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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:A few points: (Score 2) 71

1. Most ISPs don't allow residential customers to run an email service of their own.

Wrong. Sometimes, you may have to ask to have the port opened, but most allow it.

many domains will reject any email out-of-hand that's sent from just some random IP address

Set it up correctly. Set up the various SPF records and other such stuff. That'll greatly reduce the impact of this.
Furthermore, you *can* get your own static IPv4 IP that isn't in those blocks, and/or you can use a virtual server and forward that stuff, and/or you can use IPv6 to route around it, and/or you can use a different outbound SMTP server or forward through one. There are lots of ways around this trivial issue.

Why even bother with this when there's something like Proton Mail out there ...

Using a common service/server is one of the primary things this product is trying to avoid, as is using hardware/storage someone else owns (virtual servers / hosting / cloud / etc). There's nothing wrong with that part of the theory.

If you don't want to use a service like Proton Mail, what's wrong with using your own end-to-end encryption?

It relies on accessible and verifiable public keys and integration with the client software. That works within protonmail because all users get keys and can share public keys (AFAICT). Doing it yourself means pgp/gpg or s/mime, and both parties must have that, and there's no encryption of email headers (including TO, FROM, and SUBJECT) with those, so they won't be protected once they leave your server.

If you're really so worried about someone hacking into your communications over the Internet, then why are you even bothering with email in the first place?

What type of argument is that? Probably shouldn't use http either, nor facebook, nor any instant messenger, nor any search engine, nor the internet... heck, you should probably completely disconnect from every external line and seal yourself in a faraday cage within a bunker underground.
Email has loads of benefits and still the most widely used (head count) communication platform. It's certainly capable of sending an encrypted payload and the delivery mechanism is very well established... why not use it?

None of this means this product is good or worthwhile, but a secure communication appliance *could* be done right.

Comment Re:LOL...worse than that (Score 1) 195

You fail at reading comprehension.

The example that made up the majority of your ramble, of which you couldn't recall what ISP did it.... that was my final sentence and I included the name of the ISP (comcast).

Let's try this another way... The point of net neutrality is to prevent this sort of thing. It's to ensure that end users can use any part of the internet without some parts being artificially restricted. If/when it goes away, Comcast and other ISP's can go back to charging content providers, such as Netflix, for faster transmission to Comcast's network. This restriction favors Comcast because they also have their own streaming site(s), so it's an anti-competitive move. I think you're on the same page up to this point.

What GGGP was saying, is that those ISP's should be careful what they wish for because the content providers could turn around and do the same thing right back to them (but can't at this time due to current regulations).

Trying to wring money out of an ISP as large as Comcast as opposed to charging users directly would backfire. Comcast would just say no, denying Google a large part of the ISP customer market.

That's quite debatable, but I disagree.
If google, youtube, netflix, hulu, amazon, apple/itunes, pandora, spotify, etc all teamed up and said they would put a big banner on the top of every page informing the user that their ISP failed to pay their dues, so their connection was being limited to low bitrate titles, and they did so, I'm certain they could easily take on comcast. They could even target that action to those cities (based on geoip) where comcast has competition, so that users could go to an ISP that has paid the dues. They could also make it free for some ISP's by setting up cooperative peering arrangements (which has been done for ages and is common practice).

I'm curious... what is your opinion on net neutrality in general, and the legislation in particular? Based on your comment, it would seem that you are pro-net neutrality, since you called out the "egregious" act that "bullshit ISPs have ALREADY done". So am I, and so was the GP, and so is the argument that ISPs should be afraid of loosing the net neutrality legislation (though I don't think it (content providers charging the end users ISPs) is a likely outcome).

Comment Re:LOL...worse than that (Score 1) 195

This has nothing to do with Google competing directly for in the ISP space. Just ignore google fiber for a bit. For that matter, ignore the mention of google - that probably wasn't the best example, though it's still a decent one (think youtube instead of google, which they also own).

What GP is implying is that content providers *could* theoretically turn the tables on the ISP's. Instead of staying alive on advertising money and user subscriptions, New York Times could sell a "fast lane" to the ISP (ie. ISP pays NYT for faster access to NYT from their network). If the ISP doesn't pay, they get throttled, and the site throws up a warning that their connection is throttled because their ISP hasn't paid their dues.

Furthermore, content providers *could* band together, somewhat like patent portfolios, so they could have strength in numbers. If they did so, they could also offer individuals personal plans to their site to get fast access just for you and only to that site (or to a group of sites). If you or your ISP don't pay, you'd just get a more basic site (low res videos, rate limitted, etc). They could make your ISP look like a 3rd world ISP.

IMO, it's absolutely crazy. The ISP should never charge some content provider for faster access, nor vice-versa. The users are paying for their last mile connection. The servers / content providers are paying for their bandwidth within their colo's or interconnects etc. When comcast demanded that netflix pay to send that traffic to their users, that was double dipping and violated the spirit (if not the law) of net neutrality.

Comment Re:Welp. In. (Score 1) 94

No. A Wii is not the same as a combo nes/snes/n64 retro box preloaded with titles.
And yes, cost is one of the biggest factors. There's no way I'm spending enough to get all the (expensive) add on controllers, and buy all the games ($5 - $15 each**), on top of buying a Wii.
Form factor also matters, as does ease of use/maintenance. With the games preloaded, it's very convenient - buy it, plug it in, and it's all there. No network connection needed (or even possible). No need to create accounts, make additional purchases, download each title, etc. It's all right there. I want to pick it up and play for a bit. If I have to be bothered to do all the leg work, it's not worth it (I would have stood outside and waited for one if I had that kind of time to devote to it, HA).

* got the game pricing from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (500 - 1500 Wii Points, or $4.99 - $9.99 on the Wii U). And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (100 points = $1; Dr. Mario Online RX is 1500 points).

Comment Re:Monopoly really (Score 2) 54

THIS. This is all I was planning on saying, more or less.
You can't even view facebook messages on a phone via the browser. I'm pretty sure I would have installed the app if I wasn't so stubbornly opposed to forcing stuff on people.

I don't think it's a monopoly practice (as the GP stated). Separating messenger off to its own app is actually a good design, and we should probably give them credit for that. However, comparing its download stats to other stand alone apps is disingenuous, and forcing it on people viewing the website via a browser is, IMO, a dick move.

Comment Re:No, Minecraft (Score 1) 54

So wrong.

Minecraft: 5839 downloads in past 24hr (https://minecraft.net/en-us/stats/)

Facebook Messenger: averaged 348000 downloads per day in September 2016 (https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/13-eye-popping-app-download-statistics-42f176356637)

I'm sure minecrafts numbers are larger overall, since there are other platforms not counted in that figure (it's just PC/Mac, but parent *did* state, "maybe not on the google store or whatevs the poor people use", so I don't feel bad about using that stat). I'm also guessing minecraft has far more downloads per day when they push out an update. Regardless, there's still a few orders of magnitude to make up.

Comment Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? (Score 1) 218

The only thing MacOS is missing out of the box is window snapping, but there are ways to fix that....

(I'm wondering off topic a bit, but...)
1. focus follows mouse and window menu bars within the window (need the latter for the former to work).
2. legal/supported hackintosh.

If Apple had made their OS generally available in the same way Windows is, and I could do focus follows mouse, I would have had it running on at least one of my machines, and I suspect that would have grown into most of them.

For those coming from Windows, and buying new hardware, it really shouldn't be a big deal. Sure, everything underneath is different, as is the way everything looks, but it all ends up working pretty much the same. The change isn't significantly more drastic than going from Windows 7 to Windows 10.

Comment Re:So what's the fix? (Score 1) 69

:-( I should have previewed that comment.
The two examples I provided should have been:

* include both on the location bar (one in parenthesis). Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com] https://www.apple.com/
* ... or vice-versa: Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www.apple.com] https://www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com/

NOTE: in the above, the word "apple" would be the phishing version with the "l" replaced by a unicode character, or the "a" replaced by the greek "a", but slashdot doesn't like unicode, so I just entered the ascii versions. IE. use your imagination :-)

Comment Re:So what's the fix? (Score 4, Interesting) 69

The article mentions an upcoming patch twice, but is silent on what it does.

Apparently, though not listed explicitly, they will display the unicode version (Ex: www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com instead of www..com) for these edge cases - though I'm not sure how they're detecting them.

IMO, it's all stupid mistakes and fixes because it's only an issue because they're trying to make it so "easy to use" and transparent for the dumbest of folks, while making it more and more complex to actually find the real info. For example, you used to be able to click the padlock icon next to the URL if it was an SSL domain, and that'd pop up security and cert info on Chrome. Now, you can't do that... you have to go into developer tools, then expand the tabs (security tab is often outside the window, because they moved the developer console to split the screen vertically instead of horizontally) to find security tab, then get the cert info there.

All domains should have a very very easy way to see both versions (the unicode/punycode version, and the localized version). Some options:
* right click on the domain, include both in that menu
* mouse over the domain, show alt version in the status bar (bring back the status bar!)
* mouse over the domain, include alt version in mousever text
* include both on the location bar (one in parenthesis). Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com] https://www./.com/
* ... or vice-versa: Eg. [lock icon] Secure | [www..com] https://www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com...
* add a little colored (red?) icon next to the name if punycode is in use. Mouseover on it would display info saying what that did. Clicking it would remove/add the decoding. IE: display the decoded localized characters by default; click the red dot to display the punycode; click again to go back to localized; set a preference from the right click menu on the red dot.

This isn't something that can be definitively solved programmaticly. It's still a case of tricking users. Just give the users the info they need so they can make a fair decision. The real DNS name is the fully encoded one (ex. xn--80ak6aa92e.com), not the one decoded from that, so please make that readily available to the user. IMO, displaying the localized text should be an added feature, not the primary display.

Comment Re:MS pushing more into older OS or Linux/Mac (Score 1) 238

So, Ryzen on Windows 8.1 and lower will forever suffer a not-insignificant performance penalty compared to the same hardware running Windows 10. Perhaps it is YOU who should actually study up on current topics, hmm?

While the MS supplied drivers for the new features on these latest processors may not be supported on Windows 8.1, that's not the main issue people are bitching about.

The problem is that all updates are going to (or may) be affected.
Let it be slower than optimal, and let power management not be as ideal, but they shouldn't (IMO) halt security updates (which is what the screenshot in the article states).

I am a little surprised that Intel and AMD themselves won't supply updated drivers for Windows 8.1.

Comment Re:Nobody (Score 1) 236

I have, and consider it far, far behind the competition in features.

I'm honestly curious - what features are people talking about?

I don't run Windows, let alone Edge, so I can't compare. However, when it comes to browser features, they all seem to be removing them far faster than adding features. The only features left (by default) seem to be:
* back button
* reload button
* location bar
* tabs
* bookmarks
* incognito / privacy mode
* history / downloads
* print
* settings

I'm digging deep on some of those. There isn't even an OS title bar nor status bar anymore. I have a forward button, but I think I had to add that. I guess there's form autocomplete and password management too, but I turn those off first thing. What features are everyone talking about that Chrome has but Edge lacks?

Comment Re: Similar to my experience. But why is FF so ba (Score 1) 236

since Mosaic was the only browser in existence.

Minor nitpick, but that's never been the case. You might assume I'm talking about Lynx (which did predate Mosaic, barely) or something similar, but Mosaic wasn't even the first graphical web browser. This is grammar-nazi level nitpicking though... you could have easily said, "I have been using the web since Mosaic was released", and that'd mean the same thing and have the same impact, even if you didn't use it on release day (Mosaic was around for less than 2 years before Netscape Navigator was released, so you must have used it somewhere in that short range of Jan 1993 - end of 1994).

Comment Re: Nobody (Score 1) 236

... and then video games which rely on well optimized video card drivers to run well.

For many years, the video game excuse was that they only ran on Windows.
Then, for many years, that they ran poorly through wine (or various versions of it or winelib), or they were released later than the windows counter part (even if some of them actually ran better on linux).
There's also a fairly large list of games that still require Windows, or run better there, and that can be used as an excuse.
This quote, that they require well optimized video card drivers to run well, this is just stupid.

The majority of the driver is identical on all OS's. Let's ignore that for a second and assume that you found a case where your top end card (must be top end if the driver optimization has a big enough impact that it could make the game run poorly)... where your top end card actually runs noticeably better on Windows. For years now I keep hearing that someones top end card from 5 years ago is still plenty good enough to play any AAA title full res with medium to high settings. So, how is this relatively minor difference due to driver optimization holding up developers or users?

FWIW, I think there are some legit reasons that make significantly more difficult to successfully release a game on Linux. I think the majority of that has its root cause in a chicken and egg problem, but it's a problem nonetheless. But optimized drivers? That's not a valid reason for users or devs.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...