Posts by oldcoder 741 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Nov 2012
Linux is a success mostly because it will win in the end... Just like Linux has won in the servers, ALL sections of servers - from mainframes to IoT. Linux is a win because there are more and more developers and more users getting added.
Windows Phone is a failure because there are less and less developers... and less and less users.
Even in Microsoft strongholds - linux is winning. It already runs the Azure network infrastructure as well as 2/5 of the customer instances are Linux.
Not when it keeps loosing market share.
Is there even a Chinese market for a Windows phone? Even in the EU they are losing 4.2% overall.
The only place showing any increase was in Japan, a +.2%.
http://www.winbeta.org/news/windows-phone-market-share-continues-fall-kantar-report
Hate to say it, but more freedoms. Less "might makes right".
More education for a big one.
Better big projects (my favorite would be establishment of a lunar colony mining for construction material for satellites and exploration). Get people enthused over exploration and learning instead of money.
BTW, the ORIGINAL attacks should have been treated as the criminal acts they were. Instead, we got knee jerk reactions and a lot of political drama.
Your second sentence
"If you know any classified information it is your personal responsibility to protect the information."
Is true, thus it is the responsibility of the SENDER of the email to only send it to secured mail servers, over a secured network, and using encryption at the time.
Unfortunately, the State Department HAD no "secure" mail servers, no secure network, no encryption (to my knowledge).
The State Department had been penetrated for quite some time, and from what I remember, it was reported that IT department couldn't be sure when they could actually HAVE secured mail servers (happens when you use an operating system known for its lack of security).
And as it turns out, it appears that Clintons mail server was more secure.
Actually not. It was completely standalone - and there were versions that could use ROM, though the early ones would copy the code from the ROM then run it as usual.
True, no security against physical access though - the front panel switches gave absolute control.
It also was pretty good after adding a MMU to expand memory from 4K (12 bit) works to 32K. Application code couldn't use all the instructions (I/O instructions caused a trap). It also had no direct connection to the internet.
No, Microsoft can't shift to ARM. They tried that - just look at the abortion of Windows RT.
Too many of Microsoft products have builtin dependencies on X86 architecture, too many code fragments buried in files that won't port or can't be ported...
It wasn't Intel that dug in. Intel designed the Itanium. Had MS followed through with support (I believe MS quit after three years), the Itanium would be using the foundation of the RISC currently used in Intels fastest X86 line.
And be twice as fast.
Assuming the code generated is valid...
That is part of the problem with ASN.1. Not all the code being automatically generated is quite valid, and without checking bounds against the system determined packet size, you STILL get out of bounds references.
And checking against the system determined size is NOT common, as not all systems can provide that information...
No, but Microsoft does dictate what that hardware will do - hence the rather poor job of "secure boot".
"blur the line between drivers and kernel"... no - you can demand the source code for the kernel and any modification of the kernel. The kernel developers can sue for source code to drivers as such "blur the line" is a copyright violation.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
