Microsoft Adds Risky System-Wide Undelete to Vista 365
douder writes "Windows Vista will have a new 'previous versions' feature when it ships next year. According to Ars Technica, the
feature is built off of the volume shadow copy technology from Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Now turned on by default, the service stores the modified versions of a user's documents, even after they are deleted. They also report that you can browse folders from within Explorer to see snapshots of what they contained over time. It can be disabled, but this seems like a privacy concern." From the article: "Some users will find the feature objectionable because it could give the bossman a new way to check up on employees, or perhaps it could be exploited in some nefarious way by some nefarious person. Previous versions of Windows were still susceptible to undelete utilities, of course, but this new functionality makes browsing quite, quite simple. On the other hand, it should be noted that 'Previous Versions' does not store its data in the files themselves. That is, unlike Microsoft Office's 'track changes,' files protected with 'Previous Versions' will not carry their documentary history with them."
I trust Microsoft completely. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I trust Microsoft completely. (Score:3, Funny)
Google is your friend. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I trust Microsoft completely. (Score:2, Informative)
It can be disabled, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It can be disabled, right? (Score:5, Informative)
You use the Remove Hidden Data [microsoft.com] add-in to get rid of all that Office stuff. Strongly recommended before submitting a resume...
Re:It can be disabled, right? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It can be disabled, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the list of Office products it integrates with - there's one missing. Outlook. Why isn't outlook set up to prompt you to ask if it should strip the documents before sending? Why is there no feature on exchange to block emails leaving the domain with unstripped attachments? Why doesn't iis block access to unstripped files? Now those would make it a feature worth having.
Stepping back from MS for a moment, the same problem actually exists in many other file types - even html (meta tags and comments). Its why the microformats movement thinks metadata should be presentable and parsable [microformats.org] rather than hidden in 'document properties'. Their solution isn't complete though - we need to separate the notions of 'Save As' and 'Publish'. One way to achieve this in a corporate/government environment would be for servers to require digital signatures on outgoing documents - this would introduce publication into a document lifecycle for the purpose of integrity, at which point we can hook in 'strip doc' wizards to minimize risk.
Just thinking out loud.
Funny story about that (Score:3, Funny)
I have a friend who decided to make a major career change from being a network administrator for a university to... a porn photographer. At the time, I was the resident Photoshop whiz around, so he asked me if I would help him make his business cards. I said I would, but I never got around to it, so he sat down and tried to figure the program out himself. After adding various nude models to his card to come up with a template f
Re:It can be disabled, right? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It can be disabled, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about MS disables the service by default. If a user right-clicks on a trackable file (I'm assuming that this won't track changes on updated game executables, my PHP/CSS templates, OpenOffice documents, etc), then have an option to start tracking. If the user selects that, then enable the appropriate services.
Same with the Firewall and FastUserSwitching. When you connect to the internet, have a well-worded dialog box that asks me to enable the firewall service. When I select Switch User from the logoff options, popup a dialog asking if I want to enable that too.
Turn off more shit by default. Don't just enable everything. Seriously, who the fuck needs Remote Registry, Portable Media Serial Number, TCP/IP NetBios, and all that other useless shit? Sure, you might need one or two things, but do you need 55 services starting on a default install?
Build in the functionality. Disable it by default. When the user triggers an event that needs the service, ask him if he really wants to do that. From that point on, leave that service enabled.
Re:It can be disabled, right? (Score:2)
Classic "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. Modern computers have the resources. The number of people using them is in the tens of millions. Guess how literate the vast majority of these users are. I'll g
Because they have to care about mroe than you (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Disable it by default. This makes a few geeks who know about it and want it happy, more geeks who know aobut it but don'want it indifferent, and doesn't help normal users at all. It's almost worth just leaving out.
2) Enable it by default. This makes some geeks who don't want it a bit annoyed, but makes everyone else happy.
Gee, hard choice. Look, if you want an OS that does nothing by default, get a different OS. Run OpenBSD or something. You won't spend any less time configuring it than you will configuring Windows, you'll just spend that time turning things on rather than off.
Really I fail to see the problem. If you only do it occasionally, it's just a few more minutes of system configuration. I do a hell of a lot of customization to personal systems, it doens't bother me the time I spend turning the things I don't want off. If you do it a lot, develop a system to automate it. There's plenty of ways including customized Windows installs. Don't whine because you haven't done the research to automate tasks for you.
Because MS is an everyman based OS, they need to have the useful stuff turned on by default because normal users won't do it. It's like automatic updates. I don't like them to install on my personal system automatically because I many have something going. So I set it to wait till I give the ok. However it needs to be on by default for normal users. Why? Well otherwise they won't update it. Just today I had to update an XP system that was pre SP2 still. Why? No auto updates. Users didn't know they needed anything, just thought it should take care of itself.
Same shit here. If you don't need file version tracking because you make your own backups, you are smart enough to know how ot turn it off. If you don't know how to turn it off, it's probably a feature you should leave on.
Re:It can be disabled, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
i dont get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, your work computer is the property of your employer. If you want to do something that would get you in trouble with your boss - put it on your own computer. Plus all this does is back up files that you have made, how is this a privacy concern? Even if this was happening and you never knew it and uploading all your files to a central server, it's still an option of your employer, and not an invasion of privacy, it's crappy, but the option of your boss and his/her company. Just like the fact that they can read your business email. No different, and to me even less intrusive than that since you can't control incoming mail.
Re:i dont get it... (Score:2)
Nahh. Just encrypt it.
Re:i dont get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is only a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the goal and justification of a desktop is productivity, not some vaguely defined "monitoring" issue.
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
It wont really affect performace since it uses 15% of the available space for the system restore including the shadow copies. That isnt too heavy (in terms of harddsik space). It shouldnt really take noticeably more time as the system doesnt really copy over the old file to a physically different location.
Anyway if I ever use Vista I'm going to turn this off (I dont like undelete like utilities). But I think this would still be very useful feature for say, my grandma.
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
This just in... It appears there is a nefarious "feature" in several versions of Windows which can allow a nefarious person to nefariously see all those files you thought you deleted. It's called the "Recycle Bin" and many people are sure that it's the NSA ('N' for Nefarious?) that's behind the addition of the feature.
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I'd be more worried about what can be discovered in a lawsuit - the raw ruminations of some employee could be very damaging - whether or not they were correct. This makes it harder to destroy working papers. In the old days, we kept all our working papers on a disk and then destroyed the disk along with our hard copy working papers - that way no one had to worry about what could be dredged up in a lawsuit.
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
So it wasn't a conspiracy after all. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, Kenneth Lay's heart attack confirmed by new autopsy, found to be caused by shock from leaked secret Microsoft "undelete-feature" memo.
a good thing for certain corporations (Score:2)
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
and a privacy concern in Vista.
You guys **really** don't like MS do you?
(I must be new here)
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
Try imagining Slashdot's response to Apple announcing this feature. The one guy who claims 'privacy concern' gets modded down as Troll. Heh.
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
All the flavors of DOS in the 80's were way cool because it allowed us to control our own computer. In the 90's all went to hell as we became connected and the computer started doing more and more things no one really understood. A huge concern MS has not addressed is how to protect confidential information, and more importantly help companies not expose disruptive metadata. For instance, I do not believe they have a setting in outlook to scrub MS Office files as are mailed to external addresses. Nor have the implemented the DRM that would allow firms to track users violate border policy. MS adds features that makes systems less secure, without thought of how to compensate for the breech.
This is clearly an awesome feature. So was the command line shortcuts. But features do not exist in a vacuum. There is only so much that can be done to help careless users. If MS is to provide business class systems, and not just toys that can be used as business systems, they have to get serious about making systems that businesses need. I think that if MS would develop a core competency in business, and leave the consumer side to others, MS would be in much better shape. Imagine how wonderful Vista would be if it did not have to worry about they toys that home user need.
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:4, Funny)
DCL pwns.
Mostly just the story poster (Score:4, Insightful)
and a privacy concern in Vista.
Those of us who have used versioning in filesystems or elsewhere think this is a pretty nice feature, even if we prefer other OS'es. So I would say not nearly so many people are against Microsoft on this one (or at least agree with the summary).
Now if you really wanted to see a storm of negativity from Slashdot imagine what would happy if Sony announced this feature on the PS3!
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
This really shou
Re:This is only a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Much as I distrust MS, in this case I see nothing to be concerned about. The headline "Microsoft Adds Risky System-Wide Undelete to Vista" is just flamebait. A while ago I used Roxio Goback, which seems to have similar functionality; very useful for recovering from some software that spontaneously corrupted data. Now bought by Symantec, so I can't feel great sympathy for them though MS is stealing their lunch.
So that means... (Score:2, Funny)
Just more overhead (Score:5, Insightful)
As with System Restore, Windows Firewall, Remote Assistance, etc... just disable, delete and install better applications to provide the same functionality. MS should just focus on security, stability, and releasing the damn thing.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]MS DOS and Undelete (Score:5, Interesting)
If they could be fast in MS DOS 6.22, I don't see why XP would make the feature inherently slower.
Same thing with NTFS (Score:5, Insightful)
This gives you more reliability. The files are stored and aren't messed with until the space is needed. So if you delete something and still have 500GB free, it'll keep the file since you can afford the space and it'll be marked as allocated and thus not overwritten. Also, it looks like it does version tracking too. If you overrote a file on a FAT or NTFS volume, it writes it to the same space it occupies before, makes sense to do it that way. However that means if you mess up and make a change you didn't want to, there's no undo. You replaced the bytes, it's too late. This will go and keep a copy prior to the change you can roll back to.
Basically it's similar to how NetApp units work. It provides storage that's reliable even against user faults. Things like RAID are great, but they protect only against hardware falure. You can still fuck your data up. There's a market, and MS seems to think the home desktop includes it, for systems that are resiliant against that. You decided to delete 5 paragraphs of that paper and save it, and then deleted it form the disk but now want it? Ok no problem, not only do we have the deleted version, we have the pre modificaiton version.
We use a NetApp FAS 270 at work for home directories for this reason. We aren't really concerned about disk reliability, though it's excellent for that too, and we go to tape nightly. We want to be able to save people from themselves. When they screw something up, we want to be able to get a non-screwed up copy.
MS wants to bring that to home computers. Will it be worth the performance impact? Guess that's too be seen. However it's certianly a good idea in general. What most users really need and want, even if they don't know it, is protection from their own mistakes.
Re:MS DOS and Undelete (Score:3, Interesting)
The trouble is a UI issue, not a technical one. Many users in
Which ones are those? (Score:2)
I've got 13, and that's only because it's a boot drive:
Documents and Settings
Program Files
Recycler
System Volume Information
WINDOWS
autoexec.bat
boot.ini
config.sys
io.sys
msdos.sys
ntdetect.com
ntldr
Each of them has a good reason to be there. So what's your problem?
Now, while the Program Files and Windows directories are kind of tied together per installation (only limited by the installed program's abilities to re-instat
Re:Which ones are those? (Score:3, Interesting)
autoexec.bat
config.sys
msdos.sys
io.sys
ntdetect.com
Those five files exist to make sure that this NTFS disk, if copied to a FAT partition, isn't attempted to be booted by anything other than Windows NT. But never mind that they are tiny files which are stored inline in the MFT, and marked H/S so you can't even see them normally.
They implement a sort of null windows 98 boot telling you that you need to boot from a NT bootloader... which i
Typo? (Score:5, Funny)
/I for one welcome the Previous Versions of our new Overlords.
Looks cool (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get the privacy concern. If someone gains physical access to your machine, then the contents are vulnerable unless you take active steps to prevent it. People have known forever that stuff may not be lost forever just because it's deleted. This feature doesn't change that.
The issue is that this makes it "easier" but I can't help but see that as a neat feature.
The really silly part is this:
If that's what keeps you up at night, then you better give up on all technology, not just this.already in windows 2003 r2 and sharepoint (Score:5, Informative)
Re:already in windows 2003 r2 and sharepoint (Score:2)
Incidentally, a similar capability was available in NetWare at least as far back as 4.11 (which is what, 10 years ago?). Windows Shadow Copy doesn't create restore files as efficiently as NetWare did (Windows Shadow copy runs as a scheduled task, Netware's salvage created restorable copies whenever a file was changed o
Re:already in windows 2003 r2 and sharepoint (Score:2)
Recycle Bin (Score:2)
How dare you question my decisions, explorer.exe! DOWN BOY, DOWN.
Besides, doesn't everyone rsync their old garbage to a file server or burn a DVD before deleting old files to make space?
Oh, you dont? (not necessarily directed to parent) Your loss.
Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok. So what? This feature has been around for awhile, and if you have privacy issues, well just disable system restore (or whatever the equivalent option will be in Vista).
Never mind that as you make new versions of a file, the old ones are still hanging around in your drives' free space for a long time (about the same amount of time the previous-versions feature would keep them). So basically you're making the distinction between being able to access the deleted files explictly, vs. having to use a drive recovery tool.
If you're security concious, you disable the old restore points, fill the drive with a big file full of random data, then delete it. This isn't going to change...
Re:Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's a fair enough response. But nonetheless, I think it's also fair to question the design philosophy which MS is following here, and to challenge it on its merits. Personally, I think enabling extra features on the principle that they might be useful to a subset of users is a questionable practice. I'm especially leery of
Ahh. (Score:4, Insightful)
However I will submit the following counterpoints:
* It works across the entire file system, which creates questions about its efficiency:
A disk-wide snapshotting system will be less resource intensive that a system that has to make multiple, discrete metadata updates per write transaction. Since system restore is enabled by default on XP and I haven't heard much complaint about it performance-wise, I think this is a non-issue. (An exception might be systems that have very slow disks and limited RAM, like a palmtop).
* Its 'all or nothing' implementation does create significant liability in places like law offices, as other have already noted;
Enabling this system doesn't make you or your data more or less at risk. The reality is that old copies of files will stick around on disk for about as long as the Restore feature will keep old versioned copies. The difference between enabling and disabling the feature is whether you want to be able to _definitively_ access an old file or attempt a recovery with a tool booted from CD-ROM, which has to operate with less definitive metadata, and may only be able to give you a corrupted or incomplete copy.
Keep in mind that if you are concerned about hackers accessing your deleted files and you don't feel the need to use this service for recovery, the hacker will probably be able to resurrect enough of the files anyway for it to be moot.
That is, if you get penetrated by a hacker, the issue is moot. You are already in trouble. The real issue is whether you would like a safety net for legitimate recovery. Since the additional resources consumed are neglible, I would posit it would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Furthermore, when deleting files, if you don't want anyone to get at them ever, then whether you use this system or not is irrelevant. Once you delete a file, you need to use a secure undelete facility to make sure all non-allocated space on your system is overwritten. Even with this undelete feature operational, such a tool will invalidate and overwrite ALL the restore points as well as free space. (That is because the facility gives up restore points when disk space gets tight, and the tool operates by attempting to fill up the entire disk with random data, thus it will demand-release all undeleted files, which will then be overwritten).
I would recommend you DISABLE the versioning feature before wiping a machine, to ensure all undeleted files are irrecoverable.
* It encourages laxness in data management; yet
* It doesn't seem to be rich enough to support proper change management processes.
That's not what this tool is for. You still need to have change management processes in place. The tool is for recovering files you didn't know were important! (Otherwise, why would a user delete it? If it were important he or she would have checked it into the Subversion repository, right?
But it would be foolish to rely on this facility alone. Just as it is foolish to rely on RAID alone for data security on the server side.
Such a great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Policing (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds like VMS file versioning (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds like VMS file versioning (Score:2)
So, which part of Massachusetts are you from :-]
Hmm... log structuring on top of a normal fs (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a transactional interface. (Score:3, Interesting)
We toyed for a while with implementing something like this in our scientific data management application and decided in the end that it just wasn't possible because the (instrument vendor provided) applications would have to be modified to deliver information about when to create a "version" of a file. Instead, we require users to provide us with this information manually.
-c
To elaborate: (Score:2)
It makes a whole-filesystem snapshot. It doesn't care if files are open, if that was the case across a snapshot then those files are invalid for that snapshot.
Typically you schedule a snapshot for after-hours so you have a reasonable guarantee that user files are closed and consistant.
The nice thing about a time-based snapshot system is that it doesn't need to store much between the snapshots if nothing changed (thi
Re:Not a transactional interface. (Score:2)
Sounds kind of like (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like directory-by-directory control over this, some way of controlling when the old versions "go away" (I don't want mass-id3'ing of my MP3 collection to clobber my old documents, for example), as well as efficient move operations. But, as many are saying, this sounds like basically a good thing.
It's a feature, and a pretty cool one. I wouldn't mind this in Linux. This is not a bad thing.
guess what (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:guess what (Score:2)
What Microsoft has here, assuming that it is implemented well, doesn't need to 'run' to backup stuff, its implemented at the filesystem level and instead of backuping it simply doesn't overwrite old stuff, so you end up having *full* versioning of all your writes, not just every 1h, every 24h or every week, eveything you ever writen gets a versioned copy and be it just one second apart.
Eventually... (Score:2)
At any rate, there is more good to this than bad, and since this isn't even a real snapshotting mechanism (snapshotting your system memory) your cry
Re:Eventually... (Score:2)
File versioning (Score:3, Interesting)
Today, I thought undeleting was what the trash can was for. With today's big disks you shouldn't have to Empty Trash very often.
CVS? (Score:2)
How is this different? It sounds like a fabulous idea to me -- being a sysadming -- and a great timesaver when it comes to "I just deleted these files, do you hvave the backup tapes?"
Privacy expectation on work computer? (Score:2)
I didn't have a problem with this - if you really want to have a private conversation or IM, use a cell phone that you own. AFAIK, they can't monitor that.
Oh for crying out loud (Score:5, Interesting)
How many times has your mother/father/other family member called you over because they deleted "that one file" they never backed up (it's usually never just "that one file", but that's the typical excuse)? So you head over and, sure enough, the thing is gone. The only recourse is to buy some overpriced Norton Utilities or whatnot (that will probably slow down the system to crawl) and cross fingers.
So, Microsoft enables a feature that's been built-in to the OS for a while and the reaction is instantly negative? Never mind that, daily, petabytes upon petabytes are backed up using VSS around the world, as almost all decent backup software uses it on Windows. Never mind that, if "privacy concerns" get in the way, you can always remove versions in VSS or disable it entirely.
Seems much ado about nothing, personally. Don't like it? Turn it off.
And if you're in a company, well, you don't get a choice. I'm not really sure I understand the "bossman" comments -- in most big companies, the "bossman" has been backing up every file you create, every site you visit, etc. for decades. Granted, 99.99% of it will never be looked at, but in these post-SOX days, you're pretty much mandated to catch that 0.01%. And if you don't like it, well, I guess you can always start a company with your own rules.
Personally, I think this thing is going to be a tremendous blessing. When a relative calls me still using Windows (I've been trying to push them all to Mac), and says "My god, I deleted this crumb cake recipe! I'm doomed!" I'll be able to get it back after a couple clicks. Sounds great to me.
Re:Oh for crying out loud (Score:2)
Because Slashdot's way is to debunk several paragraphs of text based on one sentence.
Uh-oh (Score:2)
Shred (Score:2)
If it is such a burden being unable to hide incriminating files, add a shred option to the recycle bin or context menu which will force the removal of previous versions as well. If anything, get rid of confirmation on deleting files if recovery is easy, and save the confirmation dialog for when someone right clicks a file
I don't see the problem (Score:2)
Privacy concern? (Score:2)
About as much as VMS, CVS, Subversion, or any other (file) system which tracks revisions. Look, people, not everything is a privacy concern. Chill out. This is actually something useful. It formalizes the fact that deletion does not (and never did) actually remove data. It all comes down to the level of protect you want. If you do not want others to recover your data, use encryption. Same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Both sides have a point (Score:3, Insightful)
More MS Headlines Gone Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 2010 Ships with IPv6 as Default
- becomes -
Windows 2010 Foresakes Legacy IPs
Microsoft Office 2009 Ships with Photoshop Competitor
- becomes -
Microsoft Cheats Adobe Out of Millions, Again
Microsoft Ergonomic Mouse Helps Corrects Carpal Syndrome
- becomes -
Microsoft Mouse Locks Out Porn
Asheron's Call VII Goes Alpha
- becomes -
700 Bugs Detected in Asheron's Call VII
Please add your own.
Re:More MS Headlines Gone Bad (Score:5, Funny)
Gates Foundation Cures Cancer, AIDS, World Hunger
-becomes-
Gates Causes Population Crisis, Dooms World
not new (Score:3)
This definitely has got the potential to bite some unsuspecting person in the arse. But so have most things.
This is retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the hell is it suddenly bad when Microsoft does it? (Hint: it isn't.) What the hell are you doing on your PC at work that could get you fired if your boss found out?
FUD indeed.
Combined with Speech Recognition (Score:3, Funny)
user:"Undelete this file"
vista:"unknown command undulate, no wi in fi"
user:"restore old version"
vista:"Going to MS online store. No new olsen twins tracks"
user:"fucking dammit, give me the file from yesterday"
vista:"This system has parental controls enabled. Please contact your parents"
user:"@#ç$!&%".....
Seriously, though, this is a nice feature, but I can see it chomping through users' 250GB disks like a hummer goes through gas.
Hardly a feature (Score:3, Informative)
But all in all, it is a pretty attractive interface. The beta is extremely buggy. Virtually all features have serious problems. Accessing a SATA drive from allegedly support drivers/chipsets can still take you 30 seconds or longer to open a directory you were previously in but move away from and want to move back into. The network 100mb transfer rate is extremely slow. The same machine with XP works flawlessly at a nice speed. Wireless is essentially non-functional on most of my machines. The Aero interface is only working a the highest end 128mb cards when it should easily work on any card with 128mb of video ram. That 128mb requirement is more than some games for a simple interface.
But, aside from all that Vista has been trashed so badly with components being removed that Microsoft has felt that they need to insert features to make it seem so less bare-bones.
Even so, that feature is poorly implemented and weak and will fill people's drives with unwanted overhead and make a storage facility for spyware/adware/malware to hide--just like system restore.
It is essentially a non-feature for an OS lacking any real feature updates.
Re:Could really use that right about now... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Could really use that right about now... (Score:5, Funny)
My missus had a great time deleting all the geeky stuff from slashdot.
You should have seen her face drop though when I told her she had actually removed it from the internet.
Someone at work once asked ... no *told* me ... (Score:3, Funny)
They had done a quoted search for the title of a particular book. Unfortunately, several porn sites included that title in the meta tags for their home page.
So when they did the search, and it popped up the porn sites, they were quite offended and were absolutely sure that "Google is broken" and that I could "fix it."
I explained the situation to them (but there was a language barrier, not to mention a lack of the capability to understand much) and then reported it to my supervisor. Whe
Re:Someone at work once asked ... no *told* me ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another reason the hardware requirements are hi (Score:3, Interesting)
With Windows Vista, the operating system will make "shadow" (that is, backup) copies of files and folders for users who have "System Protection" enabled (the default setting).
In Windows Vista, each partition that is protected by "System Restore" requires at least 300MB of space, and may use up to 15 percent of the available space on a partition to store previous versions of files. In the event that more space is required, the service will delete older restore points to make room for new one
Um, no. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is a great feature (Score:5, Informative)
It's a fantastic feature. I remember Novell Netware had this and we used it a lot to roll back changes to code. It was better than version control when only one person was working on the project.
I wonder if OS X 10.5 was going to have such a feature and it leaked out. This is actually a quasi-innovative idea from Microsoft. Maybe they stole it from Apple via corporate spying.
Ok, you do realize Windows has had encryption for like 10 years now, right? Or are Mac Zealots just naturally unaware of anything without an Apple logo on it?
You also realize this has been in WinXP and Windows 2003 Server for quite some time, so I doubt they stole the idea from OSX 10.5. (geesh)
As for the Versioning in Vista, the new thing is that it is turned on by default and works on local volumes, where WinXP required the data to be on a Windows 2003 Server.
Also, there aren't security risks, and this article is nothing but FUD. Windows Server has had this ability for 'versioning' files since 2003, and BUSINESSES have already been using it.
It also is a great tool, especially when you accidentally nuke a file, or change and save a file you didn't mean to, etc. Versioning archives are more handy than a 'problem'. (Truly)
If you are an employee, don't be doing crap at work, they own the computers, download your goat porn at home and don't be writing your resume while at work.
Also, as an employee if you are half way bright, you can purge the 'versioned' copies, unless the company doesn't allow you to with group policies. And again, it is their computer, so they can do what they freaking want if you work there.
You get an F. (Score:5, Funny)
You are quite over that limited, and your spelling is atrocious. Please, leave and don't come back. Thanks.
Congratulations!!! (Score:5, Funny)
You can stay.
Re:This is a great feature (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is a great feature (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft got this one much more directly. Windows NT started out as basically the next version of VMS, designed and written almost entirely by former DECies (one rumor has it that the "NT" came from taking VMS and adding one to each letter to get WNT...) VMS has had a feature like this for years. It predates not only OS/X, but the Macintosh in general. I can remember using in about 1981 or so -- I don't remember for sure, but VMS 3 is what sticks in my mind -- and I don't think it was new then (it seemed pretty cool to me after dealing with Control Data mainframes, but the people who'd been using VMS longer didn't seem to think of it as new or exciting).
Re:This is a great feature (Score:5, Interesting)
The VMS filesystem (Files 11) was an evolution of earlier DEC filesystems and had versioning buit in from the start. There's also a more user-oriented versioning filesystem which has been in development for Linux for the past few years.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/versionfs/ [sourceforge.net]
No, not really. (Score:5, Interesting)
The VMS versioning was done in the file system itself. This system (and many related systems) are done at a layer underneath the filesystem, and are often filesystem agnostic.
People like to say that Windows NT borrows a lot from VMS. That's like saying Linux borrows a lot from Multics. There isn't really _anything_ in common, but they are in the same spirit.
Re:No, not really. (Score:3, Interesting)
That turns out not to be the case. Anyone familiar with VMS internals found the NT internals practically identical in many cases, to an extent that was quite laughable. Moreover, established VMS internals experts were able to start teaching and writing about NT within months - they had very little new to learn.
Of course the
Versioning is not innovative (Score:2)
Re:Versioning is not innovative (Score:2)
Obligatory Link (Score:2)
http://www.grcsucks.com/ [grcsucks.com]
it's all the same stuff... (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 2003: Volume Shadow Copy / Previous Versions
It's a system service that puts a shim between userspace and your physical disks (like LVM on linux). It can take file-system wide snapshots at configurable intervals. Those different names are just different levels of user-space interaction with the same underlying stuff.
VSS can notify programs that a snapshot is about to be taken. If they are VSS aware they will flush their open files to make sure the snapshot is "consistent". Otherwis
Not only that... (Score:2)
I mean, alert the presses!
I'm surprised at the low level of technological familiarity from Slashdot recently (gauging by the reaction to this article).
Low working knowledge about basic things like filesystems and disk management.
Christ...
You should change your name to Rookie One... (Score:2)
Re:reason number 452 (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, some people don't buy into this, they say things like "but it can easily be disabled, and your casual computer users would only benefit from this kind of feature". These people are obviously missing the large scale point. Microsoft has been making windows for a long time, and every time they do it, they add more features. If we
Re:Privacy issues... (Score:2)
So then turn it off.
What's that? It's your machine at work? Well, then...it's your boss's machine, not yours. He can make the determination to have it on or not. You always haave the option of finding a new job, or starting your own company with your rules.
You sir, are a tin-foil hat wearing mouthbreather. (Score:2)
You do know that deleted files are really deleted anyway on any modern system, right?
I think you've lost your Slashdot user's license, please turn it in at the front desk and don't let the door hit you on the way out.