loginusername

Author of WinAmp.

Don't need Windows to download the video.

Not sure about playback.

It's 742MB ".asf" file. ffmpeg, ffplay, mplayer, ...?

http://msrvideo.vo.msecnd.net/rmcvideos/249344/249344.asf

Good tip. Also, there are options that can be built from source (e.g., BSD) so that all that cruft is not installed by default. IME, 8 GB SD cards are not needed; 1 GB and smaller can suffice.

To summarize, there exists at least one person who wants to write their own tools, or at least use open source tools.

For at least this one person, downloading closed source software from the chip manufacturer is not satisfactory.

The comments also add that these downloads can be on the order of 8-20GB.

Has anyone ever wondered what is in those large binaries?

Does someone think the larger size somehow offers potentially more IP protection?

Does the FPGA utilities world have anything like teensy_loader_cli? It's about 28k. Not limited to MS Windows. Works with both BSD and Linux.

I could be mistaken but I think, not too long ago, openssl.org used to redirect to openssl.net.

And if I recall correctly, it was http://openssl.net not https://.

Is it possible there have been some changes in recent years?

Maybe you have a very poor understanding of your systems, or you have given up trying to understand them.

Or maybe you think that because any attempts at understanding systems are in your opinion "difficult", other users should "give up" and leave everything to some company like Microsoft.

Or maybe there is some other explanation. I don't know.

I am not sure why it matters to you how someone else chooses to use their own hardware, or what software they choose to use.

Not sure I really want to know. But I think you are wasting your time.

Your systems are larger and more complicated than they have to be. You have admitted it. You also admit your systems are full of flaws, and it does not sound like you are expending any effort to find and fix them.

Now you are telling me the size of your monitors. Who cares? If you see all software as "large" and "complex", then that is how you see it. So what? What does this have to do with anything?

I started these threads because Microsoft ran an article in the NYT about greater "security". But it's still closed source. Microsoft does not let users unconditionally review nor trim the size of the code.

If you think Windows is the best option for you, then go right ahead and keep using it to the exclusion of anything else. I'm not trying to persuade you to do anything. Do whatever you want. I wish you all the best.

But spare me the comments. I do not follow your reasoning, or whatever point you are trying to make, and I'm not interested.

I do not use Linux on a day to day basis as I said multiple times in these threads, nor do I consider the popular Linux distributions as a good example of small(er) software. They keep getting larger.

Some have said the larger Linux distributions aim to be a "replacement" for Windows. I would tend to agree. I have little interest in Windows nor the "desktop" metaphor.

But, at least with an open source kernel such as Linux (aside from the binary blobs), unlike closed source Microsoft Windows kernel, a user can reduce the size.

One can also use an initrd with her own small(er) programs or a mutli-call binary instead of a GNU userland put together by a third party organization.

I have never compiled my own reduced size Windows kernel or any other part of Windows given that it is a _closed source kernel_. The idea that I am even having to state seems ridiculous. Most everyone reading this forum knows this. This whole "discussion" is surreal.

Funny that you use the word "wasteful". That is exactly how I view large(r) software. It wastes valuable resources that, on my systems, are in limited and often short supply.

The reason I mentioned what I prefer was to disclose bias. Certainly everyone has one.

The reason I mentioned what I use was only to provide example, to illustrate that such small(er) software exists. Again, the idea I even have to state this, to someone on this forum, seems surreal.

There are alternatives to Windows and to Linux distributions, at least in my case. I know for fact I am not the only one using small(er) software, but I am not comfortable speaking for others. What software they choose to use is their business, not mine.

Any program that is constantly being updated and/or re-released is, for me, the one I'm more wary about trusting. As an example, look at djb's software. After a period in the beginning, you do not see the constant releases and updates.

To me, trustworthy software is software that is "correct", if that is even attainable.

Ideally, if the author is truly careful, it should be close to "correct" when it initially released.

Numerous releases and updates year after year to me suggests the software was not very close to correct when the author decided it was time to release. Or that the author is pandering to feature requests.

As with the parent comment, this is only an opinion.

NaCl and CurveCP have not been updated in years. But I feel it's more trustworthy than TLS.

I'm just a fool I guess.

Ah. I always thought it was a reference to "ISP's" and the general public getting access to Usenet. Thanks for the clarification.

The way I remember "Eternal September" was giving UNIX shell accounts to incoming university students.

The problem is when students graduate; no more shell account. Then what?

"The greater the code size the greater the probability of bugs."

Right. I think we are done here.

Microsoft Windows is larger than any OS I know of, and only keeps growing.

To answer your question, I am using a text only browser that's based on the links project, with my own minor modifications.

I still have no idea why you and the other commenter are asking. It seems quite clear neither of you have any legitimate interest in such programs. Otherwise you would not be challenging my statement of such a simple fact as the quoted sentence above, as it applies to Microsoft.

I strongly disagree that "small" programs are not useful. As I have previously stated, I use them every day. I use programs such as sed and netcat to interact with the www even more than I use a browser.

Yes.

Alright, I think we have reached agreement.

Software that is "smaller" than Microsoft Windows.

It exists.

I prefer such "smaller" software and use it every day.

For me, it is "practically useful". I regularly see others stating it is useful for them, too.

Have no idea what "secure" means in the abstract, but maybe smaller software and the way it is used can be "more secure" (or less secure) than Windows.

"Fully understand" is a very high watermark to reach with any system. But given the choice between a larger system that is opaque and one that is smaller and open source I believe I can (partially) understand the smaller one better.

"People are sick and tired of crappy software."

Hallelujah.

"There are versions of Windows with no GUI."

Do they run in VGA textmode?

I have used a program called "window" and today I use tmux but neither of those come from Microsoft.

How do I obtain one of these versions of Microsoft Windows that runs in VGA textmode?

"The attack surface for any large OS..."

Well yes, because they are all large. But what if the OS is small?

Let me guess, now you are going to tell me that all OS, e.g., kernel plus userland, are the same size?

What difference does it make what small software program I am using?

You do not believe such a program exists?

Or maybe you want to critique the program? That would be typical commenter behavior, but it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

The topic is Microsoft software and the relationship between code size and probability of security flaws.

"How do you know this?"

As a user, I don't. It's closed source. That's the point. What users have is only circumstantial evidence. And then there is the marketing and PR, such as the NYT article.

One of original two comments was "What would we find?" There is nothing to suggest I have read the source code.

Unless and until Windows becomes an open source project, such as the ones that are routinely discussed in this forum, where users can remove code they do not want, then no amount of "updates" or PR by Redmond is going "fix" Windows to my satisfaction. As I said, I am not expecting that to happen, ever.

There is a comment in these threads from a former Microsoft employee that confirms my suspicions about poor quality control. Are you still in disbelief?

As for your aside, I agree. There's legacy code in both. But I suspect it is far less code overall. And, in my opinion, it's in some cases higher quality than what I am getting with Windows (there are certainly exceptions: Dave Cutter's work on the NT kernel being one). Of course, I do not have the Windows source code so I can only speculate what is in there.

More importantly, the size of the software is much smaller and I can modify and recompile it.

I can see to some extent what has been added and changed over the years. I can continue to learn from the source and the people who wrote it, instead of from a marketing department.

Living in a tty is "the exact same thing" as using Windows?

Is that an example of "comparing like to like"?

I am in VGA textmode. I am not using a graphic layer.

The amount of code to implement the tty, which is available to me to read, edit, compile and redistribute, is, I speculate, much smaller and less complex than the amount of code and complexity used to implement the Windows GUI.

Pure speculation of course.

I agree. Which is why I do not understand how anyone can claim Windows is not "closed source" in the sense of the opposite of "open source", as that term is commonly understood in this forum. Maybe they were being sarcastic?

Of course.

Though I'm sure you are not the only Microsoft employee who has used OpenBSD.

At one point, after the Danger acquisition, Microsoft HR was advertising a position for a NetBSD developer.

Are there any rules about using a non-Windows OS in the office? Even if it increases your capabilities and productivity?

Are you saying you are unaware of any program that can post text to a web server that is "small"?

If all you are aware of is large software, then your statement that "All software is large" makes more sense.

"All software is not as large as Microsoft's software."

Would you agree with that?

Again, you mention Linux. I do not use it. How is it relevant to my comment?

And then there's this mythical "average user". But what does that have to do with me and my own solutions?

I know only one user: myself. I know what works for me. I live in a tty. Do I need a Windows GUI? No.

Finally, I also know that what one can do, another can do. But that is their decision and I am not trying to convince anyone to do what I do.

Windows is a massive, complex truckload of legacy source code that keeps growing with every edition; it has a lot of flaws and the number grows every year; it is not "open source" in the sense of public source code respositories and enabling users to compile from source. This is not opinion. It's fact. These facts do contribute to the state of Windows "security". Bravo for fixing flaws in recent years. But no points for having them to begin with: poor quality control.

In contrast to others, this is a comment that reflects truth.

The only points I would contest are 1. that "a bunch" is effectively the "same thing" as large software. A "bunch" can vary in number and quality. My userland is a single "multi-call" binary and quite small. The sum total of source code is not so large that I cannot manage it. It's keeping tabs on the kernel code that presents the challenge; and 2. that "nobody cares".

If "nobody" cared, then you would not be seeing a comment such as mine because there would be nobody to author it.

Moreover there would be no reasonably small kernel source that users like me could use. Some people care enough to maintain that kernel and to keep it relatively small.

Maybe that group of people is like the software: small. Suits me just fine.

Or I could just use an open source alternative that does not require jumping through such hoops.

One where I can edit and compile the source, run it and redistribute it, too. All for free. But I guess all that is also possible under this shared source program you mention?

Nope. Maybe you can explain?

My comment was about closed source versus open.

Popularity is only relevant to the extent someone would argue Windows is not the easiest target but rather the most frequent one, due to its popularity, i.e., userbase size.

There's more to open source than just Linux.

OK, I'll bite. What do you think is the easiest?

Keep in mind what I said about configuration. Distinguish configuration from source code. Proper configuration s within the user's control and can be anticipatory and preventative.

Whereas poor quality code in a closed source program is outside the control of the user to fix and usually requires knowledge of someone exploiting it before it will be fixed. This is, unfortunately, after the fact.

Proactive versus reactive.

A well-deserved endorsement from a Microsoft employee. (Assuming your HN profile is up-to-date.)

The kernel I start with is indeed derived from the same one that project started with.

Perhaps you could explain how the statement "All software is large" "furthers the conversation"? How am I supposed to respond to that?

You think that false statement is a respectable "response" to a comment on the benefits of small software?

Small software exists both in the past (when memory and storage were more limited) and in the present. The very idea of small programs is a foundational one in the field of computing.

"All software is large" is not a "view" that is in agreement with reality. As such, it is distorted.

I am using small software every day. In fact I am writing this comment with a small program. When I write software, it is small, at least relative to anything from Microsoft.

I am too dumb to write large software.

If the code were ever released in a form that I could compile myself, and I could omit the parts I did no want... then I might be interested in Windows.

Given that MS is a very successful company that got to where it is today based on closed source and copyright, I am not expecting that to happen, ever.

I appreciate your candor.

Maybe Redhat's configuration was at fault?

I have seen popular Linux distributions where interfaces are enabled and have programs listening by default.

I, the user, never asked for that.

This is one reason I do not use Linux distributions.

Too many assumptions about what the user wants.

Not sure what Linux has to do with my comment.

Are you assuming I use a Linux "distribution"?

Sometimes I have done so, but only occasionally when I need to check something on Linux.

Anyway, I am missing your point.