Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:36 UTC
Windows "eWEEK Labs has been testing Microsoft Windows Vista builds for more than three years, and our evaluation of the final code shows that the new operating system is a significant improvement over its predecessor, Windows XP. What's more, with a raft of subsystem and driver model improvements, Microsoft has laid out in Vista a solid foundation for stability and usability gains in future Windows versions. For enterprises running XP on their desktops and notebooks, however, a Vista upgrade is no slam-dunk. While Vista's new UAC facilities can make it easier for companies to appropriately lock down their desktops, for instance, it's quite possible to run a well-managed shop of XP machines, either out of the box or with the aid of lockdown tools."
Order by: Score:
Deja vu?
by 47ronin on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:47 UTC
47ronin
Member since:
2006-04-03

Gee, we've heard this all before... sounds very similar to the prelaunch of Windows XP, yet a week later we get dozens of repeating reports of pwn3d systems and complaints of shoddy APIs and fundamental problems with system design.

I'll give'em a month after launch and if there isn't a worldwide revolt against Windows after that, I'd admit that Vista is a relative success.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Deja vu?
by tomcat on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:30 UTC in reply to "Deja vu?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I look forward to your admission. Get your crow ready.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Deja vu?
by Johann Chua on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 06:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Deja vu?"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

You first, tommyboy.

Reply Score: 1

Vista's not worth its price at all
by Nephelim on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:48 UTC
Nephelim
Member since:
2006-07-26

>Compared with its non-Windows rivals, such as Apple's Mac
>OS X and Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, Vista
>maintains the same advantages XP did.

That supposing it had any real advantage over its rivals, and that supposing that Novell's SuSE is the GNU/Linux representant, which I do not support at all.

Anyway, giving credit to that, why bother to invest in the hardware to run a basically new skin of XP with a lot of new security bugs. I'd recommend not to run Windows at all, but if you have to do it, wait ('cause you really can) Vista SP2.

Just my two cents.

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

... that supposing that Novell's SuSE is the GNU/Linux representant, which I do not support at all.

I'm not surprised. The OSS opinion leaders have provided marching orders to da community ...

Anyway, giving credit to that, why bother to invest in the hardware to run a basically new skin of XP with a lot of new security bugs.

Vista is essentially Windows 2003 SP1 with a bunch of new features and, if you've been watching Win2003, you'd know that it's had very few reported problems.

I'd recommend not to run Windows at all

I bet you would.

...but if you have to do it, wait ('cause you really can) Vista SP2.

This actually isn't completely bad advice. I always recommend to my clients that they wait until at least SP1 to upgrade, but SP2 is going a little far. Let me guess: Hoping that Linux will catch up by then?

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

With Vista, Microsoft is finally catching up with the Linux desktop.

When I compare the functionality in XP and Windows 2003 Server (as a workstation OS) Gnome/KDE is clearly ahead, unless you install thirdparty applications on Windows.

All the nice stuff in Vista has been central parts of Gnome/KDE for a few years, or has recently become a central part.

The only two things missing in the Linux desktop is "every mail is a file is an object" (mails as individual files) and "every contact is a file is an object" (contacts as individual files - here Vista is on par with BeOS).

The difference is that Gnome/KDE can run with much fewer resources than Vista and with all the same visual effects. These effects are not interesting for me, but it is for some. I'll just stick with GNUstep/Linux and Windows 2003 Server (that's a nice OS, though I'd like Windows Mail (OE7) to be backported).

EDIT: Just modded you up. Your advice to wait for SP1 is a good advice.

Edited 2006-11-27 22:47

Reply Score: 4

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The only two things missing in the Linux desktop is "every mail is a file is an object" (mails as individual files) and "every contact is a file is an object" (contacts as individual files - here Vista is on par with BeOS).

KDE has had this for a long time. KMail/Kontact defaults to using Maildir for message storage, which stores each e-mail as a separate file on the harddrive. I haven't looked at Kaddressbook/Kontact's address storage format on my harddrive, but I believe it uses vCard with each contact being separate.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Okay ;)

Well, I would love a vCard-like approach to contacts, but Maildir is to me extremely overengineered. It can be done much simpler than that (think .eml and file manager), but perhaps it's time to test another mailapp than Thunderbird.

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

For a mail client with a local message store, Maildir may be overkill. For a mail server, though, it's great. Especially if you keep the message store on a remote/network filesystem (SAN/NAS box, NFS share, etc). You can access multiple messages at once, messages can be added/removed from folders in parallel, messages can be added to/deleted from the INBOX. And you can still read all the messages using a plain old text editor.

Personally, I don't use POP3 anymore, everything is stored on an IMAP server, accessible via multiple clients in multiple places, without worrying about where I downloaded a message.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

BTW:

Too bad, I can't contact you except here at OSN.

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I'm also on http://www.bsdforums.org under the same name, and all my contact info is there.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

aye aye

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

When I compare the functionality in XP and Windows 2003 Server (as a workstation OS) Gnome/KDE is clearly ahead, unless you install thirdparty applications on Windows. (emphasis mine)

You say that last part as if it is insignificant, but the addition of the 3rd party applications is what seperates Windows from the pack and gives it an advantage.

For example, Windows Explorer is laughably bad, but put Directory Opus on the machine, and no other file manager made thus far can touch it.

As of friend of mine so often says, "I don't like Windows .. I like what I can run on Windows."

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, the functionality one can get by installing third party applications in Windows are already present per default in Gnome/KDE.

I like what I can run on Windows, and I like what I can run on Linux, and I like what I can run on DesktopBSD. None of the systems are ahead of the other in regard to available software, and the quality of the available software.

It's about time the Windows zealots understand that the default installation of Windows on the Desktop lost it's no.1 position years ago (in regard to the functionality, that is). With Vista Microsoft is back in the race when it comes to functionality. It is pretty much on par now with Gnome/KDE and Mac OS X.

The only place where Windows does have an advantage is in hardware support for weird new devices. Everybody makes drivers for Windows, while in Linux/BSD land one has to rely on reengineered OSS drivers most of the time. Usually they are good, but some devices are only partly supported (like nVidia - unless you taint your kernel).

Reply Score: 4

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

You are right about Linux and OS X being ahead of Windows in their default as-configured states. It took about 30 minutes after installing Vista for me to toy around with the OS to see what was interesting and then realize that it's just another crappy OS that won't change my life one bit.

On the other hand, Office 2007 is pretty cool and I spent a lot more time "toying around" with it (i.e. writing a paper for a class and making some figures in powerpoint) and that's the way it should be. People use computers for the applications and not for the OS. The reason Windows has been such a success despite being inferior to others in some aspects is that it is probably the best OS on which to write commercial applications (including commercial hardware drivers).

Linux and UNIX have a stable user space API for non-GUI applications, but there is not yet a standard and easy way to make closed-source GUI desktop apps for linux and there is also the standard chicken-egg problem of marketshare. The lack of a stable kernel ABI doesn't help either.

OS X has broken both user-space and kernel mode ABIs a number of times as well, but Apple has only 3 or 4 big name commercial software developers on their platform with whom they have pretty strong ties (you can bet that apple and the Microsoft MacBU have a discussion before every OS X release about app. compat.). Commercial developers support the apple market, though, because those consumers are a particularly juicy segment which really enjoys computing and is willing to spend money on software.

In the end, Desktop OSes are really just meant to launch your apps and keep them running. Most people use Windows because they just don't care. Linux will catch on slowly but surely, assuming a desktop API stabilizes and closed-source GUI apps become possible. Apple, on the other hand, will grow a lot faster than linux because they have that juicy consumer segment and now have stable interfaces to all third-party code. To end my prediction, Windows will continue to be the dominant player with >70% marketshare and it will slowly absorb features from the other OSes while improving its development experience and ushering in new kinds of hardware (cf. the new graphics cards and ReadyDrive).

Reply Score: 3

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Directory Opus on the machine, and no other file manager made thus far can touch it.

That's a matter of opinion. I like Konqueror better, and it has some feature that Opus lacks (such as use of kio slaves, terminal emulator and web browsing).

Reply Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

That's a matter of opinion. I like Konqueror better, and it has some feature that Opus lacks (such as use of kio slaves, terminal emulator and web browsing).

Dude, that's why it's called a file manager ;) Would you assume that Nero is better than K3B because it has software included to rip DVDs, manage photos, perform backups, etc?

Reply Score: 1

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

... but put Directory Opus on the machine, and no other file manager made thus far can touch it.

I disagree. Far Manger ( http://www.farmanager.com ) is the best file manager for Windows. Many get put off by the fact that it's a console application, but the power it gives the user is simply astonishing.

It's one of the very few applications that keeps me tied to the Windows world.

Reply Score: 1

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

It's one of the very few applications that keeps me tied to the Windows world.

Have you ever tried Midnight Commander? If I didnt' know better (which I don't), FarManager looks identical to MC (for linux).

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Have you ever tried Midnight Commander? If I didnt' know better (which I don't), FarManager looks identical to MC (for linux).//

Midnight Commander
http://www.gnu.org/software/mc/
http://www.ibiblio.org/mc/images/mc-panelize-info.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_commander

Far manager
http://www.farmanager.com/index.php?l=en
http://www.farmanager.com/screenshots.php?l=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAR_Manager

Both are clones of the ages-old Norton Commander for DOS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander#Norton_Commander_insp...

Edited 2006-11-28 13:16

Reply Score: 2

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Yes, I've tried it, but Far Manager is much more extensible, and feels more stable, responsive and predictable (at least in my experience).

See here for a full list of plugins:
http://plugring.farmanager.com/cgi-bin/downld.cgi?Lang=Eng

Reply Score: 1

jtrapp Member since:
2005-07-06

>Compared with its non-Windows rivals, such as Apple's Mac
>OS X and Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, Vista
>maintains the same advantages XP did.

...and that supposing that Novell's SuSE is the GNU/Linux representant, which I do not support at all


I like your selective quotes and the response to the straw man argument that you created.

Had you followed up your selective quote with the rest of the paragraph you would have seen that the author was referring to running Windows programs. SuSE was just an example of GNU/Linux...what is your distro of choice that runs legacy Windows apps? Xandros comes bundled with Crossover Office, is that what you were referring to? Or maybe you just wanted to troll with mis-quoted statements?

I thought the article was pretty fair. They gave a few compliments, they gave a few rips. Those of us who don't treat OS's as a religion appreciate this kind of treatment.

Reply Score: 5

If I was not lazy...
by TBPrince on Mon 27th Nov 2006 19:52 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

Besides all other improvements, there's something I would upgrade to Vista for (if I wasn't so lazy to reinstall my stuff): new kernel.

If anyone used Win2003 systems for accessing the Internet and compared to Windows XP (even SP2), he/she should know what I mean. WIn2003 kernel looks much better than XP one, expecially when dealing the Internet (but it's reported to be faster even for games!).

I'm sure this is dued to XP kernel modifications (and XP connections limits) and I'm sure Vista has been designed to overcome these limitations and to be closer to Win2003 kernel.

Reply Score: 1

RE: If I was not lazy...
by NotParker on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:22 UTC in reply to "If I was not lazy..."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

I'm sure this is dued to XP kernel modifications (and XP connections limits) and I'm sure Vista has been designed to overcome these limitations and to be closer to Win2003 kernel.

Vista is based on the Windows 2003 SP1 Kernel.

After many of the XP SP2 security enhancements were added to Windows 2003 SP1, then the Vista team essentially threw out the previous work and based Vista on the Windows 2003 SP1 codebase.

Windows XP x64 is essentially WIndows 2003 SP1 x64. It is not based on XP.

Reply Score: 3

RE: If I was not lazy...
by dcwrwrfhndz on Tue 28th Nov 2006 11:52 UTC in reply to "If I was not lazy..."
dcwrwrfhndz Member since:
2006-05-26

Sorry, English is not my native language so I can misunderstand you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that Vista is better then XP, among the others, bucause has no connection limit.
If there is no connection limit is Vista, what was the point in introducing it in XP SP2?
And why MS doesn't remove it from XP SP2?

Edited 2006-11-28 11:53

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: If I was not lazy...
by stestagg on Tue 28th Nov 2006 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE: If I was not lazy..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Because then anyone could use Windows XP as a server. Microsoft want to force users to buy into the Windows Server editions if they want to run servers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: If I was not lazy...
by TBPrince on Tue 28th Nov 2006 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If I was not lazy..."
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not correct.

Microsoft introduced a connection limit to prevent security threats to fire 100000 connections to, for example, send out mails or start DoS attacks.

It was an extreme measure when they felt not very confident about changes they could introduce to enhance security. History has proven that XP SP2 has improved security but this limit has not been removed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: If I was not lazy...
by stestagg on Tue 28th Nov 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If I was not lazy..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

but this limit has not been removed.

No, but it Was moved from a registry setting to a hard-coded value in some library. I'm pretty sure that such a move would be difficult (not impossible tho) to justify from a security standpoint. I mean, if you've got enough privileges on a client machine to be able to reset the connection limit, then why are you going to bother DOSsing it when you can just crash/reboot the machine.

Conveniently however, this change to the 'security model' has made it much harder to run windows XP as a server (print server, file server, web server) and so people are more likely to have to buy an expensive W2k3 Server License.

Reply Score: 1

lol ?
by Duffman on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:18 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

"Compared with its non-Windows rivals, such as Apple's Mac OS X and Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, Vista maintains the same advantages XP did. "

Let me guess ... bugs and virus ?

Reply Score: 5

RE: lol ?
by tomcat on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:32 UTC in reply to "lol ?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Let me guess ... bugs and virus ?

Funny, there haven't been many reports of viruses or malware with the Vista betas...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lol ?
by Kroc on Mon 27th Nov 2006 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: lol ?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It's called biding your time. Why attack a system only tech users are using. Spyware on Windows exists to make money, lots of it. There will be malware for Vista, it's probably sitting waiting to be released just as soon as Vista starts turning up in people's homes.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: lol ?
by tomcat on Mon 27th Nov 2006 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lol ?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

LOL! Nice excuse: Malware writers have been laying low. Puh-lease. They were cranking out viruses & worms left and right with the XP betas. Think up a new excuse.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: lol ?
by ThawkTH on Tue 28th Nov 2006 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lol ?"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh yeah. Bad excuse. Malware writers want credit OR to see their work make an impact. Right now, that's not likely to happen (Maybe someone wants to be first, doesn't look that way).

To assume that no viruses have been released for Vista simply because it's safe is...stupid. It's gonna be a fun time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lol ?
by tomcat on Wed 29th Nov 2006 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lol ?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

To assume that no viruses have been released for Vista simply because it's safe is...stupid. It's gonna be a fun time.

That's your strawman. I made no such assumption. But by the same token, it's actually pretty promising that malware writers haven't already come out with any high-profile attacks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: lol ?
by angryrobot on Mon 27th Nov 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lol ?"
angryrobot Member since:
2006-04-26

Awesome! The same argument used against Vista as is used against Linux, ie. There are no bugs uncovered because nobody uses it except geeks. I mean, I totally agree, I just wanted to note the irony.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: lol ?
by RenatoRam on Tue 28th Nov 2006 08:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lol ?"
RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

Except, linux is used on millions of machines exposed to the internet (ever heard of the web?).

Still no virus, still no malware. Rare and far between successful attacks, mostly to systems that were not patched with officially released packets.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: lol ?
by axilmar on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lol ?"
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

Except, linux is used on millions of machines exposed to the internet (ever heard of the web?)

Exactly! Linux is used on millions of machines...not human users who can click on anything.

Using Windows as a server is equally acceptable as Linux, if the only function is a proxy to the internet.

Malware can do damage in both cases: even in Linux, the destruction of the home directory is not really something to be taken lightly!

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: lol ?
by alucinor on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lol ?"
alucinor Member since:
2006-01-06

Ja, Windows security is fine on the server. That shouldn't be a concern really anymore, more than any other system.

Security is 90% related to how good the admin is. If the admin knows Windows better than Linux, for heaven's sake, use Windows, or else get fully trained in Linux (which is finally something you can actually do!).

Linux admins new to Windows get pissed at having to work through complex GUIs to set up everything properly, whereas Windows admins new to Linux hate editing config files and aren't used to the UNIX way of scripting.

It's the battle of the input devices: keyboard-dominant UI verses mouse-dominant UI, haha.

Edited 2006-11-28 15:45

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lol ?
by angryrobot on Wed 29th Nov 2006 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lol ?"
angryrobot Member since:
2006-04-26

I think you misunderstood. I'm a total Linux head. I've been running it full time as both desktop and server since 1999. I'm saying that I think the reason you haven't seen malware on Vista is because the malware writers want to wait until they get a good payoff. Why reveal your l33t exploits (which MS *might* patch) before you can get a payoff from that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lol ?
by cmost on Mon 27th Nov 2006 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE: lol ?"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

"Funny, there haven't been many reports of viruses or malware with the Vista betas..."

I give it about ten or fifteen minutes after Vista hits the mainstream...if that. Don't delude yourself by thinking Vista is any more secure than its predecessors. Microsoft is just spewing that bullshit because they know the gullible public will believe it. Sure there are a few more roadblocks in place, but most of the underlying weaknesses present in former editions of Windows are still there lurking beneath that shiny new interface. That's what happens when you try to maintain legacy support.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: lol ?
by tomcat on Mon 27th Nov 2006 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lol ?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I give it about ten or fifteen minutes after Vista hits the mainstream...if that. Don't delude yourself by thinking Vista is any more secure than its predecessors. Microsoft is just spewing that bullshit because they know the gullible public will believe it. Sure there are a few more roadblocks in place, but most of the underlying weaknesses present in former editions of Windows are still there lurking beneath that shiny new interface. That's what happens when you try to maintain legacy support.

You guys are hilarious. It doesn't have to "hit the mainstream" in order for malware to be written. Hackers have access to the same betas that technical developers do. You'd think, reading your posts, that malware writers are just sitting and watching their watches until Vista is physically released into stores in order to start writing viruses. That's nonsense.

No, what's happened here is that MS security has finally caught up with competitors. Among other things, Vista uses Limited User Accounts (LUAs), so the worst that a virus can do is toast somebody's "My Documents" folder (equivalent to home folder). It can't write to the registry. It can't replace DLLs. In short, it's more secure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: lol ?
by dylansmrjones on Mon 27th Nov 2006 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lol ?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Correct, one can write malware for an OS in little use, but since most malware writers these days are doing it for the money, they won't be writing malware until Vista sees wide adoption. Why? Because there is no money in writing malware for Vista atm.

In "older" days malware was written for ideological reasons. This is no longer the case.

However, it'll be interesting to see how people react to UAC and LUA. I don't like UAC particularly but running as a limited user (in Win2K3) is not that bad, and from my experience UAC isn't as bad as the media has made it sound like. Just annoying enough to turn it off, if you're a developer (that constantly messes with your system). For everybody else it shouldn't be so bad.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: lol ?
by Rayz on Tue 28th Nov 2006 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lol ?"
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

It's odd that when folk say that Mac is secure through obscurity, Mac supporters have a hissy fir.

And yet, here is the same argument being applied to Vista.

I agree that virus writers are now in it for the money, which is why there are very few serious attempts to write MacOSX malware, even though vulnerabilities have been jumping out of the woodwork for the last month or so.

Bur of course the main reason that there are very few vulnerabilites for the Mac, is that you'd need to buy a Mac to write them. If MacOSX was available on generic PCS, then I have a feeling it would be a different story.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: lol ?
by pumupthapointz on Tue 28th Nov 2006 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lol ?"
pumupthapointz Member since:
2006-06-28

I agree that virus writers are now in it for the money

So do i and furthermore i think they allready have their waepons arsenal but are just waiting for the right amount of installed base.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: lol ?
by tomcat on Wed 29th Nov 2006 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lol ?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Who's paying them? Antivirus ISVs (Symantec)? Thieves?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: lol ?
by hobgoblin on Tue 28th Nov 2006 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lol ?"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

for most home users, having their "my documents" folder toasted is about the worst possible thing that can happen.

who cares about their pc being a drone in a million strong botnet as long as one can still bring up that spreadsheet with the household finances?

isn't the latest craze to have a worm archive and encrypt a persons "home" folder and then telling them that if you want to see the data again you have to pay up?

thats the sad truth, that all the security stuff deployed today is targeting a threat thats growing old as we are typing these posts.

sometimes i feel that every home pc sold should come with a internal backup drive that acts as a one way drop box unless you deliberatly use a physical action to go into recovery mode. this to stop any malware/ransomware from flushing the backup when they strike.

basicly, they should come with backup hardware and settings from the first sales day, not as some addon the user have to think about adding.

maybe apple is onto something with their next osx update, but i wonder how resilient it is against a worm ransomware attack flushing the file logs right before it grabs the users home area.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lol ?
by hal2k1 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lol ?"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//for most home users, having their "my documents" folder toasted is about the worst possible thing that can happen. //

... and more.

All of these problems are for the most part only problems for a Windows home PC.

Not "home PC" ... but "Windows home PC".

If you have a "Linux home PC" and a "Macintosh home PC", you won't have these problems.

//isn't the latest craze to have a worm archive and encrypt a persons "home" folder and then telling them that if you want to see the data again you have to pay up?//

It might well be, I wouldn't know, I don't run Windows on my home PC.

//maybe apple is onto something with their next osx update, but i wonder how resilient it is against a worm ransomware attack flushing the file logs right before it grabs the users home area.//

I can't speak for a Mac, but for Linux the "ransomware" first has to get execute permissions on the local machine, and then it has to be invoked somehow. Due to roadblocks such as this, there is no such known ransomware for Linux.

Please do not confuse "PC" with "Windows PC". Only the latter is subject right now to compromises such as you describe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: lol ?
by hobgoblin on Tue 28th Nov 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lol ?"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

heh, i didn't as much confuse as forget. your right, a simple thing like that helps with the security.

i guess that shows that *nix contains simple fixes to problems that windows fix by gigantic beasts like the UAC or whatever.

still, is there not possible that a linux worm could compromise a user space program and use that to download, rights alter and execute a program?

still, another example of how its bad to use parts of the file name to control what can and cant be run...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: lol ?
by tomcat on Thu 30th Nov 2006 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lol ?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

All of these problems are for the most part only problems for a Windows home PC.

Not "home PC" ... but "Windows home PC".

If you have a "Linux home PC" and a "Macintosh home PC", you won't have these problems.


Vista runs with the same access permissions that Linux and OSX do. All network services are DISABLED, by default, just like its source code progenitor, Win2K3.

It might well be, I wouldn't know, I don't run Windows on my home PC.

Clearly, you don't; otherwise, you'd know about Vista's improved security.

Please do not confuse "PC" with "Windows PC". Only the latter is subject right now to compromises such as you describe.

By all means, please enlighten us with a description of how "subject right now to compromises" Vista is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: lol ?
by stare on Mon 27th Nov 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lol ?"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

but most of the underlying weaknesses present in former editions of Windows are still there lurking beneath that shiny new interface.

What weaknesses are you talking about?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: lol ?
by RenatoRam on Tue 28th Nov 2006 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lol ?"
RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

The most glaring bugs and remote vulnerabilites of the last years affected all NT based kernels starting from NT 3.5 up to WinXP

That's the very same code running in them. Same unpatched holes for at least 10 years.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: lol ?
by celt on Mon 27th Nov 2006 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE: lol ?"
celt Member since:
2005-07-06

So you didn't see what the Defcon folks were doing to Vista this year?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: lol ?
by redviper on Tue 28th Nov 2006 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lol ?"
redviper Member since:
2006-11-28

Which was nothing. They bypassed the signed code requirement by punting on the UAC. Essentially the "crack" got around UAC by clicking continue instead of cancel. It is like saying that if you are root on a linux system you can install a kernel module.

"To stage the attack, however, Vista needs to be running in administrator mode, Rutkowska acknowledged. That means her attack would be foiled by Microsoft's User Account Control, a Vista feature that runs a PC with fewer user privileges. UAC is a key Microsoft effort to prevent malicious code from being able to do as much damage as on a PC running in administrator mode, a typical setting on Windows XP.

"I just hit accept," Rutkowska replied to a question from the audience about how she bypassed UAC. Because of the many security pop-ups in Windows, many users will do the same without realizing what they are allowing, she said. "

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: lol ?
by abraxas on Tue 28th Nov 2006 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE: lol ?"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Funny, there haven't been many reports of viruses or malware with the Vista betas...

Well there have been a lot of vulnerabilities. There is no point in actually releasing malware until you have an audience. When Vista does finally arrive I'm sure vulnerabilites like these will still exist and will surely be exploited.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/192201393

Reply Score: 2

nope
by czubin on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:23 UTC
czubin
Member since:
2005-12-31

I don't think I'll be installing vista on one of the pc's,
simply because I don't want to pay for vista ultra (won't believe it's worth the price).
And I'll probably will be bombarded with cheap OEM stuff that can't handle anything. It was so much easier with XP(pro edition didn't have any advantage from consumer viewpoint).

Reply Score: 2

v LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by stephanem on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:37 UTC
RE: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by tomcat on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:55 UTC in reply to "LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

This is about Vista, we DON'T WANT TO HEAR HOW GREAT GPLv3 license is.

If you have used Vista, post here otherwise GET THE FSCK OUT OF HERE!


It would be nice to actually hear from people that are actually using the OS rather than Linux and OS X users who are never going to upgrade, anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by Soulbender on Tue 28th Nov 2006 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"It would be nice to actually hear from people that are actually using the OS rather than Linux and OS X users who are never going to upgrade,"

Yes, it's about as dreadfully uninteresting is the trolling from the MS shills on any Linux and OS X news item.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by dylansmrjones on Tue 28th Nov 2006 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
RE[3]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by cyclops on Tue 28th Nov 2006 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Thats just a poor response to that

"It would be nice to actually hear from people that are actually using the OS rather than Linux and OS X users who are never going to upgrade,"

Namecalling is just silly

How about...OS X users update every year, Linux 4 times a year and XP users every 6 years.

How about...I will to xorg 7.2 and linux 2.6.19 both out before the Last day of January 2007

How about...Not to Vista I already run a secure OS, only one with a good security record.

How about...Vista effects everyone it would be naive to say that most OS X users and Linux users will not be affected directly with having to use it; support it. Or indirectly through its new DRM; propriary API; Application support.

How about...There are no users only unpaid bugfinders.

How about...we here from the same people who think Visa Hardware is cheap...or even available, or having volume settings in different application is a good idea, who can assess Vista security, who think 9 year old games will all work on it. Or post that damn WIKI entry that says nothing exciting. etc etc

How about...people should perhaps compare an OS to more than just its predecessor but the alternatives, and there view is valid *if* someone wanted to upgrade to an *alternative*

How about...Vista is going to launched quite soon and everyone will be sick of it by then.

How about...Microsoft produce an OS that can lord it over other operating sytems, to justify its seriously expensive price tag.

How about...people stop using things insults like zealot; shtill; fanboy and STFU.

Sorry its late.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by raver31 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I use Vista, and honestly, you DO NOT want to hear what I think.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by gilboa on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

... Same here.

Been playing (or actually, testing my software) on Vista Beta/RC and I'm far from being impressed.

Sure, it's looks much better then XP, but it's -dog- slow (at least on my hardware) and requires huge amount of memory just to boot. (4 times as much as Windows 2K).
As for security, well, apart from the -highly- annoying UAC, only time will tell whether Microsoft actually managed to improve the junkyard-known-as-XP.

Windows 2K was the last Microsoft OS to ever boot on workstation(s). OSS politics aside, I doubt that Vista will change it.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by dylansmrjones on Tue 28th Nov 2006 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

If you turn off all the fancy stuff it's not as bad as you would think. But if you turn of all the fancy stuff, you might as well stick with Win2k.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU
by gilboa on Wed 29th Nov 2006 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LINUX GUYS NEED TO STFU"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

If only I could ;)

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

It's the same old story
by SlackerJack on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:38 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Vista RTM, when you install loads of programs prepare for your system to slow down. My system is MUCH slower than my friends A64 3700+(1Mb cache)/2Gb ram/SATA drive, yet I can login/startup much faster.

CD writing in Vista doesn't close the session on the disk. You see it's the same old story with gloss on the top.

Reply Score: 3

Sorry
by twenex on Mon 27th Nov 2006 20:45 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Heard it all before

Reply Score: 0

anyweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been using it for a few weeks now on a couple of pcs and it's nice, and I have to say that when it starts to ship next year that there's going to be a lot of people complaining (home users most likely) as the file security is totally different to Windows XP.

here's a sample problem:-

you run Vista Ultimate, and you want to add a local webserver to your hosts file in c:windowssystem32driversetchosts

you can open it in notepad and that's cool, however once you try to save it, you can't.

No problem, you now know Vista has higher file security than XP so you decide to take ownership of the file. You do that via file properties/security tab/advanced. Done.

does it work yet ? no.

try removing 'inherited rights' from the file, does it then allow you to save the file ?

then, once you've made the change to hosts and successfully saved it, try browsing to the local ip address, does it work ?

ok, next problem, try installing vncserver and get that to work, I tried it and it connects, then asks for the password then 'plop'. Disconnects. I cannot get it to work at all and I've tried all that google suggested. any ideas ?

lastly, your first user is a member of 'administrators' yet 'administrator' user is disabled by default.

seems a bit strange to me,

I like Vista though, but it's a bit of a learning curve on XP that's for sure, the new security will definetly be a plus but it's going to piss off a lot of people.

'bout time I guess...


cheers
anyweb

Edited 2006-11-27 21:47

Reply Score: 5

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

you run Vista Ultimate, and you want to add a local webserver to your hosts file in c:windowssystem32driversetchosts

you can open it in notepad and that's cool, however once you try to save it, you can't.

No problem, you now know Vista has higher file security than XP so you decide to take ownership of the file. You do that via file properties/security tab/advanced. Done.

does it work yet ? no.


On RC2 I just clicked on properties/security tab

I then chose Edit and added Modify to the rights for Users. It worked just fine. There was no need to take ownership.

Reply Score: 4

anyweb Member since:
2005-07-06

I reinstalled vista ultimate today and tested editing the hosts file as you described notparker.

Indeed adding 'modify' to the rights for users resolves this however that means you have to change the following permissions on the file for the user 'users'

Traverse Folder/Execute File
List Folder/Read Data
Read Attributes
Read Extended Attributes
Create Files/Write Data
Create Folders/Append Data
Write Attributes
Write Extended Attributes
Delete
Read Permissions
Synchronize

once those are selected and you apply your changes you can indeed 'finally' save the hosts file changes...

i'd prefer to do this via a chmod type of command, I guess there is such a command via acl's but i'll have to research a bit more first.

thanks for the modify hint though,

cheers
anyweb

Reply Score: 1

stare Member since:
2005-07-06

No problem, you now know Vista has higher file security than XP so you decide to take ownership of the file. You do that via file properties/security tab/advanced. Done.

does it work yet ? no.


My hosts file security is under "Full control" ACL for Administrators group by default, so if you are administrator you should be able to edit this file, prompted by UAC (if enabled).

you can open it in notepad and that's cool, however once you try to save it, you can't.

Just tried doing so, no problem. Mind you, I have UAC disabled.

then, once you've made the change to hosts and successfully saved it, try browsing to the local ip address, does it work ?

Yes.

ok, next problem, try installing vncserver and get that to work, I tried it and it connects, then asks for the password then 'plop'. Disconnects. I cannot get it to work at all and I've tried all that google suggested. any ideas ?

What VNC software you have installed? I have experienced such a problems with RealVNC, UltraVNC works.

lastly, your first user is a member of 'administrators' yet 'administrator' user is disabled by default.

n Windows Vista, UAC and its Admin Approval Mode are enabled by default. When UAC is enabled, local administrator accounts run as standard user accounts. This means that when a member of the local Administrators group logs on, they run with their administrative privileges disabled. This is the case until they attempt to run an application or task that has an administrative token. When a member of the local Administrators group attempts to start such an application or task, they are prompted to consent to running the application as elevated.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/library/0d75f774-8514...

Reply Score: 4

I love it when
by blitze on Mon 27th Nov 2006 22:35 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

People make gerneralised statements with no proof or evidence to back things up here. Gives me that whole new Slashdot kind of experience.

ie "but most of the underlying weaknesses present in former editions of Windows are still there lurking beneath that shiny new interface."

A true example of most of the well informed and argued comments that seem to have taken over OSNews.

Pitty.

As for Vista, there is a hell of a lot that has changed from Windows XP from the underlying Display and Sound engines to the fact that MS has locked down users out of the box.

Will this piss Jo Public off? You betcha but at least it will minimise stupidity and security issues that have been the bane of windows compared to it competitors.

Will it be full proof? Of course not but it's definately a step in the right direction and personally I am looking forward to the new sound capabilities as well as systemwide colour management which will be a boon for Graphic Designers and the Print Industry.

At the same time I will keep my eyes on Linux and HaikuOS because that is what I do and I like the fact that there are alternatives out there developing along with MS's dominant OS.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I love it when
by grat on Tue 28th Nov 2006 04:14 UTC in reply to "I love it when"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Will this piss Jo Public off? You betcha but at least it will minimise stupidity and security issues that have been the bane of windows compared to it competitors.

While I agree that something has to be done, there's a happy medium to be found between Win95 style security, and SELinux. Microsoft's efforts, while commendable, will still annoy people enough that they'll turn off UAC, and wonder why their computer is repeatedly hacked.

And let's not get into the fact that there are 3rd party accessible API's to allow you to bypass PatchGuard.

So while any effort made by Microsoft to make Windows more secure is welcome, the cynical side of me doesn't really expect a change in the status quo.

Reply Score: 1

v fanboys
by dacloo on Mon 27th Nov 2006 23:16 UTC
RE: fanboys
by dylansmrjones on Mon 27th Nov 2006 23:53 UTC in reply to "fanboys"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Pathetic anti-Linux MS fanboys should stop being so shortsighted - your "Linux has poor hardware support and no applications and complete lack of multimedia, and it is too hard to install applications - and it can never catch up with us" thingie is getting old.

Personally, I'd be much happier if I could get rid of the fanboys on both sides - and add to that removal of BSD and GPL-zealots and proprietary-software zealots. The world would be a much nicer place without them.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: fanboys
by sbergman27 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE: fanboys"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Personally, I'd be much happier if I could get rid of the fanboys on both sides - and add to that removal of BSD and GPL-zealots and proprietary-software zealots. The world would be a much nicer place without them."""

Indeed. Much better for everyone to be an *advocate* of their favorite OS(es).

Good advocacy does not overstate its case; Nor does it disparage the alternatives.

Good advocacy makes people want to try out the platform rather than argue with the advocate, or worse, ignore him out of disgust.

Good advocacy is about telling people the truth, even if the truth is that the platform might not be the best for them at the present time. Better that than to leave them with a disappointing experience; people remember being mislead.

Above all, good advocacy means respecting those who disagree and working to find a common ground.

The good news is that it is never too late to improve one's advocacy technique.

Edited 2006-11-28 00:33

Reply Score: 5

New heights of what?
by Sphinx on Tue 28th Nov 2006 00:10 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

is the question.

Reply Score: 1

security
by alucinor on Tue 28th Nov 2006 02:08 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

I'd say fundamentally Vista will have the best security of any Windows OS yet, however, it also brings with some of its features some new potential points of attack.

1) shims - wrap your app in these to bypass the new security model, used for backwards compatibility.

2) drm - Vista is full of new drm and TC software that may allow some smart hackers to create new kinds of malware that can't be uninstalled.

Anyone with more specific knowledge on these things? Could these potentially be used by malware authors?

I still don't understand why MS never went with a more UNIX-style security model back when they were deciding whether to go with XENIX or NT. After all, UNIX won the OS wars ... of course, though, UNIX *companies* lost the OS *market* war.

Edited 2006-11-28 02:10

Reply Score: 4

RE: security
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 28th Nov 2006 03:56 UTC in reply to "security"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

The UNIX security model has problems, or maybe I'm too simple to understand it.

Here's a task I've wanted to perform on Linux and I'd be grateful if someone could tell me how:

I have a directory, "~/project," which I want to share to my friend who's working on it with me. Unfortunately, I am a plain old user on the linux machine and don't see how to create groups and change my or my friend's group membership and we do not have a group of our own already. So I have to expose the file to everyone (with at least read access) so that my friend can access the project and copy it to his home directory. Is there any way to make it so that only the two of us can have read/write access to that directory without root privs on the linux box?

With Windows (and I suppose the new linux kernels with ACLs), I would be the owner of ~/project and I could grant the necessary rights directly to my friend. This is what I think is broken about the traditional UNIX security model... it doesn't really allow for delegation of important privileges away from the all-powerful root account.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: security
by hal2k1 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 04:51 UTC in reply to "RE: security"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Is there any way to make it so that only the two of us can have read/write access to that directory without root privs on the linux box?//

Sure there is.

You write an email to the admin for the box and ask him/her to create a new group with just the two users in it. This should take all of twenty seconds for the admin to do.

Then you create (somewhere where one of you has write access) a new directory which has read/write access only for members of that new group.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: security
by axilmar on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: security"
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

You write an email to the admin for the box and ask him/her to create a new group with just the two users in it. This should take all of twenty seconds for the admin to do.

Well, what if I want to do that now? why should I have to wait for the admin to check his/her e-mail?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: security
by alucinor on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: security"
alucinor Member since:
2006-01-06

Really, if the admin wants to give you this functionality, they either don't know about this or won't do it:

They just need to give you sudo-er rights over creating your own groups. It is possible to make someone a sudo-er over only specific commands.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: security
by alucinor on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: security"
alucinor Member since:
2006-01-06

And still, modern UNIX has ACLs for some time. It's kind of unfair to compare 1960s SYSTEM V UNIX to 1980s VMS.

Since Linux's traditional niche has been webservers, ACLs haven't really caught on, though they're present for Linux too and work fine when turned on.

Reply Score: 1

RE: security
by grat on Tue 28th Nov 2006 04:28 UTC in reply to "security"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I still don't understand why MS never went with a more UNIX-style security model back when they were deciding whether to go with XENIX or NT. After all, UNIX won the OS wars ... of course, though, UNIX *companies* lost the OS *market* war.

Because honest-to-goodness UNIX(tm) security isn't that good. You can run applications, but you can't install anything (outside your home directory) or reconfigure things without becoming UID 0. 'sudo', and the various popups in Gnome/KDE/Whatever that want your, or root's, password, are patches on this.

There's no easy way for me to grant one person read access (or write access) to a particular file (Note that for a time, various linux distros automatically created a group for each local user to help with this-- doesn't scale well) or directory.

Any process using a port below 1024 is automatically required to be UID 0, which means all of your daemons have to, at the very least, start as UID 0, even if they hand off the daemon to another UID. For a very long time, they ran *as* UID 0, which led to all sorts of issues.

NT was a new creation by Microsoft, designed to be reasonably backwards compatible with Windows, and be a multi-user OS. It's rumored that NT was based on VMS, but in reality, I think NT was just heavily influenced by VMS.

VMS had incredibly fine control over ACL's, and privilege escalation-- Windows NT is based more towards VMS style security than Unix. The problem is that the underlying OS was, and still is, too reliant on central directories like "system" and "system32".

Add to that a long and ugly history of application developers getting away with criminal irresponsibility in application development (Your applications wants to put a config file *where*?!?), and Windows is a mess. Copy-on-write technology in Vista will help with this, as each user gets their own virtual version of HKLM and C:Program Files (which I'm sure will create more interesting issues).

Being backwards compatible with windows 3.10 was a nice idea, but it's made securing windows a nightmare.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: security
by linux-it on Tue 28th Nov 2006 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE: security"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

"Because honest-to-goodness [......] without becoming UID 0. 'sudo', and the various popups in Gnome/KDE/Whatever that want your, or root's, password, are patches on this."

Thise are not patches but design and in fact show the strength of the model.

"There's no easy way for me to grant one person read access (or write access) to a particular file"

Why not ? You don't know how to do this ? It's one of the first things you learn under unix....

chown/chmod are your friends. man helps you reading the manual.

of the base security of unix/linux doesn't help you enough, there are enough open source options available to have it fine tuned. There even are idiot proof versions available like apparmor.

a different question btw; does vista have quotas and traffic shaping ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: security
by hal2k1 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: security"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//"There's no easy way for me to grant one person read access (or write access) to a particular file"

Why not ? You don't know how to do this ? It's one of the first things you learn under unix....

chown/chmod are your friends. man helps you reading the manual. //

You don't have to go to the command line.

Just right-click on the file in Konqueror, select properties, then click on the "permissions" tab. There is even another button available for "advanced permissions".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: security
by alucinor on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE: security"
alucinor Member since:
2006-01-06

"There's no easy way for me to grant one person read access (or write access) to a particular file"

All you need to do is create new groups, add users to those groups. And you don't have to rely on root to create groups for you if he makes you a sudo-er for a command or simple script to create new groups (and note that being a sudo-er doesn't mean that you necessarily have privs for *every* root action, it is possible to fine-grain your access to these even in traditional UNIX).

Why is it a problem that daemons below port 1024 need to be started by root? All this identifies is that processes using these ports must be more secure, and if its become convention to start certain processes on ports below this number, it's been done because of this fact.

Reply Score: 1

cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

I'm sick to the teeth of anyone saying Windows Vista is *more* secure, or even less secure.

Its difficult to review an application on how secure it is.

I would say its impossible to tell how secure a closed source; untried; New bundled Software as standard; Operating System is *going* to be.

I can only remember *one* security audit ever reviewed here and that was on OpenOffice and Microsoft Office...and I am dying to have an update on that, of how both teams responded.

To be absolutely honest. I cannot for the life of me think of many users who *care* about security. Its not like they are running out to use OS's with a *proven* record of security. XP users have as a whole got used to its "niggles". Vista simply has better selling points.

Reply Score: 3

Hit the Nail on the head into the coffin
by Wowbagger on Tue 28th Nov 2006 03:11 UTC
Wowbagger
Member since:
2005-07-06

>Compared with its non-Windows rivals, such as Apple's Mac
>OS X and Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, Vista
>maintains the same advantages XP did.

Correct. None. Great article, I guess. ROFL.

Reply Score: 2

How bout that MTU?
by TrendKill on Tue 28th Nov 2006 03:53 UTC
TrendKill
Member since:
2006-01-21

In Vista, if you want to change the MTU, do you still have to edit the registry and reboot the machine?

Reply Score: 1

Bah..
by MysterMask on Tue 28th Nov 2006 04:29 UTC
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

Oh, another "praise/condemn Vista" article. One of about 46522264766 in the last 5 years. How boring.

How about just ignore the thing if you don't like it or keep your mouths shut if you like it (MS has enough money for marketing - no need for others to trumped about it)?

The OS wars are over. Windows has won (the Joe Average users) and lost (the techs/nerds/geeks and everybody who likes a consistent easy computing experience) long ago...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bah..
by hal2k1 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 04:41 UTC in reply to "Bah.."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//The OS wars are over. Windows has won (the Joe Average users) and lost (the techs/nerds/geeks and everybody who likes a consistent easy computing experience) long ago...//

This is one person who has come to an entirely opposite conclusion:

http://www.localtechwire.com/article.cfm?u=15629

The OS wars have just begun.

On the one hand you have Vista and its Windows Genuine Attack, and on the other hand you have userland freedom and collaboration with Linux and the BSDs, Open Java, Open Solaris and GNU, and countless smaller offerings spreading via Bittorrent, and large numbers of huge open source software repositories springing up all over the globe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bah..
by NotParker on Tue 28th Nov 2006 05:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Bah.."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

This is one person who has come to an entirely opposite conclusion

I thought SJVN was excommunicated over the Novell/Microsoft deal?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Bah..
by alcibiades on Tue 28th Nov 2006 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bah.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

He really was suspended for a couple weeks, but I heard he went to confession and was up there at the rail again last Sunday...

Reply Score: 1

Points to be made.....
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Nov 2006 05:04 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

1) I've used all the 'public beta releases', and a few of the unkosher versions, and to be bloody honest, I'm impressed - sure, its not setting the world alight in major bling-bling, but if you're interested in improved services for UNIX, hardware support, stability and security, then Windows Vista is for you.

2) Linux isn't there yet, so lets stop trying to deny the fact that Linux has major deficiencies; like I keep saying, the day when all my hardware work out of the box, flawlessly, will be the day I'll move.

With Fedora the rpms are broken, the idiot who packaged it didn't make sure that the regulatory daemon was loaded wpa_supplicant loads, but ensuring that the wpa_supplicant loaded before th networking service.

Add that to the fact that even that, the IP and DNS address hasn't been setup properly?! if I was an end user, would I tolerate such a crap setup? Of course not! I'd give up instantly, and come back to the loving arms of Windows XP! same can be said for Ubuntu; another nightmare in poorly thought out design.

3) What is it with people bashing for Window Vista lack of 'features' and yet, these are the very same people who sit arund pissing and moaning over the fact that Microsoft is trying to 'crush third party tools' - what is it darlings?! do you want features that *might* put a third party out of busienss, or a castrated operating system that'll require you to download the various things you want seperately?

4) People here pissing and moaning about lagacy support? again! what is it darlings!? you piss and moan about the lack of your applications "working properly' and yet in the same breath, bitch and moan about the fact that there is legacy support - make you choice, do you want your old applications to work flawlessly or do you want the removal of backwards compatibility?

Conclusion: It seems that this site is one big group of double standards, you want features, but you don't want third parties disadvantaged, you want no legacy support but you want all your applications to work flawlessly, you claim that Linux is ready and yet all indicators - lack of commercil third party software from big names, iffy hardware support and poor operating system/UI integration, and there are people who completely ignore such deficiencies in favour of defaming anyone who dares question whether or not Linux is a legimate replacement for Windows.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Points to be made.....
by hal2k1 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 05:24 UTC in reply to "Points to be made....."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//so lets stop trying to deny the fact that Linux has major deficiencies; like I keep saying, the day when all my hardware work out of the box, flawlessly, will be the day I'll move. //

Linux does install flawlessly with all hardware working out of the box. And a raft of applications as well.

Windows doesn't. Every single install of Windows requires four or five not-from-the-Windows-box driver CDs to be located and drivers installed from them (and you are stuffed if you get a CD mixed up because that CD was for hardware in another box). In addition, for every extra driver CD you had to get from another box, you will need a reboot or two. Once you have done all that, you have to call up on the phone and get it all registered & activated and whatnot. Then you have to download multi-megabytes of security updates and hope your system isn't compromised before you can get it secured.

Finally you can start to think about an application or two, but be prepared to fork out piles of extra cash and spend hours typing in CD keys & whatnot.

I think you are at least a couple of years out of date here. Linux has far & away more hardware drivers working out of the box than Windows does. You should have already moved a couple of years ago according to your own stated criteria.

//iffy hardware support and poor operating system/UI integration, and there are people who completely ignore such deficiencies in favour of defaming anyone who dares question whether or not Linux is a legimate replacement for Windows.//

You would perhaps have a point with the quoted text after the comma if you weren't so utterly wrong and off the mark about the stuff before the comma.

Edited 2006-11-28 05:28

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Points to be made.....
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Nov 2006 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Points to be made....."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok sunshine, want me to use Linux; I've got a copy of Fedora Core 6 - give me step by step instructions on setting up Fedora Core 6 so that my Intel 3945abg wireless card works correctly after downloading and installing the RPM's off freshrpms.net.

After you have solved that issue, could you provide me a solution to distorted sound via my Intel HDA sound card.

Once you've solved that, could you solve the problem I'm having with mp3 support, my player, a Zen M:Vision only supports MP3 and WMA.

Fix those issues, and you'll have a convert - fail to reply to this post, will simply prove you're just yet another fan boy who liks fanning flames in a forum rather than actually giving constructive replies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Points to be made.....
by raver31 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Points to be made....."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

packman is your friend

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Points to be made.....
by hal2k1 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Points to be made....."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Intel 3945abg wireless card//

Try here: http://ipw3945.sourceforge.net/

It is not going to be easy, but it should be doable with some effort.

//Intel HDA sound card//

ALSA should support that out of the box. Try here for some sound configuration details if Fedora doesn't configure it properly for you: http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/doc-php/template.php?module=hd...

BTW, do either of those work with a Windows XP disk out-of-the-box? I very much doubt it.

//I've got a copy of Fedora Core 6//

I don't know much about Fedora Core. Sorry. Try Knoppix or something with some proprietary hardware support, perhaps Xandros or Freespire. In any case you are no worse off than XP out of the box.

My own wireless card is a fairly plain Netgear PCMCIA card. Works flawlessly ... out of the box. That is the case for all of the hardware I have. Not much of it is handled by a Windows XP install out of the box though ... and on one occasion I mistakenly put in a driver CD for the motherboard of a different box ... disaster. I had to start all over again.

//could you solve the problem I'm having with mp3 support//

I might if you could tell me what that was. There is a nonsense going on in America at this time which goes by the name of "software patents" which is making life a bit difficult even for those of us who do not live in America. This means that neither Linux nor Windows come with out-of-the-box support for encoding .mp3 files. As a non-American, I know of several ways to fix this readily depending on the distribution ... I don't however know about Fedora. For Ubuntu, you would run Automatix.

http://www.getautomatix.com/

For PCLinuxOS, you don't have to do anything for mp3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCLinuxOS#Multimedia_Playback

For Sabayon Linux, you don't have to do anything at all, even for playing DVD:
http://www.sabayonlinux.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2245

Some of these links might be problematical for freedom-starved Americans though, I am lead to believe. Americans have let their government let companies charge Americans for all sorts of things that should just work. For example, I heard that Americans are pretending that it is a crime under some circumstances to play a DVD that you bought legally, even though that is what you bought the DVD for, to play it. I hear American companies have started suing their customers lately. Tell me, how is that working out? Good for the lawyers, no doubt.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Points to be made.....
by linux-it on Tue 28th Nov 2006 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Points to be made....."
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

About installing Linux VS XP: you made a very good point there.

It's what we also see a lot of times. Especially when you try specific hardware, you will see that the XP way is a painful one. Many things won't work out of the box. People now will say: I place my CD in the laptop and all is set. Now, let's compare apples with apples and take a stock XP and some general linux set. Does it still work, your sound, USB stuff, network card, DVD writer under XP ? Poeple don't know that manufacturers have done a lot to have all drivers available, downloaded it for you, integrated it for youin your specific, eg custom made XP. Does that also happen with linux? Nope....

We forget about the support you have on a daily or weekly basis.

About vista: don't know if this will apply to it, we'll see. So far, linux has quite an edge over windows when it comes to installing, support and not to mention, the localization. No different sets needed... just select the lang you want....

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Points to be made.....
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Nov 2006 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Points to be made....."
RE[5]: Points to be made.....
by hal2k1 on Tue 28th Nov 2006 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Points to be made....."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Why is it *EVERYTIME* I bring up, people completely "AVOID ANSWERING THE QUESTION* give me a step by step explaination;//

I'm sorry, but I can't help you directly.

I don't know Fedora, and I don't have your hardware.

All that I can suggest is that you use a friendlier distribution. There would be some that have this issue solved because the driver does exist. AFAIK, Knoppix and derivatives such as KANOTIX have the best auto-configuration of hardware. OpenSuSe and YAST also has good hardware detection and support I believe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Points to be made.....
by linux-it on Tue 28th Nov 2006 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Points to be made....."
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

problem with users like te one that conect the pleasure of "f*cking" with fedora core 6..... they may not be the right ones to use linux as root. They should leave it to people with some basic computer understanding. He should be left as user only.

http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/suse-linux-help/64661-wireless-int...

tells some things about the driver. also, if you really have big problems with WPA setup, try ndiswrapper or linuxant. He could have googled himself but sometimes it's too hard [for people] to do so.

If the hardware is to be rolled out under windows (pick any version) you will have quite a few surprises. Something some people don't want to read or hear.

Yes, linux sometimes requires a bit work. so does windows. no magic here. only thing is that you need to understand computers a little bit. some people think they have enough understanding of these things but in reality miss it. They overrate themselves, causing problems like this.....

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Points to be made.....
by axilmar on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Points to be made....."
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

Yes, linux sometimes requires a bit work. so does windows.

But there is a difference! Linux requires programming/IT skills, whereas Windows requires following the on-screen instructions!

It's a fact that Linux comes with much more drivers than Windows XP. But when a driver/module is missing from Linux, it is a nightmare to install it, where as in Windows it is as easy as inserting the CD with the drivers or double-clicking an icon.

I have installed SUSE 9.3 at home, and it comes without any support for multimedia...it took me 3 days to understand what I had to do, what were the issues, what are the various packages I needed to install, what each package contained...and I used the graphical tool of SUSE (Yast was it? I can't remember, it was about a year before)...

I had the same problem with XP...I just downloaded m-player, installed it and voila, everything played!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Points to be made.....
by h3rman on Tue 28th Nov 2006 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Points to be made....."
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Well, I did at least (I expect) link the solution of your mp3-problem.

This is not a Fedora Core forum. Please try go & ask there, refrain from shouting, and show a little more patience. You see, the description of the problems you gave was not all very specific/detailed.

Alternatively, there are a few good distros that have more multimedia out of the box: I'd recommend Pardus Linux (Turkish government funded, excellent KDE distro), BLAG (=FC, only 1 cd, +some xtra multimedia) or maybe Mint (=Buntu+nonfree stuff).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Points to be made.....
by sbenitezb on Tue 28th Nov 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Points to be made....."
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

You should continue using your Windows, boy. You are not made to be using Linux if you pretend it to work flawlessly without any problems at all. I wonder how do you work your Windows problems out, if you start bitching to Bill Gates and telling him to help you get rid of viruses and spyware or you just bite the bullet, shut up and hope things will get better. If you really tried Linux is for a reason. So tell me you love that Windows...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Points to be made.....
by h3rman on Tue 28th Nov 2006 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Points to be made....."
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Your MP3 problem can be solved with this:
http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-fc6.html#mp3
You should enable Livna or Freshrpms (not both please), graphically you can do that in Yum Extender (Yumex).

The driver for your Intel 3945abg is here:
http://ipw3945.sourceforge.net/
http://support.intel.com/support/notebook/sb/CS-006408.htm

I'm not privy on the details, sorry; in order to avoid MS taxes, Intel, and wireless and sleep/hibernate issues, I bought an iBook. Noone will deny that Linux can still be a major hassle for laptops. OLPC being a notable exception. ;)
I'm sure, however, you'll be helped out with the card here: http://forum.fedoraforum.org/

As for your sound card, how distorted is it? Only noise, or some music coming through? Again, some hardware driver guru on the fedoraforum site is better consulted than OSNews responders, frankly.

Edited 2006-11-28 09:41

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Points to be made.....
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Nov 2006 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Points to be made....."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) I was going to purchase an iBook, it was my original first option, but when I went into Harvey Norman and found their 18 months interest free was no valid for Apple products - that idea went out the door; I guess Apple New Zealand don't want people purchasing their products.

2) Which is useless, it requires manual setting up to Soundjuicer and other applications; again, there is a patent friendly encoder/decoder called Xing Mp3, which Novell includes, whats stopping Fedora? or is this yet another sad attempt to ram ogg down the throats of end users, even when their player doesn't support it out of the box.

3) Regarding distortion, even at low volumes, it sounds as though the sound is being applified; I never noticed the issue before, the Novell Enterprise Desktop distribution had no problems with with laptop, infact it was probably the best distribution I ever used; I *hope* that *maybe* when SuSE 10.2 is released, it'll have all the perks of Novell Enterprise Desktop and more ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Points to be made.....
by cerbie on Wed 29th Nov 2006 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Points to be made....."
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

2) Red Hat is stopping Fedora, basically. I've gotten LAME in many distros before. But funny, they weren't big corporate ones. Try out Zenwalk, PCLOS, Knoppix, or Kanotix. No one is ramming anything down your throat. Worst case, you must do just like you should in Windows: download LAME.

3) Hopefully this will get fixed for you. But, even now, try a distro that's actually a good desktop distro, not bloatware (FI, not SUSE, not Fedora, not Ubuntu--and see the list above). I just loved how Source Mage, with all its various issues, offered great sound support for a card that should never have worked in Linux at all (Philips Aurilium). Probably something to do with not having a bunch of pre-configured crap, I think.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Points to be made.....
by mksoft on Tue 28th Nov 2006 06:48 UTC in reply to "Points to be made....."
mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

3) What is it with people bashing for Window Vista lack of 'features' and yet, these are the very same people who sit arund pissing and moaning over the fact that Microsoft is trying to 'crush third party tools' - what is it darlings?! do you want features that *might* put a third party out of busienss, or a castrated operating system that'll require you to download the various things you want seperately?

I don't think that's a valid argument. Funny that those 'features' are bundled when they're from competing products.

An OS without productivity tools is a castrated one. I'm sure people would prefer a decent wordprocessor and a spreadsheet, even more than yet another spyware removal tool or anti virus.

But windows usually bundles other's cash cows. When MS will bundle their own cash cow at no charge to provide a "better experience", that argument would hold water.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Points to be made.....
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Nov 2006 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Points to be made....."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Pardon? why should Microsoft be FORCED to carry competing products?! if you have BIG issues with the bundled applications, then bloody well install something else!

I can't stand using Mediaplayer to watch videos, so I download and install Videolan, I can't stand using the AOL client because it is absolutely crap, so I download and install GAIM, the dvd writing application bundled wit Windows XP sucks, so I purchase Nero Burning Rom.

Again, *I* make that choice, *I CHOOSE* *NOT* to run the bundled applications; its terrible for you to accept that there are people who *CHOOSE* to run Microsoft applications, and are actually *HAPPY* about running them! shock bloody horror!

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Points to be made.....
by mksoft on Tue 28th Nov 2006 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Points to be made....."
mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

Who said about forced to bundle competing progarms ? Please don't put words in my mouth.

I've just asked to end the sharade that states "we bundle for the benefit of the customer".

MS (and those who claim it's for "better experience") should stop lying/pretending about it. Just say: "We bundle to kill competing products on markets we can't control right now".

Please name one bundled application in a market where MS maintained control before bundling it (e.g: Office).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Points to be made.....
by Soulbender on Tue 28th Nov 2006 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Points to be made....."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"But windows usually bundles other's cash cows. When MS will bundle their own cash cow at no charge to provide a "better experience", that argument would hold water."

I really can't follow your argument here. MS bundles *other's* cash cows? I can't think of a single 3rd party "cash cow" that comes bundled with Windows.
What argument would hold water?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Points to be made.....
by mksoft on Tue 28th Nov 2006 10:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Points to be made....."
mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

Browser,
Media codecs,
IM,
Anti spyware,
Anti Virus

And remeber that there are various way to make money from the product in addition to direct payment (e.g: ads, licensing codecs to content producers, etc.).

Please see here:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16575&comment_id=186034

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Points to be made.....
by dylansmrjones on Tue 28th Nov 2006 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Points to be made....."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I think the OP meant "bundling applications equal to other's cash cows". If not, I'm at a loss of OP's intended message.

Reply Score: 1

omg
by SK8T on Tue 28th Nov 2006 05:27 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

new highs in DRM maybe…

Reply Score: 1

Vista takes *Windows* to new heights..
by Anon on Tue 28th Nov 2006 09:16 UTC
Anon
Member since:
2006-01-02

LOL. I couldn't of laughed any harder after reading that.

It isn't hard for Windows to be taken to above it's current height - which is around the level of which steaming turds usually exist.

Reply Score: 2

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

steaming turds are one thing, but can anyone else remember the "white turds" ?
you know the ones, the turds that lay so long on the street they dried out, and when you kick them, they explode in a cloud of dust ?

no ?

just me then ?

ah well

Reply Score: 1

Give me one good reason to buy Vista
by walterbyrd on Tue 28th Nov 2006 11:52 UTC
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

I use W2K. It does everything I need. I don't have any problems with drivers, stability, or security. I don't need that "eye candy" crappola either, in fact I prefer not to have it.

So what is Vista going to do for me?

Reply Score: 1

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Vista will make you COOL and will make women fall at your feet.

You are not using your computer to its full potential, Mr Gates told me, and I believe him.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, nothing really.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. So just keep using Win2K. I upgraded to Win2K3 because I had to use some development applications that wouldn't run on Win2K - but apart from that I could live happily with Win2K.

Don't perform the upgrade.

Reply Score: 1

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

One good reason......EOL.

RIP Win2K.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

I just spent a day removing malware from my daughter's Windows laptop.

How is it that you don't have any problems with security? Don't you have anyone that bugs you to fix their machine for them?

Reply Score: 2

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>How is it that you don't have any problems with security?<<

Ordinary care. Don't open suspect emails, don't go to suspect web-sites. Use anti-malware software.

>>Don't you have anyone that bugs you to fix their machine for them?<<

Yes. But me "upgrading" to Vista won't change that.

Reply Score: 1

Good article...
by Darkelve on Wed 29th Nov 2006 15:14 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

Without going in to detail what I think of Vista (and no one cares anyway), I can say I appreciated this article: it's well written and has a lot of content. In combination with the screenshots, really helpful in order to clarify what I can/can't expect from Vista.

Reply Score: 1