* Posts by h4rm0ny

4560 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux

h4rm0ny

Re: Case Sensitive File Systems...

>>"Can tell you're a primarily English speaker and writer simply from that statement. I am too, but I've had to write multi-language programs, and let me tell you, case insensitive wording is NOT as easy as you make it sound; it only seems that way to those who only deal with the standard Latin alphabet. When you start getting into extended characters, defining what is "case insensitive" becomes a huge PITA."

Was just watching this sub-debate as I can see strong merit on both sides of it. But the above appears to me to be an argument for letting the OS / Filesystem handle case insensitivity rather than at the application level. As your post appears to be presented as a counter argument to Def's, I was wondering if you were intending it as such or meant it otherwise.

h4rm0ny

Re: No POSIX

>>"The features you+TheVogon mention aren't anything special - PHP or Dart (wild/thoughtless examples), support most of that (plus more), and the others are specific to what you'd use Powershell for."

That's fine. My own point of comparison if you wanted something "better" would be Python. I was answering mainly in the context of the ongoing Linux vs. Windows silliness that is going on here. Remember, the question I asked "what can't you do in Powershell" was a direct response to someone saying the lack of decent scripting on Windows put it behind GNU/Linux.

I find Powershell very capable and very well suited for its role. I don't think Dart is really a like to like comparison. Nor is PHP, imo. Which is why I referenced Python. Perl could also be a good comparison basis if someone wanted, but I have no experience with Perl.

h4rm0ny

Re: No POSIX

>> As a scripting language, it's OK - nothing special,

What makes you say that? Here is a list of nice extras it has that TheVogon posted a while back (and which I have shamelessly stolen from Link).

!--Not my words below here

1) Object oriented pipes so that I don't have to format and reparse and be concerned about language settings.

2) Command metadata. PowerShell commands, functions and even *script files* expose metadata about the names, positions, types and validation rules for parameters, allowing the *shell* to perform type coercion, allowing the *shell* to explain the parameters/syntax, allowing the *shell* to support both tab completion and auto-suggestions with no need for external and cumbersome completion definitions.

3) Robust risk management. Look up common parameters -WhatIf, -Confirm, -Force and consider how they are supported by ambient values in scripts you author yourself.

4) Multiple location types and -providers. Even a SQL Server appears as a navigable file system. Want to work with a certain database? Just switch to the sqlserver: drive and navigate to the server/database and start selecting, creating tables etc.

5) Fan-out remoting. Execute the same script transparently and *robustly* on multiple servers and consolidate the results back on the controlling console. Try icm host1,host2,host3 {ps} and watch how you get consolidated, object-oriented process descriptions from multiple servers.

6) Workflow scripting. PowerShell scripts can (since v3) be defined as workflows which are suspendable, resumable and which can pick up and continue even across system restarts.

7) Parallel scripting. No, not just starting multiple processes, but having the actual *script* branch out and run massively parallel.

8) True remote sessions where you don't step into and out of remote sessions but actually controls any number of remote sessions from the outside.

9) PowerShell web access. You can now set up a IIS with PWA as a gateway. This gives you a firewall-friendly remote command line in any standards compliant browser.

10) Superior security features, e.g. script signing, memory encryption, proper multi-mode credentials allowing script to be agnostic about authentication schemes which may go way beyond stupid username+password and use smart cards, tokens, OTPs etc.

11) Transaction support right in the shell. Script actions can join any resource manager such as SQL server, registry, message queues in a single atomic transaction. Do that in bash?

12) Strongly typed stripting, extensive data types, e.g first class xml support and regex support right in the shell. Optional static/explicit typing. Real lambdas (script blocks) instead of stupidly relying on dangerous and error prone "eval" functions.

13) Real *structured* exception handling as an alternative to outdated traps (which PowerShell also has). try-catch-finally blocks.

14) Instrumentation, extensive tracing, transcript and *source level* debugging of scripts.

15) Consistent naming conventions covering verb-noun command names, common verbs, common parameter names.

!--My words begin again

These are awesome things that really put it high up. Unless perhaps you're comparing it to Python, but compared to old school scripting languages such as Bash, it's phenomenal.

>>"For the interactive command line, it's quite crap (in my opinion)."

Well the bare default terminal is, that's why I pointed you at ISE which comes installed on all Windows 7 and 8 boxes by default and includes things like an integrated debugger!

EDIT: For some reason I lost my link to performing Windows updates via Powershell from my earlier reply to you. I've closed the tab now, but yes, you can do this also.

h4rm0ny

Re: No POSIX

>>Move/resize/switch Windows?

Bit of an unusual thing to want to do from the commandline, but everything in Windows is an object so you can manipulate them from Powershell. For example:

Set-ForegroundWindow (Get-Process -id $pid).MainWindowHandle

>>Change the background image, or user's profile image

Again, everything in Windows is an object. Here is someone changing the wallpaper: Link. Of course they've written an entire class to do it, but you can see the simpler and essential part of it in the user's initial question.

>>Download and update a major OS upgrade?

We're good so far. :) But as I mentioned - it's objects all the way down and everything is accessible. If you can write a program to do it via the API, then you can do it from Powershell without any need of special programs.

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>Would you say to your client "You're just holding it wrong, dumbass! You just don't get it, do you? I've spent months working on this and you will use it because I know better"?

Seems to have worked pretty well for Apple so far.

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

It's also interesting that I wrote a thirteen paragraph post and it was modded down twice in under 60 seconds. Too many people vote based on their instinctive dislike of a poster or position rather than actually reading and considering. That's not helpful to anyone other than those pushing an agenda or satisfying a grudge. Less of a football team mentality around here would be a good thing.

h4rm0ny

Re: No POSIX

>>"POSIX is an open set of industry standards, designed to improve interoperability. Windows is a closed Microsoft 'standard'. It would be easier for Microsoft to fully implement POSIX compliance than Linux implement Windows compliance. "

POSIX was designed to bring some consistency to UNIX operating systems and its family. I'm not even sure much of it applies to Windows.

>>"and it's even less common for Windows to have a halfway acceptable terminal app installed"

ISE comes as standard on WIndows 7 and 8. It's actually very nice. Also includes a built in debugger.

http://blog.soporteti.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/powershell_ise_gui.png

>>"Windows still can't be 100% configured / controlled from the command line"

Can you give an example of something that can't be managed in Windows via Powershell? Especially, as you're using this as a comparator to GNU/Linux, something that can be done on that other system.

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>"Your argument thus far has been "I, h4rm0ny, believe that the Start Screen is superior and new. Because I, h4rm0ny believe it is superior, and because it is new, everyone else should have the choice os using what they prefer removed from them and be forced to use what I, h4rm0ny, believe to be superior"

I've given numerous reasons why the Start Screen is better here and elsewhere and not one of them has been "because I believe so", I've talked about the number of programs commonly used, I've talked about mouse movements. None of my arguments have been subjective, all have been on direct demonstrable facts. You can argue with the reasoning if you wish, but you cannot legitimately claim that I have ever fallen back to an argument of "because I say so".

As to my "dictating" as you said, my post began "I for one could do without..." and stated I would prefer we kept the Start Screen that's the closest you'll find to me saying other people should not have a choice. Where is your angry response to all those people saying the Start Screen should be killed with fire or removed forever? Your angry post to me is because of my arguing the merits of the Start Screen. If I had argued for its obliteration you wouldn't have attacked me for 'setting my opinion up above other people's.' Don't pretend otherwise because there are countless posts here doing exactly that you ignore or mod up, because they share your preference.

I've long said the chief usability advantage of the Start Menu is familiarity. You'll find I never dispute with people when they say it's easier to stick with what you know. My position is that this is not an argument that something is better in itself and that this attitude is a block to improvement.

>>"How the metric fuck is that not personal? Calling you out for being a self-centered jackass isn't remotely out of line"

It's quite a lot out of line, actually. Calling me names carries no actual weight as an argument. It's just you venting. And as I pointed out, it's a gross double-standard as there are far more posts on El Reg doing little more than insisting the Start Menu should be obliterated that you ignore and with far less objective reasoning given than my arguments.

>>"when you've offered quite literally nothing as argumentation that isn't personal except the assertion "newer = better"

More strawmen. I invite you to find anywhere I have said that something is better because it is newer. And if you can't, how about an apology for all the personal insults and strawmanning my position? If you have intellectual honesty you will check and accept that I have never made such an argument. What I have done on occasion is criticise wanting to stick with something just because it is familiar and that's a very different thing and also often a reasonable criticism.

>>"So no, this one's on you. You made it personal from the outset by offering nothing except "I like it so fuck you all, you don't deserve choice" as an argument"

I think you don't understand the purpose of quote marks. I never said anything like that and you can only barely twist what I have said (I don't want to see the Start Menu back, the Start Screen is better) into "fuck you all, you don't deserve choice" with considerable effort.

>>"Because you're nobody"

:D See, if I post something like 'people who use more than 20 programs on a desktop computer routinely are a tiny minority and you can easily fit 20 programs on the Start Screen, thus meaning no menu navigation, just flat access, whereas even pinning things to the Start Menu you only get a dozen tops and thus have to navigate...' Well then you could respond by saying something like 'No, if I want more programs I could just pin them to the Desktop itself as shortcuts' and then you would be making an actual counter-argument. (Though a bad one as you'd now just be recreating the Start Screen on your desktop without the advanced features of it). But at least it would be an argument. But the above is just personal insult and an attack on a position I never made. Again, find anywhere in my posts at all, where I have argued something is better because I believe it so. I back up everything.

So again, stop making it personal and either actually engage in argument or stop strawmanning me. And less anger would be helpful also.

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>h4rm0ny: the internet champion of "fuck democracy, choice, or anyone else but me. The rest of the world should be forced to used things the way I like them, and given no alternative option!"

That's it, let the hate flow. It's good to turn an argument personal, isn't it?

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>"How did you "discover" these gestures? By clicking your mouse at random until it did something? Did you have to google it? RTFM?"

How did you discover double-clicking did something? How did you discover holding down the mouse button on a window bar and dragging moved the window around?

Honestly, you know you can swipe / drag from the side, I do, everybody here does. But I forget - the attitude on El Reg that we're all special people with great technological gifts. Perish the thought that Ordinary People could learn to do this quickly and easily.

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>"Perhaps if you didn't blindly cheer Microsoft's crappy ideas so then you wouldn't need to U-turn when they do."

I haven't U-turned in the slightest. I wrote about how I liked Start Screen when it was the way things were done, I'm writing about how I like it now when MS appear to be retreating on it. I have always been consistent except during the developer preview before I'd gotten used to it.

I am always consistent. It is MS that have changed directions which is why I now criticize them whereas before I was saying how good it was. This doesn't match up with your insults about "blindly cheerleading" at all.

And no, the customer is not "always right". Anyone who has ever worked in programming for a week knows that.

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>"H4rm0ny, I really can't tell whether that third paragraph is a joke or not, because nobody with half a brain could possibly hold that view."

I make a joke here about one day a year. Today is not that day.

>>"Swipe down - will that scroll? Will it close and lose my work? Minimise and keep my work? How do I tell what will happen before it happens?"

You can tell because it does the same thing as last time, and every time. Might as well ask how you would know what the little flat line is supposed to do if you've never clicked on it before. Swipe down close, swipe from left to switch between apps. Or just Alt+Tab if using a keyboard. Very easy, no need to clutter screen with window bars or icons - more screen real estate.

>>"Gestures cannot be labelled, and as they depend on context they are completely undiscoverable."

There are four directions you can swipe. That's pretty easy and once learned, you know. There are a dozen things just as unknown to you about your current OS but which you assume are obvious because you've grown used to them. Where is the tooltip on your double-click?

>>"The "half dozen" programs I commonly use pop up in the first level of the Windows 7 Start menu."

Start Screen holds five or more times that without having to resort to nesting or scrolling. Thus is better for anyone who uses forty or less programs regularly.

>>"The hundred or so programs that I don't use very often but still need to have show in a hierarchical menu structure that lets me put "like with like"."

They are still easily findable with the Start Screen either by scrolling down to the full list or simply typing. It is far better to optimize for the 90% of the time than the 10% of the time, so all those "hundred" programs (seriously) aren't cluttering up your normal usage. I'm a power user and I use about twenty programs routinely, and that's significantly more than most people. So why make people hunt for them in a menu with a small target area?

>>"I can already hit "windows" then type to search. Guess what - it simply doesn't work"

It does. I do it all day long. Win key, "ex" and return, I'm in Excel. Four key strokes quickly entered in less time than it would take to reach the mouse.

>>"How do you search for something when you do not know what it's called?"

In that minority case, you scroll down to the full list of programs and read.

h4rm0ny

Re: It probably IS linux,

>>dressed up to look microsoftish. Because thats what I would do If I were microsoft. Make a microsoft window manager, and a mechanism for windows apps to interface to linux. Sorta super-wine

And get selling.

Seldom have I seen such a level of ignorance on software development. Do you honestly think (a) building an entire layer of fake windows on top of GNU/Linux would be less work than doing multi-desktop for real, (b) think the legions of developers who work with Windows wouldn't notice that suddenly they weren't developing for Windows anymore or (c) the huge, huge numbers of Windows users wouldn't notice that all their programs stopped working?

"method for Windows apps to interface with Linux"

You have no idea what you have hidden behind that sentence.

h4rm0ny

Re: Bias

>>"Nothing like a biased article. The FACT is you can't even give Binux away"

Good to see that there are ill-informed trolls on both sides.

Or not.

h4rm0ny

Re: And does anyone actually use this in Linux?

>>"Especially in these days of multiple flatscreens? I doubt many do."

I do. I have one screen which is my main development environment with several tabbed bash terminals. Then I have another screen which is my SSH's into live sites / clients I'm working with. I should be safe against mishaps but putting them on a different desktop is that extra layer of segregation. And then I use a third desktop for tailings of logs, unit tests, etc. so that I can easily flip between dev work (mostly reviewing other people's work these days) and monitoring for any warnings / violations on the test desktop.

I'll occasionally open documentation et al. in a fourth desktop, but all of the above is running on a Windows 8 host in a Debian VM so I use the Windows host for my emails, browsers, etc.

h4rm0ny

>>"I wonder what Eadon would have made of these developments =P"

The usual troll response is to condemn MS for any feature it doesn't have, and then when they add it complain because it's not original. An attitude that would take us from having three well-rounded mainstream OS/s to having three near useless ones each of which could do about a third of what you actually need.

h4rm0ny

Re: Meeeh

>>"Does it have some fanzy transitions ? Probably in 10 more years ;-)"

Ugggh. I hope not. I remember all those wibbly-wobbly windows in KDE and rotatable cube desktops. It was fun to see for about five seconds and then you turned it off.

This is a little late for me as these days I meet my needs with multi-monitor set-ups and I have 24" monitors, too. But it used to be the biggest thing I missed when going from using my *NIX box to someone's XP/Vista machine with a single 15" monitor. That felt really constraining. Nowadays it's much less of an issue. But still nice to see.

I could do without the Start Menu back. I wish MS would for once in their existence have the guts to stick with their vision despite angry internet commentators. XB1 - entirely digital with discs only as a distribution medium, share games across the entire country without ever meeting. "Nooo - we want to exchange grubby and breakable plastic and connecting once a day for five seconds even over a tethered phone is too much for us!". Simple swipe down in Metro to close an app. "Nooo! We're confused without a little minimize icon. Give it back to us! (even though it's meaningless in an environment where you switch between apps rather than a windowed environment you have to close a program out of the way)". Hit windows key and type the first few letters of the program you want / move the mouse a minimal distance to select the much larger target of grouped icons, about forty to a screen? "Noooo - we want to navigate up and down a small hierarchical menu for the dozen or so programs we commonly use. It's always been that way and should be that way forever".

MS - great ideas, backbone of a jellyfish.

JINGS! Microsoft Bing called Scots indyref RIGHT!

h4rm0ny

>>"Matters not. The English electorate could have had a vote on either (or anything else for that matter) by following the same steps"

I'm not sure that's true. Voting to kick out a large section of the UK's population and render them stateless would be a very different prospect and I have a feeling it would be heavily illegal under International and EU law.

h4rm0ny

Re: But would you want Salmond to be the President of Scotland?

>>"Compare Salmond to the two muppets currently battling for the UK hot-seat and you suddenly realise that some turds polish-up better than others."

You're not voting for which temporary politician you like most (or hate least). You're voting for the future state of your country.

h4rm0ny
Thumb Up

Re: Currency

That's... well... Actually, yes, I would like to see that! :D

h4rm0ny

Re: Surely the release of this apparently "reliable" prediction could influence the result?

You have to go to the "Bing Predicts "Bing Predicts Scotland Referendum"" link.

h4rm0ny

Re: I'm fine with Scottish independence if it's what they want.

Well no-one believes Cameron's lies. For some reason, Salmond's are actually given credence by a number of the 'Yes' voters.

h4rm0ny

I'm fine with Scottish independence if it's what they want.

I'm not fine with the amount of lies and promises Alex Salmond is telling the Scottish people. He's promising things he has no power to deliver and which are, imo, pretty unlikely to happen.

4K-ing excellent TV is on its way ... in its own sweet time, natch

h4rm0ny

Re: ...and then you show them

Same here - I wasn't fussed until I saw a good quality 4K TV in a shop. It was very impressive. However the thing holding me back (aside from sensibly waiting for prices to fall a little), is that I've heard old SD content on a 4K display looks awful. Can anyone confirm? I like new movies, but I like a bunch of old ones, too. I would hate to spend a lot of money on such a TV and then find that many of my favourites looked worse than on HD.

Israeli spies rebel over mass-snooping on innocent Palestinians

h4rm0ny

Re: This will end up being ignored/forgotten

>>"There are many voices within Hamas who accept they're going to have to go for a two-state solution. But I'm not sure they're a majority"

Hamas did signal they would accept a two state solution and peace with Israel some years back. I think in 2005. They were serious (at least the USA certainly seemed to think so) but then Israel started a new campaign of assassinations and bombing and then the more extreme elements gained the upper hand again - as they obviously would. I have little to no doubt that this was the intended outcome of the Israeli government of the time.

h4rm0ny

Re: A joke, or some form of Israeli PR right? @h4rm0ny

>>"When rockets rain down upon the heads of their children, how should Israel respond? With a polite rebuke? Maybe some harsh language? An appeal to the UN? Perhaps they should limit themselves to the same level of technology employed by their aggressor? (though if you choose this, bear in mind that the only reason there are not vastly more Israeli dead is that Hamas lack the capability to achieve it, not the ambition) Perhaps they should limit the use of their military arsenal to some other arbitrary level?"

The aim should be to end the rockets. For that you look at why there are rockets. Reasonable enough?

You ask what I think Israel should do? Happy to answer. Withdraw from the Occupied Territories, stop blockading supplies into Palestine, stop bombing power stations, schools, homes, stop carrying out assassinations, invite the UN to negotiate a proper peace and accept it. This would undermine support for attacks on Israel by the common Palestinians who just want peace and to live their lives.

But this would be "defeat" or "giving in to terrorists" and is thus untenable by the Israeli government and its supporters. So unable to retreat, they attack. Against a populace and people who have nowhere to retreat to and thus cannot be the ones to end the conflict. It's simply not possible for the Palestinians to end the conflict when every time they are the ones being occupied, deprived of power, building materials, freedom.

But Israel cannot countenance losing a "pissing contest" - they have declared another faction their enemy and thus cannot let it "win". It is petty emotional-territorial human behaviour at its basest. As a species we should be better than this.

>>"When you allow gunmen to hide amongst your children, in their schools, hospitals, and homes, you must realise that more of them will die when the counter attack comes. How could it be otherwise?"

Israel is bombing and attacking an urban area. Where exactly do you expect to find the people you're attacking other than in the place you're attacking? If there's a "gunman" in a home, there's a good chance that's because he LIVES there. This is what happens when you invade somewhere people live.

Again, you have come to us with the same argument as both times before, re-phrased: "they're asking for it". No Palestinian has the power to force the IDF to bomb schools and powerstations or to bulldoze homes. No Palestinians had the power to cause this

You acknowledge that the Israeli army is vastly more powerful than the Palestinians. Only the most twisted logic could argue that a group so much weaker is forcing a far more powerful and well-funded body to murder it in such numbers. Ergo, the greatest capacity to end the conflict is on Israel's side. It's like watching a huge guy pin a much smaller one to the ground, continually apply painful pressure and just the smaller guy's occasional attempts to push him off as justification for staying on top.

h4rm0ny

Re: A joke, or some form of Israeli PR right?

>>"Frankly i think every jew & every palistinean want each other dead, so where will this end?"

Jew =/= Israeli. There are many non-Zionist jewish people just as there are a large number of Zionists non-Jews. Especially amongst American Christians, large numbers of which believe that Israel MUST be Jewish in order that God's plan can be complete. John Ashcroft, former US Attorney General belongs to a Church which preaches this for example. And I'm fairly sure he's not Jewish.

As long as you keep using Jewish and Israeli interchangeably (which is something the Israeli government vigorously encourages), you're undermining your own case against Israel and increasing anti-Semitism by equating Jewish people with the government of Israel (and a particular position of it, in fact).

h4rm0ny

Re: A joke, or some form of Israeli PR right? @h4rm0ny

>>"h4rm0ny, you may be an engineer but historian you are not"

I didn't claim to be a historian, I claimed to be old. (well, hitting middle-age, sadly). What I said was that I had seen those same arguments trotted out decade after decade and the counter arguments to them are long since known to most of us. The whole 'they're asking us to bomb them' line of reasoning is false and always has been. However it is spun, one cannot have hundreds of Palestinian deaths, homes demolished, people displaced, power shut off to schools and hospitals and homes, and a handful of deaths on the Israeli side and present it as Israel defending itself.

>>"Now the down votes will start for the simple reason most people don't like their political shortcomings being exposed."

Again the attempt to pre-emptively dismiss any downvotes by claiming without evidence they're for bogus reasons. You didn't "expose" any shortcomings. You just said I needed to read more, that I was glib, and should look for bias. Basically ad hominem, ad hominem and an implication of bias / statement I'm misled. None of these contain the slightest scrap of argument that would expose anything.

THAT is why you're getting downvotes, just as the previous post wasn't getting downvotes because we are all sixth-form history students.

h4rm0ny

Re: A joke, or some form of Israeli PR right?

>>"Awaits deluge of downvotes from the student politicians of the sixth-form common room..."

I like the pre-emptive attempt to dismiss your critics. Middle-aged engineer downvoting you right here.

And if you want sixth-form politics, your own arguments are tired and have been refuted more times than I can remember. They're the standard fallbacks for justifying the killing and displacement of Palestinians, just a variation on the eternal classic - they were asking for it.

h4rm0ny

Re: Good for them.

>>"H4rm0ny, as much as I agree with the sentiment of what you state I think that the current state of affairs in Israel is so "complicated" that is is impossible to determine "what is right" or "what is wrong"

I disagree with this. Things are so complicated and messy there that it is impossible to determine which "side" is right or wrong. But that's not quite what I wrote. There are good people and bad people all around. You can say whether an action is right or wrong, or a person good or bad within reasonable parameters. You only get in a mess when you start saying one arbitrarily defined group of people are good or bad. The worst and cheapest trick the Israeli government has ever pulled is the way it endlessly tries to portray itself as speaking for Jewish people and pretend criticism of it is criticism of Jewish people. That's one reason I called out the bravery of these Israelis, because to go against that sort of propaganda, the sort of propaganda that tries to make you out as a traitor to your country or your people if you disagree, takes a special type of courage, an active courage. Not the sort that reacts against an external threat, but the leads you to stand up when you could have just kept quiet. That's where I was coming from with the sides.

h4rm0ny

Re: This will end up being ignored/forgotten

>>"Israel has been condemned in 45 UN resolutions but the rest of the world looks the other way: "

"USA" is the single word answer to this. They are and have been the block to any action for a long time.

h4rm0ny

Don't forget they're doing "sacred" work. Religion and armed forces always go so well together.

h4rm0ny

Good for them.

I have a lot of respect for those that risk themselves to resist oppression of themselves. But I have even more respect for those that resist it from the inside when they could so easily stay quiet and look the other way. It takes a special kind of courage to stand up against your own "side" for what is right. Their actions do more to stop people demonizing Israelies then any amount of its government's propaganda.

Microsoft splurges 2½ INSTAGRAMS buying Minecraft maker Mojang

h4rm0ny

Re: well...

>>"I enjoy Minecraft. I hope Microsoft doesn't run it down the toilet like Skype."

Be fair - Skype was always crap.

h4rm0ny

>>"Oh Gods, PowerPoint crossed with Minecraft, now that would be scary"

They'd have to dumb down Minecraft.

Infosec geniuses hack a Canon PRINTER and install DOOM

h4rm0ny

Re: can it run Crysis?

>>"Just what exactly does a printer need this much processor power for?"

Technology has just become cheap enough that the new baseline it's not worth selling below is much higher than it used to be. The equivalent of a 486 is next to nothing. So you can get something ridiculously low power which will probably cost you as much or more because it's a minority market, and then spend time tailoring your firmware. Or you can buy a peanuts embedded system, slap a pre-built GNU/Linux binary designed for it (probably by the same people who sold you the chip) and just write your software to run on GNU/Linux - for which the expertise is much more available and half your job is done for you.

/used to work on embedded systems.

h4rm0ny
Trollface

Re: Linux, not windows...

Rubbish. Linux could never have been hacked.

Yawn, Wikileaks, we already knew about FinFisher. But these software binaries...

h4rm0ny

Re: What a total bunch of Assanges.

A significantly more effective tactic by Wikileaks, imo, would be to publicize which AV companies if any, are whitelisting this software / co-operating. With the current climate of distrust of government surveillance, evidence and highlighting of this would be a significant hit to such companies.

Especially if it were only some of them - the ones that hadn't co-operated would get a major credibility boost to people like myself - tech savvy and security conscious. We are also decision influencers for many more.

h4rm0ny

>>"How the hell do you install the Linux one? If you've got root anyway then it's game over."

Well there are a few ways. In principle this is no different to on Windows, btw (well, Vista onwards where the security model actually became good). Firstly, there are exploits for GNU/Linux and its software just as there are for Windows. If you check security advisories for the two systems you'll find they're comparable in number. The chief reason you're safer using GNU/Linux is that you're targeted far less due to (a) it being a minority system and thus less worthwhile and (b) the average level of technical knowledge in the GNU/Linux userbase being far higher making it even less worthwhile. But you can exploit vulnerabilities in GNU/Linux just as in Windows if you know what you're doing. So that's a possibility. I'd also suppose (though it's a minor counter-argument) that on average a GNU/Linux user might be more worth spying on than a Windows or Mac user (what with general paranoia or need to know the software is not compromised from source upwards).

So there are direct exploits, but these are probably the smaller attack vector. On Windows, Gamma (the company that owns FinFinisher) has advertised exploits for XP (no surprise there) to get it installed but primarily it is a Trojan. That means tricking the user into agreeing to its install. That's equivalent to your post about "getting root" on GNU/Linux. Same principle. The only difference being that you're going to find a lot more Windows users who will fall for that than GNU/Linux users.

But they can be very sneaky about this. They have HTTP intercept software (I think it's called FinFly) which can intercept your traffic to a site and fake signatures. So you think you're connected to http://debian.net/debian and that the signature of your latest package is good, but when was the last time you in Bahrain called up your friend in the USA by phone and read out key fingerprints to each other to check.

So basically, you can get infected on GNU/Linux the same ways you can for Windows. But you're likely more secure because (a) you're a minority case in a more resistant community and thus less effort will have been put into compromising you and (b) it's possible that AV companies providing products for Windows are "whitelisting" this software. If that is the case, and Wikileaks wants to change things, the first thing they should do is publicize THIS as it would have a far greater effect.

Anyway, as to your specific question as to why they would bother using this once they "gain root", because it's their end goal - they want easy manageable surveillance of you. If they get root on your box then of course they could wipe your files or change your terminal colours to black on black, but installing this stuff is what they actually [b]want[/b] to do.

Chinese city creates footpath for smartphone addicts

h4rm0ny
Joke

Re: on my sm

Oh *whoosh* at the lot of you. The joke was that I was posting from my smartphone and something happened before I could finish the post...

Fine, fine, fine. I'll stick to comments saying how much I like my Lumia. At least THAT gets a laugh from you lot!

h4rm0ny

Re: These people should be shot.

Hey, it's not all Facebook updates, you know? I actually browse The Register on my sm

h4rm0ny

Re: if i had a dog

Quite right!

And headphones. I hate headphones which basically block off one of our most important senses, just like looking at a smartphone blocks effectively off sight.

I mean, I wouldn't mind if they were actually listening to real music, but it's pretty much just repetitive beats with manufactured lyrics.

And the stupid low crotch trousers which mean you can't walk properly even if you do see or hear something coming towards you.

And what's with these modern consoles - they're just point and click. In my day you had good games like Arkanoid and Tetris. None of this violence and gore, just good gameplay. You didn't need fancy graphics or 2GB of RAM just for your textures.

And why do they need "smart" phones anyway? In my day we used to talk to people and we'd turn up on time because we'd said we would, not half an hour late because we'd "txted" so it was okay. And why 'txted' anyway? Allergic to vowels now, are you? Well you missed one at the end there - ha! Not so "smart" now are you, smartphone kids?

And comedy. None of this Jimmy Carr nonsense with his clever little jokes. We used to have proper absurdist humour. A man sitting at a desk in a field saying "now for something completely different". We didn't need to be clever because we had Surrealism.

Bah. Kids! Let 'em walk in the dog poo, I say. That'll learn 'em.

h4rm0ny

Re: Alternative Suggestion

Why do you suppose information on a smartphone is any less information than that in the world within ten metres of you? Don't be so Realist.

Italy's High Court orders HP to refund punter for putting Windows on PC

h4rm0ny

Re: If

And the reason it's a bad analogy is because switching out the OS is normally pretty easy and there are good reasons to do it. So you should be able to buy just the hardware if that's what you want. Unlike a car where it's conceivable that there is someone out there somewhere who wants to install their own choice of engine, but let's be realistic - that's not a viable market.

h4rm0ny

Re: OEM Pricing?

Still a little unworkable. Really the only good solution to this is for hardware manufacturers to also sell the hardware without software / OS installed. A blank slate. No manufacturer wants to go through the hassle of having to deal with people claiming partial money back (and the inevitable false claimants). And no-one who genuinely wants to put a different OS on there should want to have to start by removing Windows and re-partitioning to get rid of restore partitions or whatever. So sell the hardware OS free alongside installed versions. As should have been done all along.

Personally though, I'd just be happy if they could provide me one without McAffee installed!

Apple's Mr Havisham: Tim Cook says dead Steve Jobs' office has remained untouched

h4rm0ny

Re: Morbid.

>>"Most people would consider a memento to be a small keepsake, perhaps something to put on a desk, a wall, or in a cabinet. An office, kept as it was, is not a memento. It's a shrine."

Well it would be a big ask for me to do it, but if you own a huge headquarters, not wanting to clear out one office and install someone else in it is not such a big deal. What would be a difficult gesture for the individual can be a trivial one for a company with a market cap of $600 billion.

And it's still just mocking someone for grieving. Poor taste, imo.

h4rm0ny
Thumb Up

>>"So it's true, Murdoch has bought the Reg?"

Ouch!

h4rm0ny

Morbid.

The photo is clever but it's a little mean to mock someone for keeping a memento of a late friend and colleague, isn't it?

I don't really get the cult of Jobs (maybe if it was Woz - he's a brilliant and extremely skilled person), but I'd be pretty upset if I opened a tech news site and saw an article saying "ha ha! h4rm0ny still misses dead friend".

US! govt! ordered! Yahoo! to! hand! over! user! data! or! pay! $250k! fine! PER! DAY!

h4rm0ny

Re: I used to concider Yahoo! as the scourge of the email giants..

Snowden pretty much had to give up his career and home country to do what he did. I imagine most of the Yahoo executives in a position to blow the whistle on this had families. Going up against the US government when you're being taken to secret courts not only means a lot of personal bravery but knowing you could be taken away from your partner or children and leaving them without support. That's not an easy thing to do.

Seeing that Yahoo really tried to fight this and the sort of pressures that were put on them actually does buy them a lot of credit with me.

Scottish independence: Will it really TEAR the HEART from IT firms?

h4rm0ny
Joke

Re: Banking Jobs

>>"Scotland will take it's fair share of the debt on condition it gets it's fair share of assets. That includes using the £ in a currency union."

You missed the Joke icon. I've added it for you.

How you get forcing the UK into an unwanted currency union from "a fair share of the assets" I have no idea! Complete mishmash of concepts.