Posts by Dan 55 15421 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2009
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.
What on Earth are you on about? Are you insinuating Chrome or Firefox running PWAs don't prevent features being abused (whatever that means)?
If yes, why don't we hear about it on Android?
If no, are you accusing them of making a special insecure browser for iOS?
The Stockholm síndrome is strong in this one.
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.
An exercise in basic programming and an exercise in BASIC programming.
Electronic Arts has noticed a rapid shift among video game players, who now apparently prioritize large open-world games, online communities, and live services.
That's exactly the kind of crap they've been making for the last decade, except of course for FIFA which they lost.
Such personal accounts are better than social security payments, as people could see what they have and no social security free loaders are involved to distribute their money.
There are countries which only have contribution-based unemployment benefit and anyone can work out at any moment how much they have accrued and how long it will last if they are unemployed. And guess what, it still hasn't solved the problem of people being included in a round of lay-offs through no fault of their own, and being laid off is not due to any over-optimism or recklessness on their part. The over-optimism and reckless appears to come from the top and lay-offs are the result of that.
If you wanted to share memory between applications and access it with a file descriptor then POSIX has shm_open() but there was a System 5 version before that. If for some reason RAM gets full and some shared memory isn't being used then it would be swapped out to disk until needed again. In a modern Linux there's little difference between shared memory in /dev/shm and files in /tmp apart from the user deletes stuff in /dev/shm less.
I have to disagree on POSIX. A familiar shell and a familiar API to program with will mean developers have somewhere to start. If an operating system isn't natively POSIX compatible, someone comes along and writes POSIX compatibility for it anyway because it's easier to do that than it is to learn a new shell and rewrite every program when porting it.
It really is the biggest pile of smoke and mirrors I've ever seen. Not just Gemini, all of them. It's not known how answers are arrived at, results are often nonsense, it often gets stuck in a loop.
But it requires no programmers and it's getting everyone to accept incorrect results more than ever so presumably that's why this bandwagon getting so much money thrown at it. Instead of software being a predictable discipline like engineering it'll end up like a mystical woo woo machine and all must believe what the magic box says because the box is magic.
Sounds like the guy who still owes Nintendo $14m after getting sent to prison. Some judges really do go the extra mile for their corporate overlords.
In the proposed system they will be obliged to access the data on same basis as everyone else, log, request permission, alert the user.
And how would this cost be offset? We all know how Big Tech and PII works - either it gets sold to third parties or third parties pay them to target a campaign based on selection criteria.
The proposed services can be separate from Big Tech main business by law, with data localized per country.
No it can't, see the CLOUD Act.
The consortium itself is about common standards, not to reinvent the wheel.
The consortium itself doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.
That's a very brave proposal, AC. First it concentrates everyone's PII into the Big Tech oligopoly and gives them all the data they need for their advertising business that nobody else has. Second none of the corporations you propose are based in the EU and so they are beholden only by Safe Harbour, Privacy Shield, Privacy Figleaf or whatever it's called this year.
If someone wanted to try and render GDPR worthless and make everyone in the EU more dependent on US cloud, that would probably be the way they would go about it, so this proposal should be stored in the round filing cabinet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
