Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Remembering what Microsoft did (Score 2, Informative) 124

Don't forget about running Windows 95 on DRDos (if OS = DRDOS, randomly throw warning/error) or Office95 on OS/2 (ask for memory at 2GB boundary, OS/2 only had 512MB windows VM). Those are 2 of the notable instances where MS purposefully made their own software flaky or broken for no reason other than to kill the competitor. I'm sure there are others.

Comment Re:What makes someone a Troll? (Score 1) 150

What do you mean 'even the iPhone'?

Apple with their desktop OS were very very late in having anything but a joke of a multitasking system. They had to buy in an OS from outside the company to get real preemptive multitasking.

And windows is still time-slicing in 16ms slices last I checked. Even with access to OS/2's actual preemptive codebase, they still couldn't code a preemptive OS. Tell me, when you're in Outlook and click a large attachment hosted on an Exchange server, does the entire GUI still become unresponsive? As for Apple, they brought back their founder and his entire technology tree he developed after being ousted. Probably one of the best and smartest things they ever did.

Comment Re:GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 1) 286

Freedom is a nice thing, and the GPL gives it to you, provided you don't prevent others from enjoying the same freedom you get from the GPL.

The GPL (v3) does not give you freedom. You cannot take GPL v3 code and use it to build something, and keep your code private. You cannot have trade secrets with GPL3. You cannot even use GPLv2 software with GPLv3. There's a reason less than 12% of GPL licensed software is GPLv3. No rational person wants that legal virus.

True freedom is provided under MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses, for example, where you can do anything with the code. Lesser freedoms are given by LGPL code, which can legally be used in many situations.

Comment Re:Be suspicous of every update, period (Score 3, Interesting) 210

If this continues, I wouldn't do real work on [windows] ever again.

So this time didn't do it for you? There has to be another time? Given Win7+'s mod to auto install fixes deemed by MS to be critical, I think that time was at least years ago. Even IBM jumped ship.

Comment Re:Clarification? (Score 1) 106

Linux does have user land drivers, so yes, it does allow running without elevated permissions. But, this answer comes with caveats, as obviously not all drivers can run in user land. However, drivers are but a small set of the exposure in windows. In my case I was creating an orange book compatible set of web services, and windows was one designated platform. Considering the requirements were met I guess that project was a success. However, I wound up working against the OS at almost every level to get there because the security architecture is flawed from the bottom up. Had we done the project with the OS 1 revision earlier it would have been almost like the linux implementation in approach, because you could still manipulate security tokens by spawning processes and substituting an authenticated user token. In 2008R2, all of those APIs were no-op, with no explanation nor documentation for many months until people like me had finished digging through the crap MS gave us. Speaking of, the MSDN site is another large pile of almost wholly useless crap at this point. I have come to the conclusion it only exists to show people how much more useful other sites such as SO are, which speaks for itself.

Comment Re:Clarification? (Score 1) 106

That's less trivial than you imply, and requires an extra hop or three. Then again, you likely won't be elevating processes 1000 times a second so from a performance standpoint you should be ok. And it still would be simpler if you could just execute an elevated authenticated process when you needed to from a low-privilege process. Instead you have to devise something to side-step the security infrastructure.

Comment Re:Clarification? (Score 1, Informative) 106

It's in the driver which operates at an elevated permission level.

That's a flaw in the windows security architecture. Since they removed the ability to selectively elevate permissions on threads and processes with the 2008R2 codebase, you have to run the entire process at the highest permission level required instead of selectively elevating permissions temporarily.


Windows can't necessarily account for all potential flaws in software. Nor can any Kernel.

That is true, but its inherently flawed security architecture makes even the slightest flaw a major security problem, hence the overwhelmingly large number of exploits in windows, and why I continue to maintain that windows is wholly unsuited for any purpose.

Comment Re:You really make it hard (Score 1) 308

Wow we have to go 2 decades back to find an example.

No, it was an example to show how far back their intentional breakage of backwards compatibility runs. IOW, you can't state that oh, it was only since 2xxx. It actually goes back further, to DOS days as well, as in almost to the inception of the company.

Then you can go look up how .NET's incompatibilities between versions cause havoc.

Nope, very rarely has there been any breakage of backwards compatibility except in areas that were required for critical fixes.

Then I suppose this page is pure fiction?

Seriously if you struggle using Windows 10 coming from Windows 7 just because they changed the start menu then computers aren't for you. I am curious as to what exactly you are having so much difficulty with though.

It's not the start menu, or lack thereof, it is the randomization of the location of configuration applications and options, which have changed with each major windows release, including the menu organization itself. Such as how to forcibly configure wireless networking to connect to a non broadcasting SSID on a specific channel in a congested wireless environment, or to test that the connectivity is good. Those things used to be simple and intuitive, now they are hidden behind layers of irrelevant crap IMNSHO. As for Win10, I won't run that pile of spy-ware on any network connected computer, ever. (If you're slow, that means it's been relegated to unusable status as far as I'm concerned.)

Comment Re:You really make it hard (Score 3, Insightful) 308

You jest, but Windows is far and above king of backward compatibility as far as APIs are concerned.

We can start with Office95 breaking backwards compatibility with all previous versions of Office, and the attempt to do the same with Office 2010. Then you can go look up how .NET's incompatibilities between versions cause havoc. Don't forget to look up Win32 System API calls, especially in the security area. Finally, finish off with retraining everyone on every release of a MS product because the GUI has randomly been redesigned, and I use "designed" as a concept loosely here, other than maybe to cause maximize confusion in users as a primary goal.

Backwards compatibility? Only enough so they can use it as a marketing bullet by saying you don't "have" to upgrade your other latest MS software....

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.