Exactly. Look how well Nintendo is handling this problem. No real questions, just cross ship a replacement. Failure rates at launch are common (or are reported more because so many go out at once and media attention is high) and Nintendo is dealing with it very well.
Compare this to the overheating issues the XBox 360 had, or the disc scrapping on the PS2.
The problem is as it always was: ActiveX. MS can't block ActiveX because any product that uses IE as the front end with ActiveX controls is suddenly broken. *Lots* of corporate web-based programs employ ActiveX controls. Everything from Flash to Acrobat Reader to Windows Update uses ActiveX.
A best-case scenario would be to allow Administrators to blanket-block All ActiveX controls except for a select few. You can actually do this with the IE Admin Kit and Group Policy, but it is exceptionally difficult to administer, IMX. MS didn't do a good job of allowing IE to be controlled with AD policy because IE's security model is essentially to treat IE as essentially a separate entity for rights and permissions.
Of course, the vast majority of these zero-day ActiveScripting attacks don't work in well-run corporate environments because users there don't have local Admin rights and the ActiveX controls don't function correctly then. Unfortunately, software vendors tend to assume the user is an admin, so you can't always make your users into just Users.
"People want money, and some are willing to use their programming skills with computers to steal your hard-earned cash! This story and more at eleven."
Did anybody else not realize in 2002 that malware was just a way to make worms and trojan financially profitable?
It's FOSS, so the GUI is generally crap (it's as unitiuitive as other media players while still being ugly and unskinnable by default) but it's very lightweight and unobtrusive. It's been in development a long time and is quite mature.
That's unethical. You can't treat someone for a disease with a placebo.
The correct thing to do is to compare a new treatment with existing or traditional treatments and determine if the new treatment is more or less effective. It more imporant to determine if the new treatment is better than existing treatments than if it is better than nothing anyways. Everybody already knows that doing nothing doesn't work.
Another option is to use standard treatments combined with your new therapy, and then have a control group do standard treatments alone.
Yes, but adding in RT checks adds a lot of extra processing. Essentially, the system will have to stop and check to see if it's time for an RT operation when it would otherwise be doing work. And if the RTOS is doing multiple things in real time, well, it just gets that much more complicated.
If a normal OS would *really* benefit from RT operations, don't you think that Linux, AIX, or Windows wouldn't have already implemented it? RT processing is only necessary in very specific applications. Almost all of them are for industrial equipment, safety equipment, and medical equipment where a few milliseconds of real time is actually important. A normal OS is concerned with *how quickly* something will occur. A RTOS is concerned only with *when* something will occur. It sacrifices performance for predictability.
Desktops and most servers do not get any benefit from a RTOS. RT makes it so that the system purposefully downgrades less-useful things like user input for maximum priority things like, say, polling a fetal heart monitor every n milliseconds or responding to an automobile collision to deploy an airbag.
RTOS in Linux is primarily useful for Linux-based routers. However, seeing that QNX has been in the industry for 25 years, has an extremely good reputation (it's the de facto standard in the auto industry), and is already POSIX compliant, Linux still has a long way to go. The price for QNX might be USD $10,000+, but if you actually have a need for a RTOS, licensing cost is not a major obstacle.
Why does someone refuting a point need evidence, but someone making one doesn't? GP was just disagreeing with GGP. Why is GGP exempt from needing evidence?
Uh... I hate to point this out, but AMD did it first. 2000+... 2500+... 3000+... 4000+....
I mean, does Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 really roll of the tounge so much worse than AMD Athlon 64 3200+ socket 939 (which, if you remember, is important since socket 754s also had a 3200+)?
Yes, because clearly apt-get solves all problems. I never need to run winecfg, and I certainly never need to reference any online documentation for how to get a given application running. That's why there's so many pages on their website devoted to exactly those two things, right?
Yes, the docs are there. Only geeks use them. *Nobody* except geeks reads documentation. Mom & Pop's troubleshooting is Step 1: Call phone number on box, Step 2: Give up. Is it more difficult to get Windows apps to run on Linux than Windows? Yes, clearly and obviously. Ergo, WINE is not a significant barrier breaker for the 90%+ of people who want their computer to work like their microwave.
Yeah, and they started losing to a company that made the exact same product in every way that counts to the consumer except it was cheaper.
Linux is *exactly not* Windows. It doesn't run Windows software unless you're a geek who can set up WINE. Instead of everything being the same except cost, everything is different.
"Coats even sees this as a driver of open source software. 'If you can get (open source software) you can't be shut down.' But that's harder to do in highly custom applications.""
Er...BECAUSE it's open source, it's easier to customize. That's one of the major selling points.
No, you misconstrued his point. He's not saying it's harder to customize open source apps, he's saying it's harder to get highly customized apps under an open source model. Companies that spend lots of time and monel developing the highly customized software might be less inclined to make it OSS since it gives them (the developers) very little benefit in exchange for exposing a highly valuable codebase.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was already "The Decade of Microsoft Windows Bugs"?
Exactly. Look how well Nintendo is handling this problem. No real questions, just cross ship a replacement. Failure rates at launch are common (or are reported more because so many go out at once and media attention is high) and Nintendo is dealing with it very well.
Compare this to the overheating issues the XBox 360 had, or the disc scrapping on the PS2.
Kudos Nintendo.
Why should the web be like any other software package? "Feature complete" is an oxymoron.
I expect he means that FLOSS activist distros like Debian won't complain about Java packages on the CD. Or do we want another IceWeasel?
The problem is as it always was: ActiveX. MS can't block ActiveX because any product that uses IE as the front end with ActiveX controls is suddenly broken. *Lots* of corporate web-based programs employ ActiveX controls. Everything from Flash to Acrobat Reader to Windows Update uses ActiveX.
A best-case scenario would be to allow Administrators to blanket-block All ActiveX controls except for a select few. You can actually do this with the IE Admin Kit and Group Policy, but it is exceptionally difficult to administer, IMX. MS didn't do a good job of allowing IE to be controlled with AD policy because IE's security model is essentially to treat IE as essentially a separate entity for rights and permissions.
Of course, the vast majority of these zero-day ActiveScripting attacks don't work in well-run corporate environments because users there don't have local Admin rights and the ActiveX controls don't function correctly then. Unfortunately, software vendors tend to assume the user is an admin, so you can't always make your users into just Users.
I bet the story will be covered by Ric Romero.
"People want money, and some are willing to use their programming skills with computers to steal your hard-earned cash! This story and more at eleven."
Did anybody else not realize in 2002 that malware was just a way to make worms and trojan financially profitable?
I could have sworn it was BSD or Apache at some point. Meh.
Foobar 2000
It's FOSS, so the GUI is generally crap (it's as unitiuitive as other media players while still being ugly and unskinnable by default) but it's very lightweight and unobtrusive. It's been in development a long time and is quite mature.
That's unethical. You can't treat someone for a disease with a placebo.
The correct thing to do is to compare a new treatment with existing or traditional treatments and determine if the new treatment is more or less effective. It more imporant to determine if the new treatment is better than existing treatments than if it is better than nothing anyways. Everybody already knows that doing nothing doesn't work.
Another option is to use standard treatments combined with your new therapy, and then have a control group do standard treatments alone.
Yes, but adding in RT checks adds a lot of extra processing. Essentially, the system will have to stop and check to see if it's time for an RT operation when it would otherwise be doing work. And if the RTOS is doing multiple things in real time, well, it just gets that much more complicated.
If a normal OS would *really* benefit from RT operations, don't you think that Linux, AIX, or Windows wouldn't have already implemented it? RT processing is only necessary in very specific applications. Almost all of them are for industrial equipment, safety equipment, and medical equipment where a few milliseconds of real time is actually important. A normal OS is concerned with *how quickly* something will occur. A RTOS is concerned only with *when* something will occur. It sacrifices performance for predictability.
Desktops and most servers do not get any benefit from a RTOS. RT makes it so that the system purposefully downgrades less-useful things like user input for maximum priority things like, say, polling a fetal heart monitor every n milliseconds or responding to an automobile collision to deploy an airbag.
RTOS in Linux is primarily useful for Linux-based routers. However, seeing that QNX has been in the industry for 25 years, has an extremely good reputation (it's the de facto standard in the auto industry), and is already POSIX compliant, Linux still has a long way to go. The price for QNX might be USD $10,000+, but if you actually have a need for a RTOS, licensing cost is not a major obstacle.
Why does someone refuting a point need evidence, but someone making one doesn't? GP was just disagreeing with GGP. Why is GGP exempt from needing evidence?
Or is that EverQuest?
Maybe Microsoft is finally using their business model to promote some good.
Uh... I hate to point this out, but AMD did it first. 2000+... 2500+... 3000+... 4000+....
I mean, does Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 really roll of the tounge so much worse than AMD Athlon 64 3200+ socket 939 (which, if you remember, is important since socket 754s also had a 3200+)?
As opposed to all those scientific laws which not based on a consistency of emprical observation?
What do you want? It was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Some of the details were bound to be confused over time.
Yes, because clearly apt-get solves all problems. I never need to run winecfg, and I certainly never need to reference any online documentation for how to get a given application running. That's why there's so many pages on their website devoted to exactly those two things, right?
Yes, the docs are there. Only geeks use them. *Nobody* except geeks reads documentation. Mom & Pop's troubleshooting is Step 1: Call phone number on box, Step 2: Give up. Is it more difficult to get Windows apps to run on Linux than Windows? Yes, clearly and obviously. Ergo, WINE is not a significant barrier breaker for the 90%+ of people who want their computer to work like their microwave.
Yeah, and they started losing to a company that made the exact same product in every way that counts to the consumer except it was cheaper.
Linux is *exactly not* Windows. It doesn't run Windows software unless you're a geek who can set up WINE. Instead of everything being the same except cost, everything is different.
I bet the NetBSD guys put him up to this.
This should be useful for adding anti-image spam capabilities to FOSS anti-spam programs.
But, but... a mace is a bludgeoning weapon!
In my day we had 80 columns by 25 rows and a choice between two colors: green and amber.
Believe it!
No, you misconstrued his point. He's not saying it's harder to customize open source apps, he's saying it's harder to get highly customized apps under an open source model. Companies that spend lots of time and monel developing the highly customized software might be less inclined to make it OSS since it gives them (the developers) very little benefit in exchange for exposing a highly valuable codebase.