But, technically, you can't *get* this virus on M$ Outlook, if you're reasonably up to date on patches. Outlook "protects" users from viruses by simply disallowing you to look at *.exe attachments.
Actually, it disallows most executable attachments.
You can't even forward them to yourself through Outlook. Dumbest solution I've ever heard of.
No, what's really dumb is forwarding executable attachments to yourself. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
People like to invent ways to prove that this protection method is dumb, but I actually use Outlook with this security update installed (not that I would ever open an executable attachment anyway). The very few times I've actually received an executable that I want, e.g. a beta test I was expecting, I just ask the company to re-send it.zipped or renamed.
Users want the ability to double-click on executable attachments in order to open them, and email software needs to honor that request to stay competitive.
Gee, someone better tell Microsoft that, since Outlook 2002 (XP) is bolted down with the same patch that's been available for the other Outlook's for some time -- it disallows all executable attachments. That is most definitely the default (as it should be). I really don't know if there is a way to turn it off, either.
I've used all the email clients, and irregardless of who makes it, Outlook has been the best to use overall. If you want to avoid viruses, just upgrade the client from office.microsoft.com to not allow any executable attachments. I deal with a ton of email every day, and it has not hampered anything. People that really need to receive an executable from someone can get it.zipped, or have the extension renamed to something benign.
But really, isn't the government an important part of every country? How is it possible to love something and at the same time hate an integral part of it?
Dude, you might want to hold off a bit, seeing as how your government likes to censor speech any time it has the word Nazi or Swastika in it. Not to mention banning the sale of art & entertainment that it deems "too violent."
The files in the distribution are irrelevalant. Who cares if Windows ships with all sorts of unrelated Microsoft.exe and.dll files?
The way Microsoft forced MSIE onto everyone before they could integrate it with Windows was to include the MSIE install on all Microsoft software. Worse yet, practically every Microsoft product in that time period required MSIE to be installed, because commingled with those MSIE DLL functions were general-use functions that the other software took advantage of, and Microsoft would not allow people to install just the DLL's required. This is the same reason why programs like Quicken required MSIE to be installed, and didn't just ship with the "free" Microsoft DLL's that contained the code they needed.
THIS is how Microsoft used it's monopoly to force everyone to install MSIE, regardless of whether you ever upgraded Windows to a version that included MSIE.
And once you've got MSIE installed and constantly loaded into memory, it becomes real easy to eventually give up using Netscape et. al.
It'll never pan out. Linux will never be mainstream enough. *cough*
I realize you're trying to be funny, but the "Linux will never be mainstream" claim is referring to Linux on the DESKTOP, not a PDA, where the OS is basically irrelevant.
You mean people will lose the ads? This should go on top of all their own publicity. WinXP - Lose those freaking annoying ads...
Ads are an annoyance, not a feature (and there a so few java(script) applets that are actually useful (name 3), that this should definitely be considered a feature.
HUH? 99.9% of all annoying ads on the web are done with Macromedia Flash.::spit::
I don't think that bundling a JVM with an OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing audience
Right, now we've lost the audience right up front, no fear involved.
While I don't advocate and don't intend to cause harm to anyone's person or Adobe's physical plant, I would shed no tears if Adobe's HQ burned to the ground, preferably with the decision-maker responsible for this inside.
802.11 works great. It generates traffic, right? So ISPs should be delighted that it's out there, because it will lead to more users on more high-capacity lines in more locations. I sell DSL for a living and would be thrilled to have freenets buying my service (AS LONG AS THEY PAY THE BILLS). Where's the downside? I don't see it.
I have a cable modem in Florida on RoadRunner. I pay $45 a month (or so) for it. I regularly get download speeds of 250 kiloBYTES per second and up. Do you know how many people could share this one connection for normal internet use? A lot!
Without a freenet setup, those people would have to pay for access. Therefore my [as of yet theoretical] freenet is taking money directly away from ISP's.
It's hard to tell whether these things are a threat or an opportunity for ISPs.
Hmmm... devices that allow many numbers of people share the cable/adsl bandwidth being charged to one household means increased
traffic and decreased customer accounts for
the ISP in question.
Call me crazy, but I imagine the ISP's will see this as a threat.
People only look at the clock speed when picking out a machine. Here's a did you know: The 500 MHz G4 processor by Apple performs roughly the same in benchmark tests as the 1 GHz Pentium III.
And you completely trust MS to never cross-reference this information? We know how well that worked out with the ad agencies *cough*.
I don't need to trust Microsoft -- I just won't register XP. That's the point... registration is not required to activate the software.
Anyway, even if they don't know WHO you are, they still can track what modifications and upgrades you've done to your system, and all the serial numbers of your equipment.
I don't think so. They just get a huge number that is generated from hashing the various ID's of your hardware. There is a big difference. They would not be able to tell the hardware installed, but rather, whether or not the hardware that is installed has changed since the last time you activated.
What does it matter? I'm already connected to the internet when I activate XP. Even people with dialup connections can just establish their connection first, and then start the activation process. Those without an internet account but with a modem can call Microsoft if they are really paranoid enough to think that Microsoft is going to track caller ID.
My god, think of how much those metrics alone are worth... A snapshot on DVD adoption, SCSI cards, % of laptops out there? Almost seems like the anti-copy stuff is just a smokescreen.
Ummm, except that Microsoft does not actually find out what hardware you have. They simply use the ID information from the hardware to generate a unique key for your system. Then they receive that KEY. Later on, when your hardware changes, that key will change. If it changes by too much, then you have to call them to get another activation code.
If Microsoft really did require the hardware information be sent to them, how exactly would activation over the phone work?
how does it hurt MS when a home user borrows their friend's Win95 CD? The more times Win95 is installed, the more people are using it and the more likely that person is to become a valuable Windows-using consumer. Buying Windows software, perhaps purchasing a new computer with Win98 preinstalled. Requiring a Windows PC at work. Purchasing upgrades.
So you're saying someone installs windows by borrowing a friend's CD... and then you think that person is likely to want to pay $XXX for an upgrade later on? Not likely. They'll split the cost with one or more friends, or just out-and-out steal it one way or the other ("borrowing" a CD from work, downloading it off warez, whatever).
Now Microsoft institutes a plan that makes these practices more difficult. They don't try to make it uncrackable, because that's impossible, but they prevent your average user from borrowing the disk from a friend or from work. I bet you'd be surprised how much money we're talking about.
Your idea that Microsoft's OS monopoly gains from piracy only has merit so long as you acknowledge that one day Microsoft must one day squeeze those pirates for their long overdue gold.
When you re-activate, naturally you'll have to generate a new Installation Key and they'll be able to see exactly what components you changed out. Fun, huh?
Oh my yes! Of course, they won't necessarily know who YOU are, since product REGISTRATION is separate from product ACTIVATION -- and not required to use WinXP.
Slashdot Mirror
But, technically, you can't *get* this virus on M$ Outlook, if you're reasonably up to date on patches. Outlook "protects" users from viruses by simply disallowing you to look at *.exe attachments.
.zipped or renamed.
Actually, it disallows most executable attachments.
You can't even forward them to yourself through Outlook. Dumbest solution I've ever heard of.
No, what's really dumb is forwarding executable attachments to yourself. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
People like to invent ways to prove that this protection method is dumb, but I actually use Outlook with this security update installed (not that I would ever open an executable attachment anyway). The very few times I've actually received an executable that I want, e.g. a beta test I was expecting, I just ask the company to re-send it
Users want the ability to double-click on executable attachments in order to open them, and email software needs to honor that request to stay competitive.
Gee, someone better tell Microsoft that, since Outlook 2002 (XP) is bolted down with the same patch that's been available for the other Outlook's for some time -- it disallows all executable attachments. That is most definitely the default (as it should be). I really don't know if there is a way to turn it off, either.
I've used all the email clients, and irregardless of who makes it, Outlook has been the best to use overall. If you want to avoid viruses, just upgrade the client from office.microsoft.com to not allow any executable attachments. I deal with a ton of email every day, and it has not hampered anything. People that really need to receive an executable from someone can get it .zipped, or have the extension renamed to something benign.
...your dad is lame.
The country has the government it deserves.
But really, isn't the government an important part of every country? How is it possible to love something and at the same time hate an integral part of it?
Dude, you might want to hold off a bit, seeing as how your government likes to censor speech any time it has the word Nazi or Swastika in it. Not to mention banning the sale of art & entertainment that it deems "too violent."
Yeah, whatever... Kevin Reichard!! Yeah, we know it's you!
So are we to see a relaxation of any editorial standards whenever the opportunity arises to take a swipe at a competitive news site?
Sir, you are implying that there were editiorial standards before this article was posted.
Let me get this straight.
Microsoft argued in court that MSIE could not be removed from the operating system, or the operating system would no longer work correctly.
Now they are telling the appeals court that code for the operating system is not commingled with code for MSIE.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
The files in the distribution are irrelevalant. Who cares if Windows ships with all sorts of unrelated Microsoft .exe and .dll files?
The way Microsoft forced MSIE onto everyone before they could integrate it with Windows was to include the MSIE install on all Microsoft software. Worse yet, practically every Microsoft product in that time period required MSIE to be installed, because commingled with those MSIE DLL functions were general-use functions that the other software took advantage of, and Microsoft would not allow people to install just the DLL's required. This is the same reason why programs like Quicken required MSIE to be installed, and didn't just ship with the "free" Microsoft DLL's that contained the code they needed.
THIS is how Microsoft used it's monopoly to force everyone to install MSIE, regardless of whether you ever upgraded Windows to a version that included MSIE.
And once you've got MSIE installed and constantly loaded into memory, it becomes real easy to eventually give up using Netscape et. al.
How long till cdparanoia will be declared an illegal circumvention device that breaks protection on copyrighted works and has the author jailed?
You're just being cdparanoid.
(Sorry.)
It'll never pan out. Linux will never be mainstream enough. *cough*
I realize you're trying to be funny, but the "Linux will never be mainstream" claim is referring to Linux on the DESKTOP, not a PDA, where the OS is basically irrelevant.
You mean people will lose the ads? This should go on top of all their own publicity. WinXP - Lose those freaking annoying ads...
::spit::
Ads are an annoyance, not a feature (and there a so few java(script) applets that are actually useful (name 3), that this should definitely be considered a feature.
HUH? 99.9% of all annoying ads on the web are done with Macromedia Flash.
I don't think that bundling a JVM with an OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing audience
Right, now we've lost the audience right up front, no fear involved.
Tally ho!
While I don't advocate and don't intend to cause harm to anyone's person or Adobe's physical plant, I would shed no tears if Adobe's HQ burned to the ground, preferably with the decision-maker responsible for this inside.
I believe this is what they call a "paradox."
802.11 works great. It generates traffic, right? So ISPs should be delighted that it's out there, because it will lead to more users on more high-capacity lines in more locations. I sell DSL for a living and would be thrilled to have freenets buying my service (AS LONG AS THEY PAY THE BILLS). Where's the downside? I don't see it.
I have a cable modem in Florida on RoadRunner. I pay $45 a month (or so) for it. I regularly get download speeds of 250 kiloBYTES per second and up. Do you know how many people could share this one connection for normal internet use? A lot!
Without a freenet setup, those people would have to pay for access. Therefore my [as of yet theoretical] freenet is taking money directly away from ISP's.
It's hard to tell whether these things are a threat or an opportunity for ISPs.
Hmmm... devices that allow many numbers of people share the cable/adsl bandwidth being charged to one household means increased
traffic and decreased customer accounts for
the ISP in question.
Call me crazy, but I imagine the ISP's will see this as a threat.
20,000 simultaneous requests? Thats just about right to handle windows support.
Yet, strangely, this release nearly coincides with IBM's love affair with Linux.
People only look at the clock speed when picking out a machine. Here's a did you know: The 500 MHz G4 processor by Apple performs roughly the same in benchmark tests as the 1 GHz Pentium III.
Which benchmarks would those be?
And you completely trust MS to never cross-reference this information? We know how well that worked out with the ad agencies *cough*.
... registration is not required to activate the software.
I don't need to trust Microsoft -- I just won't register XP. That's the point
Anyway, even if they don't know WHO you are, they still can track what modifications and upgrades you've done to your system, and all the serial numbers of your equipment.
I don't think so. They just get a huge number that is generated from hashing the various ID's of your hardware. There is a big difference. They would not be able to tell the hardware installed, but rather, whether or not the hardware that is installed has changed since the last time you activated.
do you block caller id?
What does it matter? I'm already connected to the internet when I activate XP. Even people with dialup connections can just establish their connection first, and then start the activation process. Those without an internet account but with a modem can call Microsoft if they are really paranoid enough to think that Microsoft is going to track caller ID.
My god, think of how much those metrics alone are worth... A snapshot on DVD adoption, SCSI cards, % of laptops out there? Almost seems like the anti-copy stuff is just a smokescreen.
Ummm, except that Microsoft does not actually find out what hardware you have. They simply use the ID information from the hardware to generate a unique key for your system. Then they receive that KEY. Later on, when your hardware changes, that key will change. If it changes by too much, then you have to call them to get another activation code.
If Microsoft really did require the hardware information be sent to them, how exactly would activation over the phone work?
Your post would have been a lot funnier if your thoughts on activation were actually ... true.
how does it hurt MS when a home user borrows their friend's Win95 CD? The more times Win95 is installed, the more people are using it and the more likely that person is to become a valuable Windows-using consumer. Buying Windows software, perhaps purchasing a new computer with Win98 preinstalled. Requiring a Windows PC at work. Purchasing upgrades.
... and then you think that person is likely to want to pay $XXX for an upgrade later on? Not likely. They'll split the cost with one or more friends, or just out-and-out steal it one way or the other ("borrowing" a CD from work, downloading it off warez, whatever).
So you're saying someone installs windows by borrowing a friend's CD
Now Microsoft institutes a plan that makes these practices more difficult. They don't try to make it uncrackable, because that's impossible, but they prevent your average user from borrowing the disk from a friend or from work. I bet you'd be surprised how much money we're talking about.
Your idea that Microsoft's OS monopoly gains from piracy only has merit so long as you acknowledge that one day Microsoft must one day squeeze those pirates for their long overdue gold.
Today is that day...
When you re-activate, naturally you'll have to generate a new Installation Key and they'll be able to see exactly what components you changed out. Fun, huh?
Oh my yes! Of course, they won't necessarily know who YOU are, since product REGISTRATION is separate from product ACTIVATION -- and not required to use WinXP.
Will they change the algorithm before the next build? Probably not, their lawyers need the money.
So you're implying that Microsoft likes to waste money on lawyers?