Well maybe Microsoft should fix that since they created the OS.
As if Linux or Max OS X are any better in that regard.
It makes it less reasonable in my opinion. It means I can't update a current Windows computer to 10 that is being used as a network drive for other software because MS finds incompatible even though none of the software is actually installed.
The software doesn't have to be "actually installed" in order to be run, and if you're using a Windows 10 client as a network drive server for incompatible versions of windows, you deserve any difficulties that you get.
I was both impressed and horrified to learn that that fall creators update would searched the *ENTIRE* hard drive for incompatible software.
Well, you can't trust the "Programs and Features" listing to include all of the software operable on the machine, much less that some software hasn't been installed with a slight error in its registry entries for installation/uninstallation that gets blown out by a "cleaner" program, so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used.
The general error nonsense is maddening and stupid, but the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense.
The last time I had a legal argument with you, you spouted a lot of stuff that it turned out the court tossed aside in one sentence. So, I am dubious about your representations of your standing as an attorney or what you've done for your customers.
Perhaps that "one sentence" was within this gem:
"Similarly, Mr. Perens -- who is not a lawyer -- voiced an opinion about whether the Grsecurity Access Agreement violated the General Public License. No court has addressed the legal issue. Thus, his 'opinion' is not a 'fact' that can be proven provably false and thus is not actionable as defamation."
Case 3:17-cv-04002-LB Document 53, p. 14 ll. 23-26 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).
Well that certainly proves that your opinion is correct.../s.
The last time I had a legal argument with you, you spouted a lot of stuff that it turned out the court tossed aside in one sentence. So, I am dubious about your representations of your standing as an attorney or what you've done for your customers.
I'm sorry, Bruce, but are you referring to that nonsense where you claimed that customers of a distributor who received GPLv2 software would be violating the GPLv2 if their distributor had violated the GPLv2 because they had not received a valid license?
Do you care to provide a link to that opinion and to identify the "one sentence," because Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler v. Bruce Perens did not rule on whether the statement was true or not - merely that Spengler could not stop you from publishing your (erroneous) analysis.
I'm pretty sure that I never opined on whether their suit against you would succeed -- that was a fool's errand. Come back to me when someone successfully sues one of Open Source Security, Inc.'s customers for infringement.
There seems to be one "bad actor". Just one. But he's only a bad actor in terms of a completely voluntary community norm which nobody is compelled to follow, rather than the law.
Minimize and excuse while attacking the "posturing" companies for following the community norm? Surely you're better than that, Bruce.
Also, these companies would be practicing what they preach if they extended cure periods to their proprietary licenses. Which I doubt they do.
Apple and oranges, Bruce. Their proprietary licenses do not "terminate" so that it becomes impossible to become licensed by purchasing the commercial product. The GPLv2 purports to do so. Having represented clients in BSA audits, I have firsthand knowledge that their "trolling" consists of demanding a small multiple of the retail price of the missing licenses. That is a far cry from McHardy's shenanigans
Unless you can identify specific and deleterious differences between the RedHat approach and the Community Enforcement Statement, this is merely a cheap shot against corporate contributors to GPLed projects. 99% of individual contributors to projects never assert their copyright either. Am I to assume that you'll attack those that sign on to the Community Enforcement Statement for "posturing" as well?
The companies which have just promised to give people time before they sue are not known for ever having sued regarding a GPL license. Thus, this is posturing.
Or they have been practicing what they preach, and are now putting a public face on the policy in order to pressure others to do the same. Just because the FSF/SFLC works with those in breach to resolve the problem without litigation does not mean that there are not bad actors as well.
So you don't deny that before Server 2016 it's a problem. You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?
In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.
I'll take these guys seriously once they make a legally binding commitment to handle violations of THEIR copyrights by the same rules that they want to impose on people using the GPL.
Reading comprehension fail. From TFS: "The companies which have agreed to adopt the 'Common Cure Rights Commitment' said before they file or continue to prosecute those accused of violating covered licenses, they will allow for users to cure and reinstate their licenses."
They use the GPL. They are pledging to to this with their copyrighted material licensed under the GPL.
You know this whole thread we are talking about Windows right?
No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.
BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.
âoeIt is helping to save the Small Aral sea,â says FitzGerald. âoeBut it was also a death warrant to the Big Aral, on the Uzbek side. People on the Uzbek side are very angry about it. The dam shut the only source of water that was entering their sea."
So, similar to the Uzbeks, you simply chose to ignore the next paragraph, which inconveniently notes that:
"That ignores, however, the fact that the Amu Darya - known to Central Asian schoolchildren as the Amazon of the region - was diverted into myriad irrigation channels supplying Uzbekistanâ(TM)s own cotton and rice fields."
It's was the only remaining source of water because the Uzbeks completely diverted their own source of water. But that paints a far less sympathetic picture.
The best way to entrench an idea is to tell someone they're wrong, and be a smug, condescending, elitist asshole while doing so.
So... Basically why the Democrats lost in 2016, and why the left in general is losing the culture war. They can't get over how fucking smart they think they are, and how stupid everyone else is for not thinking the same thing.
Whereupon the Trump wing of the Republican party immediately adopted the same attitude because "fuck you, we won."
8 more months till that comes crashing down, and I'll be throwing the party.
Little things like copy and pasted characters unsupported by the site suggest they hadn't.
Irony would have been if I'd type editorÃ(TM)s. (I didn't)
So adding an incorrect apostrophe is not a little thing? Because ordinarily "like [example]" does not mean that the preceding object (category) is limited to that specific example.
Irony could also have been if I were an editor and made the mistake. (I'm not)
So you're too lazy to self-edit your own writing? I see.
Irony may be that I've demonstrated that having read the story doesn't improve the quality of responses. (It really doesn't, it just delays poor quality responses like these)
It did not noticeably delay either of your flawed responses. I'd recheck that hypothesis if I were you.
However this was merely coincidence. This suggests to me that neither of us should be an editor.
Not a coincidence, but rather a lazy fuck-up of the same caliber as the one of which you complained.
Covering your ass with meager rationalizations does not disprove my critique or ability to edit material. In fact, it appears that I'm quite a bit better than you in that regard.
Will editor's have to demonstrate they've read the story as well? Little things like copy and pasted characters unsupported by the site suggest they hadn't.
Sounds plausible, only thing is, the articles talk of 'processed wafers'. Maybe they cooled off too fast?
But Anandtech is merely rereporting from TechNews, which doesn't mention anything about "processed" wafers. None of the other stories that I've seen concerning the outage mention "processed" wafers. So no, I'm not crediting one word that apparently was inserted by an author who's only acknowledged source is another author's work that doesn't include that fact.
I'm curious how loss of power would destroy already-fabbed wafers. Do they need to be kept in conditions that require power to maintain or something?
You should realize that these wafers build up 64 layers of flash storage and so include hundreds of precisely deposited layers of deposited and etched materials. Now imaging losing power in the middle of depositing or etching a layer so that the respective materials either fail to be deposited in the required amounts or dwell on the partially completed layer for too long.
I remember when a ram plant caught on fire a long time ago. Ram prices went through the roof. No video or pictures that 'event' either. A quick google search yielded very little on this disaster. Most of what I found was from a battery fire in 2017.
I've never seen pictures of you, so I'm reasonably sure that you're merely one of Alex Jones' AI chatbots and can be safely ignored.
BTW: Don't bother linking to a picture. I know about Photoshop, you sneaky bot you...
Here's the problem with your post, the second they disclosed it to AMD, legally they became insiders.
Not even close. An "insider" is a person with a fiduaciary or similar duty to the company, and "insider trading" requires trading on information obtained from such a person, whether one is an insider or not.
An outsider disclosing information to AMD does not become a fiduciary to AMD or come under some similar duty unless they've gone and done something like signed a non-disclosure agreement. Giving outsider information to AMD does not magically transform that outsider information into "insider information" for the outsider.
Adding more words does not transform speculation as to motive into evidence.
Incidentally, the other AC was also taking the most charitable view of you, in assuming that you stand to gain something from defending Intel instead of being too stupid to figure this out.
Yes, those are the only two possible explanations, and you are the arbiter of stupidity.
Well, according to CTS-Labs website and whitepaper (quoting from the whitepaper):
AMD has recently announced that EPYC and Ryzen embedded processors are being sold as high security solutions for mission-critical aerospace and defense systems. AMD's latest generation Vega GPUs, which also have Secure Processor inside of them, are being integrated as deep-learning accelerators on self-driving cars. We urge the security community to study the security of these devices in depth before allowing them on mission-critical systems that could potentially put lives at risk.
I'd call Tavis Ormandy's attitude pretty extreme, but at least he gives some reasons for doing so.
"Reasons" being he runs out of patience faster than the end date of the responsible disclosure silent period?
For whom are they really working here?
Themselves? I mean, if you bought that Ormandy's 5 day-short shot at Microsoft "was independent of Google," you've got to buy CTS's explanation as well.
I think most customers would be interested in working with AMD for at least a few weeks and try to get a solution for the problem before going public.
From their whitepaper: "To ensure public safety, all technical details that could be used to reproduce the vulnerabilities have been redacted from this document. CTS has privately shared this information with AMD, select security companies that can develop mitigations, and the U.S. regulators. What follows is a description of the security problems we discovered and the risks they pose for users and organizations."
If the information can't be used directly to exploit vulnerabilities, then why should end users not know that there are security issues with the processors? Especially critical systems end users?
Slashdot Mirror
As if Linux or Max OS X are any better in that regard.
The software doesn't have to be "actually installed" in order to be run, and if you're using a Windows 10 client as a network drive server for incompatible versions of windows, you deserve any difficulties that you get.
Knock off the stalking behavior - it's creepy.
Well, you can't trust the "Programs and Features" listing to include all of the software operable on the machine, much less that some software hasn't been installed with a slight error in its registry entries for installation/uninstallation that gets blown out by a "cleaner" program, so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used.
The general error nonsense is maddening and stupid, but the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense.
Perhaps that "one sentence" was within this gem:
"Similarly, Mr. Perens -- who is not a lawyer -- voiced an opinion about whether the Grsecurity Access Agreement violated the General Public License. No court has addressed the legal issue. Thus, his 'opinion' is not a 'fact' that can be proven provably false and thus is not actionable as defamation."
Case 3:17-cv-04002-LB Document 53, p. 14 ll. 23-26 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).
Well that certainly proves that your opinion is correct... /s.
I'm sorry, Bruce, but are you referring to that nonsense where you claimed that customers of a distributor who received GPLv2 software would be violating the GPLv2 if their distributor had violated the GPLv2 because they had not received a valid license?
Do you care to provide a link to that opinion and to identify the "one sentence," because Open Source Security, Inc. and Bradley Spengler v. Bruce Perens did not rule on whether the statement was true or not - merely that Spengler could not stop you from publishing your (erroneous) analysis.
I'm pretty sure that I never opined on whether their suit against you would succeed -- that was a fool's errand. Come back to me when someone successfully sues one of Open Source Security, Inc.'s customers for infringement.
Minimize and excuse while attacking the "posturing" companies for following the community norm? Surely you're better than that, Bruce.
Apple and oranges, Bruce. Their proprietary licenses do not "terminate" so that it becomes impossible to become licensed by purchasing the commercial product. The GPLv2 purports to do so. Having represented clients in BSA audits, I have firsthand knowledge that their "trolling" consists of demanding a small multiple of the retail price of the missing licenses. That is a far cry from McHardy's shenanigans
Unless you can identify specific and deleterious differences between the RedHat approach and the Community Enforcement Statement, this is merely a cheap shot against corporate contributors to GPLed projects. 99% of individual contributors to projects never assert their copyright either. Am I to assume that you'll attack those that sign on to the Community Enforcement Statement for "posturing" as well?
Or they have been practicing what they preach, and are now putting a public face on the policy in order to pressure others to do the same. Just because the FSF/SFLC works with those in breach to resolve the problem without litigation does not mean that there are not bad actors as well.
In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.
Reading comprehension fail. From TFS: "The companies which have agreed to adopt the 'Common Cure Rights Commitment' said before they file or continue to prosecute those accused of violating covered licenses, they will allow for users to cure and reinstate their licenses."
They use the GPL. They are pledging to to this with their copyrighted material licensed under the GPL.
Geesh...
No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.
BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.
So, similar to the Uzbeks, you simply chose to ignore the next paragraph, which inconveniently notes that:
"That ignores, however, the fact that the Amu Darya - known to Central Asian schoolchildren as the Amazon of the region - was diverted into myriad irrigation channels supplying Uzbekistanâ(TM)s own cotton and rice fields."
It's was the only remaining source of water because the Uzbeks completely diverted their own source of water. But that paints a far less sympathetic picture.
Whereupon the Trump wing of the Republican party immediately adopted the same attitude because "fuck you, we won."
8 more months till that comes crashing down, and I'll be throwing the party.
You cannot complain of "editor's" missing little things and subsequently complain that being caught out on a little thing is excessive pedantry.
Try again.
Fine - show me where a baker has been forced to make cakes for gay weddings. It will be difficult since that case has yet to be finally decided.
Until it is, you haven't even even validated the premise of your argument.
So adding an incorrect apostrophe is not a little thing? Because ordinarily "like [example]" does not mean that the preceding object (category) is limited to that specific example.
So you're too lazy to self-edit your own writing? I see.
It did not noticeably delay either of your flawed responses. I'd recheck that hypothesis if I were you.
Not a coincidence, but rather a lazy fuck-up of the same caliber as the one of which you complained.
Covering your ass with meager rationalizations does not disprove my critique or ability to edit material. In fact, it appears that I'm quite a bit better than you in that regard.
The irony is palpable.
But Anandtech is merely rereporting from TechNews, which doesn't mention anything about "processed" wafers. None of the other stories that I've seen concerning the outage mention "processed" wafers. So no, I'm not crediting one word that apparently was inserted by an author who's only acknowledged source is another author's work that doesn't include that fact.
You should realize that these wafers build up 64 layers of flash storage and so include hundreds of precisely deposited layers of deposited and etched materials. Now imaging losing power in the middle of depositing or etching a layer so that the respective materials either fail to be deposited in the required amounts or dwell on the partially completed layer for too long.
I've never seen pictures of you, so I'm reasonably sure that you're merely one of Alex Jones' AI chatbots and can be safely ignored.
BTW: Don't bother linking to a picture. I know about Photoshop, you sneaky bot you...
Adding more words does not transform speculation as to motive into evidence.
Yes, those are the only two possible explanations, and you are the arbiter of stupidity.
That's it. Keep attacking the source of any information that you find inconvenient. Don't prove or disprove any information yourself.
Pretty clearly? Based on what evidence? All you've done is speculated as to motive.
Well, according to CTS-Labs website and whitepaper (quoting from the whitepaper):
AMD has recently announced that EPYC and Ryzen embedded processors are being sold as high security solutions for mission-critical aerospace and defense systems. AMD's latest generation Vega GPUs, which also have Secure Processor inside of them, are being integrated as deep-learning accelerators on self-driving cars. We urge the security community to study the security of these devices in depth before allowing them on mission-critical systems that could potentially put lives at risk.
"Reasons" being he runs out of patience faster than the end date of the responsible disclosure silent period?
Themselves? I mean, if you bought that Ormandy's 5 day-short shot at Microsoft "was independent of Google," you've got to buy CTS's explanation as well.
From their whitepaper:
"To ensure public safety, all technical details that could be used to reproduce the vulnerabilities have been
redacted from this document. CTS has privately shared this information with AMD, select security
companies that can develop mitigations, and the U.S. regulators. What follows is a description of the
security problems we discovered and the risks they pose for users and organizations."
If the information can't be used directly to exploit vulnerabilities, then why should end users not know that there are security issues with the processors? Especially critical systems end users?
It's responsible enough for Tavis Ormandy. You can simply make up your own shortened periods rather than sticking to a standard 60-90 period. Just make up an excuse and fire away...
Bullshit. You've added on 2 hours of daylight that don't exist. 4:45-ish to 21:20 ish.
Unlikely, since most jurisdictions that contemplate the change want to move to permanent summer/savings time, not standard standard time.