Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pulls Broken XP Update
Cally writes "Yahoo! reports that
Microsoft have pulled a Windows XP update from the Windows Update servers after it killed network access for some users of the claimed 600,000 who installed it. (Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?) The story hints that the problem was something to do with VPN or IPSec drivers clashing with Symantec software - however I haven't found anything about this on the Microsoft KnowledgeBase (the link Yahoo provide goes to the generic support home page.) Anyone got more info?"
try http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;818043
windows mustive been getting too stable. .
Do they have any sort of quality control?=)
How Now Brown Cow
It is 5am in the morning.
I am currently porting apt-get to Windows. This will mean that these types of embarassing security breaches never happen again. apt-get is the answer to all of today's problems.
Not sure but I think this is the link. Does not mention that it is pulled though.
k b; en-us;818043
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
If XP is allowed to go find its master and patch itself, any problem with a patch will spread widely to the people least able to deal with it.
At least this patch made it perfectly obvious that it had a bug.
Has a Linux, or FreeBSD patch ever been pulled because it was broken? *yawn*
I'd say it was a slow news day, but it ain't even daytime yet.
Maybe because they couldn't get online to report the problem???
Unfortunately, it's something we've all heard before. I'm a recent entrant to the world of tech support, and the company I work for (much like many other large companies) refuse to touch a new Microsoft OS until it's been through at *least* one, preferably two service packs. Likewise, updates that Microsoft class as "critical" are not to be installed for at least a fortnight, unless they are for serious security holes with known exploits. Whilst I think this is probably a rather conservative approach, it sure as hell is better than having the network crash down around you. I believe this company was bitten badly by such a problem with a patch a couple of years ago, hence their policy on updates.
In real life, people don't trust MS patches until they've tested them on their own systems with their own application mixes.
Until MS raises their quality assurance and testing to a higher level than it is now, knowledgeable system admins, responsible for managing lots of Windows systems in their environments, will continue not to trust Windows Update.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update
What do you think is more likely: "only" 600,000 people trust Windows Update or everyone else just hasn't patched for checked for patches yet? I personally don't use the little auto-notification thingie, I just check every once in a while.
Also, how is this different from any automated Linux update method? Software has bugs. Patches may have bugs. Regardless of vendor, patches are not perfect and may induce problems.
Agree or disagree with me, when you think about it without bias it's true.
Part of the pro-Palladium spin is that it will stop people infecting M$ machines with worms.
But that would leave a major gap which, according to this story, has been admirably filled.
Trusted computing - only trust the worms written and distributed by MS itself.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?
Don't forget the Automatic Updates (wuauserv) service. Many XP users use Windows Update regularly and don't even know it.
void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
A new worm has begun infecting XP systems that didn't install the latest patch. "It's their own fault, they should have kept up to date" said BG.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
""There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Yahoo! reports that Microsoft have pulled a Windows XP update from the Windows Update servers after it killed network access for some users of the claimed 600,000 who installed it.
Furthermore, they realized how often all their OSes go down and decided to just give up.
If only was there a god to help us...
"Most systems didn't crash; they simply lost network connectivity," said Michael Surkan, a Microsoft program manager for its networking communications group. "There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."
Do you think that might be because, without the 'net, most couldn't contact you to complain? If they install an update and "the durn computer broke the Interweb!" do you think they're going to be able to debug and fix the problem in order to alert you?
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
any word on what they are doing for the 600,000 people who got their access fried?
What 600,000 people had anything 'fried'?
Article:
"There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."
The article says that since this wasn't a critical patch, just an 'improvement', auto update doesn't install it.
Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?)
It means that only 600,000 users that also had Symantec Security software installed used Windows Update in the time between when the patch was released (Friday) and when it was pulled (today).
RTFA. I don't expect that from posters, but I do from submitters.
Microsoft officials said Tuesday the update -- which had been available as an option since Friday on its "Windows Update" Web site -- apparently was incompatible with popular security software from other companies, such as Symantec Corp.
Well, if it's VPN and IPSec problems, they're probably on a network of some kind. Hopefully their IT guys were on the ball enough to have their own Windows Update disabled on their own machines!
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
Sounds secure to me. If a 'doze box can't access the internet, nobody can hack it...
If those people lost network access, how would Microsoft know? ;^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The remainder were unable to connect to the net to complain
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
All I know is that, having decided to pull down some of the critical updates (not on auto, you understand) I can no longer get the properties window to appear for a directory in Explorer, except in safe mode. Kind of makes it difficult to administer security that does; oh and the performance went down a heap too. Even tried backing them all out too, but the system restore was disabled - too little disk space apparently, nice of it to tell me in time(!).
Only four hours ago, I was on the phone to MS support. If the p.c. is started with only MS services enabled (there's only Norton or MS ones on this machine) via the msconfig utility, everything is fine. If I disable all the non-MS services in the services window though and do a normal restart, everything is broken again - duh!
I'm going to try unloading/reloading all the Norton stuff again but don't hold out much hope. Oh well, looks like I'm up for another rebuild, the sixth in five months... and no, I won't be using the updates in future
Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
>Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?
Umm... NO. It doesn't.
And stop taking cheap shots at MS, it just make you look like a whiny school kid.
There is plenty of reasons to bash MS policies and software, but the signal-to-noise ratio is getting silly.
... allows an admin to release patches to users when they have tested them. SUS retrieves patches from Microsoft. An Admin approves them. Client PC's (with an appropriate Group Policy) retrieve and install approved updates from the SUS server. Easy.
If you're paranoid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsensible, wait a week or more to give the rest of the world time to find bugs, test the patch thoroughly in a test environment, and of course ask yourself if you actually need it.
ps. how many of todays slashdot readers know what ^H means?
Story submitter here - I forgot the attribution (my bad); I picked this up from the Full Disclosure mailing list, specifically, this post by Richard M. Smith.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
im sorta glad Mandrake and Redhat has become so "user-friendly" with all there automatic updates and plug-and-play packages.
i remember a time when if a bug infected one of my systems with apache, i was told by my co-workers: "It's your own fault. You should have found that bug in the code yourself, and fixed it."
And they were serious.
(Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?)
Or does it mean that after a hundred thousand complaints they pulled it from the site?
*SLAP*
Windows Update is flawed. I did a search the other week to find out more information on why some of our Windows 2000 workstations were suggesting old patches needed to be applied.
For example, I've downloaded, installed, and rebooted as required for the security update from Feb 13 for MSXML 4.0 and the bloody thing still keeps coming back!
Now I've got ones from April and later that keep returning like zombies to haunt me. You'd *think* that it would be simple... but noooo.
Have you ever tried getting hold of an actual human being at Microsoft by phone? Next to impossible, they allways want e-mail notification.
.net access to send e-mail.. duh
Now, what was that old thing about having to have
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
This was not a mandatory update. It was a security patch for those that you the particular service in question. This means that most people wouldn't bother installing it.
:-)
In that case, 600,000 people does seem like a lot, especially if they can't get on the internet afterwards to get the fix for the update, as the article implies.
alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"
They say Friday -> Memorial day weekend. That sounds like they're suggesting an 8 day availability. It's interesting to read that over 8 days about 600,000 downloads occured. I would assume that security update downloads are a bit more frequent. How many XP installs are there out there? I'd be interested to see about how many people don't apply security patches. :)
Yet another example of MS trying toi pass the buck and dodge the bullet...
I had NO symantec s/ware on my system, (I use Mcafee) and I lost all networking / internet access.
Also, the Yahoo article says that the update had to be removed which is bull$hit, the update could NOT be removed, and the only way to fix my system was to re-install and re-update Windoze.
MS said only a small number complained, well, I did, and a couple of days later the update was pulled, no reply to my email though, not even a thank you or aknowlegment - typical MS =O(
fLaMePr0oF
This is not good for the average consumer.
Bugs like this keep the common microsoft user from installing the latest and greatest updates. They might not understand that their security is troubled until they recent damage; however, they understand this:
"I finally ran windows update... and now I can no longer get on the internet. Crap, I'm never doing that again."
Methinks it's a Microsoft-is-too-huge-syndrome. Microsoft can't test its fixes on every possible configuration; therefore, problems like this will occur. Episodes like this have previously occurred and will occur again.
It's the nature of the beast.
btw, thanks Slashdot. I could have installed that this morning!
Davak
As much as I can't stand M$, I've got to say that I had a similar experience with Mandrake when I was running 9.0 I ran an update and when I rebooted all of the sudden my wireless nic wouldn't come up! I later read in mandrakeforum that the initscripts that were part of the update were broken on some machines. I installed the old ones and I was back up, but it was an annoying couple of hours.
At least it wasn't a remote root exploit....
It's moments like this that prove that the phrase "Microsoft KnowledgeBase" may in fact be the ultimate oxymoron.
Every software update is a risk. Especially OS updates. With software, I always fear that beside enhancements, also restrictions will be built in (happend with quicktime once years ago). Therefore, I usually
keep a copy of the old software or to make full backups before upgrading the OS. Updating software is not trivial because it X + A + B is not equal X + B + A : the update A can and will in general change something of the modification B. After a few such operations it becomes very difficult to keep track about all possible
states the users can have on their machine.
My experiences from updates:
- even for modern Linux distributions, it is a good idea
to make full new installs rather then upgrading. I personally
always had problems with upgrades and almost never had problems
with full reinstalls.
- the OS X updates went all smooth so far. Still, I always upgrade
first one machine, wait to see if everything works fine before
updating the others.
- XP updates. No problem with vmware. Just keep an copy of the
old virtual machine around. If something screws up or one of
the software has decided to "upgrade" itself:
rm -rf winXPHome
mv old.winXPHome winXPHome
Virtual machines can also easily be copied from one machine to
an other.
Bollocks. First of all, MS outsources customer support in most countries, so you are likely never to have talked to a MS helpdesk. Second, and most important, I have had to talk to MS helpdesks in three different EU countries and, trust me, it has been VERY easy to get someone to register my problem. NOT ONCE have I been told to send them an e-mail. YMMV, of course, but "always", does not hold true.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Thankfully, I uh.. well, lets just say that windows update would cause information about my machine *caugh*cd key*caugh* profile to be 'exposed'. So, like any self respecting geek, I killed update at the machine level. Now your thinking...insecure? No bug fixes? C'mon, its windows for gods sake! RAID couldnt kill THAT bug.
Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
It's not a bug, it's digital rights management preventing illegal file sharing!
Don't you see this is Microsoft making good on their promise for better security. Your computer cannot connect to the network then it is much more secure.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
For most people, it is the only way they're ever going to install updates on their computer. However, I've found production Windows 2000 servers with this feature enabled! This is at least the 2nd or 3rd time that I've read a story on /. about a Windows XP/2000 patch that was no good.
If you want to disable automatic updates on your computer, go to Control Panel->System->Automatic Updates tab and click the buttons to turn it off. You'll be better off picking what you want to update manually.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;818043 ...
Let someone else do the testing ... wait a month ... then update!
I never experienced it on my own, but wasn't that some terminals output if you pressed Backspace (Ctrl+H maybe)?
Most people I have met in Meat-Space though think it's a way of expressing that you're laughing ("Hahaha" or _H_umorous)... They even look dizzy if they see more than 3 ^H in a row, because they would consider it to be bad manners... Scriptkiddies... Afraid of the good ol' command-line.
I study Computer Science and, it was a shock, most of my fellow students were not able to get their compilers running on command-line, some were even trying to write their source in *cough* Word!!!
This item is another example of the pointless anti-MS sentiments of Slashdot. The item is not that newsworthy, and certainly not for the OSS minded community that frequents Slashdot.
Instead of feeling satisfied about how superior OSS is comparing to MS and how it doesn't suffer from these problems (which is not true, BTW), wake up, smell the coffee and get coding, because OSS has a lot of catching up to!
My karma ran over your dogma
What good is a Knowledge Base article, Mr Anderson? If you're unable to surf?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Well, let's see. My hand has five fingers, I had to fix two computers yesterday because of this patch... that leaves 3 fingers of the handful to fix... They should call any minute now.
That's just my luck... Of the handful of people affected I had to know two of them...
Unless Microsoft is lying...
Noooooooo. They wouldn't...
Windoze updates fixes your pc to be more
buggy and full of security holes. Who says that M$ is not innovative they just make crappier OS day after day.
The update finally make windows computers secure from remote attacks. What's wrong with that?
MS is trying to teach users about the real hardcore security.
Next critical security update will shutdown you machine for good.
Hey, everyone knows that only machines turned off are secure from crackers and viruses.
It's not broken, it's efficient. - MS marketing Department.
Is Symantec security software the only thing affected?
I don't see how this is Microsoft's fault, as it's whoever wrote the third party crap. If I installed Debian on my machine should I bitch at Microsoft if it doesn't boot windows anymore?
I'm impressed enough that MS will pull the update to resolve the issue (ie - fix third party's shit FOR them) rather than just go on about "RTFM n00b!!!" like another OS I know.
1) restore to yesterday
2) report problem online
Or do you work for MS?
This is a joke...isn't it?
It's just occured to me what a wonderful Virus infection vector Windows Update would make. All-out access to install stuff on the most prevailent OS in the world today. Now, where did I put that copy of VCL..?
___FutureShoks___
Because suddenly a sh*tload of boxes quit "calling back home".
www.fuckmicrosoft.com is what I use for M$ support
Without internet millions of people are affected. What are the consequences? Is this a worm? Is Microsoft liable? Let's get them! Any lawyers here?
If you're running XP SP1, you definitely do not want this fix. It will bring your system to a crawl. See this for more info.
With only an "MS Handful" [600,000] of people being affected, I guess they just don't care...but this would never happen with any of the competitors e.g. Sun, IBM, Apple, or even the "free" options such as BSD & Linux.
When you have no competition, you don't have to worry, and MS is clearly showing it's contempt for the average user. They take your money...but there is no liability when their software does any damage!
I'll bet MS tech support charged end users to fix the problem they created!
First you people complain that MS ships buggy OS's and no one knows how to update it. Now that they put in an auto-update feature for the newbie, everyone complains that it's also bad.
See, there's this new technology called "the telephone".... :)
Sig ?
You always wanted to be a failure?
I always wanted to do this...and I have, many times.
YOU FAIL IT. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL.
If they didn't pull on it so much, it wouldn't have broken!
yes, Microsoft sucks ass.
Just asking a question here: how do i run a local intranet sort op windowsupdate service so local xp workstations can download updates from this local server instead of the microsoft website?
http://www.threedegrees.com/MessageBoards/ShowPos
What is going on is that Symantec's AntiVirus software is clashing with Microsoft's attempt to update some critical files, and when only half of the files are updated and the other half is denied, the result is a broken machine.
The fault can't entirely be blamed on Microsoft in this case.
Use your head, if Microsoft pulled the thing its usually worst then what they are telling ...
...
...
...
It means 600 000 people reported the bug but microsoft aknowledge the problem after 599 989 of them said they add a problem
wich mean they actually report 11 people having the problem, the others are discarded as hardware failure
And probably most people called there ISP who told them to re-install since they never would have tought that the problem whas microsoft when there internet is not working
Who's betting Microsoft has got REALLY BIG hands? =)
(Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?)
:P
Not everbuddy checks their windowsupdate every fifth minute
"If you loved me, you`d all kill yourselves today"
Spider Jerusalem
Telephone? No, thats obsolete.
There's this new technology called "Palladium", it will help you with problems like this ^_~ as soon as your computer gets disconnected a little red light goes on at Redmond and a certified la...technician comes to your house and asks why you disconnected your computer.
It's the future!
Your money^w call is important to us and will be handled in sequence, please hold...
>Also, how is this different from any automated Linux update method?
/. has an anti-MS bias. So do a lot of people, but losing network connectivity is pretty serious, especially on the world's monopoly OS.
/. crowd complains about ignorant users who don't patch. Now the patchers are the problem?
Its not. Well, this wasn't automated, it had to be downloaded from the windowsupdate.com site, but I think we're just seeing something of a double standard here.
Okay
What really gets me is that whenever there's an MS problem the
MS's automated patching system isn't bad, it keeps Joe User updated and there simply will be x amount of problems over y amount of time, as you said just like with any other vendor.
Enjoy the schadenfreude guys, it'll just make real MS complaints sound all the less convincing. Optional supplemental reading: the boy who cried wolf.
Crying wolf is a big problem when criticizing MS to the uninitiated. I have the displeasure of taking a 3 hour class with a rabid anti-MS type and at this point no one takes him seriously because of his zeal, even though 2/3 of the stuff he says are actually excellent points.
Engaging in simple-minded schadenfreude simply makes people look less credible. Seems like a tough lesson to learn for the loud-mouth anti-MS types.
Dilbert: But what if they get a friend to email for them?
Dogbert: We find our users rarely have any friends.
Those people who cannot connect to the Internet anymore, how are they supposted to get the next patch that is supposed to fix the problem?
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
See, there's this new technology called "the telephone".... :)
Too bad it costs $400 to talk to M$. Unless your company is an MCSP and haven't used your free calls yet, you gotta pay...
(I know you're just cracking a damn good joke, but still...)
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
For whatever reason, though, I never use Windows Update, and I don't know that I've ever patched my Windows XP, outside of SP1. Maybe it's because I really only want to use Windows for gaming and not bother with much else, but I think it's also because, when I get something working, it's sometimes through some steps that elicit black magic from Windows, and I'd like the feature to stay working. The most recent example is the Windows XP VPN service, which for whatever reason will issue me an IP I want, and will work with other users' routers, only occaisionally. Windows allows so little control over its features (compared to Linux and others), and VPN is no exception: A set of wizards, so when it works, yea I'd like it to stay working, and this patch warning that VPN may be affected, is certainly only redoubling my avoidance of Windows Update.
We all know the history of Microsoft and patches, so I'm certain that is a sort of "subconcsious" reaction when I see that awful tooltip in the corner. My Windows patching tendencies are highlighted by my almost religious running and adherence to OS X's Software Update panel (alright, I haven't installed the latest iTunes update
"Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?"
No, that's not what it means. Users who are savvy enough to know about the 'issues' with Windows Update probably don't use Windows XP, for the most part.
Actually, what this means is that you found a story about Microsoft, and needed a way to trash them, so you came up with a lame rhetorical question.
Honestly, what would you have them do? Not retract the broken update? Around here Microsoft is "damned if they do, damned if they don't". They just can't do right by many Slashdot posters.
Sure Microsoft does a lot of bad things, but certainly retracting a broken is not one of them.
Call them on their bad business practices, sure. But snide remarks like yours only make anti Microsoft people look childish, foolish, and generally make you look like you're really struggling to find something wrong with them.
Anti Microsoft Slashdot Goldmine
1. Find non-news story about Microsoft rightly retracting a broken update.
2. Insert witty, yet trollish rhetorical question.
3. Post to Slashdot.
4. Wait for the Karma to roll in.
5. Profit!
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
If a 'doze box can't access the internet, nobody can hack it...
Untrue. Three words for ya:
Gentoo
Live
CD
'Nuff said.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
That is about the most moronic comment i've heard today. Do users have a choice? Are you *not* going to run updater and get hacked? j3sus.
I have had lots of problems with the Symantec 3 month trial... when the trial is uninstalled it leaves the XP networking useless... no network communication happens until you reinstall the trial.
"There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."
Only a few reported it, because everyone is used to MS patches breaking things. This "Critical Update" disabled wireless networking for us. I just rolled back the patches, and wait.
MS is the king of "It's not a bug, It's a feature!"
'This sig intentionally left blank.'
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Fire up the Linux box, and use a handy mailer from there to send a missive to Microsoft that they hosed my Windows XP again.
That's one reason I always leave a copy of mail(1) in any install. The mail server is PostFix, and mail(1) works just fine to get the reply.
I've had good experiences with M$ support, although never by phone. I've had three occurrances of needed support, and all three were handled quickly (within a day).
A handful of cases our of 600K is reasonable considering all the combinations of HW and SW out there... Nonetheless... M$ should be more careful, especially because of the media sensasionalism.
Pulling proprietary SCO code from distribution... :)
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
But look at the bright side, if it REALLY is Microsoft's fault, you at least get your money back... :-)
well sounds like a pretty good fix to me, a security fix that disables net access!
can't get it more secure than that
Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?
Downloading and installing updates is a huge pain. Most people won't do it unless there's an obvious and clear benefit. Nebulous "security patches" don't qualify. Without DSL or cable--remember, that's still most people these days--downloading these things can take hours.
Ouch ... the insight is hurting my head ...
Too bad it costs $400 to talk to M$.
Not for security patches. If you install a security patch and it breaks your system, Microsoft will not charge to help you fix it.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
"Microsoft said the changes it made complied with the latest industry standards, and said early indications linked the problems to some popular third-party products, such as protective firewall software sold by other companies."
Microsoft really needs to start taking ownership of issues like this and stop blaming third-party software.
"it was available only to customers who specifically visited the Windows Update site Friday" You look like idiots every time you shoot off your mouth.
I guess I was not the only one who got hosed downloading this update recommended to me by MS thru the update site. It ruined my DSL connection and could not be uninstalled. I wound up fdisking and formatting, which of course required the nice little phone call to Microsoft to get this number and that number. When they asked me why I was calling, I told them I downloaded an update from the update site that killed my internet connection - they were very polite after that.....wonder why? :)
When Apple comes out with their new PPC 970 systems I will be first in line to buy one. I dont like what I see coming down the Microsoft trail re DRM and all the spying going on. I liked my G4 when I had it but it was so slow compared to my windows box I sold it. Seems like Mac maight make a comeback, I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this way. But there's no way I'm buying a G4 unit.
does anyone among slashdot crowd know the proper action to be followed in case windows update fails? there is a listing of unsuccessful installations in the history of the patches but a rescan does not include the non-succeeding patches. do those ones, according to their id nos, should be manually updated or is there a better and quicker solution?
News flash:
Microsoft has released a quick patch to fix the patch
so you can continue sufin' the web
since you cannot download the patch you can order it directly from Microsoft for only $15
BG
I was wondering why my VPN stopped working last night. They had to pull this crap the same night I was running a large data conversion procedure and needed to monitor it from home. Fuckers.
I doubt that name will ever be used again.
as it was a "security improvement"
Damn skippy it's a security improvement. Can't be attacked if you can't connect!
The coolest voice ever.
ps. how many of todays slashdot readers know what ^H means?
Well, no one has yet answered this, so...
On *nix systems, ^H is generally what you see when your tty settings do not have the backspace key bound to 'erase' (which will clear the previously typed character from the screen, as well move the cursor position one character back).
The command to do so is stty ^H erase . For ^H in this command, (on Solaris 9, at least (which is in front of me) ) you can utilize the two character combination '^' and 'H'.
By default erase is generally bound to delete (^?) - although don't try go binding delete to erase with the two character combination '^' and '?' - you have to press the delete key to get the actual code.
Why backspace is a two character key code and delete only looks like one I have not taken the time to figure out.
Since when does a knowledgeable system admin manage an MS-Windows system?
That was uncalled for. There are plenty of super-knowledgeable, super-skilled sysadmins whose admin duties happen to include that of Windows systems, because it's what their companies happen to have, perhaps alongside other platforms, perhaps not.
Furthermore, do you have any idea what it takes to get an MCSE? It's one hell of a heavyweight certification that entails lots of knowledge as well as the skill with which to apply it.
The coolest voice ever.
This is actually the best move I've seen Microsoft make in a LOOOONG time. It's genius! They force the stupid users who use Windows Update and run Windows XP off the internet! What more could you ask for?
Doesn't this read like from the playbook of corporations these days. You have a problem, acknowledge it, but insuate that someone else is responsible. Note how they don't tell anyone how to fix their patch.
I wasn't affected by this patch, but I know someone who was. MS-bashing aside, all he wanted to know was how to undo the patch. After uninstalling did not work, he had to format his machine and reinstall Windows. On the plus side, I learned some new curse words.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2.4.15 I believe. Released on thanksgiving day so it was called "Greased Turkey". I remember reading about it on a machine that was using it. There was a way to unmount the drives without them being corrupted, luckily, so I was able to reboot into a different kernel. But it was pretty dicey.
First, Microsoft claims to have an easy to use O/S. I'm not sure I've heard other manufacturers of O/S (aside from Apple) make that claim. This means that Microsoft has a responsibility to release updates to its software that require minimal hassle.
Second, Microsoft is larger. Microsoft has the resources to test these products. They could have an entire department dedicated to testing these and other updates. It wouldn't take much time, just money.
Third, Microsoft has a near monopoly, and with that comes a certain degree of resposibility. Microsoft is in the vast majority of homes. Users who go out and trust Microsoft have just been burned. This update was ridiculous. How could they release something that has such a negative effect on an O/S? If an airline were to do this sort of thing, such as leaving all passengers who bought e-tickets stranded for a day, Congress would have a fit. People are just used to Microsoft's blundering. But it needs to end.
To put it simply, there is no excuse. Microsoft should test, can test, and must test. But they choose not to. A company as large and as professional as Microsoft has no excuse for releasing such a destructive update. If Microsoft keeps up this level of incompetence, then they certainly should be subject to class action lawsuits.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
I swore the patch came out last Wednesday, May 21, 2003 like the rest of the XP updates. Even my Windows Update histories said Wednesday. Did MS rerelease it on Friday or something? I have it installed on my XP and 2000 machines and had no problems.
As for Symantec products, which software products is the article referring to? Again, I have no problems and see no problems with my installed Symantec products.
I wonder if the editor made errors in this article. I have seen it on Wired News, ABC News, Yahoo, etc.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
i got a service call last week to look at a computer that couldn't talk on the net...
symantec personal firewall was installed but deactivated. no funky windows xp filtering was setup, etc, etc.
pinging local hosts generated a 'host unreachable' message rather than the std 'timed out'
tried the ms kb tactic of rebuilding the ip stack (via a netsh command). still had a problem. looked at other things that might have caused it. had dell replace system board. still had problem.
8:30 am removed the symantec personal firewall and poooft problem solved. why did i not remove the spf before this? because it was working before and there was no evidence that it had been tampered with.
i will double check with the individual, but i think this patch was installed automatically.
eric
a nice utility that does a rollback of patches that were recently applied to the machine. Intermediate+ users of Windows know that most updates have be uninstalled and reverted back to its previous state by going to Add/Remove Programs. These hotfixes are considered a necessary fix if your machine utilizes the particular component that is indeed broken.
Microsoft should create a "Repair Utility" that is available to the user in the event that a large anomaly (like loss of networking should occur). The user could then browse the patches that were installed, give a description of those patches, and then provide a link to the Knowledge Base article associated with the patch.
If a user encountered a problem with loss of networking, the utility would show that the most recent update to Windows installed was the IPSec patch (the description would say - "this package updates the networking componet of Windows"). Even the beginner or novice could then put two and two together - I can't connect to the Internet so now the "networking component of Windows" is horked.
A nice button that says "Revert" or "Uninstall" would allow the user to remove the patch, reboot, and get on with the program.
Ayup
Hmmm... while tempted to launch into the whole PC vs Apple debate, currently I don't have the time...
I've got to get down to the pro-choice rally before I go lobby for my right-to-bear arms. After lunch I am attending the pro-captital punishment rally. Then hopefully tonight we can attend the fund raiser for the statue of Al "i invented the internet" Gore.
Here are the flame war rules. Please print them out for later reference.
Davak (in asbestos underwear)
It had that problem with XP and 2K
It's a real pain in the ass to have such an stupid crew making updates, at least if that happens on linux, I can reinstall the network by hand, and it will work, but in win ??
Thank god i dont "need" to use windows for nothing real, only to play some gamesI'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
it'll be a better world when software eventually becomes a real engineering discipline, and companies are no longer able to hide behind EULA disclaimers....
First things first - I love open source software. I prefer Linux. But let's be realistic:
Microsoft is a software vendor - a software vendor has employees that know, love, and baby their source code to produce a software product. Windows XP is one of their software products. These software developers know their particular piece of the puzzle well - while they may know jack and doodle about another piece of the puzzle within the same product. Nevermind they have no clue on how another piece of software is written from a completely different vendor!
If Microsoft were to release a patch to Windows XP - do you honestly want them to test the patch against the fifty three million software products that are available to run under their operating system? Let's not forget all the legacy versions that are still floating out there.
C'mon - that's ridiculous. It's an unfair argument to state that Microsoft should test against software not written by them. I would expect Microsoft's testing strategy is to make sure that the software does not adversely affect the performance of their own operating system and the software that came with it.
Since we do not have sufficient information about all the software that was affected by the patch, we do not know the whole scope of the problem. All we know is that Symantec's software product conflicts with the latest update.
If five software products out of fifty three million are broken while the remainder has absolutely no problem - would it not be safe to say that the problem does not lie within the patch, but perhaps the coding practices of the five software products that have the conflicts?
Unlike what I would have expected from Microsoft, pulling the patch was the right idea. I imagine their quality department immediately dispatched a request to Symantec to evaluate the possible conflict and to work a resolution as a fast as possible.
Ayup
If past versions of windows are any harbinger then no. I think they just write code the way they think it might work and once it compiles without critical errors they ship it.
I have to admit though I'm on OSX and I still don't use Auto Update, better to let someone else try it for a week (for instance I totally skipped from 10.2.4 to 10.2.6 because of the kernel panic introduced in 10.2.5 that would have affected my system). Fortunately Apple is pretty good about posting security patches individually and independent of OS bug fixes.
When the update occurs, XP makes a new restore point.
If you are ever having problems after an update... just roll the system back. Easy.
Restore Point Link
DavaK
...how is Windows Update that different from the cron job on my Linux server running up2date? Apart from a certain fear of what Microsoft is *really* phoning home, I really don't have a big problem with it.
Linux packages are uaually more stable because some people want to be bleeding edge and take a lot of the bugs out of it (read: voluntary alpha/beta testers), but that doesn't mean that someday Red Hat can't screw up and release a patch that breaks something.
Of course knocking out the network is a biggie, but this is a manual update that breaks on a quite specific non-standard configuration. As if that has never happened outside of closed source...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If those people lost network access, how would Microsoft know?
Maybe they used System Restore to restore their system to a point prior to the patch? Or maybe they just picked up the phone.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I'm fuming mad after reading the replys to this story. What are you lunix geeks, 5 years old and still reeling from that time some kid put a worm in your drink?
Linux programmers fuck up just as oftern, and does anyone make fun of them? No.
Mistakes happen, nobody's perfect. Get over yourselves.
Why don't you go make fun of some noobs on irc who can't get linux installed off an external cd-rom drive, because you know, the more people you alienate, the more people will use your garbage os, right?
I can't believe you elitest fucks. You are the reason no one uses your stupid os. Grow the ability to communicate and educate and you might get a few more people on board. Until then enjoy your circle jerk.
According to the story the main (although not the only?) problem is with systems that have anti-virus software installed. I'm not surprised. Anti-virus software is written by people who don't fully understand MS's incomplete and incomprehensible documentation, who have often had to reverse-engineer something that MS might change at any moment... and the AV suppliers do not, themselves, bother to document the ways in which their product subtly buggers up a Windows system... so that we can't even tell whether a particular eccentric behaviour might be the fault of the AV.
Whenever a really mysterious bug in a Windows program appears, I always ask users to try running it on Windows (rather than Windows-as-modified-by-an-AV). More often than not, the bug goes away.
...because every time I read about some new security fix, hacking story, or exploit, I log into my web servers and download the security fixes for Debian stable.
(More often than not there's nothing to download, but last week there was a fix in the mime-support package, so you can never be too careful...)
If not for Slashdot and Microsoft, my servers might go for a week or two without updates. Thanks. guys!
Jay (=
[ Because suddenly a sh*tload of boxes quit "calling back home". ]
That was the implied joke, genius.
Give me a break. Let's all start the Micro$oft bashing, right? Because it couldn't possibly be another vendor's fault, like *cough*Symantec's*cough*?
I had a similar problem to this about a year ago, under Windows 2000. I was using a piece of firewall/intrusion detection software called BlackIce. They released a new version of BlackIce, I installed it. Then I installed a network/security update from Windows Update.. rebooted, and what do you know, my internet doesn't work anymore. I contact BlackIce's tech support (who was very helpful) and they admitted they were aware of an issue with that particular security update and their software not working together, and that they would be releasing a patch soon for BlackIce. Microsoft wasn't at fault for it, BlackIce was, and they admitted it.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
I can tell you that in my Debian Sid work PC, I use apt-cron; it DOES apt-get -d -y upgrade every night, but it does NOT install anything before I clear it; i.e., only after I review the changelogs and the bug reports I do apt-get -y upgrade and voilá... instant upgrade.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I have no Symantec software installed. By that I mean that there is no Symantec group, there's nothing in Add/Remove, and I know all the applications on this PC and they're 100% non-Symantec.
I can search for symcjit.dll and find a couple of occurrences (under Oracle software). Looking at the properties shows those files to be (copyright) Symantec.
I have seen this in the past -- a known conflict with Symantec software causing problems, a user stating with positive assurance they had no Symantec software installed, a search for specific Symantec DLLs or components that I know are used by other packages, a removal of those DLLs, and bingo, problem fixed.
Personally, as soon as I saw Symantec mentioned, I gave this involuntary shudder. Do you remember the version of PC Anywhere they released several years ago which essentially completely crashed NT Workstation, requiring a reinstall? I sure do -- that was a Symantec problem, and they admitted it (as well as rather blithely saying the resolution was to reformat your hard drive).
Now all I need to do is download the patch to the last patch to get my internet connectivity back....
So, I read Slashdot and find the answer to my Windows support problem! That's certainly different :)
BTW, to those who said the only way to solve is to reinstall Windows, have you tried rollin gback to the last system checkpoint before the upgrade? (worked for me on XP)
Many of us here on /. are developers. Are you going to honestly say that you've never screwed up in one of your releases and had a security or other bug slip through testing? You tell me that and I've got two words for you...bull ****. Yeah, Microsoft is on a much bigger scale than most of us, and they make a lot more money in sales, but everyone screws up still.
Everyone screws up, even the "big-bad-money-hungry" Microsoft everyone loves to complain about!
When I tried to convert my couple of users to Spop3, we found out that Outlook et.al. could handle it fine, but the email plugin for Norton Antivirus couldn't.
The situation wasn't all that bad as it incited me to implement virusscanning on the server (F-Prot, not Symantec :)
The Enduser
Have Linux installed at your place in Amsterdam, for cheap
Slashdot has been making sure to post a Microsoft article at least once a day, most likely because of the page hits they generate. It doesn't matter if the article is poorly researched, intentionally vague, or completely innaccurate--it's not as though the editors actually answer to anybody or care. Any response is given through modbombing threads, shrugging it off as a running joke (i.e., duplicate articles), or simply ignoring the problem. In other words, Slashdot is guilty of the exact same thing Slashbots claim everyday against "Micro$loth"--FUD campaigns. This is clear just by browsing the story archives.
For crying out loud, there was an article about Ballmer selling Microsoft stock. Wow! What was the point, other than to have Microsoft on the front page so the pseudo-intellectuals who think they have everything figured out can rush in and post "M$" all over the place? In this case, it's an update that conflicts with firewall software for a "handful" of people, so the update has been pulled. But, of course, it is posted as a serious fault of Windows Update, that Microsoft posted something that shut off 600,000 people's connections. The majority of "M$-bashers" won't read the links themselves and will just blindly follow the summary, and so we get the further propagation of falsehoods permeating the worldviews of those who derive their perspective from Slashdot headlines--a tragically high number of Slashbots. We'll get everything from the "apt-get" comments to the "this only proves my point that..." and so forth. Nobody will bother realizing that this a minor issue and didn't even warrant an entire Slashdot article, and that they are being played by the editors into generating page hits and discussion threads bashing Microsoft. Sadly, such has become the norm around this place, a website that used to post really good science articles and keep us updated on kernel development but has now become a corporate shill that posts anti-Microsoft propaganda everyday in between story dupes.
"Sufferin' succotash."
BS.
It's not a surprise this was instantly modded up to "+5" when it is simply anecdotal claims from an Anonymous Coward named "fLaMePr0oF." Only on Slashdot...
The update conflicts with certain combinations of firewall software. Also, by "removed," it was removed from Windows Update. You purposely miss the facts to make Microsoft seem like liars.
Come on, you can do better.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I think the biggest problem is how the Windows Automatic Update feature is turned on by default on everyone's machines.
The real problem is people not reading the articles and seeing that it was not listed as a Critical Update, so it wouldn't be auto-installed anyway. Your point is moot.
But going into instructions on how to disable automatic updating is a nice way to get modded up, as well as falsely claiming "this is at least the 2nd or 3rd time" you've read an article about a malfunctioning patch.
Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Seems the real news here is that the Federal Gub'mint (i.e. OUR tax dollars), will now check these 'industry' patches. Hmm, wonder which corps(e) will get the lions share of testing done for them. M$
JoeR
Quoting from the site:
"This problem occurs because of a regression error in the Windows XP SP1 versions of the kernel files (Ntoskrnl.exe, Ntkrnlmp.exe, Ntkrnlpa.exe, and Ntkrpamp.exe) that were included in the original 811493 security update. On May 28, 2003, Microsoft released a revised version of the 811493 security update for Windows XP SP1 to address this problem."
It's fixed and is a non-issue. Moderators were had.
"Sufferin' succotash."
http://www.linuxisforbitches.com
I have Symantec Norton Internet Security which according to the article was one of the programs incompatible with this patch.
/. I wouldn't have even known there was a problem since my connect still works fine.
If I hadn't checked
The problem must lie elsewhere and not with Symantec.
Responding to a post about a company which held off on installing security patches unless there were published exploits,
Matrix272 wrote:
Hey, at least when the network crashes down around you, it's still YOUR network. If you neglect to install a critical update when it's new, it might be someone ELSE'S network by the time you get around to looking at it.
Which was a perfectly valid comment about risk management tradeoffs.
I recently downloaded a recommended ethernet driver update from windows update. It deleted my previous drivers and crashed during installation. Attempts to replace or uninstall the partially installed drivers resulted in errors. So after about 20 minutes I just did a system restore.
I reported the problem, but it still recommends that I download that little ethernet driver update.
Software Upgrade is a two-click process, and it has never broken any of my 3 machines in the last 2 years.
And best of all, virtually all of the updates add new features or improve performance, not security fixes with Windows update.
Windows XP = Windows eXtortion Program.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
there is a q update that caused a MASSIVE system slowdown, that I've yet to see updated or explained. I am at work on a 2k station so I can't see what the update is but it was an overflow correction 811 somthing or other
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
From Microsoft's site:
L ie -- ????
The following new "shims" are added:
AddProcessParametersFlags
GetVolumeInformation
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
try that. should fix any problems you're having with XP.
If you want to keep your hardware, try this one:
http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/
TallGreen CMS hosting
They make wonderful pretty coloured operating systems that work out of the box and improve on your social life and your interviewing skills by getting you to use the phone to speak to microsoft employees you never knew before (and didn't want to) and answer questions about all facets of your computing life.
After I installed patch 811493 last month, programs became very slow to start up. The problem went away when I uninstalled the patch. Today I downloaded the patch again (from here, which is linked from here). Again it takes a long time to run simple programs like mspaint.exe. Remove the patch again and it's back to normal.
No, it means that there are only 600,000 out of millions of XP users that are intelligent enough to actually bother patching their Windows machines. Personally, I'm sick of receiving Klez infected messages. Even though my machine is impervious to VBS worms, it is almost as bad as unsolicited e-mail, and those 160KB+ attachment files are eating up space on my mail server. I think product activation should be used to shut down Windows boxes that haven't checked and applied an MS patch in the last three months.
Ridiculous.
Besides 811493, 329170 and now 818043 all have either broken something, slowed down the system, crashed machines.
811493 still causes slowdowns on 2000 and XP. Not to mention breaking several AV programs, and other various things.
329170 still causes excessive shutdown times on XP and 2000, and has broken XP all on it's own in several configurations.
818043 is the one we are discussing today, and simply pooch screwed network connections.
So no, it's not fixed. It's still an issue and people are still experiancing problems. And MS still hasn't fixed it, regardless of what you think and regardless of what MS is saying.
Om, nomnomnom...
From the aricle: "Microsoft said the changes it made complied with the latest industry standards, and said early indications linked the problems to some popular third-party products, such as protective firewall software sold by other companies."
Apparently, MS pulled the patch because third party sw wasn't following the standard, so 3rd party sw caused the problem.
Vote for Pedro
The patch was actually a success. Now nobody will EVER be able to hack into those computers.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
which of course required the nice little phone call to Microsoft
That and that alone is why linux will continue to take market share from Microsoft.
I, and I'm sure many others, want to be able to buy the OS software, of any kind, and take it home and install it without phone calls to get it activated, etc.
I don't care how nice the people on the other end of the phone call are, or how short a wait I had to get to speak to someone and explain my problem. (Note that it is my problem, and that there is a chance that my appeal will get rejected, that I "did something wrong".
I have said this before:
My Merrill Lynch adviser told me not to buy Microsoft stock, (I asked him to purchase some for me) as they had been told that Microsoft would lose market share to Redhat and linux in the server market, and that it was not a good buy.
Microsoft needs to sell an OS that is as good as or better than Redhat or Mandrake, and requires no phone calls to activate, and can be installed as many times as you want to. The only thing keeping me from installing Mandrake 8 many many times, is:
l. I install it and keep it for a while
2. I don't have enought money to buy lots of
new computers to install it on.
So, why can't Microsoft sell a product to allow that?
Windows 98 was the last one I have that could be installed many times without a phone call or problem. (and I do) (I play with computers for a hobby) Microsoft wants to make more money off me than I intend to spend, so I don't buy Microsoft!
They'd know because their hit count on MSN.com would go down, since everyone's home page is configured to hit it.
Their hit count on Windows Update would go down, since every few times I launch IE, I see it checking for updates.
Their hit count on MSN messenger service would go down, since it's attached to Outlook Express for most people.
There's probably countless other times that Windows apps touch MS servers. They should probably monitor it and in the event of a severe drop after a patch, they can investigate.
# Erik
What about a slow steady drop when they haven't released a patch? I bet that would worry them more! :^P
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I began switching to linux after seeing windows updates popping up every other day on my windows 2000 installation. I knew that one of them would end up breaking something. Kind of like the outlook "security update" that blocks opening nearly all attachments...
Hey, what the hell. I got Karma to burn.
Until the gross monopoly that is the Micro$oft corporation is dealt with (e.g.: broken up, blown up, whatever) the following condition will apply:
Due to the complete and total lack of ANY compelling force - market, goverment, consumer, or otherwise - Micro$oft will continue to make the worst possible operating system widely available.
No trolling buddy! That's the way it is.
Remember AT&T before it was broken up? (although it is a little oversimplified) we used to pay like $0.40-0.50/minute for LD! Suprised? Why would you be. They had a monololy on long distance. We (the US) passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act in the early 20th century precisely because of Standard Oil and other companies that would just ride roughshod over any and all competition.. and then they would gouge the hell out of all their customers. Sound familiar.
Here's a question - how many of you guys would switch your 2000 presidential vote to Gore knowing now that Bush completely let off M$ - after they were CONVICTED (twice!) in Federal Court? Huh? I cant hear you? Can you speak up??
But, i digress.
How long exactly did it take the OSS community to create a complete kernel, operating system, user interface, and office suite? A few years?? HELLO!!! Micro$hit spends BILLIONS on R&D and they cant even make something as stable as Mac OS X or a fuc*ing splash screen thats more than 256 colors?? After nearly 20 years?
Groan..
The plain truth is M$ has no motivation at all to create standards for or share their OS's inner workings. IE will always start twice as fast as Mozilla because BillG will create special/hidden hooks/methods to use to gain an edge - and the same goes for Symantec. One day Bill is come looking for the anti-virus market (oh the irony!!!) and Lord knows M$ cannot make a product that competes with anyone, so they'll use their underhanded and secret tactics against Symantec (Symantec developer: How come their software can do all this stuff? I dont see that in their docs, and when i call to ask my "rep" they say "see ya".)
The only real question of interest now is: What is going to happen to M$ down the road? Will OSS and change in general finally topple them , or will we actually be living in the T3 future sometime soon? Will BillG become in effect the next Castro or Saddam because he holds the reins to the gold/oil/land of the modern age??
Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
My website has a list i went through to fix this problem. Check it out. If only i had traced the problem back to the updates. GRRR!!!!!
The patch was not flawed. In fact, it simply started enforcing the default IPSEC security policies.
See: Neowin for the full story.
A bunch of claims with no evidence to back it up. Am I supposed to take this seriously?
Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I've pointed you in the direction, and I don't do your homework. Time to see the big boys world and realize that sometimes you have to look up the information yourself.
Om, nomnomnom...
*sigh* Ah well...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I think they dropped them to the 'Pro' version then, right?
The funniest part was, the first 'Pro' was an update that had us going to the Apple servers, hanging on there for 7 or 8 minutes 'downloading', and 'installing', (after paying) and all it was was a serial that unlocked the 'features'.....again.
Anyhoo, was that what you referred to, or am I more baked than I think/feel ?
thanks.
What a complete and utter copout. Your entire argument has been shattered.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No, a copout would be to ignore you. Use that big search engine in the sky and search.
Om, nomnomnom...
The burden of proof isn't on me. There is simply no evidence to be found. Nice dodge.
Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No, a dodge would be question your ability to use a serach engine.
Google gives: 811493 ~970 returns in 0.10 seconds
Google gives: 329170 ~635 returns in 0.12 seconds
Google gives: 818043 ~5 returns in 0.07 seconds, it is new and was quickly fixed. Unlike the above others.
MS has now finally after a month or two finally fixed 811493, it actually works. So take your pick, look it up; or wallow in your own ignorance.
Om, nomnomnom...
You still provide no links. The burden of proof is on you. It's a fun game to play, but I tire of it. Clearly, you have nothing to offer but rhetoric and spin. Don't worry; it's okay to be wrong.
"Sufferin' succotash."
As I said, I don't do your homework. The information is for you to look up. But I can say from personal experiance your postings to roll back to the infamous "I'm better because, I don't have to look it up" bit.
The big bad world of information researchers doesn't work like that. You do your own dirty work, and if you can't, don't or won't look it up. You want to pay me for the work, that's a different story. That's fine with me. I couldn't care less, it's your own pen of ignorance you'll be wallowing in.
But perhaps, you should try looking up some of those "big" words your using like "rhectoric" and "spin", and see how masters actually do at it.
If I had posted rhectoric and spin, it would have been without leaving you the technet article numbers.
Om, nomnomnom...