Microsoft Patents Fast Dimdows Shutdown

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 3, 2010.

  1. From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...

    The Windows shutdown process is so convoluted, that Microsoft has actually
    managed to patent a way of (partially) speeding it up
    <http://techdirt.com/articles/20100902/11511810881.shtml>.

    As other commentators have said, let them have their stupid patent. It a)
    doesn’t apply to sanely-designed OSes, and b) will prevent anybody else from
    speeding up Windows’ shutdown.

    This isn’t just killing two birds with one stone, this is Microsoft shooting
    itself in both feet with one bullet.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

    On Sep 3, 11:37 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > From the “Only On Dimdows” file ...
    >
    > The Windows shutdown process is so convoluted, that Microsoft has actually
    > managed to patent a way of (partially) speeding it up
    > <http://techdirt.com/articles/20100902/11511810881.shtml>.
    >
    > As other commentators have said, let them have their stupid patent. It a)
    > doesn’t apply to sanely-designed OSes, and b) will prevent anybody else from
    > speeding up Windows’ shutdown.


    In a decent OS that I used, each user, when finshed for the day, ran
    the shutdown program. When there was only one user left, the system
    shut down in about a tenth of a second, since there was nothing that
    needed doing. The database indexes etc were completely updated during
    each transaction. We couild actually just turn the power off if we
    were sure nobody was using the system.
     
    Matty F, Sep 4, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message
    <>, Matty F
    wrote:

    > In a decent OS that I used, each user, when finshed for the day, ran
    > the shutdown program. When there was only one user left, the system
    > shut down in about a tenth of a second, since there was nothing that
    > needed doing.


    What a stupid way to do it.

    > We couild actually just turn the power off if we were sure nobody was
    > using the system.


    Modern journalled/logging filesystems let you do that, too, with no
    subsequent startup penalty.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 5, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    On 05/09/10 21:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, Matty F
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In a decent OS that I used, each user, when finshed for the day, ran
    >> the shutdown program. When there was only one user left, the system
    >> shut down in about a tenth of a second, since there was nothing that
    >> needed doing.

    >
    > What a stupid way to do it.
    >

    That's predictable. Anything that doesn't conform to Lawrence's biasses
    is "stupid".

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Sep 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 8/09/2010 12:33 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...

    >
    > What is "Dimdows" other than adolescent puerility?


    It's a good keyword to filter out.
     
    victor, Sep 8, 2010
    #5
  6. In message <i697kg$gq1$-september.org>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <i6792s$jde$-september.org>, victor
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 8/09/2010 12:33 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...
    >>>
    >>> What is "Dimdows" other than adolescent puerility?

    >>
    >>It's a good keyword to filter out.

    >
    > Ah ! ...an excellent idea. My thanks. :)


    Just so long as you refrain from including any mention of it in your own
    postings.

    SNAP!
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 9, 2010
    #6
  7. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <i697kg$gq1$-september.org>, Bruce Sinclair
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <i6792s$jde$-september.org>, victor
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On 8/09/2010 12:33 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What is "Dimdows" other than adolescent puerility?
    >>>>
    >>>>It's a good keyword to filter out.
    >>>
    >>> Ah ! ...an excellent idea. My thanks. :)

    >>
    >> Just so long as you refrain from including any mention of it in your own
    >> postings.

    >
    > So why do you use the term? It's childishly unnecessary.


    Hey, I’m not the one who keeps complaining about it while doing it anyway.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 9, 2010
    #7
  8. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Allistar
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message <i697kg$gq1$-september.org>, Bruce Sinclair
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article <i6792s$jde$-september.org>, victor
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>On 8/09/2010 12:33 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> What is "Dimdows" other than adolescent puerility?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>It's a good keyword to filter out.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ah ! ...an excellent idea. My thanks. :)
    >>>>
    >>>> Just so long as you refrain from including any mention of it in your
    >>>> own postings.
    >>>
    >>> So why do you use the term? It's childishly unnecessary.

    >>
    >> Hey, I’m not the one who keeps complaining about it while doing it
    >> anyway.

    >
    > I never use the term "Dimdows" in my posts.


    You just did.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 10, 2010
    #8
  9. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Allistar
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message <>, Allistar
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In message <i697kg$gq1$-september.org>, Bruce Sinclair
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> In article <i6792s$jde$-september.org>, victor
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>On 8/09/2010 12:33 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> What is "Dimdows" other than adolescent puerility?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>It's a good keyword to filter out.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Ah ! ...an excellent idea. My thanks. :)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Just so long as you refrain from including any mention of it in your
    >>>>>> own postings.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So why do you use the term? It's childishly unnecessary.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hey, I’m not the one who keeps complaining about it while doing it
    >>>> anyway.
    >>>
    >>> I never use the term "Dimdows" in my posts.

    >>
    >> You just did.

    >
    > Only when quoting someone else.


    A filter doesn’t know the difference, though. Any attempt to filter out that
    word will make your own posts a casualty as well.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 10, 2010
    #9
  10. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Allistar
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message <>, Allistar
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In message <>, Allistar
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> In message <i697kg$gq1$-september.org>, Bruce
    >>>>>>>> Sinclair wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> In article <i6792s$jde$-september.org>, victor
    >>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>On 8/09/2010 12:33 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> What is "Dimdows" other than adolescent puerility?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>It's a good keyword to filter out.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Ah ! ...an excellent idea. My thanks. :)
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Just so long as you refrain from including any mention of it in
    >>>>>>>> your own postings.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So why do you use the term? It's childishly unnecessary.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hey, I’m not the one who keeps complaining about it while doing it
    >>>>>> anyway.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I never use the term "Dimdows" in my posts.
    >>>>
    >>>> You just did.
    >>>
    >>> Only when quoting someone else.

    >>
    >> A filter doesn’t know the difference, though. Any attempt to filter out
    >> that word will make your own posts a casualty as well.

    >
    > I don't filter that word out.


    Then why did you chime in on a discussion of filtering it out?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 13, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

    On Sep 7, 2:34 pm, Enkidu <> wrote:
    > On 05/09/10 21:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:> In message
    > > <>, Matty F
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> In a decent OS that I used, each user, when finshed for the day, ran
    > >> the shutdown program. When there was only one user left, the system
    > >> shut down in about a tenth of a second, since there was nothing that
    > >> needed doing.

    >
    > > What a stupid way to do it.

    >
    > That's predictable. Anything that doesn't conform to Lawrence's biasses
    > is "stupid".


    That's what I don't understand about modern programmers. Instead of
    doing things properly using standards, they have all kinds of weird
    ways of doing things. The result is slow, unreliable systems that are
    a hacker's delight. In the systems that I worked on, there's no way a
    hacker or an application gone mad could change any part of the
    operating system or even change an application program or the data for
    a different system.
    In Windows, just change anything you like. I gather Linux has better
    protection but I wouldn't be sure.
     
    Matty F, Sep 13, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Murray Symon Guest

    Matty F wrote:

    > On Sep 7, 2:34 pm, Enkidu <> wrote:
    >> On 05/09/10 21:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:> In message
    >> > <>,
    >> > Matty F wrote:

    >>
    >> >> In a decent OS that I used, each user, when finshed for the day, ran
    >> >> the shutdown program. When there was only one user left, the system
    >> >> shut down in about a tenth of a second, since there was nothing that
    >> >> needed doing.

    >>
    >> > What a stupid way to do it.

    >>
    >> That's predictable. Anything that doesn't conform to Lawrence's biasses
    >> is "stupid".

    >
    > That's what I don't understand about modern programmers. Instead of
    > doing things properly using standards, they have all kinds of weird
    > ways of doing things. The result is slow, unreliable systems that are
    > a hacker's delight. In the systems that I worked on, there's no way a
    > hacker or an application gone mad could change any part of the
    > operating system or even change an application program or the data for
    > a different system.
    > In Windows, just change anything you like. I gather Linux has better
    > protection but I wouldn't be sure.



    The good thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from.
    What standards did you stick to, back in the day?
     
    Murray Symon, Sep 13, 2010
    #12
  13. In message
    <>, Matty F
    wrote:

    > In the systems that I worked on, there's no way a
    > hacker or an application gone mad could change any part of the
    > operating system or even change an application program or the data for
    > a different system.


    You just never had smart enough hackers.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 13, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

    On Sep 13, 9:23 pm, Murray Symon <>
    wrote:
    > Matty F wrote:
    > > On Sep 7, 2:34 pm, Enkidu <> wrote:
    > >> On 05/09/10 21:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:> In message
    > >> > <>,
    > >> > Matty F wrote:

    >
    > >> >> In a decent OS that I used, each user, when finshed for the day, ran
    > >> >> the shutdown program. When there was only one user left, the system
    > >> >> shut down in about a tenth of a second, since there was nothing that
    > >> >> needed doing.

    >
    > >> > What a stupid way to do it.

    >
    > >> That's predictable. Anything that doesn't conform to Lawrence's biasses
    > >> is "stupid".

    >
    > > That's what I don't understand about modern programmers. Instead of
    > > doing things properly using standards, they have all kinds of weird
    > > ways of doing things. The result is slow, unreliable systems that are
    > > a hacker's delight. In the systems that I worked on, there's no way a
    > > hacker or an application gone mad could change any part of the
    > > operating system or even change an application program or the data for
    > > a different system.
    > > In Windows, just change anything you like. I gather Linux has better
    > > protection but I wouldn't be sure.

    >
    > The good thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from.
    > What standards did you stick to, back in the day?


    Such things as:
    1. Not allowing an application to fall over because of invalid data.
    2. Never going past the end of a table.
    3. Not sending a patched system to the customers (e.g. like all those
    Windows patches because something's gone past the end of a table)
     
    Matty F, Sep 13, 2010
    #14
  15. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Allistar
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message <>, Allistar
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In message <>, Allistar
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> In message <>,
    >>>>>>>> Allistar wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> In message <i697kg$gq1$-september.org>, Bruce
    >>>>>>>>>> Sinclair wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> In article <i6792s$jde$-september.org>, victor
    >>>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/09/2010 12:33 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the “Only On Dimdows†file ...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is "Dimdows" other than adolescent puerility?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>It's a good keyword to filter out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Ah ! ...an excellent idea. My thanks. :)
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Just so long as you refrain from including any mention of it in
    >>>>>>>>>> your own postings.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> So why do you use the term? It's childishly unnecessary.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hey, I’m not the one who keeps complaining about it while doing it
    >>>>>>>> anyway.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I never use the term "Dimdows" in my posts.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You just did.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Only when quoting someone else.
    >>>>
    >>>> A filter doesn’t know the difference, though. Any attempt to filter out
    >>>> that word will make your own posts a casualty as well.
    >>>
    >>> I don't filter that word out.

    >>
    >> Then why did you chime in on a discussion of filtering it out?

    >
    > I was not the poster who introduced the idea of filtering it out.


    Then why did you chime in on a discussion of filtering it out?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 14, 2010
    #15
  16. In message <>, Crash McBash wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:39:07 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In message
    >><>, Matty
    >>F wrote:
    >>
    >>> In the systems that I worked on, there's no way a
    >>> hacker or an application gone mad could change any part of the
    >>> operating system or even change an application program or the data for
    >>> a different system.

    >>
    >>You just never had smart enough hackers.

    >
    > I think Matty probably hails from the era when IT was dominated by
    > players who supplied proprietary hardware and a proprietary OS (being
    > the only OS that would run) - as I do. Because the OS totally owned
    > the hardware and applications were limited to OS control of everything
    > they did, hackers had to have access to the OS source code and the
    > ability to get their hack peer-reviewed and through the supplier's
    > test and release mechanism.


    There were ways to hack those old systems without such access. Were user
    passwords one-way-encrypted? Probably never heard of the idea. Did he guard
    against denial-of-service attacks? No, he most likely trusted the users. Was
    the code partitioned into separate trust domains, with careful vetting of
    anything crossing the boundaries of those domains? Again, the idea would
    have been alien to him.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 15, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

    On Sep 15, 2:51 pm, Crash McBash <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:39:07 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    > >In message
    > ><>, Matty F
    > >wrote:

    >
    > >> In the systems that I worked on, there's no way a
    > >> hacker or an application gone mad could change any part of the
    > >> operating system or even change an application program or the data for
    > >> a different system.

    >
    > >You just never had smart enough hackers.

    >
    > I think Matty probably hails from the era when IT was dominated by
    > players who supplied proprietary hardware and a proprietary OS (being
    > the only OS that would run) - as I do. Because the OS totally owned
    > the hardware and applications were limited to OS control of everything
    > they did, hackers had to have access to the OS source code and the
    > ability to get their hack peer-reviewed and through the supplier's
    > test and release mechanism. While this was always possible the
    > obstacles were formidable.


    In the systems I'm referring to, every line of code executed was
    written by a small team. The only person who could break into the
    system was me, since I wrote all of the security system. Several
    clever people used to amuse themselves by trying to break into the
    system but always got trapped. Even though one of the systems is very
    old it appears to still be in use around the world because of the
    excellent packages written for it.
     
    Matty F, Sep 15, 2010
    #17
  18. In message
    <>, Matty F
    wrote:

    > In the systems I'm referring to, every line of code executed was
    > written by a small team. The only person who could break into the
    > system was me, since I wrote all of the security system.


    So security was separate from the rest of the code?

    Fail.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 15, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

    On Sep 15, 6:52 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, Matty F
    > wrote:
    >
    > > In the systems I'm referring to, every line of code executed was
    > > written by a small team. The only person who could break into the
    > > system was me, since I wrote all of the security system.

    >
    > So security was separate from the rest of the code?
    >
    > Fail.


    The security code and all the system software was all together.
     
    Matty F, Sep 15, 2010
    #19
  20. In message
    <>, Matty F
    wrote:

    > On Sep 15, 6:52 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In message
    >> <>,
    >> Matty F wrote:
    >>
    >> > In the systems I'm referring to, every line of code executed was
    >> > written by a small team. The only person who could break into the
    >> > system was me, since I wrote all of the security system.

    >>
    >> So security was separate from the rest of the code?
    >>
    >> Fail.

    >
    > The security code and all the system software was all together.


    Did you do any security reviews? Penetration testing?

    Did it address any of the other issues I mentioned?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 15, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DD

    Microsoft patents web phot galleries?

    DD, Nov 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    572
    Marvin
    Dec 2, 2005
  2. GraB
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    334
    peterwn
    Nov 22, 2006
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Microsoft & patents: what goes around comes around...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    104
    Views:
    1,910
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 16, 2006
  4. peterwn

    Microsoft too busy to name Linux patents

    peterwn, May 25, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    291
    Bruce Sinclair
    May 28, 2007
  5. impossible
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    426
    impossible
    Sep 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page