You mean a system that's hosted pretty much entirely on the local system is crackable? Good God!
Printable View
You mean a system that's hosted pretty much entirely on the local system is crackable? Good God!
Critisizing DRM on Vista is very dumb, the only thing that Vista does with DRM is behave better with it. If you stay away from encrypted media such as DVDs, Blu-ray/HDDVD, and music purchasing services such as iTunes, I promise you, you will not see a lick of content protection at all in Windows Vista. If you do, however, choose to participate in such scams like Napster, you'll find yourself in just as big of a hole as you would as in XP.
For the record, Windows Media Player has not spat out a single song from my pirated music collection due to improper licences, or anything else for that matter.
drm is a lot more than music & films, now
keep up :wink:
To the average user
(ie. if you haven't found out how to bypass it, as above)
you have:
- Only use MS signed drivers (no more, "it's not certified, do you want to install anyway?", oh no, "It ain't certified, piss off")
- The kernel is locked down to unauthorised tampering (no more hex-editing your ntoskrnl.exe to make a custom bootscreen, or whatever)
Only MS certified programs can hook into the system at kernel level (includes antivirus software and any MS software, so no nifty skinning programs)
DRM is bigger than music piracy, now
I don't understand why signed drivers only is a problem at all. After all there's got to be some quality control, and that's been sorely missing beforehand. This is only actually true for x64, x86 will still load unsigned drivers but you will need to elevate to administrator through UAC for that which is not a big deal.
Microsoft are taking the opportunity for a hardline stance on unsigned drivers on 64-bit systems. In the words of one blog, "[we missed the boat] on securing x86 and don't want to make the same mistake again". I don't quite understand why it's such a big deal myself, I'd have to read about it some. I'm sure there's some reason they would want to risk hampering the development of drivers which are way imporatnt.
Yes, and I'm totally behind this particular decision. There's a lot more sinister things - and I think you realise this just as much - that can be changed in a kernel than the loading screen. Linux is the same way, in that you don't really go around recompiling it for a boot screen. Although I think that's obviously to do with the fact Linux was better architected in this case. A fault of Microsoft? Yes, but I'd prefer them to do something about it and try and lock this down and correct the mistake than leave the kernel wide open to all sorts of code injections. It makes it less stable (obviously), less secure and really is just crap.Quote:
- The kernel is locked down to unauthorised tampering (no more hex-editing your ntoskrnl.exe to make a custom bootscreen, or whatever)[/b]
As for antivirus companies complaining and calling it monopolistic, most of the dire claims come from studies or straight out of <strike>shit</strike> slightly misled folks like Norton who don't really want to update their software. In fact, they've tried breaking UAC so they can spice it up with their <strike>crap</strike> important notices and <strike>terrorise gullible users into updating subscriptions</strike> better inform of security threats. That's just plain stupid and would create more security holes which I'm sure <strike>they'd just love as it makes their business more lucrative</strike> they would hate.
maybe I'm odd
but I use a lot of "unsigned" drivers
- DVB-C decoder
- Smartcard programmer
- Echo Mia soundcard (drivers not certified for some reason)
- Optimised graphics driver
- a budget, unbranded 10/100 NIC from some foreign land
probably some other bits I forgot as well
also hacked XP to allow for Raid support (supposed to be a vailable inserver '03 only)
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2004/11/19/using...ppen/page2.html
if anyone's interested :wink:
anyway, whatever
it's cracked now :bigteeth:
Well compared to me, you're pretty jacked up there. But no kidding, you've got a point there.
I haven't got an unsigned driver in sight. I can think of one unsigned driver I do use, however: WinPCap. I don't strictly need it but I love it. It doesn't work on Vista (fuck!) but I hope they're going to update that, if they can. The network stack's been pretty much entirely rewritten.
EDIT: Just checked it out today. Vista support now exists for WinPCap. I couldn't be <strike>more</strike> happy.
yup,
knew I forgot things
Ethereal !!
well, maybeQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaniaz
still waiting for my debt card to expire, so I can bung it in the proggy
see if I can't make a fake bank card :bigteeth:
I've probably installed an unsigned driver in XP, like what, once?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Like Kaniaz said, this is a good thing. <analogy> The average driver does not have any use in directly modifying the car's engine, and this help prevent anybody who uses their car (programs) from doing the same. </analogy> If you're the type that does want to mess with the kernel, then that's when Linux comes in to play and we wonder what operating system this type of person would benefit from using.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
I don't see why anyone would ever want to skin Windows Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Okay, good, I was about to call bullshit on Ynot, because I'm pretty sure that these drivers that I just installed were not signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
It appears my WinPCap drivers are also signed. Unless the UAC elevation the setup got meant I gave permission for unsigned drivers to be installed, which would be stupid.
Alright. Honestly, I've got to sing Vista's praises.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG
At least momentarily.
Compared to Gnome, KDE or XCFE's default themes, Vista is BEAUTIFUL.
I'm a big stickler on looks.
However, customizability of appearance has always been very important to me. Yeah, it looks good. But I get bored, even with "good" looking UIs. So, on Ubuntu, I play around with my theme twice a week or so. It's good for that--I can completely customize window borders, colors, button appearances, icon themes, boot screens, and pretty much anything else I feel like. Any time I feel like. I am a bit disappointed in the lack of eye candy, but Fiesty Fawn (Ubuntu 7.04) is coming out in April and will have either Beryl or Compiz window managers installed by default (I think. I'd have to check the forums again to see how that movement went over), and they're pretty dang sexy themselves.
I do have to cede the graphics war to Windows for now, but I'm still disappointed in the lack of customizations Windows allows. I AM happy that they finally allow you to choose colors other than blue, vomit and silver, though. It makes a big difference to somebody like me who insists on having a taskbar that meshes cleanly with the wallpaper.
I just wish they'd get off their high horse and let people tweak the appearance a bit.
BTW, I probably will eventually be dual-booting Vista and Linux (albeit probably a pirated version of Vista since I don't have the $300 to shell out for Ultimate), so no worries Kaniaz--I haven't gone ENTIRELY pinko commie open-source yet.
Just mostly.
Look, I've been waiting for the invasion of the Reds since the start of goddamn Cold War, and now you're saying I've got to tell all the pitchfork-wielding folk they have to wait even longer? This just won't do. Most of them are about ninety and/or dead and buried by this point.Quote:
no worries Kaniaz--I haven't gone ENTIRELY pinko commie open-source yet.
Just mostly.[/b]
What the hell.
wow,
we're really geeky :|
Is the administrator account disabled by default? If so then WTF? :wtf:
As far as I know (but I may be wrong) you supply an admin password on install, but can never actually "log in" as adminQuote:
Originally Posted by Ne
If you want to do something that requires admin auth, you enter the password, and that action is granted admin auth
In Vista, or Ubuntu?
Ubuntu uses something like that--they replaced root access with the sudo command. Basically, you have the rights of an administrator, but when you try to do something that could negatively affect your computer it asks for your password before it lets you do that. It's kind of annoying, and one of the few problems I have with Ubuntu. I much prefer just being able to have root access when I want it.
I was talking about Vista, it's followed in the footsteps of *nix
*nix has had sudo since, well forever
Mac OS X strictly enforces it's use for all admin access
although I didn't know Ubuntu enforced it too, most linux distros don't enforce it by default
guess this is to stop casual users getting owned over the net, as Ubuntu is a lot more desktop orientated
Yeah, since Ubuntu is designed as a Linux distro for average Joes as well as advanced users, they disable root by default to prevent people from doing something stupid, like deleting their /usr/ directory on accident.
Thanks Ynot and Tsen. :goodjob2:
Yeah it looks like Vista has the same idea in mind which actually does make sense. It still sucks however, I did figure out how to enable it permantely.Quote:
they disable root by default to prevent people from doing something stupid, like deleting their /usr/ directory on accident.[/b]
For Future ref:{[you have to type in the "run" Control Userpasswords2. Go to Advanced/ then advanced again, and enable to enable the Admin account.}
Thanks Ynot and Tsen. :goodjob2:
Yeah it looks like Vista has the same idea in mind which actually does make sense. It still sucks however, I did figure out how to enable it permantely.Quote:
they disable root by default to prevent people from doing something stupid, like deleting their /usr/ directory on accident.[/b]
For Future ref: {[you have to type in the "run" Control Userpasswords2. Go to Advanced/ then Advanced again, and enable Admin account.}
EDIT: Don't even ask what's going on with this post, I'm messing around with so much stuff there is no telling what's going to pop up. I wouldn't be surprise if my next post is in codes..lol
My RC1 lets you use an administrator (i.e. 'root') account just fine. However, everything still runs as a user: the change is that you do not need to enter a password to elevate a process to an administrative one. If you are on a user account, you need to enter the admin password which is more secure.
I definitely agree with this change. It's a lot like Unix/Linux in that sense now, and it's better. You can run on a user account and still be able to elevate those troublesome programs and so on. You can turn off UAC in the control panel, but I wouldn't reccomend it. I don't find the dialogs too many or too intrusive at all.
Windows lets you make an admin account and just asks you to press "continue", probably because forcing users to create two accounts would be a bit of a hardline stance and a confusing change for a lot of users. But if you're tech-savvy, I would recommend making an admin/user setup: I've been on a user account for about a month and it's nowhere near as annoying was it was on XP. Definitely a step forward in that sense.
Wait, what? RC1? I sent you RC2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaniaz
My mistake. RC2.
I saw that also. I figured it was a mistake I was thinking to myself. "he doesn't sound like an RC1 guy"..lol
Did I mention I have Vista Ultimate (out of the stores) yet? Well, I do.
It's awesome.
I've just ordered Vista Ultimate on premium dispatch. I'll have it by Friday. We'll see what it's like then.
Keep us posted :goodjob2: