Slashdot Mirror

That kind of trick only works to force upgrades of monopoly business. Even then, it's questionable how many times you can do it. A bad reputation will eventually kill your business. Google is not so stupid.

All this will do for Google is tar their reputation as the clueless click through to porn and think Google sent it to them. Google's good reputation is what makes the trick work in the first place.

In the end, blame will go where blame belongs. It's more likely that this is just another crappy ad server from the usual suspects that replaces real ads with spam. You won't see it on other operating systems. Such replacements and poor performance are already well known to anyone who's used M$ for more than a year. The word gets out and blame goes where it should.

Where is a link to the hardware spec that states this?

He's a page documenting that the "Security Support Component (SSC) will be the Trusted Platform Module, and the Microsoft website has several hundred hits for TPM.

I also just tripped over this page stating that the audio and video outputs are DRM-hell. Not so long ago Slashdot also had a story on the fact that you'll need to buy a new DRM-monitor to get the full highres graphfix support.

I don't see this. I see a lot of returned computers.

I think you are missing one of the most insideous aspects of the system, and just how evil it is. Microsoft is pulling their deadly-effective Embrace, Extend, and Exterminate tactic.

Step 1, Embrace. The critical point here is to embrace everything and anything normal computers can do, to ensure that there is absolutely no reason NOT to get their new "enhanced" computers. A Trusted computer *is* a normal computer and it can do anything and everything a normal computer can do.

Avoiding a Trusted Computer is like avoiding a computer with built in speakers - there is no reason. You can just accept the computer with speakers built in and just not turn them on. You can just pretend it is a speakerless computer and there's no difference.

Step 2, Extend. A Trusted Computing has "more". It has a new extra mode that normal computers don't have. The handcuff mode.

All of the old software works on both old and new computers. All of the old files work on both old and new computers. All of the old websites work on all of the old and new computers.

There is no reason NOT to get a Trusted Computer. It can do everything the non-Trusted Computer can do.

The problem is that their plan is to make people with normal old non-Trusted Computers suffer. The new Trusted software won't work at all on an old computer. The new software only works on a Trusted machine in the new extra handcuff mode. The new file types don't work on an old computer at all, they only work on a new Trusted Machine in handcuff mode. The new websites don't work at all on a normal old computer. The new websites only work on a new Trusted computer in handcuff mode. The new Trusted e-mail can't be read on an old computer, only on a new machine in handcuff mode.

So if you have a normal old computer, you increasingly run into error messages and you increasingly get locked out. You increasinly run into error messages when trying to surf the web, etc.

If you have a new Trusted computer everything Just Works. The old stuf is just the same as before. The new stuff only works in DRM-hell handcuff mode, but at least it works. That's still "better" and "more" than getting error messages all the time.

Mom and Dad will take their kids through the McDonalds drive through for a pair of Happymeals, and they'll get a free pair of CDs inside. Little Tyfani will get a free Briteny Spears music CD, and little Brent will get a free Spongebob Squarepants game. And neither of the free CDs will work on their obsolete old computer, and little Tyfani and Brent will whine and whine asking why they have such an old crappy computer, and that the disks work fine over at their friend's house on their Shiny New Enhanced computer, and whine and whine that the copmuter doesn't work. And Mom and Dad will go out and BUY a New Trusted Enhanced computer just to get the god-damn FREE CDs to work and shut the brats up.

And another one of the evil points of the Microsoft Embrace and Extend tactic is that they actually manage to hijack the people around you to screw you over and pressure you into joining up. What do you do when you get a Trusted e-mail from your mother or your boss? An e-mail that can only be read on a new Trusted Enhanced computer. Your mother or boss will BLAME YOU for causing the problem, and that YOU sould just get rid of your old obsole

Where is a link to the hardware spec that states this?

He's a page documenting that the "Security Support Component (SSC) will be the Trusted Platform Module, and the Microsoft website has several hundred hits for TPM.

I also just tripped over this page stating that the audio and video outputs are DRM-hell. Not so long ago Slashdot also had a story on the fact that you'll need to buy a new DRM-monitor to get the full highres graphfix support.

I don't see this. I see a lot of returned computers.

I think you are missing one of the most insideous aspects of the system, and just how evil it is. Microsoft is pulling their deadly-effective Embrace, Extend, and Exterminate tactic.

Step 1, Embrace. The critical point here is to embrace everything and anything normal computers can do, to ensure that there is absolutely no reason NOT to get their new "enhanced" computers. A Trusted computer *is* a normal computer and it can do anything and everything a normal computer can do.

Avoiding a Trusted Computer is like avoiding a computer with built in speakers - there is no reason. You can just accept the computer with speakers built in and just not turn them on. You can just pretend it is a speakerless computer and there's no difference.

Step 2, Extend. A Trusted Computing has "more". It has a new extra mode that normal computers don't have. The handcuff mode.

All of the old software works on both old and new computers. All of the old files work on both old and new computers. All of the old websites work on all of the old and new computers.

There is no reason NOT to get a Trusted Computer. It can do everything the non-Trusted Computer can do.

The problem is that their plan is to make people with normal old non-Trusted Computers suffer. The new Trusted software won't work at all on an old computer. The new software only works on a Trusted machine in the new extra handcuff mode. The new file types don't work on an old computer at all, they only work on a new Trusted Machine in handcuff mode. The new websites don't work at all on a normal old computer. The new websites only work on a new Trusted computer in handcuff mode. The new Trusted e-mail can't be read on an old computer, only on a new machine in handcuff mode.

So if you have a normal old computer, you increasingly run into error messages and you increasingly get locked out. You increasinly run into error messages when trying to surf the web, etc.

If you have a new Trusted computer everything Just Works. The old stuf is just the same as before. The new stuff only works in DRM-hell handcuff mode, but at least it works. That's still "better" and "more" than getting error messages all the time.

Mom and Dad will take their kids through the McDonalds drive through for a pair of Happymeals, and they'll get a free pair of CDs inside. Little Tyfani will get a free Briteny Spears music CD, and little Brent will get a free Spongebob Squarepants game. And neither of the free CDs will work on their obsolete old computer, and little Tyfani and Brent will whine and whine asking why they have such an old crappy computer, and that the disks work fine over at their friend's house on their Shiny New Enhanced computer, and whine and whine that the copmuter doesn't work. And Mom and Dad will go out and BUY a New Trusted Enhanced computer just to get the god-damn FREE CDs to work and shut the brats up.

And another one of the evil points of the Microsoft Embrace and Extend tactic is that they actually manage to hijack the people around you to screw you over and pressure you into joining up. What do you do when you get a Trusted e-mail from your mother or your boss? An e-mail that can only be read on a new Trusted Enhanced computer. Your mother or boss will BLAME YOU for causing the problem, and that YOU sould just get rid of your old obsole

The FAQ has been updated to say the opposite:

"I have DEP enabled on my system, does this help mitigate the vulnerability?

Software based DEP does not mitigate the vulnerability. However, Hardware based DEP may work when enabled: please consult with your hardware manufacturer for more information on how to enable this and whether it can provide mitigation."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /912840.mspx

A more useful link.

-Peter

I do not know the details of the exploit, and this probably wont help in this case but "Dropmyrights" will reduce rights while running IE (at leasts is makes IE a bit better): http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dncode/html/secure11152004.asp/ cheers

Didn't Microsoft already release a patch for this on Nov 8th? According to Symantec's info page on this attack directs you to this Microsoft bulletin links to patches for each Windows release.

So when the next exploit is found in a common Linux library - and it will be found - the situation will be just as embarassing.

Most embarassing is that while users wait for a patch, MS doesn't even suggest useful workarounds.. see the KB article "Suggested Actions" section, which says "exercise caution when opening email"? huh?

Of course, if you have Microsoft Onecare, you may already have a fix. I've never even heard of Onecare until today.

Even better permanent solution. Turn ON DEP on all programs.

From http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /912840.mspx

I have software DEP enabled on my system, does this help mitigate the vulnerability?
Yes. Windows XP Service Pack 2 also includes software-enforced DEP that is designed to reduce exploits of exception handling mechanisms in Windows. By default software-enforced DEP applies to core operating system components and services. This vulnerability can be mitigated by enabling DEP for all programs on your computer.

Windows has something of the equivalent of su. If you hold down the shift key, and right click on an executable, you will see a Run As option in the pop up menu. Just enter your credentials, and you are running just that process as admin. You can do something similar from the command line, it just isn't as simple as su on *NIX. It is documented at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/runas.mspx.

scottott wrote to mention a Washington Post article with the news that the security hole we mentioned on Wednesday has widened. Computers can now be infected just by visiting infected web sites, or looking at images in the preview panel of older versions of Outlook.

There are two major factual errors here. One, the security hole has not "widened" - the scope of exposure is exactly what we read about Wednesday. Using shimgvw.dll to view a specially constructed WMF file results in system compromise (web site viewing of malicious WMF, previewing, opening w/MS picture and fax viewer, etc). The hole is exactly the same - exposure has increased, but the hole has not widened. Two: the web sites are not infected, they are malicious. The system is infected after visiting a malicious web site.

The full (well, as full as it is now) MS advisory is here. I'm not very pleased with how MS is handling this at all, but that does not excuse this shoddy "journalism". How hard is it to state facts correctly? All you had to do was change a few words, and it would have read much more accurately:

scottott wrote to mention a Washington Post article with the news that the security hole we mentioned on Wednesday is now affecting many more users. Computers can now be infected just by visiting malicious web sites, which are now rapidly increasing in number, or looking at images in the preview panel of older versions of Outlook.

For the last sentence, note that I sent mysefl WMF files win Outlook 2000 and 2003 while running Sysinternals process explorer and never saw shimgvw.dll called. Opening a WMF attachment called it, but not previewing, so there might be three errors, but I didn't test all versions that way, so I don't know...

...is brought to you by http://update.microsoft.com/

Programming code embedded in these pages would install a program that warned victims their machines were infested with spyware, then prompted them to pay $40 to remove the supposed pests.

Where do you send the money? And they aren't afraid of getting caught?

"Knowing the FBI, I am putting my money on a "scalabale implementation of the lastest in RDBMS technology called....Microsoft Access" "

Mr Peabody. When you and Sherman get back from the Windows 95 era. You might want to look at the latest from Microsoft.

Now with the NSA's IIS .NET bungle - perhaps they got persistent cookies when they went to rather insecure Passport authentication scheme

And you were completely wrong. It's a new exploit to a new vulnerability. It happens to be a similar to a past vulnerability, but it is not the same.

Read the following and understand:

This affects even a FULLY PATCHED system, including the patch to which you refer, which is MS05-053. This is not fixed by applying the MS05-053 patch.

The only workaround for it right now, even on a fully-patched system, is to unregister the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer.

If you have any doubts about this, read this.

Maybe you're the one who should consider reading once in a while?

Shut the fuck up and stop lying.

Yes, Microsoft, who very much agree this is a new vulnerability has fixed a wmf hole before, and no this is not the same hole. Guess what? Same piece of software can have several entirely unrelated buffer overflows.

CERT:
This new vulnerability may be similar to one Microsoft released patches for in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-053 (VU#433341). However, publicly available exploit code has been discovered that reportedly affects systems updated with MS05-053.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /912840.mspx
"Microsoft encourages users to exercise caution when they open e-mail and links in e-mail from untrusted sources."

well... not really helpfull, but when MS has a patch, it should be linked on this page

Hey man, I agree with you, but look at the rest of the snippet -- if you believe what you read at Slashdot, Dell is ten minutes away from dumping Microsoft products entirely in favour of linux. So is IBM. And HP. And probably Apple.

Nonsense. That has never been said.

You appear to have been exposed to so much M$ marketing drivel that you're having a hard time coping with alternative points of view.

Reality has no precedent around this place, or in much of the OSS community.

You're the one that's reality challenged. Alternative viewpoints do not constitute a lack of understanding of reality.

I'd suggest you get out more and expose yousrself to new viewpoints - you'll be the better for it.

---

zealotry n : excessive intolerance of opposing views.

See http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /912840.mspx for all the goodness than can only come from MS. It just gives the same info given other places but is done in an official capacity.

Over 25 preinstalled and aftermarket devices from 13 world-class automakers and suppliers including Acura, BMW, Citroën, Clarion Co. Ltd., DaimlerChrysler, Fiat, Subaru, Honda, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, NexTech, Toyota, and Volvo are currently running on the Windows Automotive platform.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS05-053.mspx Patched you say?

This issue has been addressed here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /912840.mspx Cheers!

Well, this initiative should pretty well answer the second concern. :)

I get a little scared everytime MS gets interested in adopting some standard. So I will be interested to see what they do in terms of XML. The reason is basically due to some of their other forays into standards.

XML is a "meta standard". It defines structure and validation. Microsoft has been parsing, validating, and transforming XML for years. It sounds to me that you're more concerned with standards built on top of XML, like RSS. For what it's worth, many people are very excited about some of the RSS extensions Microsoft is planning. Microsoft also has a history about being open about XML-based formats (besides Office). VML (Vector Markup Language, that Microsoft proposed to the w3c back in '98 and was a precursor to SVG) and SOAP come to mind.

The most publicized would be Java.

Java isn't exactly a standard ...

However, some of you may also be aware of MS's use (misuse) of the Kerberos standard. Rather than use the standard, they co-opted it slightly by using fields previously unused in Kerberos.

Microsoft didn't just use unused fields. They used fields defined in the Kerberos standard as for extension. In other words, they used those fields exactly as designed.

Just because Microsoft didn't tell you directly doesn't mean they didn't publish what they did. In fact, they did.

I get a little scared everytime MS gets interested in adopting some standard. So I will be interested to see what they do in terms of XML. The reason is basically due to some of their other forays into standards.

XML is a "meta standard". It defines structure and validation. Microsoft has been parsing, validating, and transforming XML for years. It sounds to me that you're more concerned with standards built on top of XML, like RSS. For what it's worth, many people are very excited about some of the RSS extensions Microsoft is planning. Microsoft also has a history about being open about XML-based formats (besides Office). VML (Vector Markup Language, that Microsoft proposed to the w3c back in '98 and was a precursor to SVG) and SOAP come to mind.

The most publicized would be Java.

Java isn't exactly a standard ...

However, some of you may also be aware of MS's use (misuse) of the Kerberos standard. Rather than use the standard, they co-opted it slightly by using fields previously unused in Kerberos.

Microsoft didn't just use unused fields. They used fields defined in the Kerberos standard as for extension. In other words, they used those fields exactly as designed.

Just because Microsoft didn't tell you directly doesn't mean they didn't publish what they did. In fact, they did.

*Official* Microsoft Windows Media Player download page http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/mp10 /default.aspx

When I use Linux to view the page, I get "Your operating system is not supported by Windows Media PLayer".

When I use the Mac to view the page, I get "Download Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OSX".

For those that aren't OS ambidexterous, Windows Media Player 9 for the Mac is nothing like Windows Media Player 9 for Windows.
Windows Media Player 10 is able to support HD which there is no WMP10 for Mac.
However, Apple has Quicktime7 available for Mac and Windows and each port is EXACTLY identical in output and function.

MPlayer is a hack. A very useful and well received and I thank the developers for it.

Microsoft doesn't support MPlayer for Linux nor do they have a media player for Linux. They did have version 6.4 availabe for Linux about 5 years ago and it was identical except for midi output.

DRM -
I can burn a DVD using Sony's DVD burner (Dual Layer) and play it anywhere that will play a DVD.
If I burn a DVD using Microsoft Windows Xp Media Center, I can only play it on THAT machine and not a DVD player.

My Sony Digital camera works with my Mac and Linux operating systems.
My MSDN edition of Office 2003 only works on Windows of which there is a Mac edition that is nothing like the Windows version.
I'm not holding my breath on the Linux edition.

Who has my interests at heart? It's not Microsoft.

*Official* Microsoft Windows Media Player for Mac: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/soft ware/Macintosh/osx/default.aspx

MPlayer with Microsoft wmv Codec Packs: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/

So, uh, which operating system were you complaining about not being able to watch Media Player files on? And yes, Microsoft *does* have a better track record than Sony with respect to DRM. It is in their best interest. They are an operating system manufacturer, not a digital media provider. (for the most part) (we've been over this before... I have references, at home, but I'm at work...)

-everphilski-

I don't believe this.

Could you be a little more specific? I can provide links to back up almost everything in there. I'll document the major points of background for you and the other guy who asked.

Lets start with This FAQ at Microsoft.com: [note: Microsoft will obviously put best possible spin on things and they will completely neglect the very very ugly issues]

Q: What is the Next-Generation Secure Computing Base?

A: The Next-Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB) is new security technology for the Microsoft® Windows® platform. It will be included as part of an upcoming version of the Microsoft Windows operating system, code-named "Longhorn." [note: the official name for the new Windows release is now Vista] NGSCB employs a unique hardware and software design to enable new kinds of secure computing capabilities to provide enhanced data protection, privacy and system integrity.

NGSCB will transform the PC into a platform that can perform trusted operations spanning multiple computers under a trust policy that can be dynamically created and whose integrity anyone can authenticate. [note: this means people over the internet can authenticate and approve or reject the software you are running on you computer]

The technology being developed as part of NGSCB includes new software that will work on a new breed of PC hardware. This new architecture will provide unprecedented capabilities for enabling secure processing on the Microsoft Windows PC platform. [note: "secure" specifically means secure against the owner]

-

Q: What is the "SSC" component of NGSCB?

A: "SSC" refers to the Security Support Component, a new PC hardware component that will be introduced as part of the NGSCB architecture. The SSC is a hardware module that can perform certain cryptographic operations and securely store cryptographic keys that are used by the nexus and nexus computing agents (NCAs) to provide sealed storage and attestation functions. [note: "sealed storage" means that YOU cannot read your own files except with the Trust chip's permission and only with the approved software for it - in otherwords it is a hardware DRMed file. "attestation" means to send a spy report over the internet telling people exactly what hardware you have and exactly what software you are running - and you are denied any control over the contents of this spy report] At a minimum, the SSC provides RSA public-key operations (encryption, decryption, digital signature generation and verification), Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption and decryption, and Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA-1) hash computation. The SSC also contains at least one RSA private key and an AES symmetric key, both of which are private to the SSC and are never exported from the chip. [note: the fact that these master keys are "never exported from the chip" means that YOU the OWNER are FORBIDDEN to know your own keys, because if you knew them you would be able to unlock your DRM files and you could control or modify the "attestation" spy reports you send to other computers on the internet]

Q: What is the "TPM"? Is that the same as the SSC?

A: The term "SSC" is generally interchangeable with "TPM" or trusted platform module. The TPM is a secure computing hardware module specified by the Trusted Computing Group, an industry consortium made up of Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD), HP, IBM Corp., Intel Corp., Microsoft and many other companies working together to promote open industry-standard specifications for trusted computing hardware building blocks. The upcoming version of the TPM (version 1.2) is expected to serve as the SSC in the NGSCB architecture.

And here's the Trusted Computing Group's home page and here's their Trusted Network Connect

Windows has the Encrypted Filesystem built into NTFS.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/deploy/cryptfs.mspx

How on earth can Microsoft's 2nd greatest surprise of the year be addition of RSS support in IE? Blogmonsters living in their blogospherecaves don't seem to have any clue about the real popularity of RSS. Hint: it's close to zero in any scale.

Why didn't the writer tell us about the results of MS Research http://research.microsoft.com/? Or the growth of Raymond Chen's fan club http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/? Or that the notorious nitpick Jacob Nielsen gave a bit of positive feedback to Microsoft and the upcoming Office http://www.useit.com/alertbox/wysiwyg.html?

It's in early Alpha, and requires a whole lot more than Sendmail (as the original poster mentioned, but hey, it's Microsoft bashing, so it's OK not to read the OP right?)

I've been managing Exchange since 5.0. I can count the number of times I've had to rescue anything from a corrupt data store on two fingers (in 12 years)...

It's also readily apparent you've never used Exchange before, because moving mailboxes is simple...

Licensing is part of the Microsoft world, it's not that difficult. Nor does it take much time. Most companies that use MS products know how licensing work...

You know how easy it is to add new Exchange servers to an SBS Exchange environment? Very. Buy a new copy of Exchange an add to the SBS Exchange org.

If that really was the case, why are not more people moving to [open source Exchange alternatives]...

You mean like the steps Microsoft gives on their own site on how to uninstall IE6? steps here

"any chance we could address this issue"

If you find it to be an issue I think somebody has already addressed it for you, enjoy.

If the rest of your comment weren't so vitriol-filled and pointless

Let's talk about what makes a good troll.

Lots of people make mistakes, especially me. But over the years I've noticed that a few people don't just make mistakes. Rather, they make a post or series of posts that is beyond simple error - it's outrageous and silly. Like njoyder here. Practically every sentence he wrote was wrong or deceptive in some way. Add in childish and obnoxious rhetoric and (forgive me for correctly predicting him) a complete refusal to bend to facts, evidence, or subsequent rational discussion, and you have... well, a troll in my opinion anyway.

The label isn't important. The point is that he's not only wildly wrong, but nothing productive is going to come from talking to him, either.

Now take you, for example. You passed over that outrageous post, and your criticism is for me - merely pointing out the errors and responding in a way that is more than justified. You speak of bias, not in the most biased (and frankly ridiculous) post in the whole discussion, but of my corrections to it.

You do not actually rebut most these corrections, and you slyly try to imply you don't need to, even though it's obvious you're not defending almost all of his errors - and we both know this is why you haven't tried.

Now let's look at what you did write.

You say you don't understand my point about the problems with unmanaged code and pervasive native interop. Let me repeat myself, since apparently you simply didn't read my earlier posts: "Thus eliminating the boundaries on the well-defined, well-tested native stack and ruining most of the advantages of a VM while keeping most of its disadvantages." Please let me help you - what part of this are you unable to understand?

And then you dispute that Microsoft promotes the practice.

I point out an MSDN link where Microsoft literally says .NET "promotes" this practice. Your way of arguing it is to say that when they say "promotes" they really don't mean "promotes?"

Humorous.

However, sadly, you have demonstrated ignorance of Microsoft's literature on the subject.

Ironically, even within Microsoft, there is awareness of security, reliability, and performance (see headers in linked doc) issues related to interop. ("Calling unmanaged code presents a major security risk.") ("When you use any type of interop technology, your code might not be as reliable or robust as pure managed code.") ("Every interop call introduces some overhead. Depending on how often these calls occur and the significance of the work happening inside the method implementation, the per-call overhead can range from negligible to very noticeable.") ("It is suggested that, whenever possible, you use .NET Framework functionality instead of calling unmanaged APIs.")... If you were smarter or more knowledgeable I would have expected you to cite this.

Someone inside MS is obviously aware of the issues you claim not to understand. Unfortunately MS contradicts itself in its own literature (references) and, sadly, you are wrong, despite knowing better, they really do promote the nonsensical mixing of VM and native code in a way that almost defeats the purpose of having a VM. For instance, in this "best practices" document, in the section titled "Interoperability vs. Migration":

The first thing to consider in terms of a migration is whether to migrate the code at all. The COM interoperability features of the .NET Framework are very powerful and, in nearly all cases, allow you to continue to use your existing code without migrating it to managed code. As you develop new parts of your application or reuse components of your application from newer managed code applic

If the rest of your comment weren't so vitriol-filled and pointless

Let's talk about what makes a good troll.

Lots of people make mistakes, especially me. But over the years I've noticed that a few people don't just make mistakes. Rather, they make a post or series of posts that is beyond simple error - it's outrageous and silly. Like njoyder here. Practically every sentence he wrote was wrong or deceptive in some way. Add in childish and obnoxious rhetoric and (forgive me for correctly predicting him) a complete refusal to bend to facts, evidence, or subsequent rational discussion, and you have... well, a troll in my opinion anyway.

The label isn't important. The point is that he's not only wildly wrong, but nothing productive is going to come from talking to him, either.

Now take you, for example. You passed over that outrageous post, and your criticism is for me - merely pointing out the errors and responding in a way that is more than justified. You speak of bias, not in the most biased (and frankly ridiculous) post in the whole discussion, but of my corrections to it.

You do not actually rebut most these corrections, and you slyly try to imply you don't need to, even though it's obvious you're not defending almost all of his errors - and we both know this is why you haven't tried.

Now let's look at what you did write.

You say you don't understand my point about the problems with unmanaged code and pervasive native interop. Let me repeat myself, since apparently you simply didn't read my earlier posts: "Thus eliminating the boundaries on the well-defined, well-tested native stack and ruining most of the advantages of a VM while keeping most of its disadvantages." Please let me help you - what part of this are you unable to understand?

And then you dispute that Microsoft promotes the practice.

I point out an MSDN link where Microsoft literally says .NET "promotes" this practice. Your way of arguing it is to say that when they say "promotes" they really don't mean "promotes?"

Humorous.

However, sadly, you have demonstrated ignorance of Microsoft's literature on the subject.

Ironically, even within Microsoft, there is awareness of security, reliability, and performance (see headers in linked doc) issues related to interop. ("Calling unmanaged code presents a major security risk.") ("When you use any type of interop technology, your code might not be as reliable or robust as pure managed code.") ("Every interop call introduces some overhead. Depending on how often these calls occur and the significance of the work happening inside the method implementation, the per-call overhead can range from negligible to very noticeable.") ("It is suggested that, whenever possible, you use .NET Framework functionality instead of calling unmanaged APIs.")... If you were smarter or more knowledgeable I would have expected you to cite this.

Someone inside MS is obviously aware of the issues you claim not to understand. Unfortunately MS contradicts itself in its own literature (references) and, sadly, you are wrong, despite knowing better, they really do promote the nonsensical mixing of VM and native code in a way that almost defeats the purpose of having a VM. For instance, in this "best practices" document, in the section titled "Interoperability vs. Migration":

The first thing to consider in terms of a migration is whether to migrate the code at all. The COM interoperability features of the .NET Framework are very powerful and, in nearly all cases, allow you to continue to use your existing code without migrating it to managed code. As you develop new parts of your application or reuse components of your application from newer managed code applic

MS achieved dominance through the market, through consumer choices, by consumers choosing...

The free market created Microsoft's position, you are gratuitously ignoring this.

This is simply not true. THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED TWICE OF ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS.
Your statements here are provably false. Go read the findings of fact.
It is especially egregious that you believe consumers are responsible for their continued dominanace.


It's also worth pointing out that you have failed to address ANY argument against your position. You're simply stating what you believe and ignoring actual facts that show otherwise.

MS is not a monopoly like Standard Oil was (buys all the gas stations in a region).

Here's another example of you having no clue at all what you're talking about. Microsft has bought out TONS of competitiors. When that didn't work they created a competing product and bundled it with their operating system.

Otherwise, how would you be able to install the latest and greatest tool from Microsoft?
Just you try and "Check My PC for Infection" using FireFox...

no, you are not allowed to peek at those links either... ;)

I happen to use GTK+ to run both The Gimp and Gaim on XP, so the overhead isn't that big a deal. I even sat there and downloaded Gaim with GTK+ over 33.6kbps dialup. The whole point is that the Windows ports of these toolkits give cross-platform compatability; win32 defines cross-platform as "other versions of Windows."*

For instance, you have the option of downloading the .NET framework which Microsoft touts as the alternative to Java (and in some ways it is), but that is 23.1 MB for v1.1 and 22.4 MB for v2.0, and this doesn't even include the Windows Installer you might have to upgrade first. How about that overhead?


*Microsoft's .NET has some amount of compatability with other platforms too thanks to Mono, but why not opt for a truly cross-platform toolkit?

I happen to use GTK+ to run both The Gimp and Gaim on XP, so the overhead isn't that big a deal. I even sat there and downloaded Gaim with GTK+ over 33.6kbps dialup. The whole point is that the Windows ports of these toolkits give cross-platform compatability; win32 defines cross-platform as "other versions of Windows."*

For instance, you have the option of downloading the .NET framework which Microsoft touts as the alternative to Java (and in some ways it is), but that is 23.1 MB for v1.1 and 22.4 MB for v2.0, and this doesn't even include the Windows Installer you might have to upgrade first. How about that overhead?


*Microsoft's .NET has some amount of compatability with other platforms too thanks to Mono, but why not opt for a truly cross-platform toolkit?

I, for one, am outraged. Could you imagine if Microsoft did the same thing and had Internet Explorer installed on every new computer?

Oh wait...

No parts of Java are part of an open standard.

What is not open about something you can freely download? It's easier for someone to become a member of the JCP than whatever organization does C#/CLR development. Because that's not ECMA - they just rubber-stamp whatever Microsoft and co-sponsor HP sends them.

What contract did they sign?

This one. It was settled out of court though - like practically all of Microsoft's cases.

It should be noted that Netscape also violated their license, and were duly beaten around the ears for it.

Why would anyone use third-rate GUI toolkits like GTK or QT when MS is giving away the best GUI toolkit ever (Visual Studio) for free?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/

The Posix subsystem doesn't use the win32 api's, It uses the NT api's which are limited. The win32 subsystem and unix one can't even communicate to each other directly. You can't use the posix api's with the win32 ones since they are running under what seems to be a different operating system them.

Interix is what it used to be called, But now microsoft calls it SFU windows Services For Unix. Which is a misleading name.

Anyways. I can't tell you too many details.

To get thinking about it. In a way you could be refering to the nt api when you say the function calls got translated to win32 function calls. Since win32 is the main subsystem of NT. If that is the case it doesn't really matter which subsystem you would be talking about.

Now if you were talking about cygwin, Now that uses the underlying win32 api, and from what I know you could call both posix and win32 from within it.

Now as far as the os2 still being in windows I have no way of testing it. But I have seen dll's in the windows directory for them.

Not true. If your school is appart of the Microsoft Software Academic Alliance, then you can get Visual Studio for the same cost as Eclipse. Plus, you can download the new Visual Studio Express directly from Microsoft's website (even if you're not apart of the AA program) for the same cost. Plus, you can download the express version of SQL Server 2005 for the same cost. So, all in all it'll cost the same, except your dignity when you hang out with the Linux FUD crowd.

Not true. If your school is appart of the Microsoft Software Academic Alliance, then you can get Visual Studio for the same cost as Eclipse. Plus, you can download the new Visual Studio Express directly from Microsoft's website (even if you're not apart of the AA program) for the same cost. Plus, you can download the express version of SQL Server 2005 for the same cost. So, all in all it'll cost the same, except your dignity when you hang out with the Linux FUD crowd.

Not true. If your school is appart of the Microsoft Software Academic Alliance, then you can get Visual Studio for the same cost as Eclipse. Plus, you can download the new Visual Studio Express directly from Microsoft's website (even if you're not apart of the AA program) for the same cost. Plus, you can download the express version of SQL Server 2005 for the same cost. So, all in all it'll cost the same, except your dignity when you hang out with the Linux FUD crowd.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eula.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx

The trouble comes with the pre-packaged deals where no CD is supplied (hidden partition instead).

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eula.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx

The trouble comes with the pre-packaged deals where no CD is supplied (hidden partition instead).

Two things:

1. I've recently been in correspondence with Bruce Morgan of Microsoft's IE7 team about their continued, misleading use of theproduct identifier 'Mozilla/4.0' in their user-agent string. He was unapologetic, unrepentent and wholly unprepared to consider changing it. The gorilla not only intends to continue to misbehave, it's perfectly happy for everyone to know it's misbehaving.
2. Microsoft is deliberately crippling Open GL performance in Windows Vista. This, again, is blatant, unashamed abuse of monopoly - deliberately making it harder to build cross-platform apps which perform well on Vista

In summary, Microsoft is behaving as badly as ever: the very opposite of good corporate citizens.