Quote: "Well that's a shame, because it's happening and it is a genuine problem."
Oh I AM going to watch it, just not immediately because I have to wait 'til next month.
Quote: "just don't go around telling people it isn't a problem. That's a misinformed, wrong statement based on nothing other than your own opinion and lack of knowledge."
I don't believe I ever said it wasn't a problem, and I would never say that. I can only say it's not a problem for me.
Quote: "You could have also read the description of the video on youtube"
Actually I couldn't, because I can't open YouTube or it starts loading the video.
Quote: "The FBI has purchased custom-built software"
The Machine.... it's REAL.
Quote: "Your computer is therefore completely insecure. If a virus does ever end up executing on your computer, it will have total control over the entire system. That's not a wise thing to be doing at all."
You are partially correct. The problem is that Windows UAC can be disabled automatically with a simple script (by emulating keypresses) with no notification to the user. The script can then force a restart, install software and run it as administrator with full access to everything. The only way to prevent this is to set the UAC to Always Notify, which notifies on system setting changes as well. The default value (for millions of PCs around the world) is to not notify the user when a system setting has been changed, because of the uproar from Vista.
The result of this is that UAC is not secure on its default value. Microsoft has decided, despite many security tech blogs' strong warnings, against fixing it. They say it is by design.
This means that I can safely have my UAC in the off position without increasing my risk as any virus/malware/adware/etc. can easily disable it anyway. Why don't I set it to Always Notify, you ask. Because it's horrible. It constantly pops up in your face.
HOWEVER. Microsoft's official statement also says that it's
not a security vulnerability, because Windows 7 is designed to prevent malicious software reaching the computer in the first place. That's what I rely on, and it has served me well for the past 6-8 years.
Ok, so when I said UAC is useless when it can be disabled...that's not quite true. I have to admit this. It
does actually afford more protection, by preventing admin-level viruses from running at all, or stopping something dead in its tracks if you accidentally click something. Additionally, when turned on, UAC provides registry virtualisation or somesuch. So it does infact give protection. But it's far too annoying.
In terms of security of Ubuntu vs. Windows 7,
this post has some interesting points.
Quote: "You have a very limited knowledge of filesystems so I won't even begin to explain."
That sounds like an insult, but I will ignore.
I have a very limited knowledge of Android and Linux filesystems. I have an intimate knowledge of Windows filesystems.
Quote: "Yeah but you have UAC turned off, so now it does."
So? That was never my point.
Quote: "Let's start with the entire open source community? The community responsible for creating the internet as we know it? The community responsible for laying the foundation for Mac, Android, and Linux? They're all BSD based systems and wouldn't exist without said community."
Oh, I never said the open-source knowledge-sharing community was a bad thing or even not important. I just asked why seem to dislike closed-source programs. If they do the job and there's no open-source equivalent, what's it matter?
Quote: "You're from America, right? You know what freedom is."
Umm...
no. I'm from Australia; you'd know that if you looked at my Location tag. The way I see it, freedom is the right to
not distribute your knowledge and hard work to everyone; the right to keep your work and discoveries to yourself.
But again, I'm not saying closed-source is better than open-source, I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with it.
Quote: "But you can't automate the build process. You always have to manually open VS and click yourself through various import windows."
Quote: "Plus text can be automated a lot easier than a GUI in almost all cases."
There's probably actually a way to automate it, but since I don't know of any, I'll just agree with you. Yes, that's a disadvantage of VS over GCC. (Speaking of which: Does GCC use makefiles on Windows? Just curious)
Quote: "When the software is built, you can't install it to a standard location either."
Is that something people do? Normally I would just build the exe then run it. Not sure why you'd want it registered with the OS. Other than that, VS has the capability to run pre- and post-build commands, which allows you to copy the the built exe to another location.
Quote: "CMake does a good job of working around VS by using NMake, but not all projects use CMake."
CMake is amazing, when it's supported.
Quote: "Those that don't are the most painful ones to build on Windows."
Yes, but
only because they were not designed for Windows. That's what I keep saying. Projects are easy to build on Windows when the people making them take the time to set them up for Windows. The opposite also would apply. Projects set up on Windows would be a nightmare (or impossible) to build on Linux.
Quote: "If a critical system file is open for writing at the time of the crash, it could cause OS corruption."
True. For the record, the same could occur on Linux, though I do accept that Linux has two layers that aid in total system crash-prevention.
Quote: "Well yes you could, but the Makefile can do that discovery and setting of preprocessor definitions for you."
True enough.
Quote: "Why is it not permissible to reasonably double post to update GC WIP threads?"
That's just unfair.
