Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Consumers (Score 3, Informative) 258

Anyone old enough to remember when CDs first came out, they were packed with all sorts of security by obscurity measures designed to make sure that they wouldn't play from your computer as well as from your car stereo.

I'm old enough to remember, but I don't remember that. Audio CDs have been around since the early 80s, but protected audio CDs didn't happen until a lot later. According to Wikipedia's page on copy protection:

By 2000, Napster had seen mainstream adoption, and several music publishers responded by starting to sell some CDs with various copy protection schemes. Most of these were playback restrictions that aimed to make the CD unusable in computers with CD-ROM drives, leaving only dedicated audio CD players for playback.

So it seems that CDs enjoyed nearly 20 years of unprotected playback. It's easy to see why. In the early 90s, a hard drive that was large enough to store a CD rip would have cost thousands of dollars. Even video games released in those days on optical media didn't bother to protect themselves because they didn't have to contend with cheap and large drives or affordable CD writers.

Comment Re:Good (Score 5, Insightful) 278

Try living somewhere with no government and report back to us. That is if you get out alive.

So you think the only alternative to a government that tramples over the rights of the citizens is no government at all? Did it not even occur to you that it might be nice to have a law-abiding, privacy-respecting government?

Just because "it could be worse" does not give the government permission to do whatever they want.

Comment Re:Dumbest rivalry ever (Score 2) 37

Then of course their monopolistic tendencies came out (again) when they decided to show a warning message to Windows 10 users who opened Firefox or Chrome by telling them that those browsers will use all your battery life and you'd better use Edge if you knew what was good for you.

Suggesting your own product is not a monopolistic practice. How different is that from going to Google and being presented with Google works better with Chrome and a Yes, get Chrome now button?

So this whole "browser battery life" war is nothing but an excuse for Microsoft's "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run" tactic. This should be responded to with antitrust investigations and legal fines.

That's just ridiculous! What law did they break by claiming that their browser was better for battery life? How does that justify being fined? And how is promoting your product anything like the old Lotus myth?

Nobody uses Edge because they legitimately are concerned about their laptop battery life.

I think that statement can be simplified to just "Nobody uses Edge". But I for one consider my battery life when choosing what software to run. My computer has to last all day. It's useless to me if the battery dies. So, for example, my browser has to have an ad-blocker because I get sick of hearing my notebook's fan whir up to 100% when going to some sites with obnoxious advertising. It's galling to know that my CPU jumps to high usage just because someone wants to sell me something. I also use a lightweight programs instead of hard drive thrashing suites.

So if it wasn't an absolutely appalling browser, I would use Edge if it made a substantial difference to my notebook's usable life.

Comment Re:Whiney Consumerism (Score 1) 238

Let's be honest here - Sony didn't decided "Hey, I want everyone to use Microsoft". What, you think Sony loves Microsoft? Yeah right.

No. Microsoft went to them and said "Sell ONLY our stuff or you get no Windows."

Sony caved like a coward, signed an agreement, and were contractually obligated to refuse to sell non-windows computers. They don't care that much, because most consumers want Microsoft.

What a convoluted (and unsubstantiated) story you came up with. You could easily edit this down to be much simpler (and more accurate):

Sony didn't decided "Hey, I want everyone to use Microsoft", but since most consumers want Microsoft they gave them what they wanted.

You can't say in one sentence that the majority of the users want Windows and then in the very next one say that they don't want Windows. Which is it? How likely is it that Sony would want to make it more difficult for the 99% of the people who want to just turn their new computer and have it work, just to please the 1% who chose the wrong computer and then bitched about having to pay the Microsoft tax.

Seriously, if you don't want to pay for Windows then don't! It's not rocket science. Just recognise that you are a niche market, and that only a few companies will bother to support you.

Comment That's not a brilliant idea (Score 2) 90

How is this deserving of a patent? It's blindingly obvious to use the sensors available on a device to do their job? And activating the sensors has been done before, like activating a camera remotely or the feature built-in to phones now to get the GPS remotely. As soon as I heard about them adding fingerprint sensors to phones I immediately about how useful it would be to get the fingerprints of thieves.

Comment Re:who wants it? (Score 2) 400

But with bash you can just start typing text. No need to look up obscure command system and object names if they only thing you want to do is get a list of all files matching a pattern.

You must be one of those people who wonders why foreigners speak foreign languages when English is so much easier to learn! (Even our children can do it) Bash is not magically easier than PowerShell for someone who only uses it twice a year. In fact, I would say that PowerShell is easier because it has a lot of built-in aliases to make it familiar to *nix users.

Want to do a directory listing of all files matching a patter? Try ls *.txt. It will work in both bash and PowerShell. The arguments are different in PowerShell, but it's just a man ls to find out what they are (or just use the more convenient tab completion). Of course, those aliases are shortcuts to a verbose command naming scheme. I would think that for a very occasional user who might not remember the commands, it is far easier to use a system that has real descriptive names rather than the ultra-terse naming scheme used by *nix. Even if you can't remember the exact name in PowerShell, you can simply use a wildcard for the command name. Can't remember the command to export a CSV file? Type *csv* and keep pressing tab to cycle through the commands (or type man *csv* to see the entire list). If the occasional bash user had to export a CSV what would they do?

Also, PowerShell has a much more consistent argument naming scheme. The basic utilities on *nix have a diverse structure are arguments. For example, ls and find cover a similar subject, yet their arguments are worlds apart. You may be used to that, and so it seems familiar, but it is certainly not a simple case a sitting down and typing.

The difference is that Unix is oriented around commands and programs that take input and give output; whereas Windows is oriented around DLLs and frameworks that build on top of DLLs.

That is not an accurate assessment. PowerShell is all about commandlets and functions that take input and give output. The difference is that the input and output isn't just a stream of text, but objects. If you want to get the size of a file, you read it as a number; you don't have to convert the text in a particular position of a directory listing.

The pipeline is super-important in PowerShell. Objects, and lists of objects, are passed around and processed either sequentially or in a batch. The objects and pipeline are basically what gives PowerShell its power. To ignore that and talk about DLLs is just missing the entire point.

Comment Re:It's not what I call a scripting language. (Score 3, Informative) 400

Wow, that's elegant.

Actually, depending on what was being piped, it could be simplified to:

cat file.txt | where PropertyName -match "regex"

But where the elegance lies is that the similar code would work for other conditions, beyond what grep could do. If you wanted to find all the long lines in a file, you would say:

cat file.txt | where Length -gt 80

Of course, if you use the scriptblock version with the { } characters, then you can do complicated expressions

# Find long lines that start with the word using
cat file.txt | where { $_.Length -gt 80 -and $_ -match '^using" }

# Find large files
dir | where Length -gt 1mb

# Find large files that were written within the last week (not optimised)
dir | where { $_.Length -gt 1mb -and $_.LastWriteTime -gt (get-date).AddDays(-7) }

This so-called non-elegant grep replacement can be used anytime you want to filter something. It doesn't have to be the contents of files or files themselves. Here I download the Slashdot.org homepage and find the link to the privacy statement:

$html = invoke-webrequest http://slashdot.org/
$html.Links | where InnerText -eq 'Privacy'

Comment Re:Heu.. ???? (Score 2) 400

After 20 years of MS trying to kill the shell, they relented and decided the Windows platform needed one.

What on Earth gave you the impression that Microsoft had been trying to kill the shell?

For over 20 years they have made improvements to scripting from COMMAND.COM to CMD.EXE when we all moved to Windows NT. They added the Windows Scripting Host in 1999 with a large number of languages supported. Ten years ago they came out with PowerShell, which they have implemented as a central component so that some of the configuration programs are simply just a front-end to PowerShell (to teach people the scripting ways of controlling their server software).

They have also implemented the Server Core installation option of Windows Server, and the user interface is just a command prompt. No taskbar or explorer shell. None of these things are Microsoft trying to kill the shell.

PowerShell is not a result of a "not invented here" syndrome. If they had just made a copy of bash, then it would not done nearly as much as what PowerShell achieves. Microsoft didn't just try to be different, they tried to come up with something better.

Comment Re:Heu.. ???? (Score 1) 400

What I particularly dislike is how it automatically filters output, and you have to use arguments or other applets to give you fuller output. It just strikes me as being the exact opposite of how any particular command or script should work.

No, it is not the opposite. It's giving the information that is the most usable and easily read by a human. Even *nix utilities do this. Hell, type "ls" and you don't get the file sizes and dates; you have to add -l to get those details.

And objects, big fucking deal. I've been using Bourne variants for a quarter of a century and never thought "Boy, I wish I had classes".

That just shows that you are stuck in the mindset of manipulating text outputs of commands to find the information you need. It certainly shows a lack of imagination that there could be anything better. What it doesn't show is that there is anything wrong with the concept of PowerShell simply because you don't get it.

When you start writing scripts that make web requests that you can read the value you want without having to do clunky regular expressions, then directly updating specific cells in a spreadsheet (including with formatting) then you realise just how much easier this is with an object-based system. Or how about writing your own software as a .NET library so that the same code can be used for manual viewing in a .NET application or with powerful scripting with PowerShell with no additional effort.

Comment Re:Heu.. ???? (Score 1) 400

Embrace, extend and extinguish ???

Seriously, that is utterly moronic! Why do they need to embrace their own product? Surely they could easily extend PowerShell without making it open source - BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE SOURCE! And why would they extinguish one of the core part of Windows? And how could they if they made it open source?

You simply saw the name Microsoft and just jumped to the old, out-of-date triple-E meme that has absolutely no relevance to the topic. Pathetic.

Comment Re:Not quite right, but it's stupid anyhow. (Score 1) 79

Elevation from limited-user access to "root" (Administrators-level access) is definitely a threat.

This doesn't do that. You have to already be already running as an Administrator for this so-called exploit to work. If you are not in the Local Administrators group then you will get the prompt requiring a password.

Comment Re:UI (Score 1) 204

The only thing I dislike about VLC is that instead of just opening up a file and play it, it adds the file to an unwanted playlist and playlist window. If I then open another file, it gets added to the list instead of opening up another player window.

You can fix that yourself. Under the View menu, choose Playlist (or Ctrl-L). Close VLC and open it again. Did the playlist show?

Comment Re: It's not as simple as "just switch over" (Score 1) 166

We remove them from the domain, use local firewall to block all but needed ports, stop the server service and block outbound communications to the Internet at the firewall.

Apart from removing them from the domain, surely that is what you should be doing for all your computers no matter what OS they use? I do this even on my home systems - block everything and only allow what I want to access the world, not what the developers want.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...