Re: 110 million PCs can’t be wrong?
" I suspect MS will not strenuously try to find them out"
s/not strenuously/strenuously not/
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"And if your software is designed for controlling low-level hardware and therefore requires direct hardware access (which neither WINE nor a VM can provide) AND requires Internet access?"
Buying internet-connected smart fridges is not a good idea. And you're probably out of luck if you're trying to find a W10 driver for it.
" no other browser can do Flash on Linux without incompatibilities and open security holes."
I'm not sure about the incompatibilities but IFAIK Adobe are OS agnostic in their supply of open security holes. However the the Mozilla browser family makes it possible to run Flash on a case-by-case basis so if you want it for some site you're reasonably confident about you can just turn it on as you need it. This is on Linux, of course, I'm not familiar with the situation on Windows.
But for iPlayer I prefer to run get_iplayer which downloads and saves to mp4 which I can the punt over to a box connected to the big screen.
'Officers in the east-of-England city, population 185,000, will grapple with Microsoft's video-chat software in lieu of face-to-face visits.
Meeting people in their homes takes up too much valuable police time, we're told.
"It will allow officers, who use a large proportion of their time traveling[sic] across the city to and from appointments, more time to patrol their neighbourhoods."'
Why not just get them to visit whilst they're patrolling the area. They are actually patrolling the area aren't they?
"At least she had fronted up and faced the press. A lot of CEO's woul hide behind some faceless PR Hack."
No, she should have been clearing her desk & leaving a replacement CEO to deal with it. Being the CEO in place before the hack should have been an opportunity for any media interviewer to rip her to shreds the morning after.
Having the head of an organisation accept responsibility & quit after such a balls up is the first step to avoiding the balls up in the first place. It provides a massive incentive to understand what's happening day-to-day and avoid a culture that doesn't pass stuff that should be need-to-know up the line. At worst it eliminates the muppets by Darwinian selection. She has overall responsibility. It's what she's paid for. Accepting that responsibility for what goes wrong goes with the territory. So far her contribution seems to be being in denial of the magnitude of what's gone wrong.
"I think they need to leave her in place right now. She's the lightning rod and drawing the ire and fire."
No, had she taken responsibility & quit she'd have taken some of the heat off the company.
The CEO's job isn't management of avoidable crises, it's avoiding those crises in the first place. By not going she's showing that she doesn't know what her job was or that she doesn't realise that the crises were avoidable which in turn shows that she's not up to her job.
She shouldn't go now for the simple reason that she shouldn't still be in post.
"But base 10 is a dreadful system"
Quite true. The metric enthusiasts mock our old ponds and ounces. But given a pair of scales (just scales, no weights) would you prefer the task of dividing a pound of sugar into 16 ounces or a kilo of sugar into 10 lots of 100gm?
Metric is so nineteenth century.
"The company is also offering "every single external contributor" a free, lifetime licence
Again, they are not obligated to do that."
OTOH unless those external contributors agree to its being closed surely they have an obligation to either continue to provide source for their contributions, assuming they can sensibly disentangle them from the rest of the code or to remove them.
"the Attorney General's advice was very clear. It would be totally irresponsible of government to allow the legal system to dictate to us on matters as important as terrorism. Not only would they tie things in knots very quickly, but they are not elected and answerable to nobody."
Translation: "We're above the law"
"> But the question was about Win10, not Windows Phone.
The question was about phones."
The question was about Windows 10 on phones.
And MS is positioning W10 as being the same on all its platforms so the question was a good one.
Of course in practical terms running Windows on different PC hardware often requires the hardware manufacturers to ensure drivers are available so the same thing would apply with phones so such an idea would still require MS & Sammy to cooperate.
"> Is there any practical reason why Microsoft can't do a deal with all of the major phone suppliers to allow Win10 to be installed as an alternative to Android?
Yes. Each model of phone is unique in having one of a large variety of SoCs complemented by different system components such as screens, audio, buttons, etc. This is not a problem for Android because the source code is available and the integrator can modify as required to suit.
Windows Phone is built by Microsoft to suit a limited set of SoCs"
But the question was about Win10, not Windows Phone. And Windows 10, like their other desk top OSs runs an a wide range of hardware by having installable drivers. If they are really set on providing this platform agnostic user experience than Win10 should surely work the same way. In fact it should be a test case for how well they've done that or whether they've simply applied the same interface over different foundations.
"Why not? It's been working well with Linux for years."
The interfaces differ and that's the layer which needs to respond to form factor. My laptop runs KDE4 with keyboard & mouse. My MythTV box interface is menu based with a remote control. My router has a web interface or alternatively a command line for better customisation.
First there's an assumption that computing is now in a post-PC phase. This is the view from people who sell stuff as opposed to people who use stuff. If you've got a PC that works you use it but tough for the people who want to sell you another. The market is more or less saturated so people flogging PCs and their bundled software have either got to put up with it or offer something new and desirable. In order for it to be desirable they really need to pay attention to the users and I'm not convinced they're doing that.
As to the idea of a unified experience that reminds me of icons on a lot of consumer hardware - designed to be equally incomprehensible in all languages.
There's an implicit assumption here is that if you want to build expertise in a big company you buy in a company that already has that expertise. What about just going out and recruiting people? apart from anything else the people you recruit must have at least a vague preference for working for you. The people you buy in? not necessarily.
"We removed all illegally uploaded pages as soon as we became aware of the breach. Next, we changed all the passwords and increased their encryption to avoid such mishaps in the future. A thorough investigation to make sure the breach does not exist anymore is in progress."
Translation: we bolted the stable door.
"Well, I'm not sure it's tactful for a minister to say that it was actually his prime minister who was responsible for the said misinformation, which is probably why he did not elaborate further."
There you are, you see. You've been misinformed. The Prime Minister never said such a thing. On the contrary he's been following the TalkTalk saga and is quite adamant that if his strong recommendation for encryption had been followed it wouldn't have happened. And anybody who said anything different has been spreading misinformation.
Now do you understand?
"A kitemark says that way back when it was awarded, no obvious security holes were found. It does not mean that the site is secure."
Could it be made meaningful?
1. Requires regular 3rd party checking to a given standard, preferably including pen testing. Regular as at mandated intervals, say 6 monthly.
2. Date of last test shown on site.
3. Covered by insurance. Preferably no limit to amount insured.
4. Expiry date of current insurance shown on site. If the amount of insurance is limited this should also be shown.
This would mean that there would be at least two parties, the testing company and the insurers and maybe also the testing company's insurers standing behind the site's certification.
It could work, it wouldn't be cheap but it would mean that you'd be able to identify a site that took security seriously.
"I'd have more sympathy if she'd had to explain to a group of idiots (as I'm sure we've all had to, even if only hypothetically) that the data was encrypted, but they got the keys because the web service needs to be able to decrypt the data to use it."
Maybe that's how someone explained it to her.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019