Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 1) 213

The point that MS was *trying* to make was that they could give a phone that when docked becomes a viable PC (shame they made it based on ARM, which nullifies that promise of value, even in theory).

MS has a challenge that on the one hand they need to move beyond leveraging their near monopoly on desktop to get success. The problem is they haven't produced something that is new and compelling on its own merits in over a decade. They keep breaking and fixing Windows, keep milking the cash cow that is Office. Continue selling SQL server to shops that say 'hey, ' SQL server from our OS vendor, good enough'. They continue to enjoy their position with Exchange of having unbelievably terrible competition in the space. On the flip side they struggle to get people to enthusiastically adopt their messaging platform (repeatedly rebranding it and redressing and still having fundamental problems) or sharepoint (which makes users and admins alike cringe in much the same way people cringe at the phrase 'Lotus Notes').

I suppose Azure is a sign of their success, buried in the bowels far away from consumer end users at least..

Comment Re:No you don't (Score 1) 213

Well, in principle it's not so far fetched. In terms of compute power, most people have needs that can be met. The PC difference is human factors around input/output. So their 'continuum' concept is not too terrible in *theory*.

In practice, 'modern' applications are nearly non-existant, making the phone-friendly applications exteremely limited. Where they do exist, they tend to have a worse interface than their Android/iOS equivalents (e.g. netflix's modern app is terrible). 99% of my Windows 10 PC usage is 'traditional' win32 applications (occasionally I open up calculator). With the windows 10 improvements, at *least* it's possible to create a viable UI for desktop and full screen usage, though still being responsive UI to span anywhere from a window on a desktop to a tablet to a phone is an art that escapes most UI designers.

Comment Re: Thanks, *hats (Score 1) 79

I think the point is despite *trying* to design it 'secure it in the first place', there were failures. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, and claim that if they had just secured it *right* in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem, but it is disingenuous to say they didn't even try.

This is the crux of the problem for security. Even if you *try* to do it right, there is every likelihood that you will mess up. Even if you pull in a 'trusted security company' to audit your design, they'll frequently do an inadequate job because they lack expertise in what you are doing to credibly know if it is secure. They'll look for things that vaguely resemble other generic things and sometimes yell loudly about some non-issue that makes no sense in context, and at the same time completely miss glaring security issues.

Comment Re: Thanks, *hats (Score 1) 79

You cannot *prove* security. Security is not a set of absolute laws, it is a subjective call. There are of course some *limited* facets that are more concrete (buffer overruns are never good, for example), but security is a big thing that encompasses a lot and in fact two different approaches can both rationally call each other insecure and themselves secure, depending on perspective.

Comment Re: Were the users randomized? (Score 1) 519

You forgot installing weird things like asset management software and anti-virus, on top of being based on an enterprise distro with poor desktop support to start with, and *then* holding back updates on top of that.

Funny thing was, the anti-virus software at the time *only* supported detection of signatures of Windows viruses. They supported linux with the use case of a Samba file server to protect Windows clients, but they put it on all the linux desktops and sucked down tons of resources and brought things to a crawl.

It was the moment that I got a 'blessed' configuration of Linux to run on my laptop that I finally had some sympathy for Microsoft and how their platform is treated by vendors and IT departments and how much of MS 'badness' is due to preloads and IT department loads being very stupid. Of course Microsoft hasn't done any favors with poor QA on updates causing that mindset in the first place, but the avoidance is worse than taking the updates.

Comment Re:We Were Attacked! (Score 2) 75

The problem is this philosophy tends to create targets of great value by putting so much infrastructure into so few places.

It's been a curious development in the internet. In the 90s, there was a trend from walled gardens and centralized resources to more federated approaches. In the last decade, the trend has reversed.

We have increasingly powerful endpoint devices, even as their form factors have shrunk. This *should* have led to the reduction of the importance of 'datacenters', but now they are more important than ever *and* so much function has been consolidated into 3 or so companies, and a handful of physical locations.

Now it's not as bad if everyone at least had their infrastructure to bank on a couple of providers as you do (so long as they all don't bank on the *same* two, but generally there's only a couple of companies people go to.for services)..

In a decentralized case, a random entity is doubtlessly unlikely to withstand such an attack, but also they are far less likely to be the target of such an attack (being a bonus effect of taking down a target versus *being* the target).

Comment Two factors in effect... (Score 1, Insightful) 519

One, the Linux and Mac users are probably ones explicitly asking for it, meaning they care enough to request it specifically. Compared against the general population, the subset is going to be more experienced enthusiasts.

Two, one of the biggest enemies of Windows usability is corporate preloads. Botched updates, sometimes 5 or six anti-virus applications and multiple firewall and update managers installed haphazardly.

All that said, I'd still take Linux in a heartbeat, but still Windows to some extent suffers the downsides of its own success.

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 1042

If the universe is a simulation, it is a pretty complex one

Ok, first off I'll say right up front this is all fanciful, more faith based rather than scientific. It's like debating which 'religion' is right.

But for the sake of entertainment, I'll discuss. How do we know the simulation is a pretty complex one? Comlpexity is a relative term.

So for one, there could be facets of a 'truer' reality we can't even conceive. Imagine Super Mario Brothers was a 'reality'. A third dimension would be an unthinkable exotic thing. In a very modern game, the concept of something having any smell or taste or touch are things that would not even occur to a hypothetical entity in one of those simulations. Similarly, we have quantized time and matter, meaning we effectively have a 'resolution' that may be coarse by a higher order existence standards.

For another, we don't know how much is *really* being simulated in this hypothetical. In a game, they don't simulate the other side of an object you are looking at. Similarly, there's nothing to prove that something that is not actively being observed truly exists at all times, rather than 'popping in' when observed.

Lastly, we don't know the depth to which things are really being simulated that we observe. For example, let's consider Half Life. To simulate that game, they didn't *really* have to model some weird physics thing that tears a hole between dimensions. However one could posit a being in such a world *believing* that a simulation would necessarily have to successfully model their *belief* in how things work. Many complex phenomenon and mechanisms could be in fact be glorified props, and the world written so that we believe/see in detail when it matters.

It's not a falsifiable claim, so it's not the realm of science, so we can debate this all day long with no real objective 'winner', but still it's fun...

Comment Re:Everything Working As Planned (Score 1) 254

In the automotive world, there are proving grounds to work out the kinks, not shared with the general populace or pedestrians and what not. If over a ton of equipment makes potentially unsafe maneuvers, it's hard to ever consider it 'minor'. It's only minor because another car wasn't going down that street or a pedestrian didn't step out at the wrong time because they failed to expect a car coming from where it shouldn't (yes a pedestrian should always be vigilant, but in practice particularly in well walked areas, folks get used to not paying attention).

It's worrisome to see these companies be overly aggressive (Tesla exaggerating the autonomy of their adaptive cruise control, Uber jumping straight to testing on real streets accepting pretty much whatever Uber driver to test it). There's unmanned autonous testing, but it's on proving grounds closed off to public. Google's been doing autonomous vehicle testing on real roads, but with specifically hired and specifically trained drivers.

Basically, this really *has* to be perfect and there's a long history of how to evaluate big changes in this field that is too boring for some of these newer companies to concern themselves with, and that is the crux of the problem.

Comment Re: We called it (Score 1) 125

Still, I doubt in one's own home that fear of putting on a headset due to obscuring vision is not high on the list.

High on the list would be expensive and lots of folks making it sound like a big involved mess as they make well-meaning statements that make people think they need a dedicated room just for VR and/or an exotic treadmill to enjoy.. 'Room scale' is cool and all, but right now people are making it sound like it is a non negotiable part of the experience, which is a big ask. Things that need that much real estate have never lasted.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.