Re: Huh?
It makes no sense.
"Businesses that don't want to be screwed about by constant feature changes made only to justify a cloud subscription" and "Businesses that have realised cloud subscriptions cost much more" makes more sense.
15310 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2009
Nice words, but MS' actions state otherwise.
See also: Microsoft promises Copilot will be a 'moneymaker' in the long term
Hopefully the first signs that the wheels are falling off this particular bandwagon.
Are you sure you prefer the touchscreens?
Poo found on every McDonald’s touchscreen tested
Mmm, finger lickin' good.
Not ever, not on Windows, not at all. Don't run anything you just got off a random website. Don't download programs from websites.
If you are typing commands, you are doing it wrong. If you Googled for how to get apps, learn to just trustworthy websites from bad ones, because no site that can be trusted will tell you to type commands.
I can't help feel that the hobbyist developer writing programs that will never get in a distro/app store but are useful nonetheless is unwarrently besmearched by this advice.
E.g. NirSoft which hosts small useful Unix-like utilities (do one thing and do it well) for Windows which will never be allowed to get into the MS Store and which also often end up blocked by the Antivirus Industrial Complex in its constant quest to find easy low-hanging fruit justify its continued existence.
And THAT'S the huge issue. If you change providers (change ISP, for example), you lose your emails, don't you? With IMAP, unless you make a local repository and manually copy all your emails to those folders, you lose your emails, correct?
If you wanted you could just drag e-mails from the old provider to the new one, as it's IMAP.
There is a way to disable personal logins, if your company hasn't done this then your BOFH isn't on the ball.
MS argued:
Plaintiffs do not plead any facts plausibly showing they have been affected by any of the supposed 'scraping,' 'intercepting,' and 'eavesdropping' they allege.
As this is the US and there is no concept of privacy, you, the little guy, have to somehow prove monetary loss because your individual items of data were scraped, but big tech is allowed to scrape everything and use it all to make a new product which brings in billions.
Where "little guy" means any person or business with a market cap smaller than Microsoft's.
The proposed DPDI bill already aims to nobble cookie banners, the ICO is singing from the same hymn sheet, and it looks like they're is sounding out whether or not the Government can go a little further.
Take your skills to the next level
Login below to see all the content
Sign In with IBMid
Log in with Bureaucratic ID™ to see if you like whatever it is we're offering!
I think with that first page alone they've just lost at least half the people who could be interested.
Citizens of a given country are only protected / subjected to the laws of that country while they are within its borders. Travel to a foreign country and their laws apply.
Not as easy as that. Where do you have residency? Where do you have fiscal residency?
And... since when does Apple get to decide where someone has residency?
Contractors can have fixed length contracts in the UK and employees can have fixed term employment contracts.
But I let myself get carried away by the AC. Of course they're not contractors, they're employees paid by Cognizant. Not that it makes any practical difference in the US of course (unless you're in Montana).
“That’s what a sandbox is”. Is it really? Because *Apple customers* think that by far the most important bit of the sandbox is the review process of what is allowed onto the Apple App Store in the first place. It’s *you* who has too limited a technical understanding to understand what the sandbox is. Process wins over technical guardrail every time. And you know this perfectly well (or should do) as an IT professional.
Process is not perfect, which is why we (should) have defence in depth.
For employers that give their staff locked-in laptops, who have an IT policy as to what programs they can install…..how impressed do you think they would be, if a user decided to install a “sandbox” on their laptop? “But it’s a sandbox, it should be able to contain any malware”. That employee would get fired. Because it’s insecure.
In 99.999% of cases it's a perfectly reasonable policy, but once again there should be defence in depth.
And I own *my* iPhone. *I* should have the right to install whatever *policies* I like to ensure my own security. And I’ve chosen to outsource hire Apple as my IT department, to vet the security for stuff I don’t want to waste my time with. What business is that of yours, to decide that I’m not allowed to do that?
You are. Who said you couldn't? You can stick to the App Store and stick with the clunky albatross that is Safari.
We've already seen Apple's review process is not perfect and now we know that security in iOS is not as good as it should be because they daren't let 3rd party browsers run PWAs and they want to make third party app stores economically unviable, but carry on insisting that the Emperor's clothes look great.
The DMA will be good for Apple if they follow it instead of trying to fight it because it means they will have to up their game instead of relying on Steve Jobs' fading RDF.
Ah, the guy who thinks he knows how somebody *else’s* software should be architected.
That's what a sandbox is. For a poster who calls themself "Justthefacts" you seem to be remarkably fact free.
Or, and it’s just a thought, why not let consumer choice take care of it?
Er, yeah. That's what the DMA is about.
Because that’s technically required by IOS architecture.
Because you designed it right?
And if that's true then it's a crappy architecture and should be updated. The sandbox should be good enough to deal with any and all security problems, that's what a sandbox is for. Instead it seems Apple don't trust it and they're hoping WebKit promising to behave nicely is good enough to catch everything and they won't allow other browser engines to run a PWA. In that case you might as well not have a sandbox.
If iOS were so secure you couldn't jailbreak it, but you can, all the way up to the very latest version.
If iOS were so secure there wouldn't be malware in the App Store but there is.
If iOS were so secure then they wouldn't be unforced errors like "goto fail" but there are.
All you're doing is repeating the same comforting words which may have been true 5 years ago but there's barely any practical difference now. People without a clue loudly going into the ins and outs of a security model as if they designed it themselves or pontificating about how Google wants to put an insecure browser on iOS so they can destroy it from the inside or whatever of nonsense they can think up.
A PWA is just a bunch of APIs, there's no real difference between a PWA and a web page. If they can allow third party browsers to open web pages using this permission model, they can allow browsers to run PWAs. Any security problem which affects web pages will affect PWAs and vice-versa.
So Apple either don't trust their own permission model or are afraid to relinquish complete control over applications on the App Store or PWAs. It seems like a bit of both and neither is a particularly good reason for using an iPhone.
Browsers have become as bloated as a complicated OS in their own right. You probably have a mobile phone or another computer with a browser so if you are willing to forget about running a browser on a low-powered PC, or perhaps just Lynx for LAN use, then the whole machine becomes more useful once again.