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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Google Streams (Score 2) 119

by arglebargle_xiv (#49558027) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

We've decided it's just not worth it, and would rather explain to users who email our support line that Google shut down the API.

That's something that's always amazed me about Google, if Microsoft did something like this (which they did in the 1990s), the masses would be at the gates with pitchforks and flaming torches screaming for blood. When Google behaves like Microsoft did 20 years ago... well, meh, it's Google, they can do that. What's changed?

Comment: Re:Google Streams (Score 1) 119

by arglebargle_xiv (#49558011) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

Nobody in their right mind chooses a Google product as part of their critical infrastructure ..... because Google keeps closing its products down.

Or "improving" them, like Google Bet^H^H^HMaps, where the new version is so bad I've switched to Bing Maps. That's Microsoft's Bing Maps. Over Google.

Comment: Re: Clickbait (Score 3, Interesting) 129

Allowing unsigned code into the app bundle changes the app bundle and makes the signature invalid. That's how signatures work. The idea here is that a legitimately signed and installed app can then execute code outside the app bundle which will run without additional controls in place.

It depends. If you can add metadata to the bundle without it being detected (a problem that has cropped up with Linux repositories several times) then this is a genuine vuln. If OTOH it's something like "If you install a Python interpreter then you can use that to run arbitrary code that isn't validated by Gatekeeper" then it's a "Code execution results in code execution" issue. In the great tradition of journalists everywhere, the ThreatPost article never provided any links to any original material, so all we have is the writer's interpretation of what's actually going on,

Assuming the previous reply was by the guy who gave the talk, is it online anywhere?

Comment: Re:Won't guard against signed malware (Score 1) 189

by arglebargle_xiv (#49532763) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Device Guard For Windows 10

Hell, some manufacturers like Lenovo even included malware like Superfish on new laptops. Will Deviceguard prevent that from happening?

Nope. Quoting from TFA

The following OEMs are endorsing the use of Device Guard on their Windows 8 certified devices [...] Lenovo.

So you still get SuperPhished, only now it's DeviceGuarded.

Comment: Re:They should be doing the opposite (Score 1) 298

Okay, then artists would release a bunch of shit sequels just to extend copyright. That benefits no one.

How would that differ from current practice, at least in Hollywood? No film franchise is complete until it's had at least two or three shit sequels.

Comment: Re:Back end (Score 1) 77

by arglebargle_xiv (#49532695) Attached to: GCC 5.1 Released

I am more interested in what it produces. Is the produced code fast and correct?

It's sometimes correct. When it's not correct, your bug report that it (for example) produces code that segfaults with -O3 on x86-64 is closed as "by design" because if you stare at the manpage long enough while drunk it could be interpreted as being allowable behaviour under certain circumstances and therefore doesn't need to be fixed.

Comment: Re:People? (Score 0) 77

by arglebargle_xiv (#49532663) Attached to: GCC 5.1 Released

That was my reaction too. "Latest update of bug-ridden, bloated alternative to LLVM released".

(And no, I couldn't give a toss about Apple, I just want a compiler where, for each new release, I don't have to spend a long-tail of several months identifying new compiler bugs and design "features" and adding code workarounds to deal with them).

Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Working...