Intel follows AMDs lead again?

Don't you just love provocative headlines like that? The first thing that pops to mind might have been "Ah, he's talking about the new dual core CPUs that Intel is shipping" or "Oh, that's probably a something having to do with lower power CPUs for laptops."

Nope. In this case, I'm talking about Intel following AMD's lead in abandoning 386 and 486 CPUs. AMD abandoned their 486 and 586 line back in 2002. Intel recently announced that they would no longer be producing 386, 486, and some other RISC processors after September 2007.

Although neither an earth-shattering announcement nor one that will probably shock the computer industry, it's interesting from a couple of angles. First, there's the whole history and End-Of-An-Era thing that the production end means. Secondly, there's the "wow" factor that Intel has still been able to sell these CPU classes 15 years after their peak popularity.

From the historical perspective, the 386-class CPUs changed the entire PC industry. Back before the first George Bush was in office, the 386 CPU ushered in the era of 32-bit computing that we're only now starting to see the end of. By adopting the 386 before IBM, Compaq put itself on the map and led to the overthrow of the entire IBM PC empire. Mated with Windows 3.1 and then Windows 95, the 386/486 securely placed Microsoft at the top of the software industry.

People long forgot about those CPUs. Before the turn of the century the Pentium line and its successors had made the 386 and 486 CPUs essentially obsolete. The CPUs have lived on as embedded processors, still crunching data bits inside of devices such as network controllers and data acquisition devices.

So, even though Intel will still be cranking out the creaky silicon for another year, the end is on the horizon. While we're pounding away on dual core processors and looking forward to 64-bit and quad-core processors for every day use, all we can say is "The King is Dead! Long Live the King!"

Adnan and me

Adnan and me 

Danish Apology??

The row about the outrageous cartoons of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) published first in Denmark and then in Norway has taken a new turn with the semblance of an apology from the editor of the offending newspaper. Danish Muslims say that they accept the apology — but it is unlikely to take the sting out of the situation or ease the hurt and resentment that millions of Muslims feel. Carsten Juste’s apology is disingenuous. He says that the cartoons were not intended to offend. The depictions of the Prophet as a terrorist were clearly intended to offend. How could they do otherwise? Juste makes it clear he thinks there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the cartoons; he is apologizing purely because Muslims took offense. “That’s what we’re apologizing for.’’ A very backhanded apology.

Juste then insists that what he did was perfectly legal. There are many things which are legal, but that does not make them right. Worse, he says he still does not regret publishing the cartoons. Does he not regret doing something that has done immense damage to Danish-Muslim relations? That has resulted in a boycott of Danish goods across the Muslim World? That has probably put Danish troops in Iraq at unique risk from Al-Qaeda? Juste’s bosses should dismiss him for his lack of judgment and the damage it has done to Denmark, politically and economically and all out of spite. That would go some way to calming the situation. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has to act as well. His categorical refusal to apologize on the issue because it would be against the laws on freedom of speech is just as disingenuous. It would be perfectly within the bounds of political propriety for him to say how appalled he was and that Juste should go. That would come well within the bounds of his freedom of speech.

In any event, if it does go against the law, the answer is simple: Change the law. Follow the British example: Outlaw religious hatred. Once Prime Minister Tony Blair gets a new religious hatred bill through Parliament, it will be a criminal offense in the UK to publish cartoons like the Danish ones. No one can say that the UK is any less committed to freedom of speech than Denmark. But Blair understands there are limits to freedom of speech, just as there are to freedom of action; people do not have the right to stir up riots and racial hatred, encourage mass hysteria or heap abuse on religion any more than they do to rob, rape, cheat or kill.

Were Prime Minister Rasmussen to follow Blair’s lead and introduce a similar law in Denmark, Muslim anger would vanish, not least because the UK bill, although protecting all religions from attack, is in fact designed specifically with Islam in mind. Rasmussen has to think about Denmark’s political and economic interests. But he needs to realize what Tony Blair has realized — that Muslims are now an integral part of his country and that to attack their faith is to attack them. Freedom of speech has to be balanced by the freedom not to have one’s faith abused and ridiculed.

Microsoft's OneCare Has Holes

Microsoft's OneCare service has holes.

Microsoft's OneCare (http://www.windowsonecare.com) is a beta service that attempts to be an encompassing security product/service to protect an end-user's PC. Among several things, it provides antivirus and firewall services and policy configuration.

Anyway, I have found the following issues with the service:

1. Any program using JVM can bypass any OneCare firewall restriction.

2. Any signed program will automatically bypass any firewall restriction.

Both of these issues are a concern to security people. Any blanket security bypass rule is a bad idea. It just invites malicious hackers and other malware goons to exploit it. These settings, if they hold past the beta period, are especially troubling in light of the success that spyware and adware vendors have been having. They already routinely use signed controls to install themselves onto users PCs, and certainly they will continue to use them to bypass this service.

Deny by default is a good rule of thumb. Allow by default never is. I applaud Microsoft trying to give consumers yet another way to protect their PCs, but blanket security bypass rules aren't part of the solution.

IE7 beta: Read the fine print

Now, we're all used to just clicking "next" when we install new software.

That's a bad idea in general. First, many software programs today have incredibly invasive default settings that give the software permission to do everything short of audit your tax returns. Second, these days it is probably a good idea to skim over the details of know how your private information will or won't be handed over to any government that asks to take a peek.

In that spirit, I gave a quick read of the end-user license agreement that accompanies the public beta of Internet Explorer 7. The IE 7 license agreement is both humorous and disturbing.

Funny is the introduction, which begins by thanking the user for "choosing Microsoft."

"Everyone on the IE team (even the lawyers who reviewed the license terms below) wants to make your web browsing experience safer and easier," the agreement says.

From there, it gets pretty unfunny pretty quick.

Users agree that they will only use the software on a properly licensed Windows XP machine with Service Pack 2. (A couple steps later, Microsoft requires Windows Genuine Advantage validation to confirm this)

Even more ominous are Microsoft's warnings and limitations.

"The software is licensed 'as-is,' Microsoft warns in all-capital letters. "Services and information are provided 'as-is' and 'as available.' You bear the risk of using them."

But you really shouldn't be using the software on a real PC anyway.

"You may not test the software in a live operating environment unless Microsoft permits you to do so under another agreement."

Roughly translated, that means anyone can download the new browser, but most of us aren't supposed to be using it, apparently.

In the spirit of living dangerously, this blog was written in IE 7 (for test purposes only, of course).