Posts by h4rm0ny

Re: at h4rmony

>>"As a response to your Chinese proverb on eunuch's chastity, here's my favorite oriental adage: "No matter how many times you say "halva" , it still doesn't sweeten your mouth". That is no matter, how many times you say that your arguments are logical and solid and mine are false and flawed... it becomes a fact. Are you making yourself believe in that?"

So you're not addressing any of my arguments, but merely making a general statement that something isn't logical just because someone says it is. Whereas what I actually did was give you a clear chain of reasoning and references and nowhere said my argument was right because I said it was. And again from the above, I didn't say your arguments were flawed because I said they were, I gave specific reasons which you again skip over. Whereas you are starting to say things like your arguments are logical because you have a PhD in Maths. (Which is saying your arguments are right because you say they are).

>>"Well, extrapolating somebody's behavior out of someone else's pattern? that is the pearl of your logic? Try selling this logic to statisticians and actuarial people: "yes, male motorists under 20 tend to be n (n>1) times more reckless when driving, however, it is very logical to assume they will change that risky behavior this year, since most people don't want to die". Closer to me analogy would be, "a function f(x) is identically zero in the interval [a,b], let's assume f(c) =\= 0 for all points c not in [a,b], since most functions are not zeros on R""

Again, no actual details or addressing of the criticisms I made, just an analogy you assert is correct, refusing to engage with the reasons already given why your analogy is flawed.

Once again, my reply to you can contain virtually no actual references to Samsung or actual contracts because you are just posting general statements and attacking questions such as "are you making yourself believe that". There is no argument in it to reply to, we just end up discussing your post.

Re: at h4rmony

>>Why are you appealing to logic?

Because logic appeals to me?

As well as basing your argument on your belief in Google's "nobility" in a hypothetical timeline, you've also yet to make the case why subsidizing your competitors would be morally right in the first place, rather than, e.g. madness.

Given your evident hatred of Microsoft, I would think you especially would consider Google subsidizing them as not great behaviour.

>>"If you decide what logic is, yes indeed, my logic is lame, yours - brilliant."

See, the above doesn't actually address or refute my logic at all, it's just an attack and sarcasm. As are assertions that I'm like a lawyer or a "Microsoft advocate".

>>I never said that you are illogical or irrational

Perhaps because none of my arguments depend on a hypothesis that a company is "more noble".

Even when I briefly examined the moral state of a company (at your invitation) which I did with Samsung, I gave multiple examples and citations of things they had actually done. Whilst you build a case on what Google would do according to you in an alternate timeline.

>>"no, I didn't even bother answering it."

And I object to you "not even bothering". I've given numerous answers and evidence in response to your didactic questioning. You never concede, you just skip replies and move to something else.

>>"I am not a lawyer, I got a PhD in Math, that is why I reason illogically according to you."

No, it's because you based on argument on your faith that a company would act against its own self-interest for the benefit of its competitors. Faith-based argument is not logic-based argument. I didn't make some generic ad hominem that you were illogical, I gave a clear reason why your argument was.

>>"However, the quantity is not always necessarily turned into quality."

What do these sorts of personal attacks add? Nothing.

>>"No, it's: "if you think that your stupid patents are infringed on by us, think again, because you already infringe on ours!" Principle of reciprocity again, what is your problem with that, h4rmony?"

That's an argument entirely dependent on patents being "stupid". It assumes that they are worthless and that Google should be able to infringe on other people's patents. I do not consider that a supported assumption and you have not attempted to do so. If patents do have some worth, then the whole moral superiority of using other people's intellectual property without compensation falls apart. See my earlier example with Samsung, btw, of many people losing their jobs in large part because of Samsung's unlicenced use of Pioneer's patents. Patents are not inherently worthless, therefore your argument about "your stupid patents" is at best a circumstantially valid one, not even shown to apply in these circumstances.

>>"My entire argument is that Google have shown they are more noble than most other IT company in the same weight class, including your beloved Microsoft."

Beloved Microsoft? If it appears that way to you, it's most likely because you keep throwing flawed attacks at the company, provoking defence of it. I was originally trying to talk about Samsung. I also dispute the idea that Google are "more noble". They act out of self-interest, as pretty much all large companies do, and have done a lot to subvert the Open Source movement as I showed earlier.

>>"The flaw that is only seen by you might not be a flaw after all. An acquaintance of mine told me about aliens swarming around recently..."

Again, I give a reasoned argument why something is flawed. You don't tackle my reasoning, but make some disconnected statement accompanied by some weird suggestion I'm guessing is trying to imply I'm delusional.

>>"Since you didn't explain to me how would Google justify the difference between almost $12 and $2 billion dollars to the board, I tried to improvise and gave a few scenarios. You got insulted by that because MS Surface is a wonderful device and you're typing on it, can you scratch that off and get back with a few suggestions how to appease a would-be enraged board anyways?"

That's really hard to parse, but I already answered you about why the Motorolla debacle is different. You complain about the length of my posts and then ask me the same question three times! As to the Surface, I wasn't insulted. I just thought it bizarre to suddenly start throwing in attacks on its sales figures when they have nothing to do with the discussion; and I thought it was a shame to mock good technology for being unpopular. I prefer to value something based on technical merit.

Now, I've just re-read this response before posting it and there's pretty much nothing in it that is actually argument about Samsung or the contract. It's pretty much all about your specific post. And I realize that is because your post contains almost no factual discussion for me to actually respond to. Your post is nearly entirely a series of attacks on me or my writing, and next to nothing about the actual topic. This leads to a rather fruitless discussion. Please engage with my actual points if you see something wrong with them. Counter-arguments of "I got a PhD in Math" are a poor substitute for actual discussion.

Re: at h4rmony

You're not arguing logically. It doesn't matter even if you sincerely believe that Google would act against its own financial interests, you can't establish some moral superiority for Google based on your ideas about what they might have done in an alternate timeline. That's a faith-based argument. Even allowing that subsidizing your competitors by paying for patent use on their behalf shows moral superiority rather than, e.g. insanity.

You keep ignoring all sorts of details (and numerous parts of my posts which you skip over but never concede, btw). For example, you ignore fundamental differences in circumstances and try to equate non-like things. Certainly Google has not pursued fees for people using VP8 - when they were trying to promote VP8 against an established leader. Might as well argue that Microsoft letting OEMs install Windows Phone 8 for free shows that Microsoft has a stance against paying for software. The Open Patent Pledge - again, something promoted by a company that has historically been very weak in patents and is in their own financial interests.

Or that only using patents "defensively" shows moral superiority, as if infringing on someone else's intellectual property (such as Google did with BT) and then using the threat of patent litigation to stop people asking for compensation for your infringement is morally superior. That's what "defensively" has meant in Google's case - we infringe and if you ask for money we will "defensively" slap you with patents. You skipped over this once but it still stands and is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

Though really, this entire argument is now just you trying to show Google as a noble company. You've skipped over most of my points of actual law or technology. Well the nobility of Google and out of nowhere digs at Surface sales figures. I'm typing this on a Surface 2, btw. It's a really great device. It's a shame that good technology gets attacked over popularity.

Re: at h4rmony

>>"Exactly, that is "may be why", it's your own supposition, entirely unsupported by the previous history and might be far from the truth. The fact remains the same: they have never done that!"

There is no supposition on my part here. You have rather oddly adopted a position of trying to establish moral superiority for Google based on them letting their competitors not pay licence fees in a hypothetical scenario.

I'm making the factual observation that Google has historically had very little ability to do so - which you admit - and that therefore you cannot use inaction to show an actual moral superiority.

If there is supposition here, it's actually yours that in a hypothetical situation Google would act against its own financial interests. Whilst my argument is entirely factual and quite simple - if someone is unable to do something, you can't hold up their lack of doing it as evidence for how noble they are.

>>"The reasoning is all yours entirely! It's called groundless insinuations and with"

I don't see there's any "insinuation" (implying wrong-doing) in saying that if Google bought $4bn worth of patents they would want to make money from that investment. I think that would be very sensible behaviour, myself.

What you're proposing is a situation where Apple, Samsung, Microsoft et al., are all using patents and so will have to buy those patents or licence them, then Google comes in and pays $4bn so that it can give their competitors free use, saving them money. And you don't think this is silly.

>>"let me ask you why didn't the board lynch Google for the $12.5 bn Motorola acquisition and then reselling it for $2.9 bn leaving the patents to themselves?"

Well that was certainly a big balls up on Google's part, but the two scenarios are not alike. One is a situation where Google did at least get some assets and can spin it as a smaller loss depending on the value they ascribe to the patents. And they at least had a plan in that case even if it didn't work out. But the other scenario you seem to consider so plausible is one where Google is actively subsidizing their competitors on an ongoing basis and deliberately turning down revenue. That wouldn't happen.

>>"More so, I am sure reminding the board about the Apple's case against Samsung, Microsoft levying Android and constant undisguised threat to push Android out of business by both of them and Oracle might greatly overwhelm that concern."

I hardly think Android is under threat of being pushed out of the market - Android has the largest share. Nor has Microsoft attempted to block the sale of Android with its patents, it's instead licencing fees based on them. I really don't follow the above statement.

You also seem to set a lot of store by this notion of using patents "defensively". I don't understand the reasoning for this. Take a specific case such as Google's vs. BT. Google infringed on BT's patents so BT brought a suit against Google. Google responded by (rather than paying any licences) launching a counter-suit against BT. The initial wrong would normally be considered infringing on another's intellectual property without paying. However, you present it as moral superiority on Google's part because they used patent's second. It seems an article of faith, rather than logic, that patent usage is the deciding factor in who is the aggressor and who not. If one person kicks another and the other responds with a punch, why is it right to claim superiority for not being the first one to throw a punch? Indeed, suing over patents is inherently a response to aggression because it has to be preceded by an act of infringement.

>>And I respect your own beliefs.

I don't actually get the feeling that you do. Also, I've been backing everything up with facts, rather than it just being "beliefs". It's suppositions such as Google would willingly turn down licence fees on $4.5bn of patents if they could, that are classed as "beliefs".

>>"There is then the entirely reasonable assumption that if Google had succeeded in the bid and gained exclusive ownership, that they then would have sat on $4.5bn worth of patent portfolio and let every other party use those patents without charge"

Slight typo in the above and I've missed the edit window. Rather obviously, it should say that Google would not have bought $4.5bn worth of shares and then not charged their competitors licence fees for their use. Love to see that one explained at the annual shareholder's meeting. ;)

Re: If Samsung has the Balls

>>"Every other victim of these patents will be silently wanting them to succeed as well."

Not really. The suit is over non-payment for an agreed contract, it is not about patent validity. Samsung are trying to exploit some loophole based on the MS-Nokia acquisition to get out of the contract, that is all. Other licensors are certainly NOT going to want their biggest Android competitor to be the only one not having to pay licence fees.

Re: @h4rmony

>>Every developers has some sort of a control over a project, just GNU, Apache foundation or Mozilla have over theirs

I can take GNU/Linux, Apache or Mozilla Firefox right now and create my own fork of it and I will still have all the functionality of the original and full access to the ecosystem. I don't have to join some Apache Alliance with a whole bunch of terms (including not forking the code base) in order to not be shut out. Acer tried to create a fork of Android and got told by Google to stop it. I cannot see that happening with any of the old school Open Source projects. Google has repeatedly turned existing key apps of Android into abandonware as soon as they are able, replacing them with Closed Source versions. Even the keyboard has been taken in-house. There's a good reason the only big Western commercial alternative Android line (Amazon's newer Kindle devices) come from someone not using it as a phone. Seriously, I linked to a very detailed article on all this. That is a good place to start.

>>Just answer this question, please: can Samsung follow many other companies big and small to "free" themselves from Google and either completely fork Android off the available source code ( mostly maintained by Google), join Replicant, or join Cyanogenmod, or pact with Amazon, B&N or follow the millions of Chinese OEMs

At great cost, they can, which is why I wrote "soft controls". Google cannot lock down Android completely (though they've closed sourced large parts of the userspace), but they've been able to create sticks with which to beat those that try. As I referenced, Acer tried to fork, as you suggest is possible, and was stopped by Google promising to shut them out of the ecosystem hard, and Amazon can pull it off because their Kindle devices are not phones. Samsung is the only one that currently has a shot of making a viable phone-based fork of Android because they have the resource to re-invent the whole ecosystem if need be.

Also, there aren't "millions" of Chinese OEMs selling forked Android. There's a handful who do so because a number of Google services are banned over there.

>>"Now please tell me, what similar options do Samsung have regarding Windows 8 or WP8"

I wasn't talking about Windows, I was talking about Android. I don't see the relevance unless you're trying to argue that if Microsoft do something it's okay for other companies to do it. I would respond by saying if Microsoft is your benchmark for ethical behaviour, you need to up your standards.

>>"And what would these significant hostages be? Let me guess that the hostages would be a few Google logos and trademarks or the participation in the Open Handset Alliance?"

If you agree to be part of the Open Handset Alliance you sign away your rights to fork the code, use alternate stores and a number of other things. If you refuse to join, you get kicked out of the ecosystem, Google services and in some cases blocked from developing apps that would compete with Google's own. There was a company called Skyhook which developed a location service which meant Google wouldn't be able to harvest user location data from those that used it. Google declared it "incompatible" and forced a choice - forgo much of the established ecosystem or don't use Skyhook. It's very much use of market dominance to exclude competition.

>>>>Google have, imo, done more to subvert Open Source than Microsoft ever managed to.

>>Imho, this is one of the most untrue, unsubstantiated and disingenuous statements ever made about Open Source, Microsoft and Google when used together in one sentence!

Well that may be your "humble opinion" but I back up what I said with a lot of good reasons. Microsoft fought Open Source for years and what did they ever achieve? They managed to make a few companies a bit wary of it with the SCO debacle which did more harm to Microsoft's reputation than GNU/Linux's, and they managed to persuade the occasional local government authority to stick with them when those authorities mostly just wanted to use GNU/Linux and Open Office as a threat to force bigger discounts anyway. Open Source has had far greater effect on Microsoft (open file formats, TypeScript, standards contributions, better security models) than MS have ever really managed to have on Libre Software. Now compare that with what Google managed in a few short years - they've managed to subvert Open Source into something companies cannot fork without great cost to themselves, replace core parts of the ecosphere with closed source software and lock out OEMs from providing their own software stores / sources. They've turned what should be one of the great flowering periods of Open Source into something on a leash. And they've managed to do so whilst being cheered on by people stuck in the Nineties who can't get their heads around anything other than Microsoft being the big threat.

Re: @ Elite-Bru

I'm going to add one little anecdote about Samsung, who I believe you are favouring because they are selling Android devices. In 2006 Samsung was sued by Pioneer for infringing their patents on Plasma TV technology. A memo from a Samsung engineer used as evidence showed that they knowingly infringed on the patents. Rather than agree a licencing fee however, Samsung counter-sued and buried Pioneer under suits and appeals. Pioneer was awarded $59million in damages, but got buried in punitive legal actions from Samsung and a few years later shut down the television division, in large part because of this. Ten-thousand people who worked in that division directly or indirectly, lost their jobs.

Re: @ Elite-Bru

>>I understand this point about Apple, but fail to do it in case of Samsung. Or is it that both the attacker and the attacked share the same criminal case, hence share equal responsibility?

Samsung are a giant of a company with market cap and revenues much larger than Apple or Microsoft, and a history of price fixing, bribery of politicians, judges and prosecutors and habitual massive patent infringement on any one they think doesn't have the resources to go up against them. (And often against those who do, if they think the patent owner might cut their losses rather than risk Samsung's legendary litigiousness). Here's a short article on Samsung: Vanity Fair. There are also accusations of evidence tampering, money laundering... Samsung's revenue alone is about a fifth of its host country (South Korea) which gives you some idea of what a behemoth it is.

>>Have you heard about the Rockstar patent suit?

I would imagine pretty much everyone here has and certainly the person you're replying to. Asking a question as if it self-evidently contradicts something they wrote, fails as an argument when it's just an odd question posed in reply to someone's point. What about Rockstar? How is it relevant to this contract breach suit between Microsoft and Samsung? I'd say most of all that Rockstar reflected badly on Google, who turned down an invitation to join the consortium and instead tried to buy the patents exclusively for themselves so they could charge everybody else for use of them.

Re: MS v Samsung

>>>>Law - Samsung agreed a deal,

>>And you are informed about all the specifics of this deal? It was an NDA, and you have some connections? Maybe you should be employed by Samsung as a lawyer then

I don't think the person you replied to has to be employed by Samsung to say that Samsung agreed a deal. It's a suit for breach of contract. Hard to initiate such a suit without a named contract. Your attack on the poster's credibility is inappropriate. The article itself shows that there was a contract.

>>The principles of economics fail to stand when there is a fat and impudent monopoly around

I think it's pretty clear to all that Microsoft don't have a monopoly on the mobile phone market! ;) :D

Re: @ RyokuMas

>>"Is Google suing Samsung as well? Why then do they have to "free" themselves of Google"

Google keep Android tightly under their control through a variety of soft controls. Essentially, Samsung are not free to change it how they want or deploy it with the store that they want without sacrificing some significant hostages that Google holds. There's a good article here: Ars Technica. Google have, imo, done more to subvert Open Source than Microsoft ever managed to.

If Samsung can get Tizen into the mainstream (and I hope they do because competition is good and it will be good for the Open Source movement on mobile not to be dominated by one large corporation), then they will have a lot more freedom - we'll see competing stores, not just Google play and Samsung will be free to put their own apps on equal selling base with Google's.

Re: And here they are!

In fact I'd better stop right now and El Reg needs to consult its lawyers about this very forum, lest they fall foul of the stunning breakthrough microsoft first presented to the world with US-2010-0082759-A1, "Communications Grouped As Conversations".

That is a title of a patent, not the body. If you actually read the patent (here) and looked at the diagrams you'd see that your comment about having to stop before the Reg forums violated it was wrong. It's quite a specific design for showing nested conversations with accompanying icons that change according to the contents within that hierarchy of nested conversations. Like the patent or not, you've lied to try and support your agenda in saying the Reg forums would violate it. A patent title doesn't have legal weight as to what the patent covers - that's the body of the patent. A title is just that - a short hand to refer to it.

Re: Ah, but you see

>>"But I never said Wikipedia was right. I just said that playing with the photo didn't affect the copyright of the original photo at all. Your post is a classic straw man."

Then I'll clarify - doing creative work on something that doesn't have an owner introduces copyright. A rock may not have copyright. If I turn it into a sculpture, it might. A publically owned work such as a folk song or a classic film might not have copyright on it. But when I rearrange it or re-edit that film with others in interesting ways, it might. Your argument that additional creative work does not transfer existing copyright ownership is not reconcilable with the Wikipedia position that there was no pre-existing copyright. Additionally, there is a very strong case that the photographer does have copyright over the original on his camera anyway. Leaving us with TWO strong arguments against Wikipedia's position.

Re: The debate reveals that Copyrights are unnatural.

>>"The debate has revealed a lot of unnatural 'divide by zero' type arguments"

Oh great - now the Bible types are here with their arguments that something is bad because it is "unnatural".

Hint: humanity has created a lot of artificial structures that are good for society.

Re: Ah, but you see

>>"So if I take your photos, and transfer the images to a computer, select the best ones, crop them appropriately choosing suitable proportions to frame the image, did any post-work on the photo to make it look its best, and then submitted it online to the world itself. Then they are mine now?"

Well the altered versions you had worked to produce would not be my intellectual property unless we had worked something out, but they'd be a derivative work based on my original so you wouldn't be able to use them either, without my consent.

In the case of the photographer, there's no pre-existing owner that all that effort is a derivative work from. You can try and argue that the monkey constitutes such, but you'd be trapping yourself in a contradiction since the Wikipedia argument is based on the idea that a monkey-triggered photograph doesn't have a copyright owner.

Trying to take my own argument and swap it around, actually just puts you in an even worse position with regards the ownership.

Re: Good article.

>>"The monkey has free will."

Will requires intent. Are you suggesting the monkey knew it was taking a photograph? If not, then its random behaviour resulting in one is not something it willed. It is, in this context, just part of the environment. Might as well have tied the shutter button to a tree branch and let the wind take the photo. Would that also have removed copyright then?

Re: Who takes the picture?

Ah, but you see, having pressed the button, the monkey then went on to transfer the images to a computer, select the best ones, crop them appropriately choosing suitable proportions to frame the image, did any post-work on the photo to make it look its best, and then submitted it online to the world itself.

It wasn't the photographer who did all this! Not at all!

Re: The debate reveals that Copyrights are unnatural.

>>"My opinion is that photographers get too much respect for 17ms work"

I was once paid £200 for about an hour's work. Of course there was all the study, the extensive experience in writing code, two years of familiarity gained by working with that particular piece of software that enabled me to do that hour's work. But no, surely that should all be ignored because it's the time it took to actually do that specific piece of work that matters.

And photographers who take a photo in "17ms" of a shutter opening and closing! Why they barely deserve to be paid at all!

Re: Does anyone care?

Yeah, actually quite a lot of people do. And as someone who has several times donated to Wikipedia over the years (not much, about £100 in total, I'd guess), I certainly wont be doing so again for some time after they attempt to rip off some photographer based on a supposed loophole.

Re: Who takes the picture?

>>"No, the photographer did not set up the shot, and hadn't intended to have the macaque take or trigger the shot. The Macaque unexpectedly grabbed a camera and started playing with it, taking pictures."

It's not as if the photographer was sitting at home with a camera on the shelf and a macaque burst in and started using it. He had travelled there, managed to get close to the troupe, provided the equipment and was actively engaged in photography work on them. He got lucky and in amongst that a Macaque pressed a button. But don't make it sound like there wasn't a whole lot of effort, expense and time involved here on the photographer's part. Also, this is a very big deal to an individual. This is how he makes his living and this is a major win for him. Or it would be if people didn't want to exploit this to take it for free. It's little to all of us if he has the copyright. But it's a major thing to this individual.

Re: Silly question

>>"Is it necessary to use HTTPS on say, my pet poodle Foofie's single page website if it's just a bog standard HTML page?"

Well, it is now, or Google will push you down the rankings. ;)

Other than that, the answer is no. Unless you are concerned that others will try to fake Foofie's web page and direct visitors to the wrong one.

>>Overall, I would expect that https is unlikely to have any noticeable different to any modern webserver,

I did some benchmarking on a site I oversaw the development of for a client once. I couldn't notice any difference in load times when I swapped the site over to be exclusively HTTPS nor did I bother trying to. Honestly, the amount of variables involved, any difference is just lost in the noise. I did measure the hit on processor load on the web servers and found an increase of about 2-5% load, iirc. So there's a slight hit there, but trivial imo. But that was also a case where it was all being handled in software. A serious setup would have network cards with dedicated hardware built in for SSL. And that would move it down from something you might conceivably have to account for in edge cases / massive set ups, to something not even worth tracking.

The real cost of using SSL is paying the certificate authorities. That can get pretty pricey.

>>"Quite. Where are the games to launch missiles at the occupying Israelis?"

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: In other news

>>"Yes, sadly in life bad things happen. But I don't see how that's related this this pathetic ex-app."

Are you the same AC who is replying to everything else here? The point of talking about a school being bombed (on the off-chance you're somehow not aware of this, the Israeli forces shelled a UN school in Gaza yesterday, killing ten and wounding another thirty-five.

The reason this is related is because this is a story related to the Gaza situation and a comment was made about how "in other news the Sun rose, etc..." i.e. that comment comes across as very dismissive of the article suggesting it's a non-story. My reply pointing out that those "other things" include the bombing of schools is a pretty obvious way of saying that a post shrugging and suggesting this is a non-story is ignoring how serious this whole situation is.

If you are the same AC who is replying to all of these posts - and I think not understanding the point of the school bombing, not understanding that a "game" where all you do is die to Israeli tanks is not "cartoony fun" suggests that you are - then please understand the point of what is being said here, that violence and bombing is being utterly condemned, not trivialized.

Also, I don't see any "negative tone" in the article unless it's deploring the existence and opportunism of these games in the first place.

Re: FPS games about a war glorify it far more ...

>>Each sort of game has its own drawbacks - cartoony games tend to trivialize war/suffering, "

I'm really concerned about this comment and the downvote on my post. I find it hard to believe that anyone could click on the links to those games and think they were actually meant as games. Neither has any actual game-play or possibility of winning. That is the point of them - they are there to draw attention to the death toll of the Palestinian people and mock the rhetoric that Israel is threatened by the Palestinians as a justification for the bombings. They are satire. Anyone actually "playing" the games I linked to cannot misunderstand that, surely?

Re: There are still some games out there...

>>"I think there's a (moral) difference between games that try to be realistic, and ones that try to be cartoony fun"

If you think the games I posted are "cartoony fun" then you've missed the point of them. They're satire. They draw attention to the death tolls them in a way that a realistic FPS where the player is encouraged to lose themselves in a game, normally does not and they highlight the dark absurdity of the situation.

Re: In other news

>>and lots of other things happened.

For example, schools being bombed.

Re: word count

Well, you've yet again ignored a direct question as to whether you've actually used Windows ACLs in any significant way, so from here on I'm going to assume it's the same as our conversation on Powershell - you don't have any real experience and are just making assertions. Do you really not feel that it is wrong to make statements about how they're too complex when you don't actually have experience of them?

>>"So does the KISS principle, mam.

I repeat, a vague aphorism that things should be simple doesn't say anything about a specific example. I could write an OS that just had one user and one permission of do anything to a file or process, can't do anything to a file or process. By your logic in this thread so far, that would be a superior OS because it's even simpler. If you want to show that Windows ACLs are too complex for use, you have to show that, not issue platitudes. Given WIndows ACLs are used routinely and effectively, your argument is shot down.

>>A specific example could be XP where you have to run many userland apps as root, otherwise those wouldn't work"

And once again, you jump back thirteen years proving your only interest here is to attack Microsoft, not discuss modern security.

>>>>Windows ACLs are routinely used effectively by sysadmins and programmers every day.

>>I am sure about this, although, a few software developers from my XP experience above seemed not to get it.

Again, you're attacking an empty battlefield. Who exactly do you think you're arguing against with all your attacks on XP? You're the only one here who still cares about XP. But as you concede that Windows ACLs are routinely used effectively by sysadmins, you're accepting that they are not too complex to be used. So why wont you admit that you were wrong to say "ACLs have little practical impact on security". It was a stupid thing to say. Remove ACLs and the entire Windows security model no longer exists. And you think that has little practical impact. It's like saying bricks have little practical impact for houses. How long are you going to argue this point? Or is your intent just to grab the goal posts and sprint down the pitch with them and avoid ever having to concede a point?

>>"Me? Microsoft have and still are doing a much better job in that area than any government would ever be able to: #droidrage, scroogle, "500 Android patents everyone has to pay for", "Linux infringe our 100 patents", hidden APIs, "Get the facts", Java vs J++ and Netscape, to mention just a few. Google haven't done any of that for all those years they operate. Google are demonized because of the privacy concern, which I honestly don't share. (MS do a similar thing, hence their "they read your emails" is hypocritical.) Maybe it's egoistic on my part, say, I use my multiple gmail accounts with IMAP only, so I don't care. If MS threaten Linux community, extort payments for ridiculous patents or impose a Windows Tax, I can't get away from this."

As I said, your motive here isn't to discuss security, but to attack Microsoft. Trying to attack Windows security is just a vehicle for your dislike. This much is obvious as your attacks on Windows security show so little actual knowledge of it and you keep dodging questions as to how much experience you actually have with ACLs.

It's fine for you to dislike Microsoft. But posting misinformation / rubbish doesn't become okay because you dislike the victim. There are people I don't like - but I don't think it's okay to tell people someone on my team is an incompetent programmer just because I don't get on very well with them.

>>"I do keep my technical critique separate from this though"

You don't. So far in this article alone you have applied gross double-standards between Windows and other OSs, you've continuously based your "technical criticisms" on things that were fixed over eight years ago (whilst remarking that flaws in Android will be fixed in future versions), you've gone from ACLs having no importance and traditional UNIX permissions being sufficient in one post, to saying that Linux has ACLs too and touting the advantages of SELinux's extension of UNIX permissions two posts later.

This entire conversation is taking place because someone said they hoped Android on Debian would improve Android's security and you launched into an attack on Windows.

>>"My own attitude is to attack the well-documented attackers (in case of MS, Apple or others). I trust that yours and Miguel de Icaza's to unjustifiably embellish MS is wrong"

Because you feel attacked by Microsoft, does not mean that my arguments are wrong. You have to show that they are and instead you repeatedly dodge or ignore them.

Besides, are you not aware that in this discussion it is you who is the attacker?

Re: word count

>>"Both you and MS, it seems, underestimate the converse of it, i.e., the importance of simplicity In many types of systems (now I am using a rather mathematical term) complexity should be avoided, things better be simple enough to work, otherwise a system might not be efficient."

See, a vague generality saying sometimes simple is better, doesn't say anything about a specific example. And I note that I frequently talk in terms of specifics, and you frequently fall back on unsupported aphorisms like this. Case in point, I said that with Windows ACLs a group can be a member of another group. I don't find that complicated. Nor do the many, many programmers and sysadmins on Windows who deal with ACLs. Are you really trying to make an argument that you do?

Windows ACLs are routinely used effectively by sysadmins and programmers every day. "Sometimes simpler is better" platitudes don't connect with the reality here.

Besides, weren't you touting SELinux earlier? Is SELinux not just Linux's way of adding more sophistication to UNIX permissions? Ergo, SELinux fulfills a need. Why is it okay for Linux to fulfill that need but not okay for Windows to fulfill that need?

>>"That is the specific tasks in specific environments. *nix systems got various types of acl management tools"

I know. Which supports my point that ACLs are relevant. So why are you insisting that ACLs have "little practical relevance to security" (your exact words). It remains a silly thing to say.

>>"MS lacks however, a simplified version of acl unlike the POSIX permissions"

And that is not a problem. Right-click on a file on Windows (Vista onwards). Select properties and open the security tab. Pick a user from the list and change the Modify permission for them. Congratulations - you just used Windows ACLs. Was it difficult? No.

Click on "Special Permissions". Change something more sophisticated, such as clicking on Auditing->Add and select "Read". Congratulations, you just added an ACE (Access Control Entry) that will log whenever that file is read by anyone. Easy, wasn't it? And naturally you can do this with files, directory hierarchies, set the criteria to be file modification, appended to and other things.

Of course typically you might do this from the command line - it's very easy to copy an ACL from one object to another for example. I don't find it difficult. Nor do millions of other people. Nor, in fact, would you, if you actually took the time to learn it.

But you haven't have you? You keep ignoring my questions but have the decency to answer this one, will you? When was the last time you properly used ACLs on Windows? This is another conversation like the Powershell one isn't it, where after many posts insisting on its inferiority you finally admitted you'd never even used it. So go on, have you ever actually sat down and learnt Windows ACLs. You haven't have you? I can tell this because you're confidently asserting that they're over-complicated when in fact they're very easy to learn and use. Easier than trying to juggle permissions for large numbers of users and services with options of user/group/world and the awkward fudge of setuid bits.

>>"you also can't hear me criticizing Microsoft for the fact that you cannot control the apps permissions either"

I replied to that earlier, as did mephistro. We both made the same point that the Android permissions system (can txt, can use the Internet connection, etc.) is not appropriate for a full blown desktop OS such as GNU/Linux, OSX, Windows, et al. And as you're fully aware, Windows 8 does have this, this being the version of Windows that is seeking to be a common platform for desktop and mobile devices. Arguing that full-blown desktop OS's such as these should base their security model around Android's is a very silly argument. I'd love to see you propose that on the Debian forums.

>>"So, once again let's see how many years have passed since the original release of NT and NTFS before MS had any security. 2006-1993=13 years until Vista and it's 16 years before the arrival of Windows 7"

And yet again, you go back to the 1990s to try and score points against Microsoft, still blind to the fact that the football-team mentality is a game that only you are playing. When I talk about modern Windows security models and explicitly state I'm talking about Vista onwards, and you respond with childish comments about what a pity it was Windows didn't have better security in the 1990s, all you are doing is showing you have no interest in modern security comparisons, only in attacking a company. Though I should have realized that seeing as you were the one who raised Windows in this discussion in the first place just so you could attack it.

Here's a hint: when someone makes a comment about Android security and you launch into a bizarre attack on Windows, you're doing the exact same thing many governments do routinely when they try to deflect criticism onto some demonized outside group. It doesn't help clean up a mess at home! Your attitude is exactly the one that would rather attack others than improve things and we in the Open Source community really could do without your attitude, thanks.

Re: word count

>>"ACL was too complex for practical security use and hence was a bad substitute for the POSIX file permissions."

ACLs on Windows are used routinely by programmers and sysadmins alike, daily. I don't even use Windows as a development platform and don't administer it and I understand their usage. So either we're all atypical geniuses or you're wrong. There's no way you can support a position of ACLs on windows being impractical, when they are commonly used.

You also don't understand complexity in practice. A lot of things you can do with Windows ACLs are much more complex to do with traditional UNIX permissions even though the latter is a simpler system. To illustrate, traditional UNIX permissions don't have nested / hierarchical groups. That makes the UNIX system simpler. However, it makes managing access privileges more complicated. If a new member of the programming team should have access to certain technical areas, common office tasks (such as printer access), permission to log in to certain servers, et al., you can structure it so that the programmers group is a member of the printers group, the group that has access to those servers and so on and so forth. They leave, you just remove them from the programmers group and everything is taken care of. And that's a very simple example - hierarchical group memberships are great. Extra functionality can make a system less complex in practice.

You're seriously going to argue that something like being able to make a group a member of another group is too difficult for people to use or that it's not helpful?

>>"Go ahead pick up that jaw recalculating all the number of years it took from the initial release of NTFS ACLs in 1993 up until the post-Vista era when (according to you) the security got straightened out. If you can measure the "practical relevance" to be tangible or with a positive sign, that would be ignorant"

I don't even understand what you're saying here, let alone how it shows "ACLs have little practical relevance to security" which was the thing you claimed.

>>"To every one of my word, you'll produce another 3, just can't compete with that typing agility and thus am giving up"

Giving up on what? "Competing" in what? I'm not "competing" in anything. You came into a thread about Android and Debian and started posting inaccurate attacks on Windows. And then when challenged on it, you start making bizarre comments about my writing more than you. Debate or don't debate, just don't repeatedly make passive aggressive attacks about 'oh, I can't possibly compete with you' or 'clearly you're a winner'. They contribute nothing.

Re: Who invented permissions transparency?

"You will be able to with SELinux soon."

So when attacking Windows security you base arguments on pre-Vista versions and insist that's relevant, when defending Android you reference versions from the future and consider that fine. So one final question - are you actually aware that you keep applying double standards and if so what rationalization do you use to justify double standards?

Re: word count

>>"Anyhow, I did a wc analysis on our comments"

:D Which just shows what I keep telling you - that you're less interested in factual discussion and more interested in coming up with any criteria you can to "win" an argument. Btw, I've been a touch-typist since I was nineteen and can hit 65 words per minute relatively easily. Sometimes higher. I trust you'll have the intellectual honesty to divide both our results by our typing speeds as I doubt you've ever been a secretary. ;)

>>"Yes, it was disagreeing with your idea how Windows ACLs are superior to the Unix permission system in the context of security"

It was a post talking about the history of Windows in the days of NT. If you can't recognize that the Windows security model changed significantly with Vista then you can't understand there's no contradiction. And one more time - making an Appeal To Authority argument with some off-the-cuff forum post as your authority is beyond silly. Also, what context other than security would one compare Windows ACLs and UNIX permissions, anyway?

>>"Paul tried to explain that this advantage has had very little practical relevance to security"

ACLs have little practical relevance to security? That is jaw droppingly ignorant. Also, I don't know who this poster is that you regard as such an authority on matters, but they didn't say that at all for what it's worth.

>>"You're really a winner and I surrender!"

Yeah, sarcasm. We'll add that to the list of dodgy counter-arguments along with your posts being shorter than mine and this random forum user "disagrees" with me, shall we?