Slashdot Mirror
BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security
securitas writes "In the second of two parts, the BBC's Stephen Cole of the technology show Click Online interviews Bill Gates about Windows, viruses, security, spam, 'trustworthy computing', Longhorn and being anti-competitive. Sample quote: 'Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are. That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.' Streaming media in Real format is also available. [Video: Broadband | Narrowband]
You can read the first half about the 'digital lifestyle' in Part 1: Bill Gates plots a Windows future. Here is the Slashdot discussion of the first part of the interview."
"Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there"
And he can?
It takes one to know one!
Bill Gates talking about secuity is like the corner whore talking about the evils of premarital sex.
... I'd like to see someone really go after Gates and hold him to account. Microsoft is guilty of anti-competitive behaviour. It's been decided in court on two continents. Why dither around asking him if he feels his company is anti-competitive? Do you really believe he's going to twirl his moustache and say 'Yes! Yes! AND I'D DO IT ALL AGAIN, MWAHAHAH!'
Because I doubt he will.
Not quite. I saw the thingy [was up cuz of jetlag ... tom in france now ...] and it was all "advanced marketting lingo line 201"
... typical fodder
That longhorn "incorporates all the users desires" and that making "windows update automated was #1 priority".
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"Certainly you can never underestimate children out there who can easily take advantage of the big flaws in our code."
I wonder if Billy would ever tell us something isn't a "top priority"? I can just imagine it:
"Yeah, stability, we aren't really keen on that right at the moment, actually that's way down the list."
Thanks Bill, but with an inbox full of virus I get the feeling your "top priority" isn't as "top" as we would like.
The link to part II of the interview was posted as the first +5 Comment.
1. Submit links from high score comments
2. ???
3. Instant Karma!
Just shows that slashdot editors don't read their site at all... (and don't bother to check stories with links to their sites either)
I like the way he sums up the Microsoft corporation and it's company culture:
"Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are."
Q: "did you underestimate the value of security?"
...
A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:
I'm not going to answer that. I mean, come on, we all know that Windows wasn't designed with security in mind. So, I tell you what, I'm going to turn your negative into a positive, like a good salesman.
Here, for a start, I'll get you to focus on the nasty people out there that are exploiting Microsoft software - they're the bad guys, ok, not us!
Next, I'll tell you about auto-update, and that millions of people are using it. You don't have to worry because Windows updates itself. It takes away the hassle, right? And doesn't it make you 'feel' safer?
And of course, Microsoft has marketed the fact that security is its business. Even if Microsoft software isn't secure, we like to give that impression.
Q: "Nevertheless, a lot of our viewers still say to us: 'Microsoft didn't take that threat seriously enough and we are having problems.'"
A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:
Ok, I don't want to answer that either, as it makes us look bad - and how can I refute something that's a fact?
Instead, I'll get you to focus (yet again) on the positive fact that Microsoft makes it easy to sit back and do nothing, letting Windows auto-update itself. Remember, Microsoft software is used because it's easy to use (not because it works).
I couldn't be bothered to read any further.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
I thought we could get everything we needed to know just from analysing his doodles!
"Microsoft Security" is an oxymoron.
If they cared about security (remember them saying that Windows XP was the most secure operating system ever?) they would have shipped it with the firewall on by default and most services off by default.
Why oh why did they think it was a good idea to have an RPC server on by default when there's probably less than 1% of users who would use the feature?
How many insecurities has Internet Explorer had since it was launched with XP? I lost count. Even now, there are still holes in there wide enough to drive a truck through but they are not patched. Microsoft want to keep things quiet until they get around to fixing the bugs, and they only fix the bugs when they see the problem being exploited in the wild.
And, thanks to Microsoft integrating the Internet Exploder engine so tightly into their OS, if a bug affects IE then it probably also affects Outlook, Outlook Express, MS Help and gawd knows what else.
This is security?
Ha!
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
If DRM and the requirement to have a DX9 video card is what users want then he's right on.
The only challenging question was around the Euro case and Billy completely dodged the question as expected.
Surely Bill often agrees to interviews with stipulations concerning what questions can be asked in advance - lame, but that's what you get with power. I find it odd that the BBC gets a 2-part interview with Gates and the topic of free software isn't brought up at all. Perhaps Bill is afraid to let slip another ignorant 'commie' remark.
There is only one word to describe this interview...
B O R I N G
OK, "security is top priority". As a security professional I think it's good that they've woken up.
However, I'd really like to know what are they going to DO about it, apart from the traditional "we'll train our programmers". This is a key question especially considering that they have millions of code lines written before security was any kind of priority.
I predict no radical changes to the number of discovered Microsoft software security flaws in the short term.
Ford: 'Quality is Job 1' Qwest: 'The Spirit of Service' Microsoft: 'trustworthy computing'
"customers want" or more correctly "what he tells the customers they want".
I'd pay good money to have him say on tape 10 good things about a Linux distro. The fact that he can't be objective means anything he has to say is totally worthless.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
'nuff said.
That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.
/. land.
An illuminating quote to choose because it is a complete non sequitur. And perhaps this isn't that obvious to everybody, even in sceptical
In reality, there is no requirement for Microsoft to trust the software on my machine in order for me to trust it. The two relationships are quite distinct. I may choose to trust software that Microsoft has never heard of. Conversely, I may distrust software that MS has endorsed.
The "trustworthy computing" soundbite has to be this vague because to pin down who is trusting whom to do what would immediately give the game away. The game is, of course, to encourage users to give up control of their PCs.
The way Bill Gates takes credit for the advances of PC hardware.
The marketshare of Windows is the reason for many "hardware advancements". Without a standardised operating system, hardware would have never been standardisted, and thus would have been unable to progress.
How the solution to crappy software si faster updates.
Almost any company will only make products that are as good as the customer wants them. This is why people buy economy priced cars and everyone is not driving BMWs. Sure a BMW is better, but it costs a lot more to produce and few people are willing to spend the extra money to own one. Would you be willing to pay three times as much for Windows if it were a much better product? I doubt it. Everyone complains because it costs $99 now.
How the price of windows is pretty much dependent on how big you are (compare the retail price with the price paid by big companies)
This is true for everything, in every business. When you buy in bulk, you get discounts. It's a common business practise.
So, screw the little and small, cuddle the big !
Would you buy a car that your neighbour built himself for one fifth the price of a "mass produced" car that you knew you'd never be able to find anyone to work on it? That doesn't make any sense. When you're buying a product that is going to need support you'll generally want a product that will have support available. Buying/using products that aren't widely used isn't a great practise. Especially in business.
An if anybody try to complain, file a lawsuit for patent infringment..... surely there is a patent covering what you are doing now !
Big companies will have a cartel of patents, only the small fish will be left out. A pity that the "people" do not know/care about this.
Big companies get patents because they come up with original ideas and they patent them. It isn't their fault that someone else didn't come up with the idea first or was too lazy to patent it.
Just remember that Microsoft was, at one time, a small company. They obviously did *something* right.
Quit your bitching, because it really doesn't matter. Microsoft is here, they own a majority of the desktop market, and they're not going away anytime soon. Linux, or other free software, is not a viable replacement at this point. I believe everyone already knows that.
Microsoft is not the first huge company to dominate an entire market.
if only the BBC presenter http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs /news/jeremypaxman.shtml Jeremy Paxman had asked the question:
'And Europe too fined you for being anti-competitive. Did you ever pause for a moment and think: 'are we being anti-competitive?'
We wouldn't have got the lame response waffling about the PC industry, we would've could a half-honest response. Instead they chose Stephen Cole, a bumbling idiot with a lisp.
Nothing costs nothing
BSD (even if it's dead, hehe) and Linux can all show you this.
He says certainly too much!
There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.
BSD (even if it's dead, hehe) and Linux aren't usable for most people.
A machine running MS DOS with no internet connection is even more secure, but it isn't useful.
A car with no engine won't get stolen, but I can't drive it anywhere to use it.
Look at it this way:
I could give my girlfriend a new computer, sans operating system and a windows disc, she could install it, install her software and do all the things she wants to do with it in a couple of hours. I can't give her a linux cd and expect the same results.
Now do you honestly think she'll give a fuck about how secure the system is if she can't even use it?
Of course not.
*engage old-skool virus flashbacks*
The problem with microsoft security is not what they are doing but more how they are doing it. Security needs to be #1 in design. Then you build features on top of that (Without breaking security). For example some application want to run as administrator even if they don't need too (Like word perfect spell check) I can understand installing applications as administrator but administrator should not be allowed to run these application. Windows need a redesign for high security not plugging the holes in the existing version. Expect there will be holes in your OS but make it to minimize the dammage. Windows is like Setting up a Linux Apache Server where the user access it runs on is Root not Nobody. So if someone breaks into Apache then they get this limited access where they could at worse mess up and steel data from the website. But with the windows settings all services are under administrator when someone breaks in they have full access to the system.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Are you dreaming? (Assuming your girlfriend is not a geek) Have you got any idea how many drivers won't be found (even by XP) with current hardware (you said "new"). If XP will detect it, it will be sub-optimal at best. Then I'm not even speaking about the fact that installing XP will probably not be XP2. Has your (non-geek) girlfriend a CD handy with SP2 on it?
Look, I can understand what you try to prove, but let's be reasonable: installing a PC from scratch is not easy.... not with Windows, not with Linux. There will be questions that the user can't respond to.
As for "not possible with Linux": I'm typing this from an Ubuntu Linux machine. (Installed yesterday, I'm getting my first impressions) The only thing that I needed to install separately was the SMP packages, but a normal user doesn't have SMP in the first place. Still, the questions asked during the install were easy (even for an average user) but my girlfriend couldn't do it.
Users do not install machines, and if they do the machines won't last long. Admins install machines... That's the way it is (for the moment)
Notable exception would be Mac OS X, where you just stick in CD's and answer newbie questions. Apple just has the "known-hardware" advantage.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I wonder if MS has fully sized up the impact of the bad press and user response they *will* get when the first exploit that uses trusted computing emerges.
It *will* happen and it *will* be a cataclysm for MS.
-- $G
In comparison, right from the outset, open source desktop platforms and applications have relied almost wholly on closing the infectable vectors, the exploited vulnerabilities used by malware, as quickly as possible.
Read the following Usenet thread from 2000 that covers the argument in detail. David Harley and Robert Moir are two Anitvirus industry leaders. It also includes the prediction that Microsoft would eventually get into the antivirus industry.
If you have a spare hour, listen to Dr Dobbs' technetcast:
Hey
:)
Can't we organize a Slashdot interview of BG? (titter
Without a standardised operating system, hardware would have never been standardisted, and thus would have been unable to progress.
You sure as hell got that backwards! First came the standard hardware, then came the standard OS. IBM created the standard hardware environment and Microsoft rode the crest of that wave to where they are now.
Big companies get patents because they come up with original ideas and they patent them. It isn't their fault that someone else didn't come up with the idea first or was too lazy to patent it.
First of all, this is totally irrelevant in a discussion about Microsoft. They seldom came up with original ideas. Secondly, too lazy to patent? yeah, that must be it; all them lazy inventors out there that just let companies steal their ideas. Why didn't I think of that?
Just remember that Microsoft was, at one time, a small company. They obviously did *something* right.
There it is again. The old "They are rich, they must be right!" argument.
Linux, or other free software, is not a viable replacement at this point. I believe everyone already knows that.
You are absolutely right! I urge you to sink every penny you have into Microsoft stock.
Precisely
The key question is "did they do it legally?"
And the answer on two continents is no
Don't argue
That's precisely what those two court cases mean. Microsoft dominates the market due to its illegal activities.
And they don't need your baby-Adam-Smith philosophy to defend them. They're quite big enough to do it on their own (by buying the politicians they need)
Both Bill Gates and drug dealers
Maybe off topic but may as well say: Click Online is a very Microsoft centric TV programme which is shown on BBC World internationally and on BBC News 24 in the UK. It tends to be very dumbed down and barely scratches the surface on a lot of subjects. I remember one show where they were discussing distributed computing, and had a cluster of Windows 9x boxes (!) all of which duly blue-screened. Ahh, memories. If only the BBC actually did a serious tech show :(
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
. . . that he is stressed, tense, not a natural leader, and struggling to concentrate. Something ELSE you want to tell us, Bill?
Love, Stu
He uses the word certainly too often for my liking. Is he trying to reassure us of something?
Bill Gates talking about security? Thats like John Ascroft talking about his assistant's rack.
I'm confused by your analogy. Do you mean that Ashcroft initially ignored his assistant's rack, and now, after realizing that everybody else thinks it's important, is feverishly and unsuccessfully trying to enhance it?
Hehe, Cole asked Bill about "longhaul" about 3 times and Bill didn't get it. You can see Cole smile just as the camera pulls away.
How we know is more important than what we know.
> Security needs to be #1 in design
Uou mean like Unix was? Or more correctly wasn't. In fact Dennis Ritchie wrote about UNIX: "It was not designed from the start to be secure. It was designed with the necessary characteristics to make security serviceable."
And of course, this from the same people who brought us the C language which makes writing code to buffer overrun a virtue of simplicity leading to the number one cause of vulnerabilities today.
As for Windows services, not all execute with Administrator permissions. IIS for example runs under an anonymous IUSR_computername account that is highly restricted. In my experience any web server setup by a competent Windows admin is as secure as one setup by a competent Linux admin.
Windows bad reputation is at least partly to blame on the sort of users it attracts. Most Windows end-users can not tell the OS from the apps, rarely update and have no idea what clicking Yes to warnings in their web browser is actually doing.
How many Unix users could you say the same of?
Windows XP SP2 is a whole lot better, and coupled with either a locked-down IE or Firefox install and a good updating anti-virus makes for a system that is secure and easy to use.
This MS security bashing is getting old.
[)amien
Open source desktop platforms are wide open. There has been one innovation in software installation and that is the ROX Desktop. The concept being zero-install. You don't need to have root to install an application (any application) and you don't need any special privledges to run it. You simply can't run an app that doesn't come from a trusted source. The only part of the disk that applications need to be able to write to is a directory to store the user's preferences for that application and a directory to store documents created by that application. Maybe when we have more innovation on the desktop we'll get to this ideal where an application simply can't "spread" like a virus, be it by maliciously modifying other applications or by maliciously modifying documents used by users on other machines.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Reminds me of a few friends who are in office and how they answer questions, even non-political ones.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
The way to control it is to lock malicious hackers up for a long long time. The message has to go out that, contrary to the movie War Games, this is not a game, and you may end up in jail for ten years.
The sentence this week for one of the MS Blaster perps (18 months) was inadequate, but a start. It's not really enough of a punishment. They need to know: release a virus and ten years of your life will be snuffed out.
Vigorous prosecution put the kibosh on phreaking, and it will do so for malicious hacking too. Of course it will never be eliminated, but incarceration and social ostracism will take most of the wind out of their sails.
Didn't Trustworthy Computing used to be about DRM? How did it suddenly turn around to mean information security?
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
I hate windows and I can name several good things about it.
- Standard kernel API [a lot of what was written for as far back as win 3.1 will still work today]
- User interface [apis] are effective and the resulting "experience" is user friendly
- The kernel is largely stable except when errant drivers take it down
- Lots of games for windows
About gates personally?
- Donates considerable bank to charities
- Oraganizes sporting events for his employees
- Provides a challenging and innovative workplace
I'm sure working for MSFT has it's faults [namely you couldn't get away with using Gentoo] but if you didn't care about the OS wars then it wouldn't matter.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The thing is, when microsost says 'trusted computing' they want you to think that this means you trusting mucrosoft.
It means nothing of the sort, it means industry trusting microsoft to deliver DRM crippled content, this way Microsoft can tie up everyones computer by sayiung 'you can trust us' so that nothing can run or be stored without industry (the 'rights' holders) giving their OK, this will remove the risk of virus and malware attacks because they just won't be able to run.
Interestingly, Microsoft hasn't actually done anythg special to secure it's OS, it's just endorsed pretty much any DRM scheme indistry cares to propose -they aim to secure a 'trusted' status simply by telling enough of the people who matter (CEOs and Governments) that they can't possibly trust anything open that doesn't come from Microsoft.
It's like I always say, Microsoft is all about redefinition. If something comes along that Microsoft think is a threat ('Innivation', 'open', 'trusted') they just decide what THEY want the word to mean and then feed that to anyone who'll listen.
Trusted Build Agents are the final twelth step in my Twelve Step TrustABLE IT blog entry.
Also is already possible to secure Linux desktops the "right way"
Trojaned windows media files anyone? ;-)
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Twelve Step TrustABLE IT : VLSBs in VDNZs From TBA
We don't get screwed over.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Secondly, if they truly were the best, they wouldn't have all those security problems, now would they?
This is my ongoing number one gripe about Microsoft: they cannot admit their mistakes. Though every OS has security issues, MS is practically the only one that keeps lying about it. Technical quality aside, I'll rather deal with honest people and honest businesses.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The marketshare of Windows is the reason for many "hardware advancements". Without a standardised operating system, hardware would have never been standardisted, and thus would have been unable to progress.
...
...
Wrong, it is not "the" reason, at most it is one of the reasons.
USB did not take off (and were even dismissed by Windows mags at the time) before Apple integrated it in their Mac.
And when Apple did that, they were laughed at by the Windows folks
And Apple sure did not have the Windows market share.
I could say the same for FireWire, even nowadays, FireWire is still dismissed by a lot of people.
And second sentence is false, because there is no "standardised OS". Or define that. Is it Windows 98 ?
Almost any company will only make products that are as good as the customer wants them.
This is why people buy economy priced cars and everyone is not driving BMWs.
You are making it backwards. Even worse, you mix customer and consumer.
Given the price of a car, car companies are still forced to treat you as a customer.
When you buy Windows, you are just a consumer. The $99 price include almost NO service.
You do not even have a useful complete printed manual with Windows (hence all the books sold for that).
WAY different from a car where you can even make the price go down.
Sure a BMW is better, but it costs a lot more to produce and few people are willing to spend the extra money to own one.
Would you be willing to pay three times as much for Windows if it were a much better product? I doubt it.
Everyone complains because it costs $99 now.
I'm not sure about your "BMW is bette. Certainly it is not for me.
You are confused about "it is more expensive and everyone know it, so I can show off" against "it is better".
Why do you think there are quotas on japanese cars (even here in Europe) that gives you more bang for the bucks ?
As in japanese cars are better and yet cheaper
Windows is not the better product. Would you have talked about Apple, it would have been more believable.
This is true for everything, in every business. When you buy in bulk, you get discounts.
It's a common business practise.
Wrong again. A lot of businesses buy by bulk, and make YOU, the consumer, profit on the discount.
The businesses make their living by selling big quantities. I think they are called discounters in american.
As the focus was on the consumer, you end up NOT buying in bulk, and STILL getting the discounts.
Would you buy a car that your neighbour built himself for one fifth the price of a "mass produced" car
that you knew you'd never be able to find anyone to work on it? That doesn't make any sense.
When you're buying a product that is going to need support you'll generally want a product that will have support
available. Buying/using products that aren't widely used isn't a great practise. Especially in business.
Good try. Except that in the real case discussed here, there IS support, so you WILL find someone to work on it.
And even if every one followed your "great practises", mankind would still be stuck in stone age.
Big companies get patents because they come up with original ideas and they patent them.
It isn't their fault that someone else didn't come up with the idea first or was too lazy to patent it.
OMG, amazing ! I understand now, you are completely brainwashed, specially if you truly believe that !!
Just remember that Microsoft was, at one time, a small company. They obviously did *something* right.
Yes, "something" : they screwed a bigger one. Doing sth right is not the same as doing sth righteously.
Quit your bitching, because it really doesn't matter. Microsoft is here, they own a majority of the desktop market,
and they're not going away anytime soon.
Even sitting on your elephant, you should beware the mouse
Hey, that's what i found when i was trying to set up a shared directory for multiple users on a friend's xp box. "Yeah, well as admin i make a new folder called sharedstuff, then we share it and set non admin people to read only.....er....where's the dialog?....erm.....it must be in user accounts....er....where is it?.....wtf?....."
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I broadly agree - this is, after all, what law is for. However, I'd make a couple of additional points:
- The punk with a shell exploit today stands a decent chance of being the computer expert of tomorrow. Educate them; don't destroy them.
- Prosecution should never ever EVER be considered a solution to the problem of dodgy security. That's just asking for an Independence Day scenario where one Irani (for example) hacker brings down all the American motherships the moment war breaks out.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
please please please say something not completely predictable. thank you.
Why? Only he can say for sure, but possible reasons could be:
- distract the public from trying Linux or other Free or Open Source Software, or at least delay them.
- distract the public from real open document standards
- distract policy makers from the fact that WordML is still closed
- distract home users and businesses from OpenOffice.org
- distract everybody from FireFox, Mozilla and Opera.
- distract the public from ongoing Windows security failures
- distract investors from the fact that MS has halved research and development
- distract pundits from Longhorn's list of features getting shorter and release getting later
- distract home users from the Mac mini
- distract investors from the EU anti-trust case
- distract businesses and lawmakers from the VC-1 codec
- distract European businesses from the software patent threat
- ... etc.
You get the picture.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If you look at things like spam, we feel very good about the progress there.
Thanks to poor design, Outlook now helps spammers(worms and viruses) innovate more than ever.
---
This was interesting also, regarding the timeline for longhorn: We're targeting 2006 but that isn't in any sense an exact date.
For a 'genius', he certainly understands that a year is not the same as an exact date.
---
I wish I could get an exact date....
I trust my computer just fine; thank you very much.
Now if you, your company, Disney, the MPAA & RIAA etc. don't trust my computer that's really not my fucking problem. Doncha think?
Yes, I am aware that you sayd trustworthy and no trusted computing. Nevertheless, a faint, cold fear thrills through my veins when I observe execs, pr shills, spin doctors and other professional liars preparing the rethoric ground to matter of factly take my computer away.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
"People would be very lucky if other sectors of the economy worked as well as the PC industry."
But not very lucky if other products worked as well as windows
Anger increasing....
This would be slightly funny if not for the fact that I HAVE to read this at work, as my home computer (which is outside of a well defended government network) is a wriggling mass of Trojans/Worms/viruses/spyware/adware... I am running 10 or 12 different anti-virus software in a futile attempt to clean it up. It is screwed. I have a feeling I will have to FORMAT and lose all my data (20GB + 120GB + 60GBx2).
All I have to say is "Trojan Downloader" sucks some ass big time, it can really ruin your day. If you see anything popup about a "INF installer" while you are surfing with IE (which I will NEVER EVER do again, well at work maybe), pull the plug. Press the off switch. cut the line.
I have disinfected most of the baddies, but more always seem to come up... The best part is the more I "disinfect" and basically delete files, inevedibly critical system files get chewed... so now XP is wildly unstable as well, not to mention my internet connection is also severered (which may be a blessing in discise).
So right now I have a process called svchost.exe runing my CPU at 99% and at least one bit of adware hidden away somewhere I cannot fathom. The one good side to this coin (not for me), is that I am seriously considering an OS move, I am so mad. I have downloaded the latest versions of KNOPPIX 3.7, GENTOO 4.3, XANDROS 201, and Simply MEPIS 4.4 but probably due to my CD-ROM sucking none will live boot except XANDROS, and it requires an HD install to run. I am still trying to save my data, but i am getting more discuraged by the minute. Anyway thats my lame story as sucky as it is.
BTW I know it is off topic but could any of you LINUX people out there tell me wtf isolinux errors mean on live boot attempt? Specifically the one that says something about a very dammaged bios or something like that and "Trying to wing it" and then repeat. Sucks. Anyway my response to BILL would be I just finished TRYING to get rid of HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of malware files off my computer because XP is SOOOO secure. I think he needs to windows update his reality.
DarthVain
>I can't give her a linux cd and expect the same results.
This sounds like untested orthodoxy. Has anyone tried recently? I'd like to see someone set up an install race btn Linux (with a user-friendly linux distrib) & MS XP. The playing field would be as level as possible (something, btw, MS would never give you because they *own* the OEMs, that's why they're an illegal monopoly) and there would have to be independant judges. Say, two different *virgin* installer operators on different machines overseen by some worthy judges . It would be worth it - even if it failed - to see what happened.
All we need is someone's g/f(s) - something which would be hard to come-by on slashdot - although you claim to have one, which makes me suspicious. Maybe someone could volunteer their parents, grand or o'wise?
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
With all the sales, hob knobing with state heads etc... I wonder if he still programs at all?
void sig(void){ */ STUB:**FIXME**
Moving slightly offtopic here, but Paxman asked Howard the question "Did you threaten to overrule him?" 12 times, according to Newsnight: Paxman versus Howard (includes the video!)
In it, Jeremy asked Mr Howard the same question 12 times - not the widely believed 14 times. The interview was first broadcast on 13 May 1997
"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." --Groucho Marx
That's not fair - there's hardly any Unix users anyway! :)
"Bill Gates PLOTS a Windows future"
Lessee now, first I put a ton of money into some Senators' pockets...
Then I get them to declare all the Linux freaks "Communists" and "enemy combatants" and get them all shipped to Gitmo...
Then I accuse Larry Ellison of financing terrorist groups...
Then I give a few million more dollars to some charity to make me above criticism...
Then...
Profit!!!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are."
Unfortunately for him it applies to Gates...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Haven't they been saying this for years? Since 2001 or so? How many thousands of viruses has microsoft's OS been nailed with since then?
Palladium, anyone?
Really, for a company whose software spreads viruses like a whore on a submarine for the last 20 years to claim that all of a sudden it thinks security is important at least implies that security wasen't number 1 until now...
Boy that make me feel safe using windows! Thank God!
Aren't they?
Seriously, someone needs to get Bill a hobby now that he doesn't run the company day to day and is only yhe Grand High Ayatollah of Software Architecture. There literally is not one single solitary word that comes from his mouth that I can accept at face value and whenever he mentions such and such aspect of computing that needs and deserves MS's attention I automatically translate that to "Fuck, Burn and Kill".
And I am a Microsoft stockholder and wish them only the best - stockprice-wise. Let's face facts; Micosoft conquers by being average at best and benignly negligent at worst. This is a business not an artform and when they say something about security it can ONLY be interpreted in the context of what is good for Microsoft, not you.
Here's an idea.
/.'ers whine moan complain about bugs, but guess what? They happen. To the "best" of us. Double standards suck.
:)
Learn how to use your OS before you ditch it.
It's a two-way street. Really.
First off, if your IE has the ability to do such things, you're a moron for letting it. Yes yes other
Second, under the assumption that you actually knew what you were doing, let's say that you were hit with a really nasty bit of spyware/adware that owned your system as you have outlined. You claim that you're running 10-12 pieces of anti-virus software to remove spyware. First off, you're an ignorant moron, second you have no concept of backing up, less you wouldn't be "losing" all of your data.
Yet the points STILL keep coming. "I have downloaded the latest versions of...GENTOO 4.3". Here's a hint, you're several releases behind. That's by far not the latest. So don't bother.
Oh, and if you're getting those isolinux errors that you describe, you've already answered your own question...your computer hardware is owned, isolinux tries to work, but fails, because your computer is a piece of crap.
Linux is not for you. Windows is not for you. Come back and whine when you have some room to speak about computing sucking all and being insecure. For now, it's clear that you're just a moron
(Now there's a piece of flaimbait if I've ever written one...but hey, it felt good, all right?)
Microsoft's message to both it's shareholders and it's customers is crystal-clear: Microsoft would rather BUY an anti-spyware company to "solve" it's Internet explorer problems, than spend the money to fix the problem with it's software.
No, no. The message is: Microsoft will not solve such problems. Microsoft has enough money to buy up e.g. an anty-spyware company, and maybe this way the raise in publicity and the PR will make problems go away. You know: don't see it, doesn't exist.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Sure, my 12-year-old niece can download and play MP3s in XP, do her homework in MSOffice, install software, etc. But does she update her virus checker, scan her system for spyware, apply regular software updates, etc. etc? Of course not...
I don't doubt your Windows system has been trouble free but you've had to spend a lot of time and effort keeping it that way.
Linux currently has the advantage that it's not targetted for spyware, worms and viruses and in reality, it probably never will be simply because it's very difficult (if not impossible) to find the same version of a single component that runs on most of the Linux machines that connect to the Internet. How can you exploit a vulnerability if only a very small number of people have that vulnerability on their systems?
I'm not denying that Linux can be exploited through buffer overflow attacks on daemons and I probably spend as much time as you applying updates, configuring firewalls and trawling system logs on my Linux systems.
But let's dispel this fantasy that any OS is "easy" - the real problem is that so many Joe Sickpacks have believed the MS hype of "easy Windows" which is why there is now such a huge population of poorly protected PCs out there to spread all manner of unwanted programs.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
However, as time has gone on, the architecture of UNIX and UNIX-like systems has changed to compensate for the insecurity of the Internet - this is why most daemons on a UNIX system can now be run as non-root users and/or over layers like SSL to tighten things up considerably.
Sure, it takes time and a heap of knowledge to get a UNIX system as secure as possible but when you run open protocols over the Internet, any exploits get fixed pretty quickly and there's absolutely no chance of an email attachment trashing a system, for example, because someone has found an exploit in a closed proprietary protocol or API that just about everyone uses.
In the same vein, this UNIX-bashing, based on the UNIX that was 30 years ago, is also getting old.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Windows is hopelessly broken. The fact that a binary compiled against Windows 3.1 will work on Windows XP just goes to show that XP is laden down with unnecessary legacy support. It is not any kind of benefit. It is a bad thing, because those dregs of Windows 3.1 that persist into Windows XP are exactly why we have the malware problems we have. In the DOS days, programmers could afford to use techniques that relied on some heavy assumptions since falsified: that a machine would not be connected to a network, and that there were some operations that no user would ever have a legitimate need to perform. {Unix always was network-aware, and always gave its system admins more than enough rope to hang themselves and trip up anybody who came looking for bodies.} DOS, and Windows afterward, ended up being more tolerant of shoddy programming than proper "industrial" operating systems. In some cases, bad programming was actually encouraged by DOS/Windows design blunders. As desktop PC power overtook the first Unix mainframes, and Internet connectivity became the norm, the vectors were lining up for disaster.
You do not need for systems to be backward compatible with ancient binaries. As long as you have the source code, you can simply re-compile it against your latest kernel and libraries, and it will Just Work. If something really has changed so much that it won't compile without editing, then it was already broken in the first place.
Stable closed-source drivers running in or with a closed-source kernel will never exist. Perfection can only be achieved when the driver developer and the kernel developer each have access to the other's code. Anything less than the full, annotated source code is just incomplete documentation.
Closed source is destroying computing. If everything is closed source, then it makes sense to build machines with the kind of processor and the I/O ports in the same addresses. Otherwise you need to supply different versions of essentially the same software just to work with different manufacturers' computers. {Think back to the cassette-based software on the 8-bit computers of the 1980s, and the racks in W.H.Smith full of similar games in versions for the Oric, the Spectrum, the Commodore 64, the BBC model B and the Amstrad CPC464. Come to think of it, why didn't they just record all the different versions on the same cassette one after another, for crying out loud?} All machines built the same way is one way to do it. It is not the only way. You can eliminate architecture-dependence by distributing the source code. Then, any architecture for which a suitable compiler exists can potentially run it.
If there were more machine architectures -- by which I mean physically different instruction sets and/or port addressing schemas -- out there, then we would instantly reduce the susceptibility of the worldwide user base to viruses, worms and trojans. Call it electronic biodiversity. In an environment like that, software would pretty much have to be open source to survive; it would hardly be economically viable for a vendor to release many versions of the same software. You would obtain a package in source form, audit it if desired, compile it, then have to perform some deliberate hardware action {like pressing a small, recessed button; or moving a jumper on the motherboard} to allow it to be installed.
Microsoft will get their comeuppance, though. Sooner or later they will have to launch a new version of Windows that will totally break compatibility with legacy software. Buyers will now have the choice: spend a lot of money buying the latest Windows system, not be able to use any of your old Windows software, have most of your old documents rendered totally unreadable and worry about the next time Microsoft pulls this kind of stunt; or spend not mu
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I'm unsure which comment is the troll.
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
This quote says it all:
Stephen Cole:
Are you a victim perhaps of your own success? Being the biggest, you are always going to be under attack.
Bill Gates:
And we're always able to do the best R&D, the best innovation, get the best partnerships.
Certainly our position is one that people envy.
Bill Gates, you rock! Even though you had a nice net to fall back upon, you worked hard so you deserve it but I sitll dont like windows.
Actually, as an ISV, if you want to put the shiny "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on your application, you have to pass a few Microsoft-administered tests.
.ini text files? If MS wanted maintainability then why didn't they specify a standard way of handling them in WinNT and Win95 (file locations, syntax, etc) as a condition of meeting the "logo requirements"?
Some criteria: [...]
I've admittedly not looked very hard for the "designed for XP" logo, but that might explain why getting 3rd party software which truly meets that designation is still nearly like finding hen's teeth.
1) Isn't as large a problem as it used to be, but a good amount of software (especially "free as in beer" stuff you get on the 'net that is crappily written) still peppers C:/WINDOWS/SYSTEM32 with DLLs
2) I don't know a single, solitary person who has never had to run with elevated privliges for at least one application that is still currently distributed and advertised to work with XP (although the official logo probably isn't displayed). One of the worst offenders besides games is DVDs.
3) Half the stuff out there that runs as a service/resides in the system tray falls apart with fast-user switching.
4) That one makes me laugh...uninstalls are cleaner but registry residue is still a problem. The whole concept of a monolithic, binary file is absolutely stupid. Honestly, what was wrong with
Mr. Gates can talk all he wants about the wonderful plans he has for software, but it seems not even he can overcome the incredible resistive inertial forces that have built up around the Microsoft platform. XP has been out for YEARS and all the above-mentioned problems are STILL common. Longhorn could be completely rewritten from the ground up with a completely solid architecture (which would be great!) but the problems won't go away--not for a long time. I figure that even if the foundation for Longhorn were as solid as it is for BSD, Linux and OS X the world could be contending with legacy flaws and quirks until about 2010 (just a wild guess---not gonna eat my words 5 years from now).
"Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are." - Mr. Gates
If you can "never underestimate" said level, it drops to zero... I think he means that you can never OVERESTIMATE the level - which means that no matter how many people you think will try to break your stuff, there will always be a couple more, or their skill will always be a little greater.
If he honestly thinks that the level of malicious crackers in the world is so low as to be unable to underestimate it, he shouldn't be in the computing business (yes, yes, I know - he shouldn't be in it at all, but whatever).
If he means level like "stoop to their level"-type level, well, perhaps, but you don't have to be "evil" to be good at breaking things...
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Excellent point, why has no-one else noticed this?
How come people can say exactly the opposite of what they mean; and their audience not only understand what is really meant but don't even notice the difference! Oh well, I could care less.
Ok your calling me a moron? I am an idiot to let IE get taken over? It is my responsibility to defend IE? Give me a break... Yes I know I can disable features so that it can't happen. However I am not about to cripple myself so that I can browse. What I was saying is that it should be made so these things cannot happen.
Number 2 I was trying to be brief and as you may have noticed it was still too long a post. I have various Spyware and adware program running, and well as firewall software, etc.. AND anti-virus software. I figured any intelligent reader would get the idea that I was trying to fix my system which was the post, not a line by line outline of how I tried doing it and specifically what software I used you flipping moron. Also feel free to tell me how I can back up 260GB of data please. Can I do that to CD or please, give me a break. You have to risk manage. Am I going to buy another computer so I can have duplicate systems? No! Be reasonable. Have more disks to be infected on the same computer? Tape drive?? Yeah I got that money to spend too...
Number 3 actually the version I am using is "install-x86-universal-2004.3-r1" which to my limited knowlege (admittedly) IS the lastest you can get. It is my LIMITED understaning that you can download updates via the Portage feature. However you moron it is a bit hard to do if you do not have a running copy. Anyone feel free to correct me on any of this, as I ONLY have a limited understanding.
Number 4 Yes you get one point, my computer is a POS... if I had a choice I would love to get a new one, but $$$ dictates otherwise. What I wanted was perhaps some help like perhaps flashing to a new BIOS may help, or trying a friends newer DVD drive. You being a jerk and mouthing off doen't help me at all.
So your saying LINUX isn't for me nor is Windows? Hmm well I seem left with very little alternative... What FreeBSD? I am not sure why you decided to be such a jerk but whatever, if it makes you feel superior, then have fun, I certainly can't stop you.
I could try and say how many years I have working with computers and various OS's, or pehaps how I work in the industry on an enterprise level, or how many degrees I have in the field... but we all know two things, that I can say whatever and you won't belive it and vice versa and that you are a certainly a jerk.
I prefer kshing and zshing to bashing when it comes to Unix.
Think global, act loco
You know, the Linux executable file format and syscall interface have been stable enough since version 1.0 that you can still run binaries for Linux 1.0 in 2.6.
Win 3.1 and DOS compatibility is provided by a VM with its own libraries and code. NTVDM is just a program that provides the legacy interfaces; other than the special controls for putting the CPU into V86 mode, the environment has exactly the same privileges as any other application. You can remove NTVDM at your leisure, therby breaking any compatibility and removing all the old code. NT doesn't have any code from DOS, Win3.1 or 9x in the underlying OS. NTVDM for DOS/Win3.1 on NT is like Carbon for MacOS 9 on OSX.
The 64 bit CPUs that NT supports don't have a V86 mode anymore; NTVDM isn't supported, so DOS/Win3.1 compatibility is broken.
Well you do have to understand that I wouldn't dare hand her any Linux CD sans Slackware. But that's just because I have a personal bias to it. :)
I just read an *entire* Slashdot thread about Windows OS security and didn't read a single mention of OS X!!!
IMO the Windows OS vs. Linux OS paradigm ("simple" vs. secure) lost all meaning about 2 years ago...
I'm writing this on a PC, but darn, the more I read the words of Gates and Balmer, the more depressing it is to know that I've been paying to make these guys rich for most of my life, and for a crappy product at that. Meanwhile, I see Apple come out with great new stuff, such as the upcoming Tiger.
And unlike Microsoft, Apple is led by a man I have no desire to shoot.
My next comp will most definately be a Mac.
If anything, I'd say his is a troll, and mine is flamebait. :)
1) Required bash.org quote
2) Running various adware/spyware programs... firewall, anti-virus... you sound like a classic Dell user to me. I can safely and honestly say that in the 6 years of running Windows 2000/XP, without a firewall, antivirus, spyware/adware scanner, and with IE actually not locked down at all, over the period of 6 years, I obtained exactly 0 viruses, 0 adware/spyware programs, oh and 0 reasons to install a firewall besides my NAT router. I kid you not. Go ahead and hit me with the "but there's stuff running that you don't know about", I don't care, really. I know what my system is running. I know what I need to in order to effectively manage a windows computer.
3) The next gentoo release will be soon, and it will be 2005.0, however you are correct that 2004.3-r1 is the latest. However, saying that you downloaded 4.3 is simply screwed up, as that's the version numbering scheme used previously. A version that didn't exist, too.
4) External hard drive. Local friend. Compression. There's ways, you just have to think outside your box there. (One BIG STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE YET YOU'RE A LITTLE BLIND TO SEE IT: TEH INTERWEB!)
5) At the recommendation of a friend, I've found the *perfect* OS for you. Windows 3.1.
"I could try and say how many years I have working with computers and various OS's, or pehaps how I work in the industry on an enterprise level, or how many degrees I have in the field... but we all know two things, that I can say whatever and you won't belive it and vice versa and that you are a certainly a jerk."
Well. That explains the current state of a lot of the industry.
Holy crap, I know why trolls do it now. It's rather entertaining.
Why don't we see more exploits for Mac OS X? It allows my grandma to use a computer...
Your Average Joe
Roughly 1 gram per cubic centimeter?
Note that on at least one of those continents (I'm not familiar with the details of the EU antitrust case) that answer came by not even considering a company considered by most to be a competitor and alternative (Apple) to be part of the same market.
Gates has already been interviewed, with much hype beforehand, by Paxman. Unfortunately Paxmans approach was poor and Bill played him expertly.c ks_stuffing_out
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/10/18/gates_kno
Thanks a lot. I almost forgot this picture.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
All of them? Simultaneously? With O(n) performance? Wow. Impressive.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
real media and no wmv? heads are gonna roll!!!
Get your torrents...
why is this -1? This could do with a lot more exposure. Comments like those of the grandparent could be rebutted.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious