Not bad earnings, considering that this means (a) the album went platinum with no marketing help from a major label, and (b) even letting consumers name their own price (and pirate the album freely), Radiohead is making better royalties than they would through a label.
Destroys both of the arguments the labels make in their own defense. Other artists would be fools not to learn from Radiohead.
Keep in mind even though Radiohead's album did incredibly without the help of the labels, the labels have already invested millions in their marking, videoclips, airtime and so on. And the fact they made the news because they are among the first to go independent in this way.
I'm all for artists independence, in fact I'm quite excited by this news, I hope more and more popular artists follow their lead.
BUT, we should be careful in our analysis, since bias may ruin our arguments. The model will be proven to work only when a group which started online, grew to those dimensions by themselves. I know it'll happen personally, but we need to see the proof, and let it be the norm rather than the exception (for great artists).
Keep in mind when Chizen talks about After Effects and Illustrator online, this is not even similar to the actual desktop applications.
Seeing his online Photoshop and Premiere offers, it's just brand abuse. Said online applications are very simplified Picassa like photo manipulator for consumers, and online Premiere allows you to click few pre-made clips and join them together with few premade transitions.
I really find it insulting Adobe abuses their brands this way, spreading confusion and doubt among their own customers. Yes, their brands are quite popular, but they're doing a very good job at diluting them.
Hahahaha... hahahaha.. Jesus, you can't make this stuff up. Thanks, Slashdot!
No..., Microsoft isn't after SugarCRM, a PHP CRM system.
It's not after Novell either, since this would undermine their Windows brand. You probably understand that suddenly starting to sell another OS while Vista is having some harsh time won't be great for Microsoft's business. Partnering with Novell the way it is right now is the perfect solution for at least 5 years ahead.
Expect the OSS companies to produce products that tie well into the Microsoft development ecosystem, and thus advertising the platforms Microsoft maintains.
Pretty much. The idea is to make people feel safer because they are doing something. What that something is is less important, they might as well require passengers to do a tap dance or whatever amuses them the most
Right... Well that'd make sense few years ago, but right now, all people in US I know are kinda fed up "feeling safe" if you know what I mean.
looks like Mistersoftie is up to their old hype the vaporware [wikipedia.org] tricks to dissuade buyers from going with attractive alternatives.
Because, of course, you can't wait to have MinWin on your machine - the Windows that does only one single thing: publish your tasklist via HTTP.
Hmmm, so much better than Leopard:P
Come on, it's just a tech demonstration, Microsoft in fact closed themselves solid after the release of Vista. Management thinks part of the bad reception of Vista is because they were so open about the whole process for the entire 5 years.
For some part they are right. We'd never know about the dropped features if they were never pre-announced. Most products plan various features that get dropped or deferred in the process of development.
We'd also be surprised at the Aero Glass UI, and the new security features.
What we'd be most surprised about though, is the lack of consistency in the UI and stability/performance issues. So I'm not sure Microsoft has the right strategy right now.
I can't help but wonder if this is a reaction to OS X being used on iPhone and iTouch(mySelf). Maybe they're trying to consolidate windows/windows CE. Or maybe this is just another feature that will be cut in favor of demanding a DNA sample before allowing you to access the internet.
Not really, since this has been in the works for over 3 years now.
It's a reaction to them coding mess upon mess for years and not knowing what their own source does as a result. Technically it's still the Windows code, but major refactoring is happening. It's a good thing.
Compatibility with the Win32 API will be preserved, but some oddities which software out there relies on will be gone.
I've seen flight attendants get very upset with passengers who swear that their phones are in airplane mode, and who offer to show the current setting. Some of them do not allow for anything that looks like a phone to even appear operational.
They also miss the wireless notebooks that are operational and probing for their home networks.
Victims of group think. They're upset since they know they're supposed to be upset.
Not much different than groupthink rules in IRC, for example, where the op suddenly gets super upset at you if you mention a channel, even if it's legitimate: you just did a "channel invite"!
Let me guess, you think cell phones inside movie theatres is a neat idea too?
You're a very poor guesser. You just compared watching a movie for couple of hours in your nearby theater, to a Transatlantic travel taking potentially a day or more.
In which case the ability to keep in contact with someone is more needed? Let me guess...
My last flight we had someone who couldn't get a particular movie to play on the (obviously cheap) entertainment system. It was an old movie and (in my opinion) not very good but they kept complaining until the pilot decided to reset the system just to shut the guy up. After the reset he was fine, his movie played. Everyone else started getting random movies and the sound system didn't work but he was quite happy with himself. Add that to the multiple people swinging their luggage about without care while we were on the ground, the guy who went and got something out of his luggage when we were on the final runway, and the person who complained about the food and the trip was a quite unpleasant 9+ hours. Now add on someone talking on a cell phone for the entire trip, they don't even have to be that loud but they, or someone else, is always talking. Tell me, do you want to fly on that airplane?
Imagine a war. The field is full of mines, airplanes throwing bombs on your head, the enemy shooting you with automatic guns, tanks approaching. And now add to this severe itch in your behind. Would you want to be in this war?
But despite your straw man argument: the discussion here isn't "allow annoying people" or "disallow annoying people". It's about cellphones. Cellphones ban won't solve the issue with the annoying guy who caused reset of the entertainment system, or people swinging baggage, or complaining about the food.
Don't extrapolate the issue to fantastical dimensions. It could be as easy as the captain saying to the passengers to avoid unnecessary conversations, and keep the necessary short. If someone is loud and annoying the stewardess could still make notice of this to him/her.
I agree with you in general that politely asking someone not to do something that is annoying usually works.
What does being "irrational jackass" have to do with cellphones. I don't want it to be encouraged to be "irrational jackass", since you can be such without a cellphone as well.
And neither is allowing cellphones in any way allowing people to be irrational jackasses. If stewardess can halt the flight because of a kid that says "Buy buy plane", I'm sure there will be enough arsenal left to deal with extreme cases.
Right, so predictable. I see it now, 80% of the comments talking about how annoying some teen will be talking for hours to his friends on the plane.
Don't forget the crying babies rant, and the fat guys who don't buy two seats rant.
Here's the thing: those rants are quickly becoming more annoying than the actual problems.
It's about time some common sense is applied to the problem and cell phones are allowed as they should be. If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be.
Windows Vista broke some back-compat with old apps, Windows 7 is even a bigger departure. They do know it'll cause back compat issues.
Code will need to be cleaned up and adapted. Either this, or they could instead ship 30 GB monstrocity with 40 years of collected garbage kept inside for back compat.
And they know the time when this could possibly work ended with the release of Vista.
They always use 1 branch of code. They never use multiple branches of code. [...] they always have 1 tree with many branches.
Oook.. you know, they gotta be pretty quick to be able to completely reverse their source code base organization from the time you started writing your post to the time you ended it.
Honesty, and I'm not trolling here, but this looks pretty scary. This reminds me of driver-signing gone awry. I don't see the potential for open-source/free modules due to item #3. Arbitrary application, memory, CPU, and process limits are also concerning.
Don't worry, companies patent lots of things they don't use.
In the case of this module subscription, it won't be implemented for the base features of the OS, such as 3D acceleration, since the market won't allow them. Apple is picking speed, Linux is picking some speed.
By the time 7 is out, Microsoft will already be feeling the heat of those two emerging competitors and not playing with fire a lot.
They may implement it for some optional extra features, but that's not that big of a deal, or anything new for that matter.
Take it from a former Microserf - this "internal project" will be taken to the nearest corner and shot (and maybe also mutilated and spat on). When you have a huge turd of a codebase dating back 15 years in some places, the last thing you want to do is dramatically rehash it. Projects like this are DOA at Microsoft after the WinFS fiasco.
I guess you didn't understand what they mean by internal. They won't commercialize the kernel itself. They have planned to, are, and WILL use this project to build Window 7 on.
Unless you've missed that Microsoft has hit some hard limits in the way it managed its codebase and for 2-3 years now is spending heavily on analyzing the source code, separating the code in layers, modules, and removing dependencies between the modules.
I'm more curious what will Apple name their next major release, if ever.
OSX, OSXI, OSXII, OSXIV...?
Of course, once they reach 10.9, they have the option of pissing in the face of basic number representation and call the next version 10.10, then 10.11...
The demo shows the very kernel and command line of Windows is something like 25 MB, and takes 14 MB of RAM.
Can't help but thing this doesn't fair well to Linux and BSD which have mostly the same features (or alternative).
DamnSmallLinux is 50 MB but that goes together with the: graphics subsystem, deskop, media player, ftp client, email, spreadsheet, firefox, graphics editor... etc. etc.
The demoed MinWin here can't display a picture to save its life (except in ASCII) and contained just a very basic HTTP server that spews the task list back to a browser.
But those little things don't matter anymore on the desktop, and with Penryn and future advancements in the x86 platform, they won't matter on the mobile devices either. Just I hope they manage to componentize the entire Windows environment this way. It'll mean much higher quality code, easier back compat, and much more predictable behavior of future Windows releases.
For all their failings, you've gotta give Apple credit for having guts to change things - the Mac has gone through three CPU architectures, and two completely different operating system kernels.
Comparing the situation of Apple and Microsoft is dangerously wrong. Microsoft would most likely bankrupt if they did what Apple did with the three CPU architectures.
I agree with you MS have good intentions and think big. Where I don't agree is that having a product after 5 years of development is just some "things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do".
What else are they supposed to do? Sit on it?
They made mistakes with Vista. First mistake was they started developing Vista on post-XP beta code. It created a huge mess, so they dropped it, took the more modular Windows 2003 codebase, further analyzed it, modularized it, and in the span of 2 years, ported their old code over to end with what's Vista.
They just thought they'd be done too soon. The vision of Vista is great, but they had to carry it out in 2-3 quicker releases, each with lesser more incremental upgrades.
What Microsoft learned from Vista is they need to get their code in order. The new kernel design is part of this effort. I think they're on a good track, I pray like hell they take their time with it, and finish it properly, versus rush it like Vista.
They use the law as if you can program the world, just if you say so:
We do not permit our website to be "spidered", or a program run through the website, for purposes of obtaining email addresses to be used in commercial email campaigns. We do permit search engines to access our website for purposes of indexing search results. We do not authorize you to access the Dozier Internet Law, P.C. website by conducting "click attacks", which is the practice of clicking on one of our online ads for the purpose of running up our advertising costs.
Hehe, well, guess what guys: the email harvesting and indexing bots won't read your threats.
Who gives a shit? The only other browsers worth using, Firefox and Opera, are both FREE. How is bundling IE with Windows hurting them? They don't make any money from their browsers anyway!
It's worth thinking *why* are they free. They're free since they can't compete with IE. Historically browsers were not free. The search boxes though still make plenty of money to support those vendors, as long as they can convince people their product is better than whatever comes with Windows.
That said, the proposed solutions are silly as well.
Solution 1: bundle Opera, Firefox and Safari. Can you guess how this will end? Those browser vendors, having guaranteed distribution, will monetize it by starting to put promotions and offer various products inside their browser. Think something along the lines of Netscape.com integration in the late Netscape browsers. This "solution" will turn Firefox, Opera and Safari into craplets you remove the moment you get home with your new PC.
Solution 2: unbundle IE. Lame. It's 2007, and an OS should come with a suitable media player, browser, and backup solution, among other. Heroic attempts to artificially cripple the OS and turn back the arrows of time always made me laugh.
So, what is the solution? Firefox has shown us what it is: simply make a browser that's sufficiently better so people will want to install it. It's that simple.
Yes, MS will still put IE in Windows, but Apple puts Safari in OSX, and Canonical puts Firefox in Ubuntu. Each OS needs a default browser.
If you don't like the default choice, spread knowledge about the alternative browsers and operating systems people can pick from.
many people use IE happily if only because they are not even aware of the existence of firefox and opera
i'd similarly wonder how many mac OSX users use firefox instead of safari
for everyone to have a win-win situation, the OEMs need to start pre-installing firefox AND opera AND safari in the windows boxes. OpenOffice can come too:)
No, no.. wait, to have a win-win situation, all computers should come with 500GB disks loaded with a selection of 10 different OS, and the user can pick which to launch on startup.
Aaaah, nothing like a simple and easy to use solution! Win!
Obscurity implies that people don't know what is happening exactly. In crypto the algorithms are published and available to anyone -- not obscure. You could criticize public key crypto (those using large primes) for using a yet to be proven hard problem, but not for being obscure.
Well, it'll be even less obscure if everyone published their private keys.
Actually, weren't all these features available in XP?
ASLR is not present in XP. Sandboxing.. that is vaguely defined in the article/summary.
All OS-es in the world make use of *some* sandboxing on the hardware level, ring-0, ring-1 etc. Also all OS-es have privilege implementation (file system privileges, etc.), including pre-Leopard OSX.
But I think Leopard implements something more granular. Windows 7 is also said to run all Win32 code in more pronounced and more granular sandbox than before (which means it's not in XP). Managed code (.NET) won't need this sandbox as it's natively supported in the runtime already.
Microsoft definitely has something going on with.NET code though. The kind of security you can get there can't be compared with anything you can do on the software or even hardware level, with pure unmanaged code.
Slashdot Mirror
Not bad earnings, considering that this means (a) the album went platinum with no marketing help from a major label, and (b) even letting consumers name their own price (and pirate the album freely), Radiohead is making better royalties than they would through a label.
Destroys both of the arguments the labels make in their own defense. Other artists would be fools not to learn from Radiohead.
Keep in mind even though Radiohead's album did incredibly without the help of the labels, the labels have already invested millions in their marking, videoclips, airtime and so on. And the fact they made the news because they are among the first to go independent in this way.
I'm all for artists independence, in fact I'm quite excited by this news, I hope more and more popular artists follow their lead.
BUT, we should be careful in our analysis, since bias may ruin our arguments. The model will be proven to work only when a group which started online, grew to those dimensions by themselves. I know it'll happen personally, but we need to see the proof, and let it be the norm rather than the exception (for great artists).
Keep in mind when Chizen talks about After Effects and Illustrator online, this is not even similar to the actual desktop applications.
Seeing his online Photoshop and Premiere offers, it's just brand abuse. Said online applications are very simplified Picassa like photo manipulator for consumers, and online Premiere allows you to click few pre-made clips and join them together with few premade transitions.
I really find it insulting Adobe abuses their brands this way, spreading confusion and doubt among their own customers. Yes, their brands are quite popular, but they're doing a very good job at diluting them.
Hahahaha... hahahaha.. Jesus, you can't make this stuff up. Thanks, Slashdot!
No..., Microsoft isn't after SugarCRM, a PHP CRM system.
It's not after Novell either, since this would undermine their Windows brand. You probably understand that suddenly starting to sell another OS while Vista is having some harsh time won't be great for Microsoft's business. Partnering with Novell the way it is right now is the perfect solution for at least 5 years ahead.
Expect the OSS companies to produce products that tie well into the Microsoft development ecosystem, and thus advertising the platforms Microsoft maintains.
Pretty much. The idea is to make people feel safer because they are doing something. What that something is is less important, they might as well require passengers to do a tap dance or whatever amuses them the most
Right... Well that'd make sense few years ago, but right now, all people in US I know are kinda fed up "feeling safe" if you know what I mean.
looks like Mistersoftie is up to their old hype the vaporware [wikipedia.org] tricks to dissuade buyers from going with attractive alternatives.
:P
Because, of course, you can't wait to have MinWin on your machine - the Windows that does only one single thing: publish your tasklist via HTTP.
Hmmm, so much better than Leopard
Come on, it's just a tech demonstration, Microsoft in fact closed themselves solid after the release of Vista. Management thinks part of the bad reception of Vista is because they were so open about the whole process for the entire 5 years.
For some part they are right. We'd never know about the dropped features if they were never pre-announced. Most products plan various features that get dropped or deferred in the process of development.
We'd also be surprised at the Aero Glass UI, and the new security features.
What we'd be most surprised about though, is the lack of consistency in the UI and stability/performance issues. So I'm not sure Microsoft has the right strategy right now.
I can't help but wonder if this is a reaction to OS X being used on iPhone and iTouch(mySelf). Maybe they're trying to consolidate windows/windows CE. Or maybe this is just another feature that will be cut in favor of demanding a DNA sample before allowing you to access the internet.
Not really, since this has been in the works for over 3 years now.
It's a reaction to them coding mess upon mess for years and not knowing what their own source does as a result. Technically it's still the Windows code, but major refactoring is happening. It's a good thing.
Compatibility with the Win32 API will be preserved, but some oddities which software out there relies on will be gone.
I've seen flight attendants get very upset with passengers who swear that their phones are in airplane mode, and who offer to show the current setting. Some of them do not allow for anything that looks like a phone to even appear operational.
They also miss the wireless notebooks that are operational and probing for their home networks.
Victims of group think. They're upset since they know they're supposed to be upset.
Not much different than groupthink rules in IRC, for example, where the op suddenly gets super upset at you if you mention a channel, even if it's legitimate: you just did a "channel invite"!
Let me guess, you think cell phones inside movie theatres is a neat idea too?
You're a very poor guesser. You just compared watching a movie for couple of hours in your nearby theater, to a Transatlantic travel taking potentially a day or more.
In which case the ability to keep in contact with someone is more needed? Let me guess...
My last flight we had someone who couldn't get a particular movie to play on the (obviously cheap) entertainment system. It was an old movie and (in my opinion) not very good but they kept complaining until the pilot decided to reset the system just to shut the guy up. After the reset he was fine, his movie played. Everyone else started getting random movies and the sound system didn't work but he was quite happy with himself. Add that to the multiple people swinging their luggage about without care while we were on the ground, the guy who went and got something out of his luggage when we were on the final runway, and the person who complained about the food and the trip was a quite unpleasant 9+ hours. Now add on someone talking on a cell phone for the entire trip, they don't even have to be that loud but they, or someone else, is always talking. Tell me, do you want to fly on that airplane?
Imagine a war. The field is full of mines, airplanes throwing bombs on your head, the enemy shooting you with automatic guns, tanks approaching. And now add to this severe itch in your behind. Would you want to be in this war?
But despite your straw man argument: the discussion here isn't "allow annoying people" or "disallow annoying people". It's about cellphones. Cellphones ban won't solve the issue with the annoying guy who caused reset of the entertainment system, or people swinging baggage, or complaining about the food.
Don't extrapolate the issue to fantastical dimensions. It could be as easy as the captain saying to the passengers to avoid unnecessary conversations, and keep the necessary short. If someone is loud and annoying the stewardess could still make notice of this to him/her.
I agree with you in general that politely asking someone not to do something that is annoying usually works.
What does being "irrational jackass" have to do with cellphones. I don't want it to be encouraged to be "irrational jackass", since you can be such without a cellphone as well.
And neither is allowing cellphones in any way allowing people to be irrational jackasses. If stewardess can halt the flight because of a kid that says "Buy buy plane", I'm sure there will be enough arsenal left to deal with extreme cases.
DEAR GOD NO!!!!
Right, so predictable. I see it now, 80% of the comments talking about how annoying some teen will be talking for hours to his friends on the plane.
Don't forget the crying babies rant, and the fat guys who don't buy two seats rant.
Here's the thing: those rants are quickly becoming more annoying than the actual problems.
It's about time some common sense is applied to the problem and cell phones are allowed as they should be. If some guy next to you is annoying, just ask him nicely to not be.
Windows Vista broke some back-compat with old apps, Windows 7 is even a bigger departure. They do know it'll cause back compat issues.
Code will need to be cleaned up and adapted. Either this, or they could instead ship 30 GB monstrocity with 40 years of collected garbage kept inside for back compat.
And they know the time when this could possibly work ended with the release of Vista.
They always use 1 branch of code. They never use multiple branches of code. [...] they always have 1 tree with many branches.
Oook.. you know, they gotta be pretty quick to be able to completely reverse their source code base organization from the time you started writing your post to the time you ended it.
Honesty, and I'm not trolling here, but this looks pretty scary. This reminds me of driver-signing gone awry. I don't see the potential for open-source/free modules due to item #3. Arbitrary application, memory, CPU, and process limits are also concerning.
Don't worry, companies patent lots of things they don't use.
In the case of this module subscription, it won't be implemented for the base features of the OS, such as 3D acceleration, since the market won't allow them. Apple is picking speed, Linux is picking some speed.
By the time 7 is out, Microsoft will already be feeling the heat of those two emerging competitors and not playing with fire a lot.
They may implement it for some optional extra features, but that's not that big of a deal, or anything new for that matter.
Take it from a former Microserf - this "internal project" will be taken to the nearest corner and shot (and maybe also mutilated and spat on). When you have a huge turd of a codebase dating back 15 years in some places, the last thing you want to do is dramatically rehash it. Projects like this are DOA at Microsoft after the WinFS fiasco.
I guess you didn't understand what they mean by internal. They won't commercialize the kernel itself. They have planned to, are, and WILL use this project to build Window 7 on.
Unless you've missed that Microsoft has hit some hard limits in the way it managed its codebase and for 2-3 years now is spending heavily on analyzing the source code, separating the code in layers, modules, and removing dependencies between the modules.
There's no other way forward.
3 = 3 9x = 4 2k/xp = 5 vista = 6 7 = 7 Nuff said.
Similar thing happened to Flash versioning:
(1), 2, 3, 4, 5, MX, MX2004, 8, 9, 10
Branding gone awry.
Apparently it goes:
...
2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7!
I'm more curious what will Apple name their next major release, if ever.
OSX, OSXI, OSXII, OSXIV...?
Of course, once they reach 10.9, they have the option of pissing in the face of basic number representation and call the next version 10.10, then 10.11
The demo shows the very kernel and command line of Windows is something like 25 MB, and takes 14 MB of RAM.
Can't help but thing this doesn't fair well to Linux and BSD which have mostly the same features (or alternative).
DamnSmallLinux is 50 MB but that goes together with the: graphics subsystem, deskop, media player, ftp client, email, spreadsheet, firefox, graphics editor... etc. etc.
The demoed MinWin here can't display a picture to save its life (except in ASCII) and contained just a very basic HTTP server that spews the task list back to a browser.
But those little things don't matter anymore on the desktop, and with Penryn and future advancements in the x86 platform, they won't matter on the mobile devices either. Just I hope they manage to componentize the entire Windows environment this way. It'll mean much higher quality code, easier back compat, and much more predictable behavior of future Windows releases.
For all their failings, you've gotta give Apple credit for having guts to change things - the Mac has gone through three CPU architectures, and two completely different operating system kernels.
Comparing the situation of Apple and Microsoft is dangerously wrong. Microsoft would most likely bankrupt if they did what Apple did with the three CPU architectures.
I agree with you MS have good intentions and think big. Where I don't agree is that having a product after 5 years of development is just some "things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do".
What else are they supposed to do? Sit on it?
They made mistakes with Vista. First mistake was they started developing Vista on post-XP beta code. It created a huge mess, so they dropped it, took the more modular Windows 2003 codebase, further analyzed it, modularized it, and in the span of 2 years, ported their old code over to end with what's Vista.
They just thought they'd be done too soon. The vision of Vista is great, but they had to carry it out in 2-3 quicker releases, each with lesser more incremental upgrades.
What Microsoft learned from Vista is they need to get their code in order. The new kernel design is part of this effort. I think they're on a good track, I pray like hell they take their time with it, and finish it properly, versus rush it like Vista.
They use the law as if you can program the world, just if you say so:
/Backup /Form /acl_users /MailHost /test /test1
/
We do not permit our website to be "spidered", or a program run through the website, for purposes of obtaining email addresses to be used in commercial email campaigns. We do permit search engines to access our website for purposes of indexing search results. We do not authorize you to access the Dozier Internet Law, P.C. website by conducting "click attacks", which is the practice of clicking on one of our online ads for the purpose of running up our advertising costs.
Hehe, well, guess what guys: the email harvesting and indexing bots won't read your threats.
Their robots.txt says:
User-agent: *
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Thanks for letting us know where *not* to go. I'm sure the Chinese spam bots will also *not* go there and *not* see what you have there.
Curiously they should've just put this: Disallow:
Who gives a shit? The only other browsers worth using, Firefox and Opera, are both FREE. How is bundling IE with Windows hurting them? They don't make any money from their browsers anyway!
It's worth thinking *why* are they free. They're free since they can't compete with IE. Historically browsers were not free. The search boxes though still make plenty of money to support those vendors, as long as they can convince people their product is better than whatever comes with Windows.
That said, the proposed solutions are silly as well.
Solution 1: bundle Opera, Firefox and Safari. Can you guess how this will end? Those browser vendors, having guaranteed distribution, will monetize it by starting to put promotions and offer various products inside their browser. Think something along the lines of Netscape.com integration in the late Netscape browsers. This "solution" will turn Firefox, Opera and Safari into craplets you remove the moment you get home with your new PC.
Solution 2: unbundle IE. Lame. It's 2007, and an OS should come with a suitable media player, browser, and backup solution, among other. Heroic attempts to artificially cripple the OS and turn back the arrows of time always made me laugh.
So, what is the solution? Firefox has shown us what it is: simply make a browser that's sufficiently better so people will want to install it. It's that simple.
Yes, MS will still put IE in Windows, but Apple puts Safari in OSX, and Canonical puts Firefox in Ubuntu. Each OS needs a default browser.
If you don't like the default choice, spread knowledge about the alternative browsers and operating systems people can pick from.
many people use IE happily if only because they are not even aware of the existence of firefox and opera
:)
i'd similarly wonder how many mac OSX users use firefox instead of safari
for everyone to have a win-win situation, the OEMs need to start pre-installing firefox AND opera AND safari in the windows boxes. OpenOffice can come too
No, no.. wait, to have a win-win situation, all computers should come with 500GB disks loaded with a selection of 10 different OS, and the user can pick which to launch on startup.
Aaaah, nothing like a simple and easy to use solution! Win!
Obscurity implies that people don't know what is happening exactly. In crypto the algorithms are published and available to anyone -- not obscure. You could criticize public key crypto (those using large primes) for using a yet to be proven hard problem, but not for being obscure.
Well, it'll be even less obscure if everyone published their private keys.
Nice to hear those Microsoft people are about to catch up with the Java sandbox model from 1997 ;)
.NET over Java in this area.
It's apparent you have no clue of the advantages of
Actually, weren't all these features available in XP?
.NET code though. The kind of security you can get there can't be compared with anything you can do on the software or even hardware level, with pure unmanaged code.
ASLR is not present in XP. Sandboxing.. that is vaguely defined in the article/summary.
All OS-es in the world make use of *some* sandboxing on the hardware level, ring-0, ring-1 etc.
Also all OS-es have privilege implementation (file system privileges, etc.), including pre-Leopard OSX.
But I think Leopard implements something more granular. Windows 7 is also said to run all Win32 code in more pronounced and more granular sandbox than before (which means it's not in XP). Managed code (.NET) won't need this sandbox as it's natively supported in the runtime already.
Microsoft definitely has something going on with