The others are good but the above is the only one that is both funny and wont confuse newcomers or those who don't spend every day hanging out on El Reg.
4544 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
The others are good but the above is the only one that is both funny and wont confuse newcomers or those who don't spend every day hanging out on El Reg.
"Google wasn't cuddly when they went guns blazing against Microsoft accusing Bing of copying their search results... and rightly so!"
Not that one again! That was an incredibly contrived and misleading test. What they did was create a random string that had no search results anywhere, e.g. "mbzrxpgjys" and then they searched for this with Google. And this is the key part, they did so with feedback options in Internet Explorer turned on that let it submit URL information back to MS in order to help it improve its results. They then clicked on specific URLs in response to the random string so that the random string would become associated with that URL. This was then submitted to MS to add to their search results (via the browser options they had selected to allow this). Thus they were deliberately and knowingly creating a situation in which the only possible source of connection between the random string and the clicked on URL was the behaviour of one user who had options turned on to submit their behaviour to MS. When they then went to Bing and searched for the random string, thus their clicked on URL came up.
So at no point was MS copying anything from Google, they added the choice of a user who deliberately associated a random string with a URL that had nothing to do with that string (how could it?).
In no way does the headline "Bing copies Google's search results" create an accurate impression of what occurs. Seriously - from that headline would you guess how contrived and arbitrary what was actually going on here? That someone was specifically crafting scenarios in which the only possible source of a relationship between a search term and a result was their browser and then voluntarily submitting that information to MS? No, I don't think so. But some people like the headline even though it's grossly misleading and don't bother to explain what was actually going on.
One of the points about Android is that it's supposed to be Free Software, yes? I know that Google have kind of broken that slightly by not releasing everything they do at the time (with promises it will come later), but it's still open source software isn't it? But any patent deal that Google forge with Apple will be just between them. Meaning if anyone wants to use Android that isn't Google, they can't do so because (a) Apple may sue them out of business and (b) the biggest logical defender of against any dubious patents - Google - has already settled and will leave others to fight their own defences.
Is that right? I haven't followed Android for a little while but it's still Free Software with a lot of Open Source developers contributing under GPL, correct? If so, an agreement basically turns it into a one-way street with Google able to use it but everyone else at risk of being sued if they try.
"They're far too mainstream to be hipster, shirley?"
The genius of Apple's marketing is to present something as elite and special, when everyone and their dog has one.
Don't forget actual separate user accounts!
The phone looks nice apart from the fact that it's the size of the monolith from 2001. Why phones that size sell, I have no idea. But the hybrid? It would be great - if it had a trackpad! I've looked through the Win8 hybrids that Samsung, Toshiba and Sony have revealed at the event and they all seem to have this mistaken idea that just because the screen is touch-capable, that they can forgo a trackpad. I can't be the only one that thinks this is a mistake. I mean the Surface has a trackpad so I hope at least some of the OEM ones will still have these.
Also, the Samsung presentation was hillarious in all the wrong ways. My favourite line from it: "Okay, so we've heard a lot of shit about sharing, tonight..."
"She was near flat-chested."
You have bigger tits, presumably?
I have owned a number of pieces of very good hardware from Samsung. But their presentations have always been hysterically bad. Their reveal of the Ativ line yesterday featured the classic line: "Now, we've heard a lot of shit about sharing tonight..."
Oh, and -1 point for advertising your products by having a woman in a tight dress next to them. Could the sex not be represented by a woman engineer who works there, or does Samsung not have any?
"Depends on whether the AMD guys can pronounce "Jaguar"."
"All of these can be done in Windows 7 as well, with free applications. I don't need to see how many emails I have, by the way. I just need to know that I have new emails."
The point in this case isn't saying that you can't do the same in Windows 7, the point is that if you can do the same in Windows 8, why is Andrew Orlowski suggesting that it's such a disaster? You can say that Windows 8 doesn't offer you enough advantages to change (though there are plenty of improvements), that's not evidence that it's worse. I want to examine what motivates the author to talk about it in such terrible terms when most of the metrics I've come up with show it is the same or better to get stuff done.
"I fail to see how this is a good thing. People not used with computers will uninstall applications by mistake, and then blame Windows anyway. This is change for change sake. Bad."
Well if someone clicks an option called "Uninstall" and then confirms to the message asking them whether they want to Uninstall, then I think it's reasonable to uninstall something. Most people who are ignorant of how to manage a computer take the approach of not clicking on things that sound dangerous. (That's why they end up ignorant in the first place - no mistakes, no learning).
"(Or you just pin to Start Menu, or Pin to Taskbar and stop using retarded examples to make your point)."
As said, I use about twenty programs as my frequent ones. That's a lot to have pinned. Some of us don't like to have a tonne of tiny icons and I wouldn't like to see my Start menu with twenty pinned programs.
"use excel regularly enough it'll just sit in your recent programs. Or I can type ex in the search bar"
Not when you use over ten programs "regularly enough" though. Excel keeps appearing and disappearing from my Start menu and I use it pretty often. It's just that I use a lot of other programs often as well. And you can type 'ex' in Windows 8 as well, except that I find it shows up results more quickly in Win8 and also sorts them quite nicely.
You say Windows 8 doesn't bring anything to the table you desire. Well I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to those who say it is disaster as Andrew Orlowski seems to think and asking them to prove it with some actual metrics.
I think conspiracy theories based on Samsung and Apple being in cahoots right now are rather slim. If there are any two organizations less likely to be tag-teaming the rest of the market, it's hard to think of them. BP and Greenpeace, perhaps?
You normally write fairly objective articles and like to consider yourself unbiased... Lets do some actual metrics and see how the Windows 8 interface actually is worse than Windows 7. I'll start:
The Win8 Start screen only fits about twenty programs on a typical laptop and upto around fifty on my 1920x1200 monitor. How many programs do you commonly use? Because I'm a power user and for me it still normally comes down to around twenty. So in Win8 I am always only ever two clicks away from the programs that I would normally want. Unlike in Windows 7 where if I want Excel for example, I may well have to navigate from All Programs -> Office -> Excel in the hierachical menu. So advantage Win8.
Not being a chameleon I am incapable of focusing on two distinct areas at once, therefore whether the entire page is a Start screen briefly or only the menu, in neither case do I need to be looking at the rest of the screen. So there's no inherent disadvantage in having the screen switch to a Start Screen rather than pop up a menu.
The Start screen is informational - allowing me to see at a glance the number of emails I have waiting, social networking updates, financial infomation and upcoming calendar events. The hierarchical menu is not. Advantage Windows 8.
I can uninstall programs directly from the Start screen with a right click - no having to go via the Control Panel. Advantage Windows 8.
In Windows 8 I have active corners on each of my monitors, rather than having to traverse two 24" monitors to get to the Start menu as I do in Win 7 (if I choose not to use the keyboard). Advantage Windows 8.
Windows 8 is capable of running all the same Desktop programs in the same way as Windows 7, this no disadvantage to this in Windows 8.
So go on, you're turn. No subjective issues of taste - actual metrics. Why is the "Notro" interface worse than Win7. Remember, the disadvantages must outweigh the advantages... ;)
Pint because it's a pub sort of discussion.
You missed off Emma Goldman's response: That a revolution without dancing was not worth having.
Well done. Very poetic article. But you're arguing against something that is getting lots of people who otherwise would pay no attention to this Mars mission to notice it and maybe get interested in it. Or is the author of this article an elitist who thinks that unless someone is already hanging in out in the channels that discuss this stuff, that they don't deserve to be made aware of it.
How long is the will.i.am track? A few minutes? We can't spare a few minutes out of the entire length of the mission to get a lot of people who wouldn't have seen much coverage of the mission to be made more aware of it? Or to see that a popular celebrity and musician thinks its cool and maybe therefore it is cool? Or does the author dislike the idea that science could be cool and mainstream popular because it threatens their feeling of being better in some way?
"Clearly you are awesome. Why would anyone bother with a proper IDE when it's way cooler to write code in a simple text editor?"
Oh, you also forgot to mention that the price you mentioned includes a full MSDN subscription that gets you a copy of pretty much every MS product they make to develop against. But I guess saying £300 for their development suite wouldn't have made them sound as bad. My comment about the text editor was not really the point that I was talking about, it was just to illustrate that you don't need to pay MS anything to develop for Windows if you don't want to. You can also use products like Eclipse for free as well. I never said anything about it being better "way cooler to write in a simple text editor" that's just you resorting to mockery in place of argument. Though yes, I still do use Vi sometimes. It's very powerful and I'm comfortable using it. Whenever I'm just writing stuff out, e.g. a load of class prototyping, I tend to use it because I can work more quickly in it than most other tools. Never said anyone else needed to.
"That's why they charge $13,299 for the Ultimate extra everything edition."
And sell the Professional version for 3% of that and give away the Express edition for free. You are aware that the Ultimate version has a tonne of performance management, environment management, version control handling, project reporting tools, architecture modelling, testing suite and is designed for development teams. You just went to MS and specifically searched for the most expensive version without any thought about who would actually need it, didn't you? If you have ten or twenty developers at $35k per year, then the $13k for the software they use doesn't sound as bad, does it? I would imagine any freelancer would be plenty happy with the Professional version for about £300 and depending on what they're working on, possibly even the free version.
Besides, you can program without Visual Studio, you know. Some of us even use text editors (vi), thanks.
"You need a proprietary software to handle data in a proprietary format. If your subscription expires - so does your data. OK, there may be some pirated or open source product that may or may be compatible, but then again, there may be not."
So buy an actual copy of the software that wont expire then. You don't have to use this subscription model. Or alternately, and here is the big one, save it in a non-proprietary format. Or open your Word document or whatever in Libre Office. Suggesting that the streaming version of Office makes any difference, is alarmist and demonstrably wrong.
"If MUST install it, I'll do so onto a PC in another building, which is being used by someone else."
But that's the point. Now you don't have to install it.
Glad I could help!
"I was serious. 15s-->1*minute* to load a document and all your data 1) Readable by and 2) Subject to the capricious whims of an unfriendly entity."
You seem to be confused between online Office web apps and this streaming functionality. What we're talking about here runs locally and does not require you to upload your documents off your local machine at any point.
People who don't understand the difference between streaming the application and whether you choose to store the working files locally or elsewhere should learn more about how things work. Discuss.
"So people get used to the idea of not having the software permanently on their system, but have loads of documents, then need to make a presentation or something, only to find there is no network availability of any kind at the location."
If it's your own PC, then I'd expect you to have Office installed if you plan to use it. The point with this is if you find yourself suddenly needing it, at a meeting you don't have your PC, the battery dies or whatever, you can just grab the nearest computer regardless of whose it is, and without having to worry about installs or licence keys, just log in and use a streamed version of office under your own licence.
"A lot of company's, their paying customers, use macro's for a lot of things. From simple letterheads to complex reports with graphs. We have at least 20 that I know of, so how would this fit in our (ISO) certified workfow?"
If I could just confirm your logic here, you're basically saying we had funcitonality X, we now have functionalty X+Y, and it's a "FAIL" because the functionality is not X, + Y + Z. You would not condemn the product is the functionality were only X, but you will if it is X+Y?
And incidentally, isn't 'Z' in your argument something that you'd expect to have the local Office install anyway? I mean, if you've installed all these macros for Office, presumably you already have Office as well?
"The reselling commercially without permission is of course enough to call in the lawyers"
No it isn't. If they provide the source code with the executable and a copy of the GPL licence, then they are free to re-sell it. The GPL (versions 2 and 3) is compatible with commercial selling of software. Normally it is sold for the support contract you get with it.
Congratulations on becoming your parents.
"Seconded. Self serving publicity whore who does not deserve any accolade such as this, the olympics or any media attention."
You could as easily apply the principle in the other direction and say Curiosity is a "publicity whore" for trying to ride on Will.i.am's publicity. Like it or not he is very successful and well-known. So this will increase publicity for Curiosity just as it increases publicity for Will.i.am. It's a synergy, objectively speaking. This will bring both Curiosity and Science the attention of many who would otherwise be only dimly aware of it. It's a goooood thing. Just because some people here are proud of not liking his music, that shouldn't mean they are against things that raise the profile of this amazing mission.
Whacha' gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside that trunk?
Amma gonna get to, get to Mars. Get to Mars in the Gaa-le Crater..
Yep - Capitalism. You never got corrupt trials under the Soviets or in modern day China or Mussolini or...
I went to see "Brave" the other night and a dedication "in memory of Steve Jobs" came up. There was actual booing in the audience!
I think you are taking a biased position on this and I think this because you are repeatedly taking the position of dismissing good things that make the community more secure with reasons that are essentially: it doesn't solve everything 100%, which suggests to me that you are trying to dismiss this rather than evaluate it. Well no, it doesn't solve everything perfectly. But it certainly helps. In one small move, you have a situation where a new key must be obtained, paid for and a fake business created for every minor variation of a piece of malware if they want to avoid triggering warnings to users. And it's a system that relies on a very minor cost to legitimate producers.
"If one iteration nets you $4000 (so 100 marks at $40 each) and you've paid $59, I'd say that's still a pretty effective business model."
Take a look at this: Malware Definitions. Notice how many pieces of malware come out in a day. Nearly all small variants and iterations on previous ones. Look down the list and see how many of these are trojan types. These are ones that require the user to install them (normally).
Why are you a priori against this when there are significant demonstrated benefits and the cost is so low. I mean, what is next, are you going to start posting about how Debian and RedHat should remove the Hash signatures for all the packages you download and install on them?
"This way, if Microsoft catches an interesting program early on. It will use (copy) the concept right away and get its lawyers involved earlier on. I smell patent heaven."
You don't seem to know how the code-signing process works or what it is. If you buy a Cert from Verisign to sign a binary blob so that it can be authenticated when someone installs it, that is not the same as you sending your ideas to MS for approval.
"The Windows monthly updated Malicious Software tool, from Windows XP (as an option) forwards, has a licence that authorises Microsoft in perpetuity to delete files on your PC that in their opinion shouldn't be there. I assume that this includes Linux, or it will at their discretion. I mean they'll delete Linux."
You are the definition of Tin Foil Hat. You're actually suggesting that MS are going to classify Linux as malicious software and set Security Essentials to delete it? Have you any aware how paranoid you sound. I run Linux on Windows all the time. Many, many people do. We haven't had any problems. What possible evidence do you have that MS would do something so massively self-destructive to themselves as you propose.
"So am I right in assuming that to get approval MS get to see all of your 'trade secrets' of your source code, quite possibly to copy (sorry, "influence") for new MS products, but you don't get to see theirs?"
No. For a start, you can use a certificate from any company you like that is recognized - e.g. VeriSign, StartCom or others. There's quite a bit of choice, just as you can buy a SSL certificate for your domain from a range of providers. Secondly, source code is not signed, compiled binary code is signed. If you think about it, signing source code would mean that you could only verify that source code and that you would then have to carry out the entire compilation process during each install.
So just to re-iterate, it's compiled code that you sign, not source code (unless you want to for some reason, but that's not what is talked about here), and it can be signed with a certificate purchased by a range of providers, not just MS.
"A nuisance yes, but considering the potential sums you can make from a good (I use that term loosely) piece of scareware, $59 a shot isn't bad."
Just to re-emphasize what I wrote, it's not $59 a shot for your malware. If you just made one version and only had to come up with a fake company or register with a fake passport once, then it's a nuisance, but not as bad. But a piece of malware goes through scores of iterations typically. Both because the writer needs to change how it works to deal with changing servers, etc. and because they're engaged in an ongoing war with those who detect and identify instances of malware. Combine that with the fact that you will need to do a separate business or fake individual for each version (unless you want to see everything taken down the moment one thing signed under that certificate is detected) and that every instance means a new payment that is a potential lead in tracking you down... It's a significant thing. It's not "$59 a shot".
"I'm sure they can, but what about the smaller and less well funded projects? What about derivative releases of a bigger project?"
Whilst I don't want to trivialise costs for anyone, a project has to become pretty small before getting your code signed becomes a relevant part of your costs. I looked up the cost with Startcom and they sell a certificate you can use to sign code for US$59. And just to be clear, you can sign as many programs and versions of programs as you like with that. Anyone releasing software that finds that significant will just have to accept the warnings, I would guess. It might be a shame, but digitally signing code is a good thing to have as an industry standard. So basically, my answer to your question about smaller and less well-funded projects, is that these will be fine too.
"but as others have said this system offers no real protection in that users will probably continue just to click 'yes'"
If signing software to be installed is the default (as it will become), then unsigned code really will stand out and will therefore more likely make users think.
"Those who release the nasties will find a way to sign their code, and the cycle of catch-up will continue."
Some will, but signatures will get revoked and revoked fast. Repeatedly. Not only that, but when a piece of malware has been signed, registered to a company, then you can quickly check all the other things that company has signed. You say "will find a way to sign their code", but if you're having to go through a whole new registration process as a new company / individual and require pay a new fee every single time Kapersky Labs or MS or whoever notice and report your latest malware, that rapidly becomes a real nuisance. Which would you rather?
" In fact, from where I'm sitting, the only one who stands to gain is MS by pushing more of the smaller devs towards the Metro store"
I think smaller Devs will already gravitate toward the Windows Store. They want the advertising, the security, the streamlined way of getting paid and handling licences and hopefully the reduced piracy. I don't think this will be a factor one way or another. I mean if you feel that Windows Store isn't the best fit for your business model, paying US$50 dollars is unlikely to tip the scales toward it, imo.
"And why can't this trafic be stopped using Windows or a third party Firewall? Firewall work in outbound as well as inbound traffic."
Of course it can be blocked. Though as you can turn this feature off, it would be simpler to merely do so. Is it actually a major concern that your PC checks software you install against an online database, though?
"If all you need to do is sign the code then the fake AV guys can afford a key. Are you saying their scam software will show up as good?"
Well firstly, if someone has to register and pay to get their malware signed, and typically you would expect a company to be doing this, then that is already a step toward catching people. Secondly, you forget that the moment it is identified as malware the key can be revoked.
"No meaningless warnings are a bad thing"
Are they meaningless? In this day and age, any commercial software should be signed. As has been pointed out below, the cost to do this is pretty low, apparently <£100. Which addresses the below comment:
"If your computer is always crying wolf, no one will notice a real wolf when it shows up."
It wont because how much software would the overwhelming majority of users be installing that wasn't signed? If you stick Adobe PDF reader or the GIMP on there, you would expect it to be signed. So the computer will very far from be "always" crying wolf. Secondly, you are arguing in favour of a system whereby no cry is raised at a real wolf, which does not seem safer to me than a system with the occasional false positive.
"It's to frighten ordinary users off open source, every time they try to install the majority of OSS apps they will get a warning. Nothing else."
I'm sure that the Mozilla Foundation or Apache can spring for £100 to have their code signed. Doesn't even have to be signed by Microsoft. Signing your code is good practice. In what way would the OS flashing up a warning that you were about to install software that couldn't be verified be innaccurate?
If you want to digitally sign your code, a signature from an authority such as VeriSign will cost around US895 dollars per year. There might be others out there that are cheaper and if you're talking about selling through the Windows Store, then you don't have to do this, MS will certify your code, but charge you a commission for selling through their store. So depends on what business model you want to use. It's not complicated at any rate - anyone capable of the complexity of writing a saleable program will manage the code signing process. US$895 is a lot of an amateur to pay just so that people don't get warnings, it's a minor cost for even a small company though. Depends what situation you are in and how worth it is to get rid of that warning. But the warnings are a good thing. People should think about what they're doing when they install software.
"This effectively means that only Microsoft approved applications and applications from large companies can install without a warning message."
Definitely doesn't require a "large" company. Is an issue for the lone programmer working in their own time on small projects, but these might typically be able to live with their small userbase having to click a warning message. Note, once you are able to sign the code, you can sign new versions, etc. Your post suggests that this is a long process but it isn't an issue.
"So what happens if you install something while you are offline?"
You get a message telling you that your system is unable to verity the program with Microsoft and that they can't therefore tell you if the program is safe or not, and asks you whether you want to actually proceed or not. It's similar to the message you get if the program you are installing isn't known to Microsoft, with the exception that it explains the failure is due to being offline so that you can go online if you choose and check it.
This is one of the best articles on the Register I have ever read. Well written, supported and tragically relevant. I would love to see it taken up and reported on by more mainstream media. It's painfully insightful and I hope the people at Lego are made aware of it and read many of the intelligent comments here as well.
Thank you for writing this.
"if you want to spend your life coming up with fanciful reasons as to why we didn't go to moon, or how little grey men did crash at Roswell,"
1. Massive conspiracy involving huge numbers of people, decoy rockets and the ability to fake radio transmissions from numerous points around the Earth.
2. Cover up of crashed alien spaceship in America and recovery of little bipedal alien pilots.
3. US government willing to set up someone who has massively embarrassed them.
One of these is not like the others.
I'm not saying he is or isn't innocent of the charges in Sweden, but lets avoid classing the idea that the US government might lie with Space aliens and mocked up moon landings. If you really think they are the same, then I have some very sad things to tell you about US history.
First person on the moon. Showed us what we could achieve as a species when we put our minds to it. No greater achievement than to make us realize our potential. Thank you, Neil.
"But, grudges are grudges, and when apple victory strokes its way to burning Chinese competitors, it WILL learn that vengeance meted out by Chinese can be complicated, sophisticated, painful, and probably best left unstirred."
Samsung are Korean.
"Get some girlfriends and be quiet for once."
Downvote for presuming none of us might be hetero females commenting here.
"go, ggroupies go, let's hear your whining :)"
You're a short-sited idiot if you think this isn't bad for all of us who want a healthy, competitive market with a variety of products to choose from. Even in Europe where this ruling doesn't take effect, it means that Samsung may not (probably will not) make the products that they otherwise would for any of us.
"One of the reports from Best Buy showed many of the returns for Samsung's tablet were from people who had thought they bought an iPad."
We cannot build our legal system or society based around the most stupid members of it. At some point, blame for something has to lie with a person's stupidity rather than with a company for not being able to do their thinking for them.
"They _can_, but will they actually do so in the face of MS throwing money and advertising at Nokia and expecting the others to pay MS for the privilege ?"
Yes. HTC have licenced Windows Phone 8 and should be releasing a couple of WP8 devices in October or November (release date not confirmed). Other manufacturers will be releasing them also, I have no doubt of it.
I don't know much about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but Microsoft on the whole gave more money to the Obama's campaign than they did to John McCains (it was about 75% donations to Obama, from memory).
"Probably not. But some people sleep better at night, because they did all they could."
Some people sleep better at night because their mattress is cushioned by millions of dollar bills.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018