Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Can't even match Cygwin (Score 1) 163

So basically MS's Linux subsystem can't even do the job Cygwin does quite nicely?

Cygwin can't run native Ubuntu elf executables which is wehat the Linux subsystem does.

I probably missed the gazillion times this point was raised, but why is this a thing? I get it that you can just run "the same file" but why bother. The linux subsystem is not even close to be a real production environment so you can't validate anything on it anyway. There are so many ways to get a good linux environment that are both way closer to the real thing and can run native binaries (obviously).

As a developer, I honestly don't see the use case here when I can either run a VM, dualboot, or for most simple project simply build them as windows executable anyway. In which case do you need to run a linux ELF in a butchered down environment that (hopefully) isn't what you'll run the production code in the end?

Comment Don't worry, you can trust microsoft (Score 0) 88

Rest assured that they will half-ass the thing, and most likely end up with an implementation that's useless at best. I can already see the missing settings, the incorrect behavior and, most likely, some random crash. Third party app really have nothing to be worried bout.

Comment Whatsapp privacy policy haha (Score 1) 94

A few months ago, I wanted to try whatsapp on Android. The app asked me for permission to dig into my contacts, which I refused.
You can't do much without that permission: impossible to start a conversation, impossible to input a name for someone that started a conversation with you, impossible to add contacts by hand in whatsapp; it have to be in the phone contact's list.
When I asked their support about this, they kindly redirected me to their FAQs, explained to me that they use phone numbers to identify contact, that it was for my convenience that this was required, etc. I even got a full rundown of Android permissions required by whatsapp. No option to ever start a conversation by typing a phone number ever came on the table.

Best part was this: "We value your privacy and we do not sell your personal information to anyone.". I suppose technically it's not sold "to anyone", but still. Trust is the most important thing you need in this business; if you require from people to give you all their infos, then pull jokes like that, you might as well just stop doing business.

Comment Re:Unclear (Score 1) 237

and can be implemented on any platform

And how would one does this? By design, DRM schemes requires a level of obscurity. It doesn't matter the mean you're using, if you have encrypted content that you want in clear, at one point you'll have to have both the content and the key available client side. If anyone can implement such DRM, then nothing prevents the copy of the deciphered content as it is played.
That's why we got HDCP as an attempt to plug the "if you can play it, you can save it" hole. And we know how it went.
I'd be really impressed if someone came up with a DRM solution that satisfy all these:

  • Allow playback of content on user system
  • Prevent all form of recording without protection
  • Can be implemented by anyone

The closest you'll get is with keys stored in hardware, but we've seen how that one played out already.
So, stop saying that "it is up to other browsers to add support". The instant anyone can play encrypted content, it's gone. And people pushing DRM really don't want that.

Comment Boasting security... (Score 1) 237

for an even higher level of security

Security for who? Not for the people actually making content, not for the customers, not for netflix... Ah, I have it on the tip of my tongue... who's increasing security by screwing over everyone involved again?
Joking aside, most people will not care about "why" only Edge will support 1080p, because most people are not into technical stuff. However, a fair amount of people turns to their somewhat geeky relative/friend when some question arise; and those will know that the only reason for Edge to support this when other won't is content provider willingly screwing other by using DRM. I'm curious to see how this will play out in the long term.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 245

Hmm. How much of the actual hardware in a system *can* you audit then?
Off-the-shelves stuff is out of question: processors design at the hardware level is not something most of us can access, and I believe they also run some internal software over that, which is not accessible either. Same for the memory controller. *bridges are also out of the question. Mainline GPUs that can peek and poke through PCI, and most other extension cards almost always have some firmware parts that are closed sources.
Granted, there exist completely free and open sources alternatives to most of this stuff, but as seen by the recent compiler issue from microsoft, can you trust the people building the devices to make them up to spec? And them, do they use tools that are 100% certain to not change how things operates?
Sure, if all your hardware is open source and can be somehow 100% certified by yourself to follow the original design, and the OS you run on it is also 100% open source (this one is actually feasible obviously) and you built it yourself, using a compiler you 100% audited yourself, then you can trust everything.
But if not, there is no need to look for a hidden backdoor in the processor; it can as easily run a secret blob on the main CPU without telling the OS and still have access to all the hardware.

Comment Re: Contactless payment ! (Score 1) 193

I wouldn't be so sure.
Disclaimer: this happens in France, I have no idea how the contactless ship is sailing anywhere else. But we have had chips for as long as I can remember, and contactless just got added recently. A bunch of people jumped on it: payment terminal slowly gets it, automated vending machines too.
Of course, it is as secure as anywhere else (read: not) but that didn't stop the adoption. Thankfully by law banks are obligated to either provide a card without contactless payment or provide a way to disable it, but still it's growing.
Now, they could probably change the contactless protocol to use the same protocol as actual contact payment, including PIN and EMV validation, but that would get in the way of usability, and between security and ease of use, it seems that even money isn't safe.

We had a relatively secure thing: physically put the card in the reader, enter PIN. Takes a few seconds, opposed to... the few seconds it takes for contactless to kick in. But it's not shiny anymore I guess.

Comment Best Strategy Ever (Score 1) 328

You can't be wrong by attracting more developers, and that's the first step to have an attractive app store!
Too bad their strategy also involve driving customers away. Pretty sure corporate computers can't use the store (or at least not without getting the wrath of IT) and so called "power" user are slowly moving out of the way. What's left, the "average" user, who is perfectly happy as long as facebook works.

I know the picture is more complex than that, but I was under the impression that business was a large part of MS revenues, and they are doing their best to piss the m off.

Comment Re:Once again only hurts paying customers (Score 2) 167

Granted, I gave up on these "services", but last time I checked the movies available from publisher's offers were seriously compressed, had DRM making them more or less useless on most devices I use, and lacked most of the content I wanted to see (bonus, obviously, but in some case the original audio track was not available... wtf).
On the other hand, I plop a disc in my computer, click a button, wait an hour and *everything* is available within a click, with no forced trailers, no "stealin is bad" disclaimer, no menu that takes longer to operate than the actual movie, etc. But the main thing: I buy the damn disc, and I have to get a chinese software to use said disc in an effective way. And that's more efficient than any online service I've seen so far.

Comment Re:Good luck with that (Score 1) 167

And for once, I'm happy about it. What's the point of fighting a software that requires the actual disc to be bought to work? Does the publishers really want people to go for the "convenient and cheap" way so bad?
The power these mobs^W associations have in their own countries is bad enough for the consumers, let's not move them to the international level.

Comment Re:Alternatives? (Score 3, Insightful) 249

Other translation: I'm more than willing to pay for an app that I use regularly and is produced by people that have a fair amount of trust, and strangely enough force-feeding my phone with bloatware, adware and replacing basic functionalities with junk got them out of this fairly exclusive group.

Comment Re:Alternatives? (Score 3, Interesting) 249

Oh yes, they *did* something right: their app, right before all these "free updates to boost your system plz gib gib". You're telling "4.8 stars", I tell you "4.8 stars based on their previous versions".

I would not have cared if they decided to make it a paid app; I have a handful of these when they feel polished enough. I even paid for a basic SMS app that was just a "downgrade" for the recent stuff google pulled on that.

But the thing here is that they are shoddy. Consumers trust is hard to gain, and when you lose it, it's done. When you have arguably one of the best app on the market that does a lot of things well, there's one thing you don't do: start behaving like it's a chinese ripoff that exist only as an ad channel. On the point of ES File Explorer: one day, out of the blue, my phone had a notification about "removing trash to boost the performances", or something along the line. It sort of looked like a classic spam message, with no indication that this was from an app. And if dismissed, it comes back quickly. That was ES; and there was no option to disable it. Then, this "extremely useful feature" became the default screen when you open the app, prominently taking a third of the screen to encourage you to use what have all the warnings you're looking for when you look at a scam.

And now, the very same team decided to force-feed you a new lockscreen, with implications that goes well beyond the "showing ad" issue. Android might not be the most secure thing on earth, but I have slightly more trust in the stock lockscreen than in the one provided by some definitely shoddy business.

Seriously, now I've removed all of their apps, found very good replacements that don't do anything funky, even paid for one, and all is well. But I can't understand how you can think "hey, let's force spam and bloatware down people's phones, THEN make a paid version without that" when you could have just done it harmlessly.
They could make the best app ever now, I'm never trusting them again with anything.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just become managers.