Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No, Metro is still a blatant attempt... (Score 1) 543

Wait, so Apple shouldn't have been allowed to use its iPod monopoly to gain a foothold in the smartphone market? Or its monopoly of the smartphone market to gain a foothold in the tablet market? Or that Google shouldn't have been allowed to use its internet advertising monopoly to gain a foothold in the mobile device market?

Never mind that the tablet market *is* the PC market (is the laptop market, etc). Or that Microsoft basically invented the tablet market. Or that Windows Vista was going to have an app store but that it was killed because of over-regulation.

Antitrust regulations are there for good reasons. But none of those reasons have anything to do with handicapping successful companies or preventing them from leveraging their strengths to remain relevant in a changing market.

Oh, and it boggles my mind that you think Microsoft should be fined for trying to adapt, while simultaneously you claim that they're failing at it. You don't really think these things through before you post them, do you...

Comment Re:It's not about the UI, FFS! (Score 1) 543

Except that you can still install any desktop app you wish. Or side load Metro/Modern apps for free (just have to install a *free* dev license and renew it every few months).

And it's not "taxed" at anything, and certainly not "30%+". The cut they take is from 20% to 30% max, and it's not a "tax." It's a fee to support the Store infrastructure. Considering everything they take care of for you regarding distribution, marketing, installation, updates (including updating frameworks/libraries like the CRT or WinJS) it is hard to argue that it isn't worth the price of admission.

Comment Ridiculous (Score 1) 438

The changes to the API surface from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 are innumerable. You must be joking if you think the only change is transactional filesystem access.

Of course "you can get the same functionality." You could write the entire OS yourself if you wanted. But if you actually want to push things forward your best bet is to build upon the works of others, like the huge amount of infrastructure the Windows team has put into each successive release.

Comment That's not how it works. (Score 1) 282

I told the recruiter that I didn't feel comfortable signing such an agreement since Microsoft works in so many different areas that there was no way to avoid some sort of conflict.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Microsoft agreement doesn't say what you just said. It says you can't immediately go work on *exactly the same thing* at a competitor. Plenty of people go off to work at competitors, they just work on a different kind of project for at least a year.

Comment Clarify? (Score 1) 451

To what are you referring when you mention an equivalent to .htaccess?

Windows directory permissions are defined by ACLs (Access Control Lists) which are part of the NTFS file system. In Vista or later, this includes a Mandatory Access Control entry called an "integrity level" - defining which level of trust a process must have in order to access this file or directory.

Aside from ACLs, there should be nothing preventing you from accessing a folder.

Comment Correction (Score 1) 451

A distinction I failed to make in my previous post was that unlike sudo, UAC doesn't run processes as a different user at all. Instead it runs them as the same Administrator user, but in a special security context which works as if the user were not an Administrator at all.

Further, I listed several ways in which UAC is unlike sudo. MAC, UIPI, and so on...

SELinux seems to bring some aspects of Windows' security model to Linux. But I haven't researched it enough to know exactly how close it's come.

Comment Not quite. (Score 3, Interesting) 451

UAC is quite different from su / sudo.

Windows NT has always supports the notion of "root" level (aka "Administrator") accounts and standard or limited user accounts. It has also long supported "runas" - the equivalent of sudo. The purpose of that is to allow a standard user to run a program in the context of another user, generally an Administrator, on the same desktop.

UAC, on the other hand, could be called the opposite of "sudo." Instead of running specific processes as a more privileged user, it allows an Administrator to run processes as a LESS privileged user, with varying privilege levels. Technically, Windows has also supported something like this in the past via Discretionary Access Control mechanisms and custom security tokens. UAC brings several additional pieces to the table such as: Mandatory Access Control, more direct user/system control over this behavior, and various bits of supporting infrastructure to make it both more secure (i.e. UIPI) and more compatible with existing programs (File System and Registry virtualization, for example).

UAC also allows programs such as IE and Chrome to run at below-standard privilege levels ("protected mode" or "sandbox" mode), enables secure consent prompts for elevation (more convenient and often more secure versus credential prompts which are vulnerable to spoofing attacks), and more.

So no, UAC is not a ripoff of sudo.

Comment No it doesn't. (Score 1) 232

Federated Search is a Windows 7 feature and did not exist in Vista.

Vista can query a remote Vista or Windows Search 4 index for a file share, but that's separate from the feature we call Federated Search, where Windows 7 can federate queries to OpenSearch enabled sources such as SharePoint, Search Server, FAST, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos