Although I've used Linux as my main OS for many years, the idea that bundling applications locked to version that cannot be update is insane and one of the things that I hate about Linux distros. Ubuntu did the same stupid thing with Firefox and Open Office at one point. Being stuck with outdated and potential insecure software, unless you compile your own or used another unofficial repository, is crazy. This is a great example of a system that is designed to fail and a huge security flaw.

I do often compile and install or directly install debs or add other repos. It isn't difficult but can become a hassle when it expects a base Linux environment that is very different. It is about time for some standardisation in the Linux distros. That would also help with a broader adoption of Linux in a desktop role and attract more commercial software to Linux that is currently Windows only. Commercial devs can chose between developing for a small number of Windows versions or a shitload of constantly changing version of Linux. Learn something from the example of Android as a commercially successful version of Linux...

Locking the core OS and software necessary to provide a common base makes some sense but this is taken too far. Either keep software in repositories updated or don't provide them. Ubuntu don't have to be the ones updating but they can have a policy of removing software that isn't keep up to date and banning it from future versions. Shift it back to the original developers to decide what distros to support and install the software directly, rather than through the broken repository approach.

OMG, do you even have basic reading and comprehension skills? It would take me less than five minutes to fix if it happened to me and I'm not an electronics or computing expert. The utility is free so no extortion, not that you let facts get in the way of your delusions...

Another option is simply installing a order driver and pointing it toward the device that windows is no longer identifying automatically as an FTDI chip. Not a difficult exercise for anyone with reasonable computing skills, particularly when there are step-by-step guides on the Internet for idiots.

I do use FTDI gear regularly in cables and on boards. It would not be a surprise if one of the several chips I have ends up being a fake but I'm not going to have a cry about it.

You really are completely failing to understand the simple concept that their has been absolutely no hardware damaged... Maybe you could read the article and get at least one of your facts straight...

So, an entirely unspecified law is going to apply to some imagined damage? Is this in some sort of parallel reality? There is no actual physical damage done... Their change is entirely reversible. The only real limitation is that you have provide an alternative driver to continue to use the fake device because the latest FTDI driver will not work with it. They are under no obligation to support fakes with their drivers...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the real world but I've had enough of playing into your fantasy world.

Criminal? Really? What laws are being broken exactly? Have you read the license for these drivers? FTDI seems to be making an effort to cover themselves legally with the license and it would need to be tested in court to see how successful they are. Not every court will accept every license or terms of use conditions but few people are going to spend the money to take FTDI to court over this.

An interesting section copied from their license below, see http://www.ftdichip.com/Driver... :

" 1.5 The Software will not function properly on or with a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component. Use of the Software as a driver for, or installation of the Software onto, a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component, including without limitation counterfeit components, MAY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE THAT COMPONENT. It is the Licensee's responsibility to make sure that all chips it installs the Software on, or uses the Software as a driver for, are Genuine FTDI Components. If in doubt then contact the Licensor. "

FTDI will be able to quickly identify any users contacting them about fake chips and simply have to state that they do not provide support for fake chips or to the use of their drivers with fake chips. Problem solved and the user will have to complain to the company they bought the fake containing item from. They were probably being contacted by users of fake chips already, when the failed to behave as expected, and wasted time troubleshooting those user problems. I doubt that this will add to the workload of their support personnel.

I do not like that users are caught up in this, having experienced something similar myself. I purchased a cheap programming cable for ham radio from a local supplier. It was less than half the price of the official cable so I was a bit suspicious. The CD included with the cable had several files with Asian characters in their names - more cause for concern - and it simply did not work as claimed. Since it was a tiny part of the order from that supplier, I simply moved on and bought an official cable from another supplier, and no longer buy from the supplier that sold me the fake cable.

From the article, the fakes are not bricked it is just their device ID is changed to 0. FTDI are simply saying this isn't one of our chips so we won't let it work with our driver. If the clone manufactures produce their own driver and don't try to use IDs that are for FTDI chips there isn't a problem. It might be better if the FTDI simply refused to recognise the fakes and didn't make any ID changes but I guess the problem it that people would still believe that FTDI hardware was at fault...

Those manufacturers that include fake chips will end up with a lot of returns and might reconsider using fakes. There does not appear to be any legal basis for these manufacturers or the producers of the fake chips to go after FTDI but the end users might. This has raised awareness of the fakes and the fact that FTDI has the ability to do something about them which might be enough for FTDI so consider the exercise a success and a newer driver without this behaviour could follow soon.

Amazing. I would never have believed it but is looks like MS will make their next version of windows worse than 8. They are doing their best to wipe out their desktop and business market...

Phone theft is a pretty common issue around the world. Smart phones have a lot of confidential personal and business information. They can also be used to compromise many online services used by the device that use email or SMS verification. Smart phones are very attractive targets for criminals.

Encryption is one sensible precaution to reduce the damage done if a phone is stolen. Remotely wiping a stolen phone is another sensible precaution. These measures can be effective against criminals but can also make the job of law enforcement more difficult.

Law enforcement seems to want us all to be less safe so their job can be easier, while they fail to deal with the criminals that we are trying to protect ourselves from. The FBI seems to be stating that they want to continue to be lazy and incompetent.

It doesn't really matter what law enforcement wants anymore. Public awareness is increasing with leaking of nude celebrity pictures and other breaches that made the mainstream media. People want to be able to protect their data. Even if Google and Apple fail their customers by backing down there will be other commercial and free options for users to protect themselves.

Are we really sure it isn't simply that MS developers can't count? That would explain a few things...

My problems with ads are, in order of priority, 1) Security, 2) Privacy and 3) Intrusiveness. Ads have long been a major source of drive by downloads for malicious software but the ad companies refuse to take responsibility and prevent this happening, proving that they cannot be trusted. Ad companies steal personal information and do not respect our privacy; it is a core part of their business to profile everyone for their advertising and they have become so bad that they are no better than hackers. Ads that flash, show popups, or other intrusive nonsense piss me off.

We should not be expected to comprise our online safety for ads. Fix those problems and I'll stop blocking them. Firewalls, URL/keyword filtering on routers, security software (including AdBlock and NoScript) and avoiding heavy advertising sites means that I rarely see an Ad. There are several ad supported sites that I have whitelisted because they never show intrusive ads and their ads are relevant to the site content, although the worst ad networks still don't get onto my networks.

How is it possible for those storing so much private data to have such weak security? Where is the responsibility for protecting this data?

Sadly, we live in a world where privacy and security has been given up by most and those that try to protect their personal data are treated as paranoid. Governments are moving closer to criminalising the use of encryption to protect data because it inconveniences their own spying efforts. Smartphone apps full of adware and spyware have become generally accepted, even though both would have been detected by antivirus software not that long ago. The new generation of IT professionals seem to have been caught up in this relaxed approach to data security.

Cybercrime is a massive growth industry, through selling stolen data, rasomware, identity theft, fraud, etc. The bottom line is that you should not really trust anyone with your personal data.

Sorry for the following rant...

My photos should stay entirely offline unless I chose to upload them. My last Android phone had them uploading to Google+ by default, without my explicit approval or agreement. Private online photo storage for backups is something that I sometimes use, along with backing up other files. If there is a photo that I want to share with people I will but having them stolen is not appreciated.

I use my Android phone for personal and business purposes. It is frustrating that the amount of data that leaks has greatly increased in recent years. I do not want my contacts, or the rest of the world, to be able to see my activity. Even though I don't use Google+ and have made everything private on the profile the Google forces on me, I still see information on things like what my contacts think of Play apps and these are people that are not in any circles... Some of my business contacts have strong political and/or religious views that I don't share and they might not approve of all of my apps. Social media should always be opt in and not forced on customers.

Basically, I hate G+ and have not liked a lot of what Google has done to their apps over the last couple of years.

There is scope for this to become a very real world war. These terrorists are backed by Russia and there is strong evidence that serving Russian drops are fighting in the conflict. It seems easy to argue that Russia has just committed an act of war agonist all of the countries represented in the civilian casualties.

Hopefully a world wide war is not the result of this evil act. Either way, Russia is going to feel a lot more pain from the sanctions that must follow.

Some people seem to forget that "the cloud" and "cloud storage" are nothing more than marketing buzzwords. What they describe existed long before the terms started being used. The implication that the cloud, an abstract concept, is real and actual physical servers are not, shows a delusional mind at work and a basic failure to understand reality. They were intended to appeal to those that did not understand the existing technology, to make it more accessible and to avoid focus on the implementation.

Sadly, confusing buzzwords or other marketing material with reality is all too common. I've been caught out by company boards that forget that the marketing material will typically cover specific use cases and expect every use case to be just as perfect. The misery of a CEO reading an article and learning a new buzzword is commonly felt by professionals in industries other than IT.