Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says Microsoft Must Give States Windows Code
murphro (along with many others) writes, "Reuters is posting a story describing how the Judge has ordered the release of Windows code to the states seeking antitrust sanctions. I doubt it will actually happen (because MS will fight it this to the end). But if it did, do you think we commoners would ever see it? And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?" Here's the Yahoo link. (The same Reuters story is on dozens of other sites, too.)
we can finally get Lotus Notes to work right!
Port it to linux :)
This is incredible!
You know the source would leak out. Maybe someone could steal a copy and give it to Linus so he could fix it!
------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
if the source ever made into the linux community's hands (which i find highly unlikely), i think the first thing to happen would be to see exactly how proprietary windows formats work.
i.e. look at how windows implements NTFS, etc. and write linux drivers that are less of a guess.
This is not a lead up to the release of Windows as open source code.
As I read the article, the only thing the states will be able to do with the source is verify whether or not it is possible to unbundle Internet Explorer from the rest of the operating system. Microsoft says this is impossible; everybody else knows they're lying, but the proof is in the source code.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
Would the code then not be part of public record?? That should mean anyone should be able to look at it at that point. But I am also hazarding that they may have a problem finding some parts of the code. Almost every mid to large sized company always has something that can't be recompiled.
Gorkman
Didn't an NT fix pack a while ago prevent Lotus Notes server from working? What's this about Netscape era seiniew? There's got to be current things that are more than just screwups or inside jokes. MS has a long track record of this sort of thing.
Now, the only question is; Can the source be siezed to prevent modification? Is it too late already?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I wonder which will embarass MS more, that they might finally be pushed around by someone more powerfull than them, or, the source code its self? :)
giving Leonardo Photoshop to paint the Mona Lisa. Without the aid of technical experts no one will get the clue in millions of lines of sourcecode.
It's not like there's Indiana Jones/Golden Eye style boobytraps/keys guarding the source..
The States pushed for viewing the code to prove or disprove the MS allegation that IE and other middleware can not be "unmingled" from the OS without fundamentally damaging the OS. The States want to undo the MS trend of bundling MS middleware products with the OS to the detriment of its competitors. ie. - address the original fundamental anti-trust problem and make MS sell a stripped down Windows, no doubt.
Derek
Line 1171, url.cpp
// we stuck this code in here to shaft netscape
:)
Seriously, forcing Microsoft to be "Open Source" is probably a mistake. Not only because of the precedent it sets, but more importantly because of all the new virii we will be getting once people see all the holes and back doors :)
Should that be U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the patron saint of Microsoft bashers?
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Go to CNN.COM and scroll down to the bottom of the main page.
On the bottom right there is a poll asking the question, "Was a judge correct in ordering Microsoft to reveal the coding for its Windows program?"
As of a couple minutes ago, 69% of respondants were saying 'NO'. That majority is probably comprised of clueless MS users and a voting bot running at Redmond right now, but still.
And no, 'Cowboy Neal' is not a choice.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
This program does a nice job. Back when this case was actually started it was very easy to nuke IE and and have very light and clean OS, despite microsoft's claims that it was part of the core os (as if it was implemented in the kernel.. ha!)
Now it seems as of Win2K SP2, IEEradictor no longer works. I'm sure thats just due to changes in the way IE is added in, and with a little work probably could be made to work again. But I think this case is in regards to Windows 95, back when microsoft got on the warpath for browser dominance .
I would already have realised that I might have to give up the source code to win9x. I woudl have had a secret cabal of top programmers going through it obfuscating and repairing deliberatly anti-competitive routines.
Source code is also no good if it can't compile and be run. Do the state experts have the necessary compilers to do this? I bet it's not a vanilla MS-C or MS-C++. And we all know that you can't trust the compiler.
If you suspect that someone is untrustworthy then asking them for their written documentation of their untrustworthyness cannot be trusted.
HA! They should use that as a defense!!
I'm guilty but you can't take my word for it, I'm a liar.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Must be one heck of a birdcage you have... I'm afraid to think of how big the bird is... or what you feed it....
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
At least two issues come out of this with regards the case though:
Poor bird :(
what would I do with it, you ask?
/home/archives/windows/;grep -r strcpy * | more
cd
buffer overflows, here I come...
This whole thing is retarded. Microsoft says "we are such poor coders that we have not made a clear interface between the browser and the rest of the system" and the government says "prove it". All they have to do is deliver a huge steaming pile of butt-ugly code.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
They'll produce an IE-less Windows, and an installer for IE. They'll demonstrate it in court. It'll work fine. It will turn out to not be all that hard. Furthermore, the state programmers will point out that it would not have been significantly more difficult or costly to do that way than the integrated way. MS will not be able to rebut this to the satisfaction of the court. MS representatives will be found guilty of perjury. The judge will order them squished with an enormous gavel.
At least, I think that is what they had in mind when they asked for it. I guess we'll see.
I wonder if the significance of the states asking for WinXP embedded is that they intend to show that Microsoft already has removed IE from windows.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
My second largest worry is that the attourneys general of the states will not be able to find the right people to give the code a good going over. HHopefully, someone on the caliber of Andrew Schulman who gave Microsoft an incredible amount of grief with Undocumented Windows 95 will agree to help out.
govt should be able to regulate as long as you agree with it...
Isn't that sort of the point of an elected government?
If microsoft actually releases their code to independent auditors (not likely), will the government appointed overseers really be able to make any sense of it al all, let alone to figure out if IE needs to be there?
Even the win95 codebase must be millions of lines of code, it would take 10 years for anyone to actually go through and map out what everything does. (Heck, rumor is that microsoft left mysterious code in win2k because even they weren't sure what it did, so as not to accidentally break anything)
Additionally, is it a question of 'can they do it with the current code base without breaking anything', or 'can it be done with modifications to the OS code'? If its the latter, then the obvious answer is YES! Source code isn't set in stone, and in the end anything can be done. Its like someone asking "Can Linux run without RAM?", currently no, but the kernel could surely be changed to run off the HD completely (why one would want to do that is another story).
Sometimes I wonder why whenever Microsoft farts it makes a headline in Slashdot. I realize that Microsoft is a huge corporation that touches all of us in one way or another ... many slashdotters are Microsoft users/supportors I suspect. But this following of the legal proceedings seems to be taking on an OJ-esque feel.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I'm also not a fan of the Government telling private industry how they should run their business. If it were up to me I'd have this whole legal mess dropped, and quit spending millions of taxpayers money.
So what about Micorsoft's abuses? I'm a firm believer that the market will not allow for sustained monopolist abuse, given that the market is allowed to function unfettered by Governmental interference. How many people now use an operating system different from Windows because of these procedings? A scant few, I'd say.
What does this have to do with this news item? Well, does noone else have a problem with the Government ordering Microsoft to release their source code? I don't agree with their business practices, but I don't think they should be ordered to hand over their IP to a bunch of unscrupulous politicians. I don't trust Microsoft at all, but I trust politicians even less. At least Microsoft is upfront about it's base motives, they want to completely dominate the market with their product and at the same time make a massive amount of money. Show me a successful company that doesn't have that same mantra. And good luck finding a politician that is upfront about his base motives.
I just think we should all be careful about viewing the Government as our benefactors, saving us from the evil that big bad Microsoft has perpetrated upon us all. Microsoft produces a product that millions of people pay money to use, and I don't think they should be crippled because they have been so successful. Granted, I'm never going to purchase or use any of their products in situations where I'm able to choose, but that is a judgement that I should be allowed to make, it is not one that the Government should be making for me.
RFC2119
Grade: F-
Originality: 1/10
Functionality: 2/10
Code (Use of nesting, comments): 0/10
Your program failed to compile and as such there are no marks awarded for some sections.
The code lacked basic layout, nesting and the only comment was your name and assignment number at the top. The code was badly designed and had un-necessary use of goto's. Memory allocations where inefficient and unstable.
You have failed this module.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I doubt even the fattest of Americans would be able to wear it on a t-shirt. Perhaps a new product line - the ThinkGeek marquee - would be called for.
Microsoft is being ordered to turn it over to the States' attorneys so that it can be evaluated. Such discovery is always covered by a protective order. Company secrets are specifically mentioned as protectable subject matter, and are as an initial matter disclosed in confidence. What would happen at hearings or trial later is at the discretion of the judge. For example, the judge could order that only representative portions, or redacted portions be shown, or the sensitive portions of the record sealed and shown only to trial lawyers and the jury. Or the judge could just tell MS to take its lumps.
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - RULE 26(c)
(c) Protective Orders.
Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had;
(2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;
(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;
(6) that a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by order of the court;
(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way; and
(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.
I'd be careful, after a while you'll probably get some sort of bird dropping buffer overrun, and the whole thing will crash.
----
Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
This is crazy. It's like asking coca cola to realease their recipe.
I think microsoft should submit the code without comments, indentation or whitespace all concatenated in one big file. Then print it out and hand it over to the judge as one big paper print out - after all they didn't say which format the code should be in. - The trial would then last enother 136 years and everyone in the USA would have to become a lawyer.
just my 2 cents worth. You now owe me 2 cents.
just my 2 cents worth. you now owe me 2 cents.
So isn't this just like MS telling all their employees to vote for Microsoft in that last poll? Now we are telling everyone on slashdot to go out and vote and slashdot is comprised mostly of anti-Microsoft people.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Windows code is already available as part of the "Shared Source" license (or whatever it's called). Some colleges have it, some OEM's have it, so I don't see why MS will say no to the states.
I'd print it out, and take a crap on it.
Then mail it back to Bill Gates as a suggested enhancement.
This whole case about 'giving the sourcecode to proof your point blabla' is showing the people who have to rule in this case don't have a clue about what they're ruling about.
In Windows2000 and Windows XP, the shell the user logs into is build around 'explorer'. The same core components that are build into this explorer are the building blocks of Internet Explorer. The renderengine itself is just a COM component, Internet explorer is more. You see this f.e. when you install Internet explorer 4 on a system that has IE3 or lower (f.e. win95). Suddenly nice shell enhancements are available for you as a developer.
Is it a great design? No. Of course not: The core shell layer should be an OS part, but any tool build on it should not extend other tools build on top of that same layer, EXCEPT when the lower layer is extended with more functionality. The system as it is now, is more the result of the wacky run for the first spot in the browser war. Now that war is over, we'll see different approaches perhaps.
The problem with this case is that it's not clearly definable what 'internet explorer' is, thus were it ends and where other tools start, because core elements ARE used in the OS shell, by other tools like the windows explorer.
Just looking at the design of the system says enough to say: "it can't be removed". You don't need sourcecode for that. If it's a great design, that's not the question.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
As one person on here pointed out... source is already available to *some* organizations, etc... so what would be the problem. But I can imagine that Microsoft will fight this hands and fists - mainly to protect their WE ARE GOD - BOW DOWN TO US issues. Since Billy Goat can't stand to be forced to do anything (it'd upset his Attention Defficency Syndrom).
But I hope the courts are smart enought to (1) hire SEVERAL experts to COMPILE the damn thing... and make sure it produces a RUNABLE version... and (2) make sure that the runnable version that is produced has the SAME COMPONENTS as what they ship.
My largest fear would be that they would try to put together a version that is different from the others - just as a way to *prove* their point.
Well, if nothing more... we get to see all the paid microsoft anonymous cowards quickly jump onto slashdot to insult us... they must be feeling the pressure :))
"One of these hundreds of Linux hackers would get their grimy little hands on it," Microsoft's attorney would say as he waved the packet in the air, "steal Microsoft's invaluable intellectual property and give it away for free! If the court forces Microsoft to turn over the source code, it is robbing Microsoft of its key assets and condemning it to insolvency."
Of course, none of that is "true" in the traditional sense of the word, but Microsoft acquired Truth a few years ago.
Mod me as flaimbait if you wish, but Microsoft should NOT have to supply the source code. Isn't it OBVIOUS that they're lying? So obvious in fact, that the source code isn't even needed - nobody needs the glory of proving them wrong.
Instead, Why doesn't a judge order them to either remove IE from future versions of Winblowz, or fix the old ones, even if it means rewriting half of the source.
Making them give up the source code into uknown and probably insecure hands isn't fair. No software company - even M$ - should have to give up their source code, even if they're lying pieces of you know what.
2) I predict this whole thing will result in a stalemate. Without an independent technical expert (which the judge said there was no time to find), the result will just be a standoff, with the states claiming that they have found a way to remove IE and Microsoft saying No, you don't understand the code. From the timeline (hearing on March 11) they only have 3 weeks to get the code and understand it -- good luck!
- adam
Or it could be the disaster that kills Wine / Linux. IFF the WinSource is handed over for technical examination, it will certainly be in a VERY controlled environment and, most likely, subject to non-disclosure agreements or court orders. If copyrighted code from Windows wound up in any part of Linux, then Microsoft would have legal justification to sue distributors everywhere to block all distribution. Followed by suits against every name in the contributors list for the infected projects.
Out-thinking Microsoft is one thing. Stealing their shit is something entirely different.
Of course, it may be different in your universe.
Once it goes through publication of the source code (if it's on an open record) we should get the same basic effect as DECSS, should we not? Once the corporate secret is public knowledge, it can be used by wine/samba/openoffice/whatever for higher compatability rates. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's no longer protected; however, you couldn't use the code directly. Public knowledge of what's in the code doesn't change their liscence. But you could definately find all the hooks/hidden APIs and such. Go States!
put the what in the where?
Then, of course, the states could hire the equivalent of a hieroglyphics expert to translate it.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Or, in other words, Microsoft could have avoided the entire mess by not releasing IE4 as IE4, but as 'Windows Internet Shell Upgrade' and by not putting an IE icon on the desktop, but simply using the 'type your URL into any old explorer box/the run box/whatever.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
What about the freedom of information act? IANAL, but it seems that there could be a way to petition state governments to hand the source code over to anybody that wants it. Depending on the circumstances under which the windows source code would be given to the states, this may or may not be possible.
What is a state government going to do with the code? Most likely, they will contract an outside firm to review the code and give a report. I have a lot of experience in dealing with state government as I am the lead developer on a software product that is used throughout the state of Maine by the government. My experience tells me that state governments collectively don't have the technological expertise to be able to analyze software internals! Its plain and simple, they're going to have to contract to external sources in order to analyze the code.
This poses a very dangerous situation for Microsoft. How easily could contractors be persuaded to give the source code to somebody that wants it bad enough? How easily could the code be retrieved through FOIA? These are big issues that Microsoft will have to face if they are forced to hand out the code to state governments.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
After my experience trying to upgrade Win98 and WinNT boxes to Win2K, I'm a little leery of trying that again (besides the XP spyware issues). Have you really upgraded a Win2K box to XP? I've heard some horror stories about that as well, but I suppose it works for someone.
If you really want to see an OS that is easy to upgrade, check out Debian Linux. I have a server that has been upgraded seamlessly through four major versions. That's like installing NT 3.5 and upgrading to 4.0, Win2K and WinXP, all without a reinstall. It's currently running Woody.
Oh, and the box has never crashed. Ever. The only brief downtimes have been due to (a) kernel upgrades (infrequently, this is a server) and a few power outages. Win2K is (finally!) a reasonably stable OS, but it still crashes on occasion. I rarely get more than about a month without a crash, and I know many people who still find it necessary to reboot daily as a preventative measure.
My desktop and my laptop both run Debian unstable, as do my wife's machine and my grandmother's machine. It works extremely well, and I find I have to do *far* less technical support on my wife's and grandmother's computers now that they're running Linux (as opposed to Win2K, which is what they ran before). It's just too easy for clueless users to screw up a Windows setup.
"Hey, I tried RedHat 7.2" does *not* mean you're speaking from experience.
Different Linux distros have various issues, as do the MS OSes. The issues are different, but all are eminently usable. "OS that works" is just a (rather weak) troll.
You should go back to browbeating the newbies on sci.crypt.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Cool. For all the trolls wanting the source code, Schulman sells a program called Windows Source, that "Turns Windows and OS/2 files into source code". Knock yourselves out, guys.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Yeah you're right. Imagine, someone would be able to find an exploit for windows now :)
If they also have to release Office source (not that I expect they'd have to, since Office was never part of the whole comingling thing), get all those open source projects to properly read and write Office formats.
I heard a rumor several years ago that something like 60% of the code for Office is embedded in the source for Windows. So whether you own Office or not, a large portion of it is already booted up.
Adjust your sodium intake as necessary.
Pooty tweet
I'm actually surprised MS has been able to keep the codebase under wraps for as long as it has!
With all the 1337 0-Day w4r3z folks trading stuff before it's even released, how does microsoft keep it's stuff securely trade-secret, and still have tons of people working on it.
Same goes for any product really... why does the source get "leaked" more often?
After reading the first few dozen comments, it's painfully obvious that few have actually read the story. The judge said that "the other side" should have access to the source code. Not necessarily the general public, she was just referring to the state officials involved in the case.
My apartment is always low on toilet paper (damn roommates), so I think I could put a printed copy to good use.
The real victory here is Judge Kollar-Kotelly's attitude. She has been an unknown for many months, and we are now starting to see her attitude. I like it. She is not going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but she is not going to appear partial to the states. She is going to be fair, and she is not going to be easily fooled. The outcome might not be my pipe dream ("Bill, fetch me another mocha."), but I have faith in the judge.
As for the debate ensuing here, I have my answers:
Is the code in the public domain?
No.
If it were, would it be ethical or legal to use it to make our open source projects better?
No (we do not want to make Microsoft a victim in any way).
Are there faked nude celebrity photos of the judge on the internet?
Give it time, young grassshopper.
Nowadays, IE is a 'windows upgrade'. IE6 for example is an update to win2k, an update of the OS, not a 'tool' you install like word.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
In cases like this, where one party in a lawsuit asks to review proprietary or secret code from another, generally a couple of guys are put under NDA and then are given access to the code for review.
This happened to me once; I was the litigation support expert for a lawsuit between two C compiler developers. Neither side wanted to allow the other side to see their code (for fear of future cross contamination), so I was placed under NDA, had to sign a proviso saying I would never work for a C compiler developer for 5 years (times up!), and then I was given access to both company's compiler code.
This is a pretty common tactic by the lawyers, hiring litigation support experts to help them review the code. My report on the similarities (the problem was one guy used to work for one company and went to work for the other--taking some code with him) was then sent to a professional "expert witness" who then actually testified.
it can't be removed? There just ones and zeros. No, they can't just remove a couple dll files and call it a day, but they integrated ie and windows in less than a year. If they really believed it was important, they could have taken them back apart sometime in the last 4 years.
Yes it would be alot of work. But it can be done.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until the linux community gets off their asses and makes Linux easy to use for a larger user base [i.e non kernel-hackers] its still going to be a non-desktop OS.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Linux is no harder to install than Windows is. The only reason people think Linux is hard to install is because first they have never done it and second Windows came factory installed.
Of course most you will likely respond with "Whats so hard about installing Windows, boot from the CD and type setup." The problem is unless your system and all your hardware pre dates your version of Windows by at least a year or two, you will have to install drivers, so it goes something like this;
Boot from CD and type setup (2 reboots)
install Motherboard chipset drivers (1 reboot)
install video drivers (1 reboot)
install mouse software (1 reboot)
install sound drivers (1 reboot)
install modem drivers (1 reboot)
configure modem (1 reboot)
install network card drivers (1 reboot)
configure network card (1 reboot)
install DvD player (1 reboot)
install CDRW software (1 reboot)
install printer drivers (1 reboot)
install scanner software (1 reboot)
install webcam software (1 reboot)
And this is just to get the hardware working, no applications have been installed yet and it does not include downloading and installing updated drivers. Unless you are using an EMachine and doing reinstalls from a restore disk, I don't see how this is easier than installing Linux. As a matter of fact I beleive Windows is more difficult to install than Linux. Contrary to popular belief, installing Linux does not require you to compile a kernel, and most additional software is distributed as binary and what little does require compiling is usually as easy as typing
su -c "./configure && make && make install"
Additionally installing Linux requires only 1 reboot, the only other time you will need to reboot is IF you decide to install a new kernel. I beleive the question should not be, "Why is Linux so hard to install ?", but "Why is Windows so hard to install ?"
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
That's quite a claim!.. I'll give you two months and then we'll see..
Actually I can't think of a single use for it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Yesterday we fixed a bug in Word involving sending documents through Outlook Express by changing a value in a dialog box in Internet Explorer.
At that moment, I knew Bill would win this argument.
Whoopie. The devil proved he's evil.
--Blair
But not if it only applied to this current release of Windows. If the next release gets to be closed-source again, there's absolutely no teeth to the ruling.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Open up an Open File dialog in your own app, and a dozen new DLLs load. Worse, three extra threads start up. (Does anybody know what they're doing?) And they don't exit when the dialog box closes, either. This happens even in a non-MFC app based on OpenGL, one written to use as few Windows services as possible.
This appears to be "strategic complexity" designed to make it hard to remove IE from Windows. But that could be fixed. It should be, if only to get irrelevant code out of apps.
This is just untrue. You know that there are utilities that DO the job of removing Internet Explorer from Windows 2000?
They do leave a few DLLs, but all Microsoft have to do, is remove everything else, and if the government still isn't happy, they'll just have to rewrite those DLLs.
It is of course possible to remove ANY component. The only problem is the amount of rewriting you have to do.
Personally I'd be happy to see MS just remove the user-visible parts of Internet Explorer. If MS cannot even remove this, they'll just have to do the rewrite as part of their punishment.
You are BSing if you think IE cannot be removed.
Ever heard of a .ini file?
.ini files all over the place in order to get anything to run. The registry brought all that chaos into one place.
.NET does exactly this.
The registry was created to eliminate the exact thing you speak of! Back in the 3.1 days, you had to edit
Also, on #3:
Maybe next time a little research is in order.
1. Use random chunks as random .sig lines!
2. Wallpaper the Vatican
3. Printed versoin...No need for wood at the cottage for the next 10 years!
4. Grep it to see how many "dirty words" are in it!
5. Give it to kindergarden kids to see how many errors they find...or use as colouring books.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I'd burn it before it had a chance to breed.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
Actually, for even light workstation work we have found Win2K to be rather lacking when even compared to Win98 (1st edition). It is actually less stable, even when primarily running Microsoft's own appliations. Plus it is a resource hog.
Things really haven't changed too much in 10 years of Microsoft 'progress'.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If I vote in this (meaningless) poll against MS, it's because I want to. If a Microserf votes for MS, s/he is potentially being coerced to do so by his/her employer.
Even without reboots, Win2K will force you through the stupid hardware configuration wizard once for every driver you need to install. Quite often, Win2K isn't capable of finding the appopriate driver on a disk that contains the same driver for multiple versions of Windows. So quite often you end up needing to guess yourself which is the right driver by browsing through the driver disk.
/proc/pci to help you along. Plus, if there is a generic driver available Win2K may not decide to automatically present that as an option.
Plus, Win2K has a nasty habit of not telling you what your hardware actually is. There's no simple
Blame the user and you prove that WinDOS is a FAILURE.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Actually, CP/M was quite flexible in what it could handle. The same was true for many early x86 OSen.
OTOH, variants of WinDOS that don't represent the largest market segment have always had the same hardware support issues that something like MacOS or GEM might suffer from.
Infact, lack of USB support in NT and Win9x were used as a club to force people to upgrade to subsequent versions of the OS. The same was done with NT and the WinDOS gaming libraries.
Also, I had a "Not the right video card?" problem with Win2K. So "buying Microsoft" doesn't necessarily get you anywhere.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So, a new judge was picked. Who now states that Microsoft is even more full of carp than Judge Jackson claimed, and has demanded that Microsoft show the source code for Windows XP.
The last time this happened - with the demand for the source for Windows 3.x, the source got mysterously shredded. By accident, of course. All known copies. Including those overseas. And all at the same time.
It'll be a little harder for Microsoft to pull an Ollie North, this time. My guess is they'll content themselves with being an Ollie Hardy. The monkey tape shows how good a certain CEO is at being loud and obnoxious.
The question that remains for me is how long the Department of Justice will settle for being a Stan Laurel.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
To me this particular issue seems silly, since with software you can make almost anything depend on anything else. The question asked should be the more abstract one, "Should Microsoft be able to bundle a browser with its operating system" -- even if it was a completely separate app.
After all Microsoft is now bundling a media player and an IM client and who knows what-all else with its operating systems, none of which it makes any pretense are an integral part of the OS.
- adam
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...I'm sure that there are some smoking guns amidst the comments. (Hmmm, will MS have already thought of this and argued that the comments aren't part of the code, leaving the states with a ghastly pile of spaghetti to read, or give the states the code in "shrouded" form a la the way Gimpel distributes source for FlexeLint?)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As far as I'm concerned, Netscape has jack-all to do with the case. Yeah they made complaints and testified, but Microsoft did plenty of things that are worse than anything they did to Netscape. Fact is, they have a monopoly, and that limits what they can legally do when it comes to business tactics. They didn't heed the last case against them. They laughed it off and continued to do as they please. If they get smacked down now, it's their own fault and they deserve it. It's not because of their competitors.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That is still 4 more reboots than is required to to install Linux. Also I have found when installing Windws it is best to install a driver, then reboot, not install 3 drivers and reboot. The reason for this is because if something goes wrong, you know exactly what driver caused the problem.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Next all industries will have to publish all blueprints, schematics, and etc. I'd rather have to deal with so called monopolies than this socialist rubbish.
One of the tenets of capitalism is that there is no barrier to entry into the market and that a company should be able to compete on their own merits. Should a company be so successful that it attains monopoly status, that's perfecctly legal and fine.
However, when a company uses it's monopoly in one market to force it's way into another market, that's another thing. It's illegal and helps to create a barrier to market entrance for other smaller companies.
Microsoft has created a huge barrier to entry into various markets. Just try and get a browser developed and hope to have a marketshare of greater than 1%. Opera, OmniWeb, iCab, Konqueror. All very good, very compelling products, but they don't come bolted on to Windows, so where's the compelling reason for the average consumer to spend the time downloading the file or even pay for the product? There isn't one. M$ has made sure of that.
M$ should hand over the source code. Experts should figure out whether or not IE can be seperated from the system and have it still work. Right now consumers do not have a choice of browsers in any real sense. They get IE and there is no real reason for them to use anything else as it is an extra expense and/or big hassle from their point of view.
The government doesn't want to tell M$ how to do business, it just wants to set up rules for them to follow so that some semblance of just competition is restored to the marketplace.
M$ didn;t get where they are today by creating new, exciting or innovative products. They got there through rehashing other companies' products, marketing said products better than anyone else and generally intimidating anyone who chose to step into the ring with them.
Pooty tweet
Let's say that Microsoft simply does not comply with demands from the states when they finally make it past appeals (if they ever do).
What would be the punishment? Not being able to sell software in some states? Customers will demand it. More new penalties? That only means more trials, which will take even more years.
Meanwhile, Microsoft will be able to actually have the law changed in their favor, and only release source code long after they abandon the platform.
So what is a realistic punishment that will actually survive to have an impact on Microsoft if they don't comply with a request to release the correct source code?
:^)
Ryan Fenton
I would wash my hands.
1) It is *not* for OSS release. It is simply for private inspection to show that it can be removed. 2) This is *not* a big deal with accusations of OSS projects stealing code - the code is *already* available to big licensees and has been for a while. A long while. It is true that the number of people it is available to was increased recentlyish, it still has been out there for ages now.
SSL Certificate
I don't seem to have these problems. The RedHat distribution seems to support all my hardware out of the box and all of my hardware is less than a year old. This includes a dual processor Athlon, a GeForce 3 and a Sound Blaster Live. I would have to say the "Average" Linux setup only requires the RedHat CD's as well.
As for your complaint about the SB16 ISA card, I have an old ISA NE2000, made by Realtek, that Windows will not detect period, but installs and works in Linux just fine, all I have to do is tell it what I/O it uses. It sounds to me like six of one, have a dozen of another.
Linux is very ready for the desktop, BESIDES games, Linux does 99% of what everyone uses a computers for. Just because it doesn't suit your purposes does not mean that 10 million other people can't use Linux, it just means you can't.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
This was absolutely clever by the states. I have to wonder why they did not think of it earlier. And the thing is that MS cannot be so restrictive with who sees the sources, etc, etc. Because then it can be considered contempt of court. Man did MS REALLY walk into deep do-do!
What I find amazing is that this judge means business. She has shown no favourites on either side and is following the law. Wow! I guess she was probably a good choice. Ok if this backfires and MS wins maybe I will change my mind. But thus far she is following the law. COOL!!!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Install WinME, reboot twice
Set TCP/IP, Install Video, sound and first update
try to figure out which driver screwed up the system up, reboot 3 more times.
setup WinTV, download second set of updates, install IE6
system screwed up again, uninstall WinTV, system still screwed up. Format and reinstall, 4 more reboots
download more updates, DirectX and dev suites, 2 more reboots.
Tried to play Wolf, but system hangs during setup, 1 reboot
can now play Wolf, but could only do the install after killing all the programs running in the background.
Yes Virginia, I am a Troll and this is Flamebait.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
what the February Security Cleanup at Microsoft is all about... making the source code look less obviously unfriendly to other applications.
Note, above post complete bullshit.
-9mm-
Then you have 100s of workers doing the actual mixing: none of them are going to be paid enough to keep their mouths shut.
The right hand knows not what the left hand is doing. The Coca-Cola formula is split up into about a dozen parts, and the people who do the mixing know only that we take x pounds of Merchandise 1, y pounds of Merchandise 2, etc. It's possible to count the number of people who know the official Coke formula on one hand, in unary. (Source: Poundstone, William, Big Secrets.)
Do people think that the owners of Coca-Cola nip into the local corner shop, buy a magic ingredient that they hide in a brown paper bag, then under cover of darkness they slip into the mixing plant and add it to the BILLIONS of litres of syrup produced each year?
Yes. The people who operate the mixers don't know what's in those "Merchandise #n" containers, and the people who create the Merchandises are under strict NDA. NDA violations are handled under trade secret law, which has a maximum penalty for infringement five times higher than that of copyright law and is more likely to result in jail time.
Coca-Cola is dominant because they use patents and trademarks and brand loyalty and strong distribution channels.
Correct, except for patents. There may be patents on the processes used at a given time to make Coca-Cola, but there's no patent on the formula because unlike copyrights, patents are not perpetual; they last only 20 years after filing.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Holy crap you're a liar...
inser cd, first 1/2 of install REBOOT
install done REBOOT
download first updates REBOOT
download IE6.0 install REBOOT
download security patches REBOOT
download Direct X REBOOT
install Office REBOOT
and continue from there....
dont even try to tell me anything otherwise..
I installed W2K on 300 machines. and dont get me into the nightmare that is virusscan, joining the domain, changing the computer name, etc...
there are a total of 9 reboots required by W2k before the computer is useable. Linux? 1 and ONLY 1.
You sir are the stupid one for even trying to bullshit the large amount of IT people here... and that is why you are modded as troll
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Or it could be the disaster that kills Wine / Linux. IFF the WinSource is handed over for technical examination, it will certainly be in a VERY controlled environment and, most likely, subject to non-disclosure agreements or court orders. If copyrighted code from Windows wound up in any part of Linux, then Microsoft would have legal justification to sue distributors everywhere to block all distribution. Followed by suits against every name in the contributors list for the infected projects.
Who says the original code would be used? It's more a matter of 'dirty-room' reverse-engineering of data structures, API 'features', etc. Frankly, the best solution to this whole anti-trust deal would be to force Microsoft to publically disclose all documentation of binary file formats, hidden API features, and anything other proprietary nonsense they've created. That way, Open Source software like Wine and OpenOffice could quickly become 100% compatible with MS products.
Doesn't the FCC have some sort of thing where if a standard is used by x% of the market then it must be publically documented and opened for competition? Couldn't this apply to Windows and Office?
Listen, I know the source review for Windows will be in a heavily guarded environment because M$ will want to "ensure" none of their IP or trade secrets will be released. To be honest, I think what they're REALLY concerned about is making public how much GPL'd code they actually illegally use verbatim right into their proprietary source.
I think their legally intelligent enough to see the probable inevitability of their source being subject to an external review, due to all the legal battles going on over monopolistic actions and such, and that's really the main reason their launching a FUD campaign against the practical legalities of the GPL. So that when their blatant disregard of the GPL license is finally public, they can claim the license holds no legal grounds and all actions against them opening up their source due to heavy inclusion of GPL code should be dropped.
I do admit I showed an extreme case, but even 4 or 5 reboots isn't unusal for even a Win2K or WinXP install. My orignal point still stands, on the "Average", Linux is no more difficult to install then Windows is.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I fear that opening the source will give MS grounds to complain about all those OSS projects that are "stealing" their code (assuming it gets leaked). What kind of trouble can they cause us? Microsoft is *very* crafty, who knows what they will do next!
This could acutally allow OSS developers to execute a crafty tactic which Microsoft themselves used a long long time ago. I'm talking about the way MS paid a 3rd party to reverse-engineer the IBM-PC's BIOS so they could write Quick'n'Dirty DOS, which Microsoft then bought and used to create MS-DOS, without having to pay anyone any licensing fees.
Wine, for example, could benefit hugely if they knew more about the API's they were reverse-engineering. Most of their effort goes towards figuring out MS DLL's, and debugging strange cases and "undocumented features" therein.
To duplicate the Microsoft tactic, some 3rd party could look at all of Microsoft's code, document every function in the API and explainin in detail what each one did, then publish the results. It would definitely cut down the time wasted on reverse-engineering and debugging.
I, personally, think it would be a great way to "compete" with Microsoft. Software is still the reason people still dual-boot to Windows. Wine could definitely give Linux/*BSD a competative edge.
I'm not sure if it's illegal to publish information about API's, however. Since Microsoft licenses certain ones privately, would it be illegal to publish information about them which you've gathered for yourself?
... because next time, it might be your IP...
Oh the horrors of being a convicted monopolist.
Of course, that's a personal choice. If you've bet your career on Windows, and there are more and more competitors in the market... isn't your career quickly becoming irrelevant?
Of course - the answer is no. At least not for everyone - only those unable to shift with changes in technology.
I began my IT career firmly within a Windows world. I thought Unix was a hold-out from a bygone era. I knew about Linux, but didn't see what it was good for. Then a twist of fate had me landing a job as a Unix admin. I began learning as much Unix as I could. I built a Linux box to help. And I found an amazingly powerful and stable environment. One that I now prefer to Windows.
I still support Windows as a solution where it makes sense. However, I prefer to work with Unix or a variant - specifically OpenBSD or Linux. Unix loosing market share makes my job more difficult, but it certainly doesn't make my career irrelevant. And I would imagine there are a slew of others like me.
This doesn't have much relevance to the thread - but I'd like to make an observation. Linux "world domination" is a joke - a reaction to the dominance and business tactics of Microsoft. But its a subtle joke. One that the stereotypical unthinking Linux Zealot takes to heart as a battle cry for the absolute destruction of Microsoft. That's not going to happen unless Microsoft exhibits some extreme incompetence - and Microsoft is not incompetent when it comes to business.
Having said that, I would like to see destruction visited on Microsoft. Destruction of the Microsoft monopoly. I would like to see Microsoft go the way of IBM - a major player in the IT industry, but not a gatekeeper. Would Linux fill a void? Somewhat. But then... so would FreeBSD. OSX. Maybe the next BeOS. In the end, consumers would make the choice. And it would be a true free market choice free from marketing shennanigans and abuse of monopoly power.
One of the interesting things I've noticed about a lot of pro-MS types is their inability to see information technology as anything other than a financial vehicle.
do you know what takes a few reboots Xconfigurator testing on a new video card!
It takes exactly ZERO reboots to configure X, ctrl-alt-backspace kills the Xserver without rebooting the system. Even if the video card requires a kernel module, modprobe can be used to install and uninstall the modules, again, ZERO reboots required. Linux only requires one reboot, even if what you say is true, XP still requires 2. It also does not mean XP is easier to install than Linux.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Perhaps my example was a little extreme, but it paints an accurate picture. What exactly is wrong with my post ? isn't it true that if Windows does not support a paticular piece of hardware, you must install drivers for it and after each driver is installed, you must reboot the system ? Isn't it true Windows requires a reboot after configuring TCP/IP ? If this is not true, then much has changed with Windows since yesterday.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
And this changes what ? I was simply pointing out that Windows has problems with hardware as well, no big deal, a new ISA NIC costs $14.95, I hear you can get an ISA sound card for about the same.
LOL - All the desktop OEMs share your opionion?
You mean the same OEM houses who keep pushing the Virus magnet that is Windows. I guess thier opinions mean alot too.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Not as a user. The only solution would be if MS would rewrite the complete shell layer and re-module it. The 'removal' tools for IE just remove iexplorer.exe and a couple of registry entries, but not _ALL_ components. The reason for this is that when you open explorer (thus the filemanager) you actually are looking at a webpaged view of your folder. Internet Explorer is IN the right pane. Removing it, is removing necessary parts of the shell. End of story.
I simply can't understand why you would be 'happy' when they remove IE. Users want a browser when they install windows. They get one. If they want another one, they install another one.
I also can't replace the winnt kernel with a linux kernel. Should they re-design the core system too to make that possible? I don't think so.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
This is the real question here. Let's remember, that the look into the Windows sources should supposedly clarify if IE is really impossible to separate from Windows without damaging the system. We already know the answer to this: it was even demonstrated, that one can rip out IE and still have a functioning Windows (at least no worse than it was before). Also we all know, that it's a design decision to integrate one piece of software (IE) unseparable with another (the OS), and that it's usually wiser to have a separate module (or even some of them) with clean interfaces for a project the size of a browser.
So even if the finding is, that IE is so much integrated into Windows, that you really can't have one without the other, that only means someone made it so by design, and that design decision could well have been 'politically' motivated. We know, that Microsoft is capable of separating a browser from the OS, they did IE for the Mac. We know it's possible to write a browser for Windows without making it an integrate part, netscape (and many others) did it. We know it's possible to create an OS (and a GUI) without integrating a browser, there's some examples about.
So there's really nothing new to learn here, looking into the source may clarify, if someone really made the design of IE such, that it's now impossible to rip out. But we don't know why that decision was made (maybe to get it done as fast as possible). And even if it is found, that it's really not that hard to separate IE from the OS that won't turn back history for netscape and will only serve to uncover yet another 'halftruth' from Microsoft. Maybe that will strengthen the position of the states, but at what price? Microsoft will obviously fight every inch along the way, and over every line of sourcecode. Then the states have to get in experts to review the code, and MS will fight again over each pair of eyes that gets to see the code. And after that Microsoft is likely to have loads of their own experts (hell, they wrote the code) countering each end every statement of a states' expert they don't like, which will result in a highly technical discussion after which nothing will have changed: states' experts claim you can separate IE from Windows, and MS' experts claim you can't, only now it's not based on a simple demonstration, but on some drawn out technical debate (and most people here probably know how to hide the truth behind technogibberish).
As i said, all this will take a while, maybe even long enough that noone is intersted in the result anymore, or that those who are still interested are no longer in a position to follow up (such things happen in politics). Meanwhile Microsoft is happily screwing others out of business, and working at making the internet a place which won't run without them (.NET). What we need is forcing MS to open their 'standards' (not a split up Microsoft), so developpers all over the world have a chance to write software that properly interfaces with the omnipresent Microsoft Windows desktops, preferably without paying license fees to MS. We need to take away the power from Microsoft to dictate PC-sellers how to do their business. It doesn't help to dig in the past, something must be done to keep Microsoft from doing it all over again, in the present and in the future.
--
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
If installing and configuring Windows is so easy why do so many people call into Tech Support for help doing it ? People don't get stuck on setup.exe, they call in when they get to the desktop and their video would do nothing but 640x480, no sound and they can't use thier modem. The core of my argument isn't that Linux is neccessarily easy to install, but that Windows isn't either.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
If Windows is easy then why does Microsoft have a Tech Support Line ? If all one has to do is put the CD in and reboot, they can print that on the CD label and nobody would ever call in. In reality however it doesn't work that way and you know it. Certainly Linux is hard for someone who has never used, but so is Windows. The fact that you use the monitor referance, shows you have not used Linux is some time or you would know that Linux is pretty good at figuring that stuff out for you during installation. Even on the off chance you do have to configure it manually, all the info you need is printed in the monitor manual and more than likely on the makers website. My point is not neccessarily that Linux is easy to install, but that Windows isn't either. If you don't believe me, goto Microsofts knowledge base and look around, there are thousands of articles discussing the various problems that can occur during an install. Goto Dells support site and look at what they have to say about reinstalls. It is only easy if you have done it a few times.
btw, I can't believe you kiss your mother with that mouth.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Well now, some MS prole marked me down from a 1 to a 0 claiming my post was overrated. But hey, when your karma's just shy of 50 you can do the following and trounce the trolls:
Uh huh. And tell us why 98lite was capable of completely stripping out IE and leaving the rest of the OS functional (or as functional as Windows gets)? Or are you going to tell me that in Win2000 MS *suddenly built in a dependency on IE that wasn't needed*.
Gee, this makes them just as guilty of monopoly charges as, well, they were found in court. If it can be proved that you can remove IE from Win98, then the action of MS to make the entire OS of Win2000 depend on it was deliberate and for the sole purpose of extending a monopoly.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Linux is no harder to install than Windows is.
That's a flat-ass lie. Absolute fucking bullshit.
Whereas it might be true that you need to go find drivers for a Windows install, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion you'll have to go fuck around with some bullshit with a Linux install. I have never once, ever, installed Linux on a machine where I didn't have to subsequently fuck around with it to get it working properly. Linux is a fucking pain in the ass to install. Windows install might be long, silly, and boring. But it pretty much just works. Installing drivers for Windows also pretty much just works. In Linux, I'm constantly forced to think and come up with my own solutions. Many things fail to "just work".
it's pretty much a foregone conclusion you'll have to go fuck around with some bullshit with a Linux install
Really, I don't seem to have any problems installing Linux. With the exception of my DvD player, all my hardware is detected and installed by RedHat 7.2, that includes my dual processor Athlon board, my GeForce 3 and my SoundBlaster Live.But then this thread isn't really about how difficult it is to install Linux, but rather, how difficult it is to install Windows. Your remark that Windows "Just Works" is wrong. If Windows "Just Works" why does IDG books make millions of dollars a year on the "For Dummies" Books ? Why is Microsofts knowledge base filled with thousands of articles about fixing installation problems ? and why do hundreds of thousands of Phone Techs make thier living each year helping people reinstall Windows ? The answers to all those questions is simple, Windows is not as easy to install as you all say it is.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See this is what I am talking about. This has been my experience as well. While Linux has improved by leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, Windows only gets slightly better with each new version. While Linux isn't perfect, neither is Windows. Linux may in fact be difficult to install, but so is Windows.
Linux is free and was developed largely by volunteers. Even if you count all the money that all the Linux vendors have poured into it development, it is still microscopic compared to what Microsoft spends on Windows. So Linux isn't perfect, I'd say there was a good reason for it. What is Windows excuse ?
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
d00d, when it askz when you \x/ant to reboot after detecting/installing hardware, say 'NO', it installs the next, and the next, and so on. once all is installxored, reboot. works flawlessly in win95 and up.
ps you |\/|igh+ want to reboot after the mobo chip53t drivers before doing the above.
pps i'm writing in 1337 b/c i'm bored
moox. for a new generation.
Nah - the guy is actually easy in Win:
Try installing a - how they call it now - legacy piece of hardware in your win peecee...
Action: installing an ArcNet card in an W98SE.
1. - Power down
2. - Insert card after noting the I/O and MEM jumpers
3. - Start computer
4. - Windows starts and reboots itself before prompting me for a driver or anything
5. - Your computer did not bla bla Safe Mode.
6. - Nothing detected in safe mode.
7. - Restart
8. - repeat from 4. as much as you like.
9. - step 9 is never reached.
Action: installing an ArcNet card in Linux
1. - Power Down
2. - Insert card after noting I/O and MEM jumpers
3. - start computer
4. - insmod arcnet io=0xXXX mem=0xXXXXX
5. - ifconfig arc0 a.b.c.d netmask p.q.r.s
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
when it askz when you \x/ant to reboot after detecting/installing hardware, say 'NO',
I am aware you can do that, however it is not wise to do it that way. When you install all the drivers in a wad like that, if something goes wrong, you have no idea what driver was the problem. Do them one at a time, lets you resolve issues one at a time.
It is also not always possible, have you ever tried to install an AGP video cards driver into an NT box before installing the service pack ? NT didn't support AGP out of box and requires at least SP 2 or 3 and the motherboard chipset drivers, before you could install the video drivers for an AGP card. USB support under 95 also required the motherboard drivers be installed and active.
Besides this doesn't make a reinstall any easier, maybe for someone who has done it a few times, but a new user is going have difficulties, especially in light of those pesky little exeptions.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
The question at hand isn't "Why is Linux hard to install ?" but "Why isn't Windows easy to install ?". Condsider this, Linux was developed by a group of volunteers, sure RedHat and some others have spent real money on its development, but that amount is trival compared to the billions of dollars Microsoft has spent on Windows. Linux can be had for free or nearly free ($2.95 from CheapBytes), Windows, unless you are pirating your copy, costs money, even an upgrade costs $89. Windows by all rights should be light years ahead of Linux and it is not. Linux improves by leaps and bounds every year, while each version of Windows is only slightly better than the last, but for some reason always requires me to upgrade my processor, RAM and Harddrive for it to work decently.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
You can still vote on this poll here
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
Once I got the source code, I'd have to assemble a party of nine, then, we would have to destroy the code by taking in back to redmond and throwing it back into the inferno it was created from.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on