|
I thought a "VSIX packages" was a different thing 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
It can cause immense stress and can lead to burnout 🤯 Don't worry, we're sharing our mistakes, so hopefully you'll avoid some! Just make it close to prefect
I was going to go with "'Good enough' ain't just a Russian ballet dancer", but it's more of an audio 'joke', and he's been dead for quite some time (and the 'joke' wasn't even funny when he wasn't)
|
|
|
|
|
Excesses are mostly bad, it doesn't matter how good the thing might be.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Just make it close to prefect
How close is that?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that a characteristic of the war between MS/Windows and FOSS: Windows is good enough for the masses, but not perfect enough for the FOSS community?
Wasn't IBM very much the same way in the 1970s and 80s: Good enough for the customers, but the competitors could always claim to be more perfect in some aspect? Yet IBM had 70-80% of the computer market.
Or take the TCP/IP vs. OSI protocols network wars: I have never found anyone willing to stand up claiming that the Internet suite was "better" by any technical criteria (and certainly not 'perfect'). Its major benefit was that because the specs are freely available to IT students worldwide, TCP/IP was (and is) what they knew when getting out of school, therefore Internet is there. Because it is there, and good enough, not at all because it is in any way 'perfect'.
To me, it is obvious that the 'perfection' claims of *nix (at least over Windows!) is one of the greatest obstacles to broad acceptance among non-programmers.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Protecting computers' BIOS and the boot process is essential for modern security – but knowing it's important isn't the same as actually taking steps to do it. That's like having a note on the door, "Door is locked. Key's under the mat."
|
|
|
|
|
OK - this wasn't a key leak. It was an intentional key publication by the vendor to assist PC makers in getting their systems up and running. Reminds me of the 1988 Morris worm that took down sendmail on hundreds of Unix systems because the admins didn't follow the instructions for installing sendmail.
|
|
|
|
|
15 million users found themselves locked out of all their passwords for 18 hours thanks to a Google bug That means I don't have to enter them, right?
|
|
|
|
|
No, it means only P@ssw0rd, 123456, and <yourdog'sname> are the only ones left.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: 15 million users found themselves locked out of all their passwords for 18 hours thanks to a Google bug
It could have been worse... they could have been wiped instead of blocked 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
For better performance in software, we avoid unnecessary copies. How long is a string (lifetime)?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: How long is old will be a string (lifetime)?
FTFY
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Bosses expect artificial intelligence software to improve productivity, but workers say the tool does the opposite, according to a survey by find-a-workplace research org the Upwork Research Institute, a limb of talent-finding platform Upwork. Just like the bosses that love AI
|
|
|
|
|
Now if these same researchers would look into RTO. . . .
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of the article the make the recommendation to hire more freelancers.
Quote: Coincidentally, the Institute – part of the Upwork platform for hiring freelance workers – suggests that hiring freelance workers can help. "When compared with full-time employees, more freelancers claim to be AI-ready," the report claims.
So now we know the entire purpose of the "study."
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, so many of these studies are just advertising.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
using AI is plagiarism
=====================================================
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence
|
|
|
|
|
Stack Overflow AI Patchwork | CommitStrip[^]
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft appears to be starting the conversation about moving security vendors out of the Windows kernel. Who let the security vendors into the kernel in the first place?
I am reminded of this sketch: I Think You Should Leave | Hot Dog Car Sketch[^]
|
|
|
|
|
> Who let the security vendors into the kernel in the first place?
AAPL... but it was by using the monopoly misdirection play.
One of the 'bigger' kernel security things are the few but widespread anti-cheat vendors.
Maybe we need a chip that is segregated and on it runs the stuff we don't want to run in the kernel but also do want.
|
|
|
|
|
jochance wrote: Maybe we need a chip that is segregated and on it runs the stuff we don't want to run in the kernel but also do want.
And who gets to decide what runs on that ultra-secure chip? I trust that you see the problem.
Any time you allow arbitrary vendors to install stuff in kernel mode, you invite the kind of problem caused by CrowdStrike. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened before this. This is not to say that Microsoft is perfect in this regard, but limiting kernel access to Microsoft's code would at least reduce the threat surface somewhat.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more that it would only have access to a subset of RAM shared with the OS and understood by the OS to be shared with it along with some other constraints about how it is wired and what it can talk to.
I think the difference of MSFT locking their kernel down or not is marginal. For one, I don't think it really can be locked down when people control the hardware. At best, it would only raise the bar for playing in the kernel.
Maybe people would eschew products that still injected their bits into the kernel? I don't think so though.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Who let the security vendors into the kernel in the first place?
Not sure about "in the first place", but back in the Vista x64 timeframe, MS were planning to lock them out of the kernel. They complained loudly, and forced MS to capitulate.
Microsoft Opening Up Vista Kernel To Security Vendors | CRN[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That would have been the only good Vista feature 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Who let the security vendors into the kernel in the first place?
Microsoft, at the insistence of the EU. This is part of a 2009 anti-trust settlement between Microsoft and the European Commission. It's time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and build out an API for security firms and then force them to use it, including their own security software. This will also meet the letter of that settlement. The big problem is the security firms will scream bloody murder that Microsoft is being anti-competitive by doing this.
Remember when MS was working on Vista - MS wanted to block access to the kernel and Symantec (Norton), McAfee, Panda Antivirus, Kaspersky, and every other AV vendor went beserk because they claimed they needed this access to "secure" Windows.
As for the Cloudflare CEO, he can go pound sand - OS level security trumps his ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) profits.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
