Re: Ban private car ownership.
I dunno. Maybe people can distinguish between the First Minister and a relative.
Anyhow, I was just pointing out that we *have* a charismatic leader already and it doesn't seem to be helping to get stuff done.
7295 posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
I'm not sure your analogy with engineering actually stands up.
Real engineers don't do most of the work when building a bridge, but they supervise and they are on the line (in court) if it goes wrong. Insurers cover that risk as long as the "real engineer" has professional qualifications. In the end, it is all about money. The builder uses an engineer to off-load the risk, the enginer off-loads that risk to an insurer, and everyone keeps their fingers crossed that the bridge doesn't fall down.
If it falls down the first time someone drives a heavy truck over it, everyone loses. However, if it falls down when someone wraps shaped charges around a pylon, everyone shrugs shoulders and the police chase after the terrorist.
Some high-profile attacks on software feel like the latter case. The software was fit for its purpose, but an attacker just "changes the purpose" until the software is no longer fit. Expecting every software package to be resistant against crackers is like expecting bridges to be resistant to bombing. Maybe it can be done, I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it would be cheap and who is going to pay?
I'm aware that some other attacks are just plain stupid. (Anything where key infrastructure is connected to an international network sounds ... rash.) But let's not pretend that qualifications can save us from an foreign adversary who is clearly practising for the next war.
Microsoft have been pleading devs to stop using NTLM for many years now and rolled out its successor over 20 years ago. Admins can enable auditing to see what might break if they disable NTLM and then they can disable it anyway because, well, it's a known train wreck of a protocol.
So who is actually being negligent here?
Keyboard shortcuts are underlined and menu accelerators are written on the menu. Except that MS have abolished both of those. :(
Change for changes sake, without even any understanding of why things were like that in the first place. Nevermind. Perhaps the next round of changes will accidentally rediscover CUA and we'll all have discoverable UIs again.
@9Rune5: Plausible, and I congratulate you on trying to put apositive spin on this, but to a native English speaker the verb "leverage" is just so awful that the it just implies that the speaker is a fucking twat who should be throttled with their own intestines.
Doubtless there are similar constructions in your own mother tongue that provoke similar revulsion.
"C:\The Linux vulnerability involves creating a very long path name.\ That's Very Long(tm) since the length needs to overflow a 32-bit integer.\ It reminds me that (once upon a time) there were limits on the permissible lengths of filenames and although those limits were set much longer than any reasonable human being would ever be bothered to type, they meant that all sorts of software could use a fixed size buffer and not worry about million-character path lengths.\ Sadly, the pursists insisted that there was simply no reason to limit pathnames and so all software must pass torture tests in this area.\ Back in the day, even UNIX systems had a limit (around 4096 characters, I believe, at least on some systems) but gradually the purists have ground everyone else down. Even MS have belatedly gone down this path.\ But really, just *what* is the fucking point of this post being a valid filename? (There, just to trigger another set of purists, I've included wild-card characters in a filename.)\
Actually, if I'm going to be *really* anal I should include a paragraph break, in the form of newline characters, but I'm getting a bit off topic. The real point is that although *you*, dear end-user, cannot see any reason to impose a size limit on names, comment fields or whatever, *implementors* have to go several extra miles to actually support this, especially in a performant manner, and one of the costs is bugs like this.\
Really obscure feature that no-one actually uses but which causes security holes. Sigh..."
With any luck it will go as well as last time. It will be challenged in court, found to be a nreach of monopoly law, and MS will be forced to offer an unencumbered versionof Windows and a choice screen. The only difference will be that this time it will only spend 5 minutes in court because it is so clearly the same offence.
You can run a perfectly performant Windows VM in 2GB RAM and 64GB disk space. Yes, there are old machines and tiny laptops that can't provide that but you'd struggle to buy a "PC" today that doesn't exceed those requirements by an integer factor.
OTOH, there are certainly *apps* that need 8GB RAM or more, but that isn't a problem either because those apps wouldn't run on the old or tiny machine. In short, the overhead of running Windows in a VM on top of another OS is negligible.
Well, which? The UNIX root user, 0, is the omnipitent identity you appear to want but it has no equivalent in Windows. All user-space code runs under a login session that has powers strictly determined by the principals in its token. That's even true for sevices running as SYSTEM.
The real problem here is that this question is pointless. It has no useful answer.
If the user trusts the code, it doesn't mean it is trustworthy. (Even well-intentioned code might have bugs.) It just means the user doesn't want to be pestered by an algorithm that is (inevitably) too dumb to answer the question by itself.
If the user doesn't trust the code, they presumably still want to read it, so they will click on the annoying popup to make it go away.
Either way, the user has been annoyed and Microsoft have learned nothing that they can act on. (I *assume* that MS don't do dangerous things on random pieces of code just because the end-user happens to be reading it. That would be like ActiveX on steroids.) On the other hand, the end-user has learned that they are using an IDE created by people who think this a security feature. Oh dear.
There is no business case for third-party developers to re-write their UI to offer no *functional* improvements to their end-users, but to restrict (however slightly) the range of Windows versions that it runs on.
There is arguably a negative business case if they are unable to re-write all of their software at once, because customers *will* notice that the look and feel of the app is inconsistent (like your Control Panel / Settings farce that has been running for a decade now). On the other hand, they probably won't care, because 99% of their customers don't give a shit about look and feel as long as it presents a UI in a coherent way (unlike your Control Panel / Settings farce).
This does not strike me as a difficult concept to grasp. I am therefore somewhat bewildered that you have tried to do exactly this at least half a dozen times over the last 25 years, each time chipping away at usability with "features" like hiding keyboard shortcuts, hiding system menus, hiding window borders, hiding entire, yet new, features like the "charm" thingy, etc.
Annoying, but understandable. Haswell (4th-gen) introduced AVX2 and a VEX coding scheme that was useful enough and orthogonal enough that compilers can actually target it. I expect MS want to use that in Win11.
And yes they could make two builds of /everything/, but then you have to test the "old" build, on a range of representative old hardware, purely for the benefit of processors that (by 2025) are 10 years older than the OS.
Windows 10 required SSE2, which came in about 10-12 years before Win10, and not many people complained about that. A change of compiler switches would have "fixed" the problem, but made the OS run slower for everyone else. When is an OS vendor allowed to finally start depending on last decade's technology?
I expect there is a big difference between what your PC Health Check says and what Windows 11 will say when it finally turns up.
Just as... there is a big difference between what the article says (5th gen) and what the linked MS article says. I'm running the latest Win10 on a Sandy Bridge era Xeon, so old that it almost pre-dates Intel's current nth-gen labelling scheme, but it is OK as far as Microsoft's list goes.
Fun fact: Waterfall was "invented" by an academic paper that needed a term for the worst possible methodology. Naturally no such term existed because all methodologies that had actually been proposed, described or actually used had at least some redeeming features.
It was a straw man on day one, has never been a thing, but is still The Reference against which everything is measured. This is probably because even snake oil looks good next to it.
It is very easy to ban VPNs if you don't mind stopping everyone from working from home. In the current situation, that might be something you minded, particularly if you had just spaffed a squillion pounds on Dido and her cronies and sent several sectors of the economy off a (white) cliff.
Not that you as an end-user can do anything about it, but fibers were only added to NT to make it easy to port from other OSes that had tried them and not yet found them to be more trouble than they were worth. The advice to Windows programmers has always been "don't use them in new software".
That was over 20 years ago. Very sad to hear they are actually used by any software still on sale.
I think you are massively underestimating how much 32-bit code there is. It took them about 10-15 years to kill Win16 and it had significant functional limitations compared to Win32. Win32 code has no such limits compared to Win64, unless your problem has datasets bigger than 2GB. Unsurprisingly then, there are still plenty of expensive speciality apps that are sold as 32-bit software. It ain't broke, so why fix it?
Methinks Mat Powell is trying to spread FUD. Do MS have an alternative file format they are trying to push? Is this a (laughable) attempt to badge STL as proprietary, in contrast to their own one, which of course isn't proprietary because it is the Microsoft Industry Standard (tm).
It's not just vaccines. Mental health issues have a cost to wider society, so where's the harm in gently "nudging" people towards taking mind-altering drugs?
And whose society are we protecting here? There are 225 million people in Pakistan. Millions of them have "been told" that the vaccine causes infertility or even death within a couple of years. Now "the government" is telling them that the screws are turning and they'll have to have the vaccine eventually. The vaccines were all developed abroad. Last time this happened, it "turned out" that a foreign government wanted their DNA.
If you were to call for a vote in the UK, you'd have a huge majority in favouring of taking the vaccine. Evidence out this week suggests that even the "vaccine hesitancy" of some has not actually materialised as "vaccine refusal". We didn't force the issue and people were persuaded by the experiences of friends and family. However, if you were to call for a vote in some parts of Pakistan, you'd just lose the vote. What's your authority for imposing sanctions on a regional majority population that numbers in the millions?
I believe so, which would suggest that earlier attempts to get people to accept vaccination did not use effective strategies. As the article relates, at least some of those attempts did not treat the local population with respect and left people feeling pretty pissed off about it.
So we created a reservoir for polio to reside in and perhaps mutate one day, and we might now be creating a similar reservoir for covid. Great work, guys!
When you have this many skeptics, there is considerable social pressure involved, so I don't think you can just rely on people being amenable to having their minds changed and getting vaccinated. (Their kids don't even get asked, for one thing, so a "Darwinian fallback position" is not really acceptable.)
You have to go in an actively persuade people that their doubts are mis-placed. You have to win the argument. (And as I've argued above, I don't think that coercion is a winning argument.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021