Posts by h4rm0ny 4560 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
">>We all know how well the Marxian bit worked for economies"
Do we? Are you one of those people who think the USSR was a good example of Marxism? Or Cuba? I'm actually not very socialist at all, I'm quite Right Wing and definitely a capitalist. But I dislike off-hand weak arguments.
No, Open Source wasn't supposed to be magically more secure than Closed Software. It was supposed to mean that you could verify it yourself if you want and - assuming you're talking about what should more properly be called Libre software - it prevents vendor lock-in and gives surety about what happens if a project is abandoned (you can fork it).
Well okay, that was the intent. I'll grant you that there is a zealot brigade that touted how "a thousand eyes" would make it inherently more secure than Closed Source software. But they were / are the same brigade that like to go "Micro$oft herrr herrr...XP herr herrr" I.e. closed minded OS bigots. The sort who'll argue until they're blue in the face that Secure Boot is worthless just because GNU/Linux doesn't take real advantage of it yet. But if that mob can be shut up about at least one major misconception they're pushing, it's all to the good.
Libre Software has real advantages. It might not be magically free of bugs but you have more surety that it doesn't contain backdoors (for example) than Closed Source products. Can you know that MacAfee AV doesn't report back on your computer usage? No. Can you know that Apache doesn't? Not 100% but with much greater confidence. (Or conversely, you can have much greater confidence that Chrome does ;)
Likewise, if MS drop support for Office tomorrow there's not a great deal you can do about that (other than sell all MS shares fast). But when Star Office is abandoned, you get Open Office and Libre Office.
That's the point.
Well I've enjoyed my time as a bit of a Microsoft fan. But I guess I'll be going back to my pre-Windows 7 self at last. I loathe ad-subsidised products and how it's become the de facto standard. Seems like MS will be following Google into the world of business models I hate.
Maybe it's time I finally tried Apple after all these years.
Add another use case to your list - when I'm cycling, I can see at a glance who is calling me, if I have txts and other things. Handy. Especially as this will pair with smartphones and headsets so you can buy a phablet, leave it in your bag most of the time and make and receive calls via it using the watch as the interface.
>>"What if you walked in to a physical shop (I know, SO last century) and before they allowed you to buy anything you had to give the the shop assistant your full name and email address. You just wouldn't do it."
Happened to me some years back buying a printer from Curry's. Got as far as having the cash in my hand and the assistant started demanding name, address, email / phone. Said 'no' and they actually refused to sell it to me. So I left.
>>"And who pays if it's the Google car's fault? Google? Or the passenger for not pressing stop?"
Google because they don't want the people they're trying to persuade to use this to think that the nice relaxing read a book (1) ride they think they'll get by buying / renting a wonka wagon, will actuallly be a case of sitting there with a hand hovering over the Stop button staring out of the window stressed out waiting for the car to make a mistake.
These things wont be allowed on the road without a lot of confidence in their reliability so it will be well worth Google paying out the rare insurance claim for the sake of people thinking it's no risk to their wallets / insurance policies. Actually, this is Google we're talking about. They'll probably find some way of making their money back whilst the car manufacturers have to pay the cost of any insurance claims, patent infringements, etc. They're not stupid at Google!
(1) Note: Read a book? Fat chance. It will have a TV screen in front of you playing continuous YouTube with fullscreen ads every two minutes and little pop-overs that get in the fucking way every thirty seconds until you click on the tiny little 'x'. Having it on and sound up will be part of the terms and conditions of using the vehicle and it will be able to detect a piece of cardboard over the screen.
>>Have a downvote for using "over-exaggerated".
But... that's... actually, yes - you're right. Hadn't thought of that. Icon at me.
Can I make the case that we all expect the press to exaggerate things as standard and that we only complain when they take it extra far and over-exaggerate?
A couple of things in the article seemed like baseless fears. Insurance claims for being bumped by a Wonka Wagon? These things will almost certainly have permanently recording cameras. I would think that makes claims even easier to resolve than most current cars where few people routinely run such cameras.
Theft of pizza? I would imagine it would be natural to have a pizza delivery device in the car. Enter the credit or debit card you used to purchase the pizza with (or cash coins, but I expect they wont offer that) and out slide the pizzas. It'll probably even be heated to keep the pizzas warm and have multi-compartments for several deliveries in one!
Sure, they wont be as secure as one of those vans transporting money, but the real deterrent to theft is not its difficulty, but the chance of getting caught. You'll be on camera, the thing would probably start blaring out "THIS VEHICLE IS BEING ROBBED! POLICE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED". You're less likely to be caught robbing someone's house than one of these things! So people will start taking greater risks for less reward? (And yes, consequence will be lower but once you go above a cut-off point, e.g. £2,000 for repairing the car, it all becomes the same level of discincentive).
>>"Yes, particularly since "they" (whoever "they" may be) recommends Bitlocker, a system which has advertised back doors which are commonly used in companies. The back doors are there to still get to the data on your disks even after forgetting your password."
That's not a Backdoor. A "backdoor" is a secret route in that isn't documented, or at least isn't public knowledge and it outside the system owner's control. The whole notion of "advertised back doors" is pretty silly. Bitlocker allows you to select if you wish the storing of secondary keys on a third party system so that the data can still be unlocked if you, e.g. suffer a hard disk failure and your local keys are corrupted, you forget your password to the data, you're in an enterprise environment and your company wants to give you an encrypted store on your laptop but still open it themselves if you wish.
Basically, useful, advertised and voluntary features. We'll file this particular silly distortion of yours along with those other posts of yours I recall about Secure Boot and Bing copying Google's search results - posts of yours I recall recently that similarly misrepresent things. Misinformation is damaging. Your agenda is obvious.
>>"UKIP's policy is to trade with the world, not just the EU. I don't think "raise the drawbridge" is a fair characterisation of that."
It is because being a member of the EU doesn't stop us "trading with the world", it gives us a boost in our trade with some parts of it. And that's not just European countries, btw. The EU has trade agreements with many other countries which we benefit from because we are part of the EU. Our trade with countries from Israel to Mexico to Iceland(!) would be affected if we withdrew from the EU because of beneficial trade agreements between those (and a bunch of others) and the EU.
You see being part of the EU gives leverage. There is a reason why every significant trading country is signed up to be part of some trade block, whether that's the EU, the North American Free Trade Association, the Common Economic Space of Russia and Friends, South Asian Free Trade Area.. et al. They all have might, leverage.
You want to know what happens to a country trying to trade on equal terms with a much more powerful trading block? Look at the USA's relations with minor trading partners historically. Or perhaps you think the Chinese or the Russians would be more inclined to play fair.
Large international free trade areas and trading blocks don't happen because people think "oh what the Hell, it sounds like a lark".
So yeah, it is exactly "pulling up the drawbridge". The best way to trade is to remove barriers to trade. To think otherwise is nonsense.
>>"I agree, but it's not fair to mention those tariffs and restrictions without also mentioning the tariffs and restrictions imposed by the EU on any trade with non-EU countries, which would disappear if we left."
Such as? I'd be very interested to know of any such cases so they could be weighed against the overall gains. And as I pointed out a moment ago, we actually get trade benefits with other countries because we can negotiate with them as part of the EU. Do you suppose we are in a stronger bargaining position of "UK with China" than "EU with China" ?
>>"My personal position is that none of this policy argument actually matters unless the EU has a democratic mandate, which it currently doesn't. When you elect an MP, you lend that MP your power so that they may use it at Westminster; you don't give it to them; it is not theirs. So they're supposed to hand it back at the end of their term. No MP or British government had the remit to hand any of that power to the EU, so they should not have done so. If the EU were the single greatest thing in history, right about everything, better than Westminster in every way, the fact would still remain that the British people had not chosen to seat their power there. So let's have a referendum to settle the matter. If the EU is as great as you say it is, your side should win easily."
I agree with democratic mandate. What I have been showing is that EU membership is overwhelmingly a net benefit, not arguing that people should not have a choice. I would hope that much is obvious and your passage above is a complete tangent to our current discussion.
It does contain a couple of innaccuracies. What the UK joined was the EEC and we did have a referendum on whether we should be in it. There was a 64% turnout and a strong 'yes' vote. Now it's grown into the EU since then and I'm in favour of a referendum on principle. But I find your position that people will necessarily vote for what is best laughable given any slice of modern history you care to pick. As I said - what I'm showing here is that EU membership is a net benefit. Of course I'm not against choice. I am against UKIP not because they want a referendum, but because of the outcome they want. They wouldn't be campaigning for a referendum for people to vote to stay in.
I'll also say, for obvious reasons, that we can't keep having referendums on whether to stay in or not. And I'm sure you'd agree with that.
>>"Which is slightly weird I know, given the river of cash they have. The BEEB pays vast amounts for stars, horrendous amounts for bureaucrats, but very much lower than the free market for standard work. Odd, but true."
I've heard that the BBC used to be the place for people of particular careers and that therefore it had quite a culture of 'working your way up'. I don't know how true that is today or if it applies to journalists or just technicians which is the context in which I heard it. But perhaps they pay less because they're still stuck in an era where they expect to have long-term career builders working their way up inside the BBC?
>>"I don't agree. Why should I indicate approval of anyone I don't agree with?"
A person who will not vote has low demonstrable worth. They may become a voter if motivated, but the opportunity cost is low. If they do not see any differences worth choosing for between such divergances as the Greens, the Tories, LibDems, Labour, SNP, whoever, then they're likely only going to be motivated to actually vote by extreme differences. And few sensible people want to adopt extreme positions for two reasons - they're usually a bad idea and unless you live in the Weimar Republic or similar, they're guaranteed electoral failure.
Ergo, if you don't vote, you're not worth pandering to.
If you do vote, whoever you vote for, your value has just rocketed. NOW you're worth pandering to. Even if you're likely to vote for a particular party regardless, there's enough targetable edges around any party's support base to make it worth pursuing you. And by pursuing you, I mean catering to your needs / desires. Even if your party wont get elected, your support of them increases pressure on rivals to adopt some of those policies. Neither the Tories nor New Labour give that much of a shit about the environment. But they both look at the 5-6% the Greens get and think "maybe I can get some of that". So even though we're unlikely to see a Green Party prime minister, each person voting for the Greens helps move Britain toward Green Party politics. (Which unfortunately doesn't include nuclear power but that's a rant for elsewhere).
Basically, a non-voter is a potential resource with a low-chance of realization. An active voter is a confirmed resource worth appealing to. You have to think past just the next election. Humans got where we are by the ability to envisage different futures. Focusing on each election as if it's a unique event that will never happen again is an obvious mistake. Yet people do it.
>>>>h4rm0ny wrote :- "Voting for UKIP .... is a terrible idea even if for some reason you think it's a good idea to turn our back on the £17bn trade per month"
>>Fantastic figures like that seem to assume that all trade with the EU will cease.
Firstly, the fantastic figures are official statistics. I'll dig them out if they're in dispute. Secondly, you cut off my sentence mid-way through which then went on to say ("even if you think withdrawing from the EU wont impact that for some reason") . Or words to that effect. A little sly I feel to remove my counter-argument so that it appeared I hadn't already given my answer to what you then wrote, I feel. But anyway, of course that figure will be impacted. And yes, of course the degree is a matter of debate but the sudden imposition of tariffs and restrictions on transfer of money and employees when our competitors within Europe for all that trade suffer none of those disadvantages? Pretty substantial I would say. Far from going to do us good.
>>(Anyway, looking at all the BMWs and Peugeots around I would think most of that trade is to the UK's disadvantage.)
I don't think you get how trade works. It happens when something is to a mutual benefit (otherwise it's known as exploitation). If British people are able to buy a car cheaper / better than they would otherwise, that is a net benefit / saving. To argue that they should be penalized in order to push that money into British car manufacturers is to introduce inefficiency into the model and effectively say that British buyers should be subsidizing British car manufacturers. Trade increases efficiency. That's why it happens.
And unlike UKIP I actually AM proud to be British and I actually do believe we can be competitive. UKIP do not. That is why they want what you have just outlined - raise the drawbridge to protect British industry from competition. Unfortunately unless you have a massive army to leverage to back up inequitable deals (like the USA does), that also has the effect of closing down any benefits. And trade is a net benefit by definition. You don't see the Germans closing up their trade borders in fear of competition.
We used to have some of the best manufacturing in the world and we can again. But that opportunity is hamstrung if we're sandwich between two giant trade blocks and have to sell at a disadvantage to everyone.
The point of the £17bn figure isn't to say that it will all be lost. It's to show how large our relationship with Europe is and that all of that would be negatively affected by withdrawal.
>>But does everything have to be only about economics?
No, but it tends to be where I come from since it's something I know a bit about and because it affects everyone in this country. Regarding your other point:
>>"Back in the 1960's the UK banned live animal exports on cruelty grounds; with EU membership that had to be allowed again."
Then back in the 1960's you would have found me arguing on your side. (Well, on this particular issue). But these days EU laws on animal welfare and human rights are both pretty strong. Indeed, there have been a number of cases where the EU Human Rights act has protected British citizens against our own government.
Things change.
>>"OTOH the EU is run by nutters who want to ban anything that they dream of being the slightest human health risk."
Yes, but so is the UK.
>>"The EU banned creosote for example. Fine for sunny climates like Spain and Italy, but I have about 500 yards of fencing to maintain in the damp Welsh hills and must now do so without creosote"
Honestly outside my area of expertise. I would say so far as I can comment it sounds a better reason for changing this specific rule rather than rejecting EU membership. I'd also say (I don't know if this is possible) to get hold of some creosote from somewhere and just do it anyway. The important thing about laws is not to get caught, imo.
>>"Nigel Farage may be a nutter too, but so are most early adopters. They thought Ghandi (who people love quoting these days) was a nutter when he wanted India to leave the British Empire"
I would not like to argue that the same actions are appropriate when the specifics are very different. Do you really want a list of Similarities vs. Differences between the two cases. I guarantee that British control of India is far more disimilar to UK membership of the EU than it is the same. Obviously you're not making a serious case with that particular point, but I feel obliged to respond properly, nonetheless. I'm a fairly big admirer of Ghandi, btw. Even though he was a lawyer.
>>"Even if the UK left the EU, you don't seriously think Farage would become the Prime Minister do you?"
Only in my nightmares. His brand of populist detail-light positive-sounding campaigning translates very badly into actually running the United Bureacracy of Great Britain. However, that's not what I'm arguing is a risk. I'm arguing two things - that we should stay in Europe for our own good and that for as long as we are in Europe, UKIP are not competent people to manage our presence within it.
Voting for UKIP in the European Elections is a terrible idea even if for some reason you think it's a good idea to turn our back on the £17bn trade per month we do with the EU (or think that would not be impacted by withdrawal).
The European Elections are to choose our MEPs. Even if you want to withdraw it makes no sense to in the meantime send people to represent us who are standing on a platform of non-participation. That's like saying you don't think we should be driving somewhere so you're going to let the five year old in the back take the wheel.
Stay in the car or get out. But don't stay in the car and take your hands off the wheel.
>>"I can't even be arsed to vote. Even a 'protest' vote would mean voting for the novice buffoons instead of the grandmaster buffoons and I'd rather the slightly warped novices didn't get a crack at anything to be honest."
The biggest reason nothing changes is because people think it can't. Every vote makes real change that little bit closer. We're currently voting for who will represent us in Europe. What do we want - people who are actually engaged and active in that? Or a bunch of protest MEPs who'll just make an arse of themselves, swan around on the salary and do nothing good because they don't believe we should be in Europe in the first place?
It is important to vote. Please do so.
>>""Microsoft seemed to be rather good at it." TFTFY"
No, you added incorrect information. MS have been bringing in quite a bit of money in the enterprise market recently. Azure, Server 2012, Windows 7, Office 365. All doing very well.
>>"As long as Microsoft can continue to collect licences for this kind of shoddy product management then they're unlikely to change their practices."
No-one wants to get companies upgrading to newer versions of Windows than Microsoft. They would far rather people were using IE9+ on Windows 7+ than legacy old stuff which they are contractually obliged to support.
>>"@Nuke, ok, imagine this. If the vote rigger is in the polling station with you, why would they need you to take a photograph?"
Because being in the polling station with you isn't the same as being in the polling booth with you. And anyone trying to inspect your card between you walking out of the booth and putting it in the box would be dealt with by the staff in pretty short order.
Your own icon right back at you.
>>"The reference numbers are only meant as a backstop in the case of widespread fraud (ballot stuffing and so forth), the photography rules are meant to stop individuals being bribed to vote one way or another, as there should be no proof that they could provide to an outside individual that they did so."
Not only bribed, but coerced. My friend has helped out at polling stations and one source of friction was muslim men insisting on going into the polling booth with their wives and getting irate at being stopped.
It's all too easy for a spouse or employer to pressure someone to vote a particular way. People of an older generation sometimes actually consider it unethical to ask someone which way they voted. Not sure if people still do.
You could install WIndows on this. But if Windows is your preference you'd be far better off getting the new Surface 3 Pro, in my opinion. I think the price reduction is probably partly a response to that and other OEM devices. As it was, it was priced equivalent to the Surface 3 Pro but with lower resolution, heavier, no touch screen, no pen and integrated note-taking software (OneNote + active digitizer is fantastic) and slightly less powerful.
Those are all still true but it is now cheaper. However, if you're going to buy Windows for it, you lose that benefit. Definitely better off with its competitor the Surface Pro 3 until Apple produce the next iteration of this.
Then either join the 21st century and get a phone / provider that will allow tethering, or get a dongle to plug into the tablet that provides this. Honestly, most places you should be able to use WiFi. Where you can't then unlike an iPad, you can just plug in a USB accessory to provide LTE. But the latter is rarely necessary. Lack of LTE doesn't stop most laptops from selling well, or the iPad from being the best selling tablet despite not having LTE for most of its lifespan / on all models. At least with a Surface you can expand it to that option if you want to.
You know it's funny. I remember most of these same objections when phones started to have cameras in them. Neophobes insisted it was rubbish to have a single device when they could carry a camera AND a phone and dedicated devices were better.
And then technology got to the point that phones could do camera work adequately well for most people. Sure, if you're totally focused on photography, you'll have a dedicated DSLR alongside your phone. But for everyone else, they use their phone.
Now tablets / hybrids are able to compete with laptops and history repeats with the same arguments repurposed. MS are ahead of the curve here, that is all.
>>"Yes, you can disable automatic updates. But the default behaviour sucks, and the default behaviour is what most non-techie users (ie most users) will stick with."
Users who can't figure out how to disable automatic updates are exactly the ones who shouldn't do so.
>>"Snap on the keyboard and you have a laptop with a terrible keyboard."
No, you have a laptop with an okay-ish keyboard and a lousy trackpad. But the latter doesn't matter because it's a touch-screen device. I hardly ever use the trackpad on my Surface 2.
N.b. there are two keyboards - the Touch and the Type. The former isn't that good but that latter is alright.
>>"Is it waterproof?"
Honestly Microsoft! Have you really not found a way to combine cooling vents in a device with making something fully waterproof? Or invented a portable way of dissipating substantial heat without vents? Crikey! Talk about Fail!
>>And it is bigger, heavier an more expensive than tablets, which are not full computers.
So what is so great about it?
Because whilst it does neither use case 100% as well as a dedicated form-factor, it does both of them 80% as well and that is a major convenience and cost saving. I have the Surface 2 (not even a Pro) and it's replaced the majority of my laptop needs. I'll take the laptop if I know I'm going to be setting up somewhere for a day's work. But with the Surface I can do lots of the work I would do on a laptop (Excel, Word, Outlook, SSH into servers) without having to lug a larger device around. Consequently I do laptop-activities in places I would never normally have my laptop with me.
Similarly, I no longer have to carry around a separate tablet device - this is quite good enough. So lighter than carrying two devices, more convenient and considerably cheaper. And whilst it may not be quite as light as an iPad, it's still not heavy. And it's only going to get lighter so inevitably hybrid devices will get better and better at eating up the tablet space as well.
(contd.)
>>"And again, not a Linux user. However, the systems I use tend to have a lot of stuff contained within the main kernel at default - it's more efficient that way, and less of a security risk if kernel module loading is disabled, or restricted to console control etc."
Then as with Windows, you should stop pronouncing on things in the GNU/Linux world (which as you helpfully pointed out in trying to dismiss my earlier point, is what this story is about). On GNU/Linux, you have dynamic module loading by default and it would be pointless to compile everything in as part of the kernel. It gains you nothing. As I said earlier, removing a module you're not going to need saves you perhaps 40 bytes of compiled kernel size and has no measurable performance impact. I mean that quite literally. You could not measure it. Disagree, then I invite you to try. I used to experiment with this in my Gentoo days. I got more benefit out of tweaking the compile flags than I did actually dropping support. At least the former could, just barely, be measured.
>>"I know not every one has the time organisational luxury to do it, but yes, most of the time I compile from source."
Again, it gains you next to nothing and if an important security update comes down whilst you're not there or busy or if you leave the company or if you lose track of what updates you need to apply, hard luck on your employers (and users)! As I say, you clearly have no experience of professional GNU/Linux administration.
>>"<troll>Typical Microsoft attitude - overcome efficiency shortcomings by throwing more CPU/RAM at the problem</troll>"
What?
>>"I really though that there was still a hell of a lot that to remain within the kernel directly, but if you're saying otherwise, I'm not in a position to argue."
In other words, you don't have evidence that what people with actual experience of this are telling you is false, but you wont accept that, you'll just condede that you can't prove otherwise. You can, btw. It's called going and having a look for yourself. Either fire up a Windows install or do a bit of searching online. It's pretty easy.
>>"There is also no point having something as a kernel module if it always needs to be loaded. "
Irrelevant, it doesn't prove the inverse. You were claiming there's an advantage to removing the modules that you don't need. Unless you desperately need those forty bytes of kernel size or an extra few KB of disk space, there isn't. Your original claim was that it reduces potential vulnerabilities. I pointed out that if a module isn't loaded, then this doesn't matter. You're now attempting to find reasons why you shouldn't remove a module, but it doesn't take away the fact that doing so confers no advantage. And the reasons not to have already been given - support and maintenance problems from a hacked-around kernel. That's being unprofessional and thinking that you're technically smart.
>>"Still, this is all largely tangential to the original point that windows machines have been rooted by malicious media files. This wouldn't happen on any sane system."
All systems have flaws. You were arguing that Windows was more vulnerable to one because it has an "all or nothing" permissions system. And that's been shown to be wrong.
>>"Do current windows versions still have explorer embedded in the kernel?"
No. I'm not sure they ever did. Or else you have the weirdest definition of kernel ever.
>>"but it seems my ignorance of Windows systems was my downfall."
There's nothing inherently wrong with ignorance. What is wrong is making confident assertions about something when you know you don't have experience on it. (For example, arguing with a GNU/Linux developer about Linux when you admit you haven't used it for fifteen years).
>>"Still, thanks for replying with so many fallacies and inaccuracies that I don't now feel quite as much of a moron."
What in my post was a fallacy or innacuracy? I don't think you're a moron but I think you have been speaking about things you don't know much about and you're attempting to justify on being called out on them.
>>"Have a nice day!"
Somehow, I don't think you're a very sincere person.
Let's deal with this first: "I was largely intentionally trolling in my original post".
That is not helpful and is actually destructive. Especially when you admit you don't even know the facts.
>>"Yes, I admit I didn't know that, but as has been pointed out already, that option produces a reduced interface, it doesn't remove the whole GUI system"
You were wrong on this. Several people pointed it out. One person claimed otherwise. You self-admittedly haven't any direct knowledge but you chose to believe the one person who agreed with you. That is called confirmation bias. They were wrong as well - they wrote that the entire graphics stack is still there. What you see if plug a monitor into a Server Core instance is a terminal window, there's not a menu, there's not a single GUI tool, it's a terminal window. I have motherboards with a BIOS from fifteen years ago with more of a GUI than that.
The other poster (who though they didn't know what they were talking about and were a single dissenting voice, you chose to believe over the rest of us), claimed that the entire graphics stack was still present. You could have easily checked this if you cared about actually being right, as opposed to defending your position. A very basic Server 2008 install running as Server Core will use about 180MB of memory footprint as opposed to 310MB for a version with the GUI configured with the exact same roles. Does that sound like it's doing nothing other than just not displaying a few menu options? It doesn't require all the same updates (only needing a subset as the GUI ones aren't needed). A base install of Server Core takes 1.6GB vs. 7.6GB for the GUI'd version - again, configured with exactly the same roles. Again, does that sound like it's nothing other than just turning off some GUI tools? It also runs fewer services so there's a small attack surface for malicious software / attacks.
So when a bunch of people with experience / expertise tell you something and one anonymous coward makes an unsupported statement otherwise, don't seize on their post, turn round to everyone else and effectively say 'ha! i wasn't wrong after all". Because you're reason for choosing to believe that poster over everyone else is transparant. Better, spend two minutes looking up some facts.
>>"Also, how do you do remote administration in that environment? Do you still have to remote desktop/vnc etc. ?"
I use the above questions to suggest that you really shouldn't be arguing about what Windows can and cannot do as you clearly have very little knowledge about this area. I'm happy to answer your questions, however.
If you think about it for a moment, btw. you'll realize that it cannot be VNC as VNC is simply a way of relaying the normal GUI / desktop to a remote machine and transmitting mouse / keyboard movements to it. Without a GUI in the first place, this could not be the way it works!
Typically you would use Server Manager, which is a remote server management tool for Windows Server and supercedes Remote Desktop. It doesn't work by giving you a remote desktop view, but instead provides tools for managing services / running scripts / configuring the remote machine. Well, multiple remote machines, actually. You'll have a sysadmin there running Server Manager, and they'll flick between different remote machines.
Here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc732131%28v=WS.10%29.aspx
Note, command line / Powershell is a fundamental part of Windows Server. There's no part of the OS that isn't exposed to Powershell / configurable by it. So a lot of the time, if you have the knowledge or some available scripts, you can just use a command line to manage it.
>>"Firstly, coming from a VMS background, I agree that standard Unix permissions are not all that powerful. But do you want to compare that to win3.1? Just as relevant."
No I don't, because it's not just as relevant. You wrote about "the way unix (and unix like) systems are designed"and compared it to "Windows all or nothing design". I've pointed out that Windows isn't all or nothing and I compared it to UNIX permissions because that's what you compared it to.
Also, I never said that UNIX permissions are not powerful. They are. I only wrote that Windows was not an "all or nothing" system and that you appear to have no knowledge of this on Windows since before Vista.
>>"I haven't used Linux in over 15 years (apart from the Android tablets), but saying their ACL's are too complicated is as stupid as people saying that all Windows users do everything as Administrator, because the alternative is too complicated."
Nowhere did I say that ACLs on GNU/Linux are too complicated. Nor do I agree that they are. Whatever you're trying to argue against, it's nothing that I said. Indeed, very few people even actually use the ACLs on GNU/Linux. They stick with the traditional UNIX permissions system which are not access control lists.
Thirdly, the article was about bugs in things that already run with full privileges, so banging on about ACLs and file permissions is only vaguely related to the discussion in hand.
Again, you yourself brough this up. I just pointed out that you were wrong. Don't blame me for correcting you, or try to say something isn't relevant after you yourself were the one that raised it, just because you no longer find is supports your case.
>>"I'm pleased you know your limits...Of course I run all the production servers on tuned kernels"
Then I'm sorry to see that you don't know yours. You custom compile kernels on your machines introducing the possibility of hard to diagnose bugs, making it extremely difficult for someone to step into your role when needed and probably rendering any enterprise support agreements you have null and void. You say you haven't used GNU/Linux for 15 years so perhaps on the VMS world, things are different. But we're talking about Linux here so perhaps, like on Windows, you shouldn't pronounce authoritatively on this subject.
>>"all competent people do"
Way to insult all the skilled GNU/Linux sysadmins out there who don't custom compile the kernel on their production machines (and I work with a number of such people, btw).
>>"Now, the original article is talking about DRM (clue: D stands for "digital") on streaming and downloadable contents distributed over the Internet."
No, it's any digital media. Unless in addition to your other weird exclusions you're not trying to rule out DRM on games, DVDs, CDs, HDCP technology, et al.
>>You, however, insist on lumping it all together and throwing the kitchen sink in it too, for good measure. But OK, let's do that."
Yep. Because unless you're now trying to argue that someone who is motivated to pirate a VHS, CD, cassette tape magically has their motivation vanish with a computer game or Blu-ray, then you have no grounds to exclude them. You know this but even in finally agreeing to discuss it, you try to make it sound like a some bizarre request. People mass pirated even when it was harder and more expensive to do and the copies were degraded over the original. And yet you argue that when it's easier, cheaper and copies are digitally perfect, the motivation for piracy has suddenly become something else. You cannot dance around that.
>>You lot have always been quick to call everything that people may do with your stuff without asking for your approval as "piracy".
"You lot" ??? Seriously? Something like that is always a give away that someone is arguing with some created enemy in their head rather than the person they're actually talking to. Let's dispense with that. I even explicitly made clear I wasn't talking about format-shifting. I wrote that mass piracy isn't a response to people's inability to format-shift. Let's stick to what I actually am arguing, okay? Rather than try to dodge into whether it's okay to format-shift something you already own. Unless you're trying to sneak in actual different content under the banner of format-shifting (you have an ancient VHS of a movie and think that entitles you to download a re-mastered Blu-ray version) then format-shifting is fine and not what the vast majority of piracy is about. Ripping a CD to put on your phone is trivial. To say that the huge amount of piracy that goes on today is about helping people to do that, is stupid.
>>"Why is it a consequence and not a cause? Firstly and most obviously - DRM only exists on legitimate products and only affects the paying customer. The "pirated" copies are free from DRM. It does not affect them at all. So, at the very least, DRM is neutral to piracy - not a deterrent at all."
Ah, the Chewbacca defence. The blu-ray had DRM but the ripped and encoded version doesn't, therefore people copying the version without DRM are not pirating. Makes sense... not.
>>"Secondly, and most importantly - people would rather buy a widely available, easy to use, reasonably priced, unrestricted product legitimately than look for an illegal copy."
Love how you slipped "reasonably priced" in there. AKA "If I think it's too expensive, I'll steal it". An argument that works for bread, Iron Man 3, not so much. Not to mention that there are plenty of people who think any cost at all is 'too expensive'. Also, that's quite an extraordinary claim given that hit movies are available to buy on disc or cloud-based watchable on a range of devices, and yet these movies still top the piracy charts. Your repeated argument by assertion that mass piracy is a response to DRM and is generally people trying to find ways to watch content they otherwise can't, is in contradiction to what is observable.
People also pirate way more than they would or even could afford legitimately, which is a further piece of evidence that now occurs to me. If it were all just finding ways around DRM that would not happen. Indeed, anyone who actually thought as you claim they do, has the opportunity to buy the copy through whatever medium, and then torrent a version for the format shift (because they are presumably unable to rip a CD presumably). Think pirates are typically doing that? I can picture it now - "hey, I'm downloading Frozen HD because encoding is hard, man, and i desperately need to watch it on my phone. but i'm only downloading it as a response to the DRM. i still actually bought a copy therefore".
Yes... of course that's the typical scenario.
>>"You can find the real life examples easily - like the fact that the most heavily DRMed computer games are consistently the most "pirated" etc."
You need a course in basic science and / or data gathering. Which games are the most popular? The big AAA ones made by big studios. These studios also have the most to lose through piracy (in absolute terms) and the most resources to deploy DRM. Correlation is not causation, sorry to bust out the obvious. That you see the biggest budgeted, most promoted, big news games are the most popular targets of piracy and you immediately point at DRM and say 'ah ha! this is why they're pirated', speaks much of your a priori mindset on this topic.
>>"Even they now admit that with increasing legitimate availability the piracy levels are going down."
Still very high though. Easily obtained, unrestricted, high-quality and cheap. And still there is massive piracy of music. You should probably stick to unsupported conclusions rather than introducing facts because you'll only end up supporting my point. Piracy of music has dropped. There certainly is a subset of people who are doing so for reasons other than not paying - not obtainable legitimately in their country, convenience in not having to go to a shop / wait for delivery. (But neither of those are responses to DRM, btw). But it's your insistence that piracy is a response to DRM which is absurd, along with trying to use scraps like that to prove it. DRM is a response to piracy. Companies would not spend huge amounts of money to prevent people buying their content, they do it to stop people ripping it off.
Btw, as music piracy has fallen slightly, do you know what has risen? DRM'd music subscription services. ;) I guess the subset of pirates who were doing so for convenience / availability weren't motivated as a response to DRM, just convenience and availability as I wrote.
>>"The reason why people were buying from Allofmp3 was that there was no legitimate alternative. The reason people were using Napster was because there was no legitimate alternative."
I understood perfectly well what you wrote about allofmp3. As I point out, allofmp3 did not stop piracy so the piracy was not a response to lack of alternative, allofmp3 was considered legal due to Russian copyright law and it co-existed alongside easily rippable CDs that rarely if ever had DRM on them, so cannot be a response to DRM. You're dodging into issues of convenience / availability. Remember - your position is that piracy is a response to DRM. allofmp3 doesn't support that position, it's mostly irrelevant. Do not forget what you are arguing.
>>"exactly, that was my point. Because if they do not intend to buy the product, whether they do or not get a free copy is irrelevant."
Yes, and as pointed out, that's a collossal set error. You're deliberately excluding all those who do not intend to purchase a legitimate copy which is an overwhelming majority of pirates and therefore undermines your own argument that piracy is a response to DRM. If a pirate is not willing to purchase a legitimate copy, then their actions cannot be a response to DRM. You're trying to shift the argument away from disputing what I actually wrote (DRM is a response to piracy) and as well as that, you're trying to slip in bogus justifications of piracy. Let's indulge and examine them:
>>"Because if they do not intend to buy the product, whether they do or not get a free copy is irrelevant."
Firstly, you assume that they will not buy - an assumption letting you focus on a subset of pirates and avoid discussing piracy as a whole. Secondly, why should the rest of us have to pay to provide free content to you? You're leeching off the rest of us. Thirdly, torrenting isn't just taking a copy, it's facilitating everyone doing so - that's the entire technical point of BitTorrent. Fourthly, why should anyone be able to take something for free just because they themselves declare they wouldn't buy it. That's the old and ridiculous 'I didn't value the content so I stole it' justification restated. Fifthly, why should people who don't pay get more than those who do? I buy a movie or two a month, someone else downloads dozens with the excuse they can't afford them or wouldn't have bought them anyway. Seems equitable?
The entire principle of taking for free because you don't want to pay, is wrong. You've got way away from trying to disprove my statement that DRM is a response to piracy, and have now gone swinging off into justifications of piracy that have little to do with DRM. Kind of proves my point really - you're just wanting to justify piracy itself. One of the supports people use for piracy is claiming it is a response to DRM. I showed that wrong in my post and now I see why you suddenly leapt up and challenged it. Not because it's wrong, but because it's one of the rationalizations of piracy. Even though it's nothing to do with my original point, you're now throwing in other rationalizations. You essentially want to justify piracy, basically.
>>"Finally, a message to the industry - stop claiming entitlement to something that is not yours"
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
My post which you disagree with, is primarily hard facts. Example: the fact that piracy has existed before (and in the case of CD anti-ripping) after DRM. This proves a motivation other than bypassing DRM.
Your position is again argument by assertion. And you really think all that pirating of the latest movies and music is people trying to deal with their inability to format shift? Easily refuted by the fact it is possible to format shift from CDs, DVDs and indeed purchasable MP3s. Once again provably wrong in mass numbers, even if we allowed the obvious absurdity of huge swathes of the piraters being simply desperate to format shift because they don't know how to rip a CD.
>>"I don't want to talk about the analogue formats and even about the CDs which appeared long before the Internet"
Well that's too bad. You've provided no reason for dismissing them. Correction - no good reason. E.g.:
"especially, before mortal people's connections achieved bandwidths making it possible to exchange anything more than text and static pictures"
So you're suggesting that the existence of piracy pre-DRM is irrelevant because it was harder to do? :D :D :D :D Surely that indicates if it indicates anything, an even stronger non-DRM based motivation for piracy.
Your position is absurd. Piracy is generally a response to DRM? Other way around and you know it. And shame on a few people upvoting you because you're justifying piracy, rather than because your're right.
>>"On the Internet though - it is the rights management (firstly, the original form of rights management - denial of availability) that have pushed people to use MP3.COM, Napster, Allofmp3 (remember, people happily paid for their MP3s on Allofmp3?)"
Argument by assertion yet again. You say people used them because of DRM. Yet they all co-existed with easily rippable CDs. Even the minority of CDs that had anti-ripping on them were easily ripped. allofmp3.com was considered legal by most people due to Russian copyright law being different, was massively cheaper than Western CDs and pre-dated general use of BitTorrent. That last one being especially significant. In any case, the existence of people buying media does nothing to say anything about the motivations of people pirating. Indeed, the co-existence of massive piracy alongside allofmp3 which was selling non-DRM'd downloads proves my point further. So thank you for bringing that up and not thinking through the implications of your evidence.
>>"our DVDs example - people who normally buy DVDs only resort to pirate copies for something that is caused by rights management, like staggered releases etc."
Tremendous set error there. Read it back to yourself, this time whilst thinking. "people who normally buy DVDs". At a stroke, you exclude all the pirates who do so without intent to purchase the DVDs.
>>"Yes there will always be people copying stuff to avoid paying for it (maybe because they cannot afford it, maybe because they don't value the content they are copying, maybe out of some principle) "
Hilarious ennobling of pirates there. They are too poor to afford it. (So they live off the rest of us being willing to pay - nice of them to ask if I wanted to pay more of my). Or they steal it because they don't want it. ("don't value the content"_. Or best yet - they take it out of "principle." Because letting everyone else pay for the creation of content they enjoy or not rewarding those that create it are such good principles.
Again, hard facts supporting what I wrote. On your side, two arguments that you're right because you say you're right, one collossal exclusion bias and an attempt to make pirates sound like victims. Well done. Weakest argument I've engaged in here in at least a year. The person last week who tried to argue about Powershell without ever having used it did a better job than you're doing here.
>>"You've got it totally arse over tit - piracy is a response to DRMs, not the other way round."
Argument by assertion and it makes little sense. If there were no piracy then there would be no reason to invest very large sums of money in counters to it. If piracy were a response to DRM then it wouldn't predate DRM in the form of home copied VHS tapes, music cassette tapes and all those CDs which didn't have those anti-ripping measures (which appeared relatively late in the life of the CD and are seldom used anymore, whilst piracy of them hasn't dropped in response to their removal). What of DVDs? The DRM on them is neglible - you admit that in your post that it is so inconsequential that even you who denounce DRM on principle do not have a problem buying them. And yet DVDs are habitually pirated by millions. Are you going to try and build a case that all of those are legitimate attempts to get around region locking? It would be a fine joke if you did.
Really, you can say "piracy is a response to DRM". It is a stupid thing to say.
>>"Speak for yourself. I am buying DVDs, because CSS is easy to remove if need be and most players can be fixed to disregard the region restrictions."
Then you acknowledge that there is a means to get the movies without piracy. Which was my point, so thank you.
>>"With war, you cannot correct the situation except by ending the war ASAP, which may be difficult. With criminality or stupidity - the fix is very easy. You want the black market to disappear? - make sure you clean up the "white" one..."
That's very dramatic. If it's such a moral issue for you pirates, why don't you buy a DVD copy? "I was forced to torrent the movie because of DRM" is absurd.
>>I agree not to sell or provide other people with copies as that is your right since you made it. "
Unfortunately mass piracy broke the agreement. DRM is a response to piracy. Companies don't invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into solutions just for the Hell of it. They do it because they're trying to counter piracy.
DRM is an inevitable response to piracy.
>>"1. You have to pay for the content. There is a ton of free content on the Internet, I have never seen any need to go to pay per view sites."
Then be happy with your free content. Unless by that you mean pirated material in which you're living off the rest of us who actually pay and thus fund the creation of the content. Living off others != good.
>>2. You can only watch it on one computer. But I downloaded it on this computer and now I want to watch it on another one - not happening. Get your credit card out and pay for it again.
Nonsense. What popular DRM'd content sellers work that way? Go ahead and list a few. We're waiting. I got ultraviolet keys included with blu-rays that I bought. I can what them on multiple devices. Music subscription services, e-books I've bought - all multi-device. What are you talking about?
>>"3. I downloaded this before my computer crashed. I rebuilt it, but now I can't play it. That's because the secret key is gone. Easily fixed, pay for it again."
Again, show me a popular service that works that way.
>>"4. I saved it when I watched it last week and now it won't play. That's because it is time-bombed. Pay for it again."
Without the ability to expire content, there could be no option to rent. So that film I wanted to watch last week? I wouldn't be able to rent it for a few quid, I'd have had to buy it at £12 or forgo it altogether. But because there is the ability to expire content I was able to rent it and watch it the once which was all I wanted to do.
>>"5. I want to put it onto this DVD/BluRay so I can watch it on my big TV. Nope, you guessed it. Buy it again in DVD format. Europeans may have the right in law to format shift, but DRM means companies don't have to respect it."
Unless you can magically cram 35GB+ of HD content onto a DVD, then I don't think you have grounds to complain here. And it's not as if your DVDs wont play on your Blu-Ray player with exactly the same quality you accepted when you bought them. (Actually, they'll be better quality because of upscaling).
It is tragic that not one of your points stands up to examination but you've been modded up so many times.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
