Comment Re:The solution is simple (Score 1) 127
"Wipe the drive and do a clean install of Linux. You'll probably also be getting rid of a whole bunch of other bloatware in the process anyway, so Lin-Lin."
Corrected that for you
"Wipe the drive and do a clean install of Linux. You'll probably also be getting rid of a whole bunch of other bloatware in the process anyway, so Lin-Lin."
Corrected that for you
>> Find job in IT tech without Microsoft knowledge / support required.
Done.
http://nofeeofw.blogspot.ch/20...
http://www.linuxinsider.com/st...
http://www.careerbuilder.com/j...
Just google it.
Also, my job is MS free ( at leaset 98%)
Perhaps we should just exclude Sony from my "Japan" remark....
No. The best Lenovo could do is not collecting money and let new users get infected hardware.
The best Lenovo could do is commit to their customers, and get the PCs cleaned before they are sold.
But this kind of thinking is not really in the direction of typical chinese manufacturers, who simply ship the darn thing, whatever the defects. Japanese manufacturers are more commited to their users, when they admit the fault ( which does not always happen)
From the article, it seems it's not so easy after all, even Lenovo does not succed in removing it. (letting a malware exe on your system is not what i call "removal")
Also, it it was easy, Lenovo would put in the effort to do it for their ware.
Or just don't buy Lenovo.
>> No point to the story
Yes, there is a point. If Lenovo was concerned with the security of their customers, they would arrange with their distributors to either remove the malware or recall the hardware.
Continuing to sell it with malware shows they don't care about their customers.
And yes it costs money. That's the cost of deliberately distributing malware.
Alternative ?
Try the Fujitsu Lifebooks.
Or "Not Yet"
In a few years, the whole ecosystem will be swallowed by systemD
There is no country named "fuckin' Ethiopia". So the USA must be the only one who double taxes expats.
Yep. These standards exist. they just don't work in many cases. A built in standard header would indeed be better, and more coherent.
how, then to recognize executables in a fashion not manipulable by the sender ??
Does not work.
1) the file attributes are kind of standardized by posix, but the usual suspect vendors do not respect that standard.
2) email, HTTP,
A file type you lose by sending it through mail ? no thanks.
>> Then things got a lot more complicated. We started building verification code into the first bytes of the data and added icon to tell humans what it was.
This fails. OS still largely use extensions for identification.
Identification and verification are both broken because there is no standard file header for that.
Extensions still give an easy method. Not reliable (coz users/spoofers mess with it), but easy to use and cross platform and cross format.
The big advantage of using extensions is that it is backwards compatible. Header identification would require rewriting every single file format, as well as all software using it. That will not happen.
see some examples of identification/verification abuse :
Yep, but a lot of knowlege and technology got lost by the desappearing civilizations (often to be found again much later...)
The knowledge of nuclear weapons will fade with time when governments break up and people will worry with survival.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
