrong.
If there was no piracy, there would be no need for DRM. Piracy will never go away, therefore DRM will never go away. This is not a new thing -- it's human nature and it's time-tested. There will always be thieves. Therefore, there will always be protection mechanisms from theft. Both sides resort to reprehensible tactics from time to time. But only when it comes to digital media is there so much support for the thieves. And slashdot is at the forefront.
The topic we should be making noise about is interoperability of DRM schemes so that when you license content you're not locked in to the provider you licensed it from and their ecosystem -- that's a fight worth fighting. But to expect someone to stop defending themselves from theft is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
That's why copyright infringement is not theft. It is not the legal definition of "that kind of theft". It's the legal definition of something which is illegal, but isn't theft.
It absolutely is theft. You're stealing access that you don't have. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, and what legalese you use -- it's theft.
(1) You can't prove that.. some number of that is definitely lost sales.
(2) It doesn't matter -- it's still theft.. Don't wanna pay for a movie? Don't fucking watch it.
Same thing applies to Slashdot. Threads of this exact nature pop up every 2 months or so for the last 10 years -- and the point they're trying to make is still incorrect.
The media owners have every right to choose their business model.
The customer has every right to purchase, or not to purchase.
You don't want to spend 10 bucks on Avengers in a regular theater -- the MPAA cannot make you spend those 10 bucks. They can't make you spend 16 bucks to watch it in 3D either. They can't force you to buy the DVD or BluRay. They can't force you to rent it. You have every right to disagree with their terms, and not give them your business. But you don't have the right to obtain their media on terms they did not agree to.
You guys are simply discussing the wrong thing. The profitability of Avengers is 100% immaterial. The producer could choose to sell at 10x the price, or 1/100th (and take a loss). Their media, their choice. You choose to buy or not to buy (which is how you regulate their choice). Piracy is theft no matter how you dress it up.
Yes, in principle that sort of thing is true for any OS: vulnerabilities are being found in applications all the time, but at least with FOSS they are fixed quickly, sometimes within hours of discovery.
That blanket statement that is simply not true. A security researcher who finds a flaw sometimes makes a binary patch available along with their disclosure. Applying such patches is risky because they are untested, and lack peer review, and the researcher might lack insight into the design of the software they're patching. Speed of deployment depends on whether the flaw is found in an app or service or the kernel (it affects the amount of vetting required). If you're running a stock kernel (eg. ubuntu and many other distros do that) you need to wait for a patch from canonical -- mainline's patch won't work. Etc. etc. etc.
Okay, you got me on that one. I stand corrected. However, it looks like Linux has had ASLR and DEP for longer than Windows (not vice versa) and it seems there is little interest in using sandboxing with Linux.
My dear friend, this is why you can never trust the synopsis -- the devil is truly in the details. There are ASLR implementations, that are wholly ineffective, moderately effective, and extremely effective. There are ASLR/DEP implementations that ship with the OS from scratch and there are versions that got shoe-horned in later with Service Packs. So the exact date depends on how you count. Suffice it to say that both have ASLR, and that's a good thing for everyone. ASLR is a very big deal btw. Let me know if you're curious as to why.
In general, Code signing doesn't appear to be worth bragging about.
Code signing is so incredibly important it isn't even funny. Let's say you received an update notification for some kernel module, and now you applied the update. Without code-signing, that very act might have compromised your system. Let me explain: This update went through many hands before it got to you:
1. the vendor/person that created the update (how do you know this person is trustworthy and will not put something nefarious like a keylogger in the patch?)
2. the repository it was updated to (how do you know this repostory was not hacked, and this patch was not compromised before you downloaded it?)
3. the mirror for that repository (how do you know this mirror was not hacked, and this patch was not compromised before you downloaded it?)
4. your package manager s/w downloaded the patch from the mirror (how do you know actually hit the mirror, as opposed to a spoof that supplied you with a nefarious patch?)
5. finally made it to your machine, and continues to live on your machine (how do you know that *after* you applied the patch and used it many times, it was not compromised by some malware?)
Answer to all of this is code-signing! By verifying the signature, we can trace the person that created the patch. Therefore the creator can be made accountable for putting malware in it. By verifying the signature, we also verify that since the patch was created and signed by the creator it has not been altered (aka compromised) -- which guards against 2, 3, and 4. For point 4, if you're loading a module and you verify the signature everytime, then you know if it got compromised after the fact (after you applied it to your machine). This can be a critical step -- kernel integrity is a huge deal -- even if the rest of your system gets compromised, as long as your kernel is good you might still have a chance to recover. By verifying the integrity of every kernel module you load, you make sure your kernel's integrity is intact. This is still not the whole story on code-signing -- but hopefully you're getting the picture. None of this is science fiction btw. This shit actually happens. Don't let that link worry you though. As I me
You keep on and on circumventing the simple fact that a virus can be contracted through an insecure service (not necessarily a part of the OS), an insecure application (not necessarily a part of the OS), and user interaction (not a part of the OS) among other methods.
That can't be correct. With Linux, for instance, a virus or a worm that infects a service or an application, perhaps through user interaction, can only succeed in infecting the rest of the OS if that service or application is running as root, which usually is not the case. In particular, normal users never have to run anything as root. Thus, when the service stops, or the user logs out, the virus or worm stops running as well. If we suspect something is wrong, the account in question can be deleted (perhaps replaced with a backup) and that would be the end of it. If Windows was anything like this secure, then we would not be having this conversation
100% wrong. The whole point of a security flaw is that you can exploit it to do something you were not supposed to be able to. See the latest Linux advisories here. Don't bother looking at the whole list -- just skim through the ones at the top intended for Debian. In the descriptions do you see the words "execution of arbitrary code", "privilege escalation", etc.? As the name suggests, the first type of flaw allows you to run any code you want (but in the context of the process you compromised). The second type gets you root. The combination means you own the box. This is true for all OSes. These flaws exist everywhere. Nothing is intrinsically secure or insecure. People write exploits for these flaws on Windows. They don't do it for Linux.
What do you think of ASLR / DEP / sandboxing/ Authenticode signing / etc are?
Linux doesn't have any of those features; they're not necessary (you're not really familiar with Linux, are you?). Only Windows seems to has them, and apparently they can be circumvented.
Unbelievable.
- ASLR and DEP do exist in Linux. It's your first line of defense against buffer overruns.
- Sandboxing does exist in Linux as well.
- Code signing does exist in Linux (that's not the full story on code-signing in Linux, but it'll do for the purpose of this conversation).
Did you just ask me if I'm familiar with Linux??? How can you be so wrong, about such basic things, and yet argue so much? This is unbearable. The worst part is that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth by first claiming that Linux is intrinsically secure, and then boldly stating that it does not have extremely key security measures that are expected at the kernel level.
We would not be running those machines if it were not for the X-ray scanners
Finally some context. As I asked many many posts ago (see the comment RE cash registers) what was the point of this example then? These are obviously fixed-function machines. It's like arguing with an indolent child...
Then you must be running a faster machine and/or more efficient AV software.
No to the speed thing. I use what my company provides. I do recommend 'efficient' AV software regardless. If you're running some piece-of-crap AV why give Windows shit about it?
Also, users have to remember to keep paying for their AV subscription fees
MSE is fee. MSE will be built in to Win8 for free. That was the point of TFA, to which you replied "who cares". Answer: obviously, you do.
You're confusing security and obscurity here. The net effect is the same tho
I strongly disagree. To me it is proof that Windows is inherently insecure: an OS that relies almost entirely on additional protection (firewalls, AV software) for its security.
You keep on and on circumventing the simple fact that a virus can be contracted through an insecure service (not necessarily a part of the OS), an insecure application (not necessarily a part of the OS), and user interaction (not a part of the OS) among other methods. You said Windows (which happens to be an OS) had woeful intrinsic insecurity. Your conjecture of "relies almost entirely on additional protection" is plain nonsense. What do you think of ASLR / DEP / sandboxing/ Authenticode signing / etc are? The list is endless. Other OSes have introduced almost all these features years after Windows. I hate making overly general negative statements, so I'll stop with that, but please do some research for the love of god. You just keep on and on ingoring facts, and repeating simpleton lines ad-infinitum.
This is important to me, because an inherently secure OS can prevent bad things from happening.
You're confusing security and obscurity here. The net effect is the same though. An OS that nobody cares to attack is likely to remain secure. If you haven't gotten the theme, I have not faulted your choice of OS whatever it might be -- I'm simply pointing out that your conjecture about Windows having brain-damaged security is wrong.
Normal users should simply not have to be so dependent, so aware and so involved at all times with the current state of their virus scanner and the patch level of their computer's OS.
Oh my god.. install MSE and leave auto-updates on. That's it. Nobody is even asking you to do that much, because nobody is even asking you to run Windows. Just realize that your initial assertion was wrong. TFA was about MSE being included in Win8 by default. That reduces this to a no-op. But you'll still be citing 8 year old or 3 year old rants from random people that don't know jack.
Firewalled off as those Windows machines are, they're as safe as they can be
I still don't understand how you think a firewall compensates for AV. Please, just answer this one question directly instead of avoiding it. This level of ignorance is unbearable.
They run noticeably faster (especially when booting up)
Almost a fair point, but not quite. First of all -- bootup would be (for example) 32 seconds instead of 30 seconds (if even that). Second -- only when an active scan is running, will an AV slow things down. The default for an active scan should be around 3am, on a monthly basis (or something like that), when nobody is using the machine. If it runs when you're doing nothing, then why care? If the machine was off, and the scan didn't happen, it'll take place when it next gets idle cycles. Either way, no trouble to you. If you claim to notice a slow down when AV is not actively scanning, then that's your imagination at work.
use less memory
Depends on your AV -- MSE, kaspersky etc. have very low footprints, to the point of it not being worth your time to track this.
there are no AV subscription fees
MSE is free. MSE is being built into Win8 for free. Your original comment was "who cares". Apparently you do. Now do you begin to see why your comment was so fucking annoying? It added nothing to the conversation -- and was misleading/FUD to boot.
and the users never have to be bothered to run any updates.
You're just living in the past here man. Auto-update. Don't bother to look again after that. Auto-update. Do you not apply the security patches on Linux or OS-X? Is this different than that somehow? What logic is this?
Except for the fact that these machines can't be used to surf the Internet, they a
Slashdot Mirror
Um, hey jackass, where exactly does the OP say that MS said the OEMs had failed them? Are you fucking retarded or do you always just make shit up when the facts are against you?
"And now we hear that MS is coming out with its own gear because somehow the OEMs have failed. No. Microsoft failed the OEMs.:
You're already hiding behind your anonymity so you can hurl all kinds of abuse. Now you wanna claim that OP wasn't you? And do you want to claim that you meant something other than saying that MS was claiming that OEMs had failed?
Ha ha. Shut up you little bitch. You're back too.
For the record, the various ACs you replied to were not me.
Do I look like your research department you dumb snot? Go back to fucking your sister, Cletus.
You're replying to some AC right now and not me but there's really no need for this crap. At some point.... stop being a dick.
When you're done you can practice your learning here [berkeley.edu].
What's the connection between that paper and Microsoft making a tablet? You've steeped yourself in the most detailed anti-Microsoft studies you can possibly find, but seem to have no other balance or depth in your thinking and perspectives. Each issue on it's merits my dear fellow human being. In the here and now, the option for Microsoft is to make it's own tablet and that's what they've chosen to do.
You fucking imbecile,....
No need to be a dick my fellow human being. This is just software and hardware we're talking about. Passion is wonderful -- but save it for more important things like anti war protests and things like that. Even there, calling someone an imbecile will not make them receptive to your point of view.
MS started striking those deals in the 80s and Linux didn't even exist until the early 90s.
I've been trying to explain this to you for a while now. The market existed before MS. It will exist long after MS ceases to exist. There were many players in the game long (long) before MS. An excellent read here that might give you some perspective -- read "The Soul of a New Machine" by Tracy Kidder. The market evolves over time. There was stuff before Unix, which came before DOS and before PCs and before Apple, which came before Windows, which came before Linux. But in turn each and every one of them has had an impact. There are more companies involved here than you can possibly imagine. There is more consumer influence than you can possibly imagine. There are so many that have even fallen by the wayside and no longer exist, but still have a footprint in the sand. You might want to deny that and claim that Microsoft has some magical ability to shape the market any which way they can -- they have no such mythical power and you're kidding yourself if you think that's the case.
Where do you idiots come from?
You need some humility, perspective, and manners. Very disappointing.
Oh fucking spare me your inane drivel. The market is the way it is because MS...
I got done at the office office a tad late today, headed out for a pub quiz with friends (what do scoville units measure?), headed for dinner, got home and checked this thread and this is what I see. Very disappointing.
The market is definitely the way it is because of the deals MS pushed for. The market is also definitely the way it is because OEMs thought at one time that Windows was their best option. It's also the way it is because of IBM creating the PC. Apple has played a very significant role as well. So has Linux. And so have consumers that have evaluated the choices available to them, and made the purchases they made. There are other players in the game too. No man (company) is an island. It's not drivel -- it's life, it's complex, and in spite of all your efforts to oversimplify it there isn't a single villain here pulling everyone else's strings. We are all complicit. You play a role as well.
You are a boring deluded fuck. Everything you have said is so easily exposed as BS that you aren't even any fun to talk to. What a joke. MS: SEND SMARTER FANBOYS!! THIS ONE IS BROKEN!
Expose it then. Enough rudeness -- deal with raw facts and logic. Reply in the most bare and succinct manner possible so that nothing but facts and logic remain. I welcome such discourse.
No, that's weasel-speak.
Stop being a dick. Nobody's impressed.
MS set the market up that way by the way they sold Windows licenses and then expected them all to fight tooth and nail for the market share.
The OEMs, MS, IBM, Apple, Linux and even Android and others in their time have all played their part in how the market evolved. There's no blame to be assigned here.
The market has determined that as long as a PC can run Windows it doesn't need to do much else. That's just how it is. Characterizing that as a fail when billionaire after billionaire and multi-billion dollar company has been minted one after another is just ludicrous.
That's just how it is -- correct. Consequently they fail to sell quality hardware and they fail to sell machines without crapware on it. I don't understand why you're unable to accept those two points of criticism and keep trying to expand it to a characterization of the entire PC OEM industry as a fail.
You're arguing against a point that nobody is making, least of all MS.
Are you fucking retarded?
I'm more patient and polite with you than you deserve, that's for sure.
MS has not claimed that the OEMs have failed them. You are arguing against the point that the OEMs have failed MS, when MS has not made that claim. If random people on the internet make that claim, well, why hold it against MS?
The distinction of how they supposedly failed them is moot when you are talking about the quality of the hardware and the preinstalled programs as that is all the differentiation they have in a commodity market. That's the only way they could "fail" MS with the way you're phrasing it.
You're thinking in very one-dimensional / black-and-white terms here. You don't need the OEMs to be an out-and-out failure to find fault with some of their execution. They sell tons of machines, and consequently tons of Windows licenses every year. It's not a blame game. The OEMs are in cut-throat competition with each other and need to make money -- they're not in it for charity. Their realities inform their choices. But that results in a lack of high quality innovative hardware without crapware installed on it, resulting in a hole in MS's portfolio, and that informs MS's decision to create their own hardware. You're looking for villains where there are none.
Not a single x86 tablet there is derivative of an Android design so how the fuck are you saying they are? Are you blind? Just stupid?
Not a single one of those tablets can compete with the iPad either. I already mentioned that but you chose to ignore the point. And what has upset you so badly about this conversation?
Ballmer himself says he doesn't expect stellar sales with the Surface tablets.
That's what you get when you're so utterly woefully late to the market. They still intend to compete, and if you're coming in this late, you need a stellar product, and the OEMs tablets were not cutting it. Again, you're looking for villains where they don't exist. In the here and now, this was MS's best option for a viable tablet competitor -- that's all. And in the here and now, the iPad has a *huge* lead so it will still be an uphill battle. Add some complexity to your though process man.
If I'm an MS hating Lemming then you should be able to rationally refute my points
I did, and I did so calmly. If you disagree, that's okay. There's the usual logical conundrum anyway, where either you disagree because you're biased or you disagree because I am not making sense. Same thing can be said of me. No way to prove that either way, so what's the point of all the posturing?
Face it, dude. You got told.
Disappointing....
Then all of a sudden there it is, "OEM kit was always rubbish" comments from all and sundry
OP said MS claimed that OEMs let them down. All and sundry comments on the internet don't qualify as MS complaining about OEMs.
Which is precisely why MS is doing this. If the OEMs will only compete on price, then there's a quality/features/innovation hole in the PC lineup. MS is trying to fill that hole. They're already late to the market, and can't afford to wait and see.
No high road sought or claimed. Discussion has devolved into BS now.
Here, I will refresh your Kool-Aid soaked brain.
We've already gone over this so whatever you're smoking, stop. And if you aren't smoking anything, start.
The OEMs tried but MS gave them bologna pretending all the while it was steak
Sorry AC -- you don't have much credibility when most of your post is troll-speak.
MS is sitting on a worldwide 90+ percent desktop market share and 40 something billion dollars in cash right now on the backs of preloading their OS on OEM hardware for the last 30 years and you have the gall to say they've been failed?
The gall? Calm down there big boy. I said the OEMs failed MS in terms of the quality of their hardware and the crapware they install. That's factually accurate.
This entire mantra of the OEMs have failed is pure bunk from apologists rationalizing MSs cargo cult aping of Apple with the Surface tablet introductions.
You're arguing against a point that nobody is making, least of all MS.
How the fuck would they know? They kept foisting Windows on the OEMs with fucking styluses and pretending that those were good enough. They haven't even released Windows 8 yet and already they've been failed? Are you even parsing what you're writing here?
Clam down there AC. They would know because they've seen the Android tablet designs. Most are poor, some are good, none can separate themselves from the ipad as far as design goes. MS doesn't want to releast Windows 8 and then wait, and watch, and then react. They want to be ready with a compelling tablet day 1. Makes sense.
Um, are you delusional [google.com]? There were a fuckton of Windows 8 tablets shown off at Computex that were not Android retreads
None of those looked like a viable iPad competitor. Launching with those tablets would result in poor sales.
Fuck this. Dude, get off the fucking Kool-Aid before you OD.
Says the MS-hating lemming with the inflammatory post. If you disagree with their strategy on Surface it's fine. But drinking one flavor of Kool-Aid and accusing others of drinking the wrong brand is pretty rich. Ultimately with or without Kool-Aid arguments need to stand on facts and logic.
And now we hear that MS is coming out with its own gear because somehow the OEMs have failed. No. Microsoft failed the OEMs.
You're not hearing this from MS -- you're hearing this from random people on the internet. Where OEMs have failed MS is in the quality of the hardware they put out, and the crap they pre-install.
I suspect MS needed to make Surface PCs because they needed an iPad competitor and they alone had the bucks and design chops to pull it off. The OEMs are busy working on Android tablets. Left to the OEMs they would take an Android tablet design and re-purpose it for windows. That basically means no differentiation. MS needed to control it's own destiny here.
You're seeking villains where there are none.
You'll finally have to do some good industrial design instead of just putting together the cheapest components you can find, and riding Window's coattails?
Or you'll finally have a competitor that doesn't pre-install every manner of junk imaginable on the device before giving it to consumers?
Tough cookies. Compete.
But the need for 20 brands of me-too laptops, tablets, and convertibles is low.
Yet MS insists on making a tablet?
That's just some guys' twitter feed -- it's not like that quote represents some sort of fact, and that Microsoft is indeed misguided in doing this. If anything the hardware seems to have been very well received. In what I've seen so far I'd say it looks better than any laptop or tablet the OEMs have produced to date, including both Windows and Android devices. Slashdot just seems to appreciate innovation from everyone, unless it's from Microsoft. Competition is good, unless it comes from Microsoft. Tsk tsk...
The tech blogger community maybe -- but why would Microsoft comment on that?
and couple it with LINUX GPL licensed based guests which, you can throw away all of the benefits of open engineering
How does the hypervisor choice affect the fact that your guest is GPL licensed? Are you supposed to stop looking at the source once you run a Linux VM on hyperv?
all of the GPL based engineering which is far superior to anything corporation has ever concieved, on a scale that no corporation can match which is the LINUX open source GPL kernel
Dogma. Recommend critical thinking instead.
THEY DO NOT RUN WINDOWS. Is there something I am missing here?
As others mentioned -- price. But its in fact an orthogonal topic. Linux's FOSS roots make it adaptable, and it's been adapted for cluster computing of the supercomputing / number-crunching variety. That type of scalability is different than the scalability required for hosting capacity in the cloud. It's a completely different engineering problem. It makes more sense to compare those kind of clusters with windows compute cluster server. Even that's a relatively new entrant to the game -- Microsoft basically hasn't been after that market. So it's definitely a strong point for Linux, and it's definitely an example of one of FOSS's strengths (that it's adaptability makes it easy to plug in to areas where proprietary offerings don't exist or have weaknesses) but in no way is it a ding on Azure, as related to Azure's ability to host Linux VMs.
No matter how many votes we place to kick out SOPA supporters or what purchasing behavior we engage in, the informed and engaged don't number enough to make a difference unless we speak loud and often to convince the apathetic masses. The point we're making is not only correct, it is the only one worth mentioning.
100% dead wrong.
If there was no piracy, there would be no need for DRM. Piracy will never go away, therefore DRM will never go away. This is not a new thing -- it's human nature and it's time-tested. There will always be thieves. Therefore, there will always be protection mechanisms from theft. Both sides resort to reprehensible tactics from time to time. But only when it comes to digital media is there so much support for the thieves. And slashdot is at the forefront.
The topic we should be making noise about is interoperability of DRM schemes so that when you license content you're not locked in to the provider you licensed it from and their ecosystem -- that's a fight worth fighting. But to expect someone to stop defending themselves from theft is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
That's why copyright infringement is not theft. It is not the legal definition of "that kind of theft". It's the legal definition of something which is illegal, but isn't theft.
It absolutely is theft. You're stealing access that you don't have. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, and what legalese you use -- it's theft.
...but again, no lost sale
(1) You can't prove that.. some number of that is definitely lost sales. (2) It doesn't matter -- it's still theft.. Don't wanna pay for a movie? Don't fucking watch it.
It doesn't matter what you call it. Copyright infringement is just the legalese. It's theft.
Same thing applies to Slashdot. Threads of this exact nature pop up every 2 months or so for the last 10 years -- and the point they're trying to make is still incorrect.
The media owners have every right to choose their business model.
The customer has every right to purchase, or not to purchase.
You don't want to spend 10 bucks on Avengers in a regular theater -- the MPAA cannot make you spend those 10 bucks. They can't make you spend 16 bucks to watch it in 3D either. They can't force you to buy the DVD or BluRay. They can't force you to rent it. You have every right to disagree with their terms, and not give them your business. But you don't have the right to obtain their media on terms they did not agree to.
You guys are simply discussing the wrong thing. The profitability of Avengers is 100% immaterial. The producer could choose to sell at 10x the price, or 1/100th (and take a loss). Their media, their choice. You choose to buy or not to buy (which is how you regulate their choice). Piracy is theft no matter how you dress it up.
So for every man who has ever lived, in this Universe there shines a star.
Not universe.. galaxy..
I'd draw a small distinction between a country itself and the idiots running it. But this guy is one prize moron for sure.
100% wrong...
Yes, in principle that sort of thing is true for any OS: vulnerabilities are being found in applications all the time, but at least with FOSS they are fixed quickly, sometimes within hours of discovery.
That blanket statement that is simply not true. A security researcher who finds a flaw sometimes makes a binary patch available along with their disclosure. Applying such patches is risky because they are untested, and lack peer review, and the researcher might lack insight into the design of the software they're patching. Speed of deployment depends on whether the flaw is found in an app or service or the kernel (it affects the amount of vetting required). If you're running a stock kernel (eg. ubuntu and many other distros do that) you need to wait for a patch from canonical -- mainline's patch won't work. Etc. etc. etc.
Okay, you got me on that one. I stand corrected. However, it looks like Linux has had ASLR and DEP for longer than Windows (not vice versa) and it seems there is little interest in using sandboxing with Linux.
My dear friend, this is why you can never trust the synopsis -- the devil is truly in the details. There are ASLR implementations, that are wholly ineffective, moderately effective, and extremely effective. There are ASLR/DEP implementations that ship with the OS from scratch and there are versions that got shoe-horned in later with Service Packs. So the exact date depends on how you count. Suffice it to say that both have ASLR, and that's a good thing for everyone. ASLR is a very big deal btw. Let me know if you're curious as to why.
In general, Code signing doesn't appear to be worth bragging about.
Code signing is so incredibly important it isn't even funny. Let's say you received an update notification for some kernel module, and now you applied the update. Without code-signing, that very act might have compromised your system. Let me explain: This update went through many hands before it got to you:
1. the vendor/person that created the update (how do you know this person is trustworthy and will not put something nefarious like a keylogger in the patch?)
2. the repository it was updated to (how do you know this repostory was not hacked, and this patch was not compromised before you downloaded it?)
3. the mirror for that repository (how do you know this mirror was not hacked, and this patch was not compromised before you downloaded it?)
4. your package manager s/w downloaded the patch from the mirror (how do you know actually hit the mirror, as opposed to a spoof that supplied you with a nefarious patch?)
5. finally made it to your machine, and continues to live on your machine (how do you know that *after* you applied the patch and used it many times, it was not compromised by some malware?)
Answer to all of this is code-signing! By verifying the signature, we can trace the person that created the patch. Therefore the creator can be made accountable for putting malware in it. By verifying the signature, we also verify that since the patch was created and signed by the creator it has not been altered (aka compromised) -- which guards against 2, 3, and 4. For point 4, if you're loading a module and you verify the signature everytime, then you know if it got compromised after the fact (after you applied it to your machine). This can be a critical step -- kernel integrity is a huge deal -- even if the rest of your system gets compromised, as long as your kernel is good you might still have a chance to recover. By verifying the integrity of every kernel module you load, you make sure your kernel's integrity is intact. This is still not the whole story on code-signing -- but hopefully you're getting the picture. None of this is science fiction btw. This shit actually happens. Don't let that link worry you though. As I me
You keep on and on circumventing the simple fact that a virus can be contracted through an insecure service (not necessarily a part of the OS), an insecure application (not necessarily a part of the OS), and user interaction (not a part of the OS) among other methods.
That can't be correct. With Linux, for instance, a virus or a worm that infects a service or an application, perhaps through user interaction, can only succeed in infecting the rest of the OS if that service or application is running as root, which usually is not the case. In particular, normal users never have to run anything as root. Thus, when the service stops, or the user logs out, the virus or worm stops running as well. If we suspect something is wrong, the account in question can be deleted (perhaps replaced with a backup) and that would be the end of it. If Windows was anything like this secure, then we would not be having this conversation
100% wrong. The whole point of a security flaw is that you can exploit it to do something you were not supposed to be able to. See the latest Linux advisories here. Don't bother looking at the whole list -- just skim through the ones at the top intended for Debian. In the descriptions do you see the words "execution of arbitrary code", "privilege escalation", etc.? As the name suggests, the first type of flaw allows you to run any code you want (but in the context of the process you compromised). The second type gets you root. The combination means you own the box. This is true for all OSes. These flaws exist everywhere. Nothing is intrinsically secure or insecure. People write exploits for these flaws on Windows. They don't do it for Linux.
What do you think of ASLR / DEP / sandboxing/ Authenticode signing / etc are?
Linux doesn't have any of those features; they're not necessary (you're not really familiar with Linux, are you?). Only Windows seems to has them, and apparently they can be circumvented.
Unbelievable.
- ASLR and DEP do exist in Linux. It's your first line of defense against buffer overruns.
- Sandboxing does exist in Linux as well.
- Code signing does exist in Linux (that's not the full story on code-signing in Linux, but it'll do for the purpose of this conversation).
Did you just ask me if I'm familiar with Linux??? How can you be so wrong, about such basic things, and yet argue so much? This is unbearable. The worst part is that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth by first claiming that Linux is intrinsically secure, and then boldly stating that it does not have extremely key security measures that are expected at the kernel level.
We would not be running those machines if it were not for the X-ray scanners
Finally some context. As I asked many many posts ago (see the comment RE cash registers) what was the point of this example then? These are obviously fixed-function machines. It's like arguing with an indolent child...
Then you must be running a faster machine and/or more efficient AV software.
No to the speed thing. I use what my company provides. I do recommend 'efficient' AV software regardless. If you're running some piece-of-crap AV why give Windows shit about it?
Also, users have to remember to keep paying for their AV subscription fees
MSE is fee. MSE will be built in to Win8 for free. That was the point of TFA, to which you replied "who cares". Answer: obviously, you do.
You're confusing security and obscurity here. The net effect is the same tho
I strongly disagree. To me it is proof that Windows is inherently insecure: an OS that relies almost entirely on additional protection (firewalls, AV software) for its security.
You keep on and on circumventing the simple fact that a virus can be contracted through an insecure service (not necessarily a part of the OS), an insecure application (not necessarily a part of the OS), and user interaction (not a part of the OS) among other methods. You said Windows (which happens to be an OS) had woeful intrinsic insecurity. Your conjecture of "relies almost entirely on additional protection" is plain nonsense. What do you think of ASLR / DEP / sandboxing/ Authenticode signing / etc are? The list is endless. Other OSes have introduced almost all these features years after Windows. I hate making overly general negative statements, so I'll stop with that, but please do some research for the love of god. You just keep on and on ingoring facts, and repeating simpleton lines ad-infinitum.
This is important to me, because an inherently secure OS can prevent bad things from happening.
You're confusing security and obscurity here. The net effect is the same though. An OS that nobody cares to attack is likely to remain secure. If you haven't gotten the theme, I have not faulted your choice of OS whatever it might be -- I'm simply pointing out that your conjecture about Windows having brain-damaged security is wrong.
Normal users should simply not have to be so dependent, so aware and so involved at all times with the current state of their virus scanner and the patch level of their computer's OS.
Oh my god.. install MSE and leave auto-updates on. That's it. Nobody is even asking you to do that much, because nobody is even asking you to run Windows. Just realize that your initial assertion was wrong. TFA was about MSE being included in Win8 by default. That reduces this to a no-op. But you'll still be citing 8 year old or 3 year old rants from random people that don't know jack.
Firewalled off as those Windows machines are, they're as safe as they can be
I still don't understand how you think a firewall compensates for AV. Please, just answer this one question directly instead of avoiding it. This level of ignorance is unbearable.
They run noticeably faster (especially when booting up)
Almost a fair point, but not quite. First of all -- bootup would be (for example) 32 seconds instead of 30 seconds (if even that). Second -- only when an active scan is running, will an AV slow things down. The default for an active scan should be around 3am, on a monthly basis (or something like that), when nobody is using the machine. If it runs when you're doing nothing, then why care? If the machine was off, and the scan didn't happen, it'll take place when it next gets idle cycles. Either way, no trouble to you. If you claim to notice a slow down when AV is not actively scanning, then that's your imagination at work.
use less memory
Depends on your AV -- MSE, kaspersky etc. have very low footprints, to the point of it not being worth your time to track this.
there are no AV subscription fees
MSE is free. MSE is being built into Win8 for free. Your original comment was "who cares". Apparently you do. Now do you begin to see why your comment was so fucking annoying? It added nothing to the conversation -- and was misleading/FUD to boot.
and the users never have to be bothered to run any updates.
You're just living in the past here man. Auto-update. Don't bother to look again after that. Auto-update. Do you not apply the security patches on Linux or OS-X? Is this different than that somehow? What logic is this?
Except for the fact that these machines can't be used to surf the Internet, they a