That's an excellent question: People who like (or have to use) Windows can find open-source replacements for most of the closed source apps they run. In fact, that's a nice way to fade a Windows house to a Linux/Open-Source house: Changing the operating system and consequently all the applications is way too drastic for most houses. Cross-platform open-source software are both cost-effective AND non-MS (which means you have a choice).
One of the downsides is that for some of the applications, you really have to adapt the Unix Way Of Thought & Work (and realise that not everything reads it's config from the registry). That's not really a downside, but it's one of the reasons people are afraid to jump to Linux in the first place! Another downside is that GUI open-source software have a way of looking,well, unfinished, as opposed to the exoterically polished MS software.
Now, let's see... IIS to Apache shouldn't be too painful, unless you have an site based on MS technology (or plan to use.NET stuff later).
MS Office to StarOffice... Well, I don't like StarOffice and I love MS Office but I guess this is a matter of taste. Get rid of Outlook though if you don't use Exchange Server (question: does an open-source Exchange Server-compatible alternative exist?) . If it's pre-2002 version (which at least blocks any executable attachments), it's going to cost you a lot.
Personally, I also use GCC and the command line tools on my Windows XP/Office XP box (a 'hasn't crashed,ever' combination)... You might want to try out GIMP for Win if you're into that kind of stuff, or Mozilla as a replacement of IE (can't think of a reason to do that, though).
- If you have a legal copy, WPA is no problem. You just click 'Next' , then 'Finish'.Done. And Microsoft can't use your PC spec info; it's a one-way hash code.(BTW, it's been cracked.)
- It's not bloated: It runs perfectly fine on my p250 128MB, with visual styles enabled. All the patronising features (simple file sharing and that puppy on the search bar) can be easily disabled.)
- It's stable.Mostly.
- It's got a pretty nice stealth firewall (grc.com's ShieldsUP says so, anyway.). And the built-in cd-writing's convenient too.
- It DOES run every one as administrator by default, for Win9x legacy reasons. Not hard to change that, but the default 'Limited User' profile has problems with older apps and games. The trick is to put the users in the predefined 'Power Users' group.
- It's still Windows. If you hate Windows, it probably won't change your mind, but nevertheless it's the best Windows to work with.
It's got lots of other features too, so if you have a question before you consider upgrading, I'm here for you(so nice of me isn't it)
I really like reading Slashdot, and I also learn a lot by reading (ie. the latest Mozilla version numbers and how to ignore ACs:). But every time Windows or Microsoft appears on the headlines, unheard of amounts of FUD comments get posted.
I happen to be somewhat informed on the subject, so I'll let you know that:
- Windows Limited Edition Server is called thus because it's a very temporary edition, some sort of a door to Windows.NET server (32 and 64-bit), which will appear sometime next year. Windows LE Server is mostly just a rushed-up 64-bit Win2000, to be bundled with Itaniums.
- Windows NT 4.0 on the Alpha was NOT 64-bit.
- Windows XP 64-bit betas have been kicking around since Windows XP Beta 1.
- The Linux community (including me, a Linux apprentice), must find something else to says about Windows than 'It crashes all the friggin time' and stuff. Have you used Windows XP? I'm using it right now. If it'll ever crash (it hasn't until now), it will be in the same way Linux crashes : due to driver problems and stuff like that.It also runs great on my p250, and if you like your OS clean, you can remove the controversial features (Windows Messenger, EVEN IE 6). But we'll think of something, surely.
That's not my name. That's my nickname (duh), and it's a joke (course I'm biased). And you're neither funny nor smart, nor brave enough to create an account with your real name. And you probably don't have many friends (or dates) either.Bye sucker.
We have many times more developers than Microsoft
Yes, but we most of us are not nearly as co-ordinated and motivated (read: well-payed) as the Microsoft guys.And Microsoft is not the 'Closed Source Movement', it's the movement's leader.There is a huge number of closed-source companies following, so it's not as simple as you say it is.
The OS(Open Source) movement desperately needs a leader if it wants to succeed as a major movement. But, as always, leaders tend to slowly become evil dictators. Don't fool yourselves that the OSS is a society of do-gooders.Nuh-uh. It's leader (be it RedHat or any other OS company you can think of) is just as vulnerable to evil manipulating actions as Microsoft itself(though IMHO there are no evil companies, just clumsy and greedy ones).
You sir, are a complete idiot. I will not tolerate idiots, especially when they talk. Linux is not Linsux, and your completely brainless rant about it being a 'hobby' OS should be pointed to the thousands of Linux web server(example) sysadmins who enjoy the reliability and stability of this 'beta' thing. Now, I'm mainly a Windows user, but I have learned to appreciate both OSes, and accept their shortcomings. You give computing (and Windows by the way) a bad name, simply by existing. Other people: Please ignore this post and its AC parent.Thank you.
the Home Edition of Windows XP executes all applications with full administrative ("root") privilege
Wrong, it doesn't. It will of course if you log in as admin, but one thing MS encourages with XP is the multi-user security model, so that simple users can at last have permission-based security.
But everyone does have access to raw sockets.
If computers did rule the logic world, the way humans do now, wouldn't the opposite happen (the future becoming entirely predictable)? I mean, since logic will be processed using circuits,wouldn't the quantum mumbo-jumbo on which the laws of uncertainty are based and which probably add some randomness in the human brain be overriden? Have you ever seen a computer behave weird because of a group of molecules behaving slightly differently (this is possible, but astronomically unlikely)? On the contrary, in the human brain(which works using chemical reaction, much more vulnerable to subtle random changes) this is much more likely to change the result. If computers do get smarter than humans, wouldn't we be able to follow a set of rules to predict an outcome?
Anyway, all this 'the future is predictable' talk is nonsense, IMHO. The only way to completely predict output/reaction, is to have the input beforehand. And since the input is ever changing, it look slike the only way to achieve that is to have an identical universe (shifted slightly into the future) with you.
But I'm not really into this kind of stuff, so if you are more into it than I am, please publish your educated guess (that is what we're all posting here isn't it).
You're right. But Indexing Service works in conjunction with IIS.Not exactly a part of IIS, but kind of.If you do not have IIS enabled, you are not vulnerable to the attack. And since most of the times it's the IIS's fault, I'm talking about that.
But no, really I can tell you why IIS is still a choice as a web server, and also I'll tell you why it is so insecure.
(WARNING: As Always, IMHO).
IIS is still a choice because:
a) You can teach virtually anyone to perform simple administration on an IIS server.
b) You don't need to use a command prompt (no, it doesn't really scare people, they just tend to believe it's such a fuss to make things work.)
c) It comes with Windows 2000/NT (if you had a choice to 'Run Your Very Own Web Server(R) while running MS Office and games, without having to boot to another OS, what would you think would be better?).The fact that It's There(r), is also extremely important;otherwise, people who had to use a Windows server would use Apache for Win32 instead.
d) It's a breeze to install and enable (incorrectly of course;there are plenty of configing and patching you can do on IIS to make it safe/er, but no-one seems to bother:'Who whould try to hack ME?')
e) It means that it'll be easier for you to migrate to.NET later. That one's a very good reason. If the world DOES jump on.NET bandwagon would you like to stay behind( don't think '.NET port to Linux')? Could be very bad for business. On the other hand, if.NET doesn't work out, you can always jump to Apache.
Now, why IIS is insecure:
a) Do you remember how long it took Microsoft to realise the Internet was going to be the next big thing? That hurt them. Sure, they did release a web server (their lamest ever --IIS 2.0), but it was behind its time.IIS 4.0 was their first proper attempt, and while it worked, Microsoft had a lot to learn about security. They had to release patches constantly to help the poor early-adopters (nobody new it was going to be so open), which unfortunately, were quite a lot.IIS continued to grow, as it fitted the bill as a method to extend businesses with a Windows/NT infrastructure to the Internet. So, now we have 20% of the Internet, running IIS.
b) IIS is also insecure because 50% of it's sysadmins are idiots. 50%, not all of them, not none of them. 50% . Now, if you pushed a *nix sysadmin to run IIS (you would have to push real hard though), you would get a web server (being configed and patched correctly) which would totaly evade most (if not all) of the IIS hacking frenzies and DoS attacks of the past 2 years. Including Code Red (the MS patch for that buffer overflow buf was published a few months ago.The wise IIS sysadmins noticed.).
c) Remember, IIS is young. It's about 6-7 years old, but it wasn't taken seriously since Windows NT 4.0, 4-5 years ago.As with Windows 2000, the time for IIS to become a proper,feasible solution is longer than that. And isn't Apache much older (please enlighten)?
And how will IIS become secure?
IIS 6.0 will be the first IIS to be reasonably secure, IMHO of course. Because it will incorporate all the fixes until now (quite a lot, shouldn't they be running out of bugs?) , but most importantly because it will patch itself (that's what I heard anyway).
Now for your opinion: Will IIS 6.0 be a proper web server? Think about it and don't reject it: There wasn't a single reason to consider it if you were happily running the latest version of Apache, but now there is:.NET.
Think, think, and then post. And please correct me if I'm wrong.Thank you.
Oh and some things I'd like to point out, because some people get it wrong:
a) When you install Windows 2000 OR WinNT 4, it won't install IIS.Not even with full install. You have to install it separately AFTER the OS installation is complete, so people know when it's installed.
b) The Internet won't cease to exist, and this isn't a conspiracy by Microsoft (probably).
Okay, jobs.osdn.com may be running M$, but check out the netcraft site for www.osdn.com and compare uptimes.
That is all you should need to know about web server choice.
Apparently, if jobs.osdn.com is running MS, then uptimes is NOT the only thing you need to know.
And (correct me if I'm wrong, I most likely am), it looks like this site hasn't been around for long enough to have a long uptime.
And the reboots could be for patching the OS against 'Code Red'.
Well, still...
I guess that was an insult to you.You probably went to see the movie.
Anyway, mega-brain, is it supposed to be a bad,shallow film too, just to be more faithful to the 'movie days of yore'? Have you any idea what you're saying? You're saying that only those who've been through the original should watch it.Ask the producers that. I don't think they'll agree with you, you idiot. It was supposed to be a sequel which would be able to reach the classic status of it's predecessor.According to you,who's supposed to watch it, your average 40-70 year old longing for a nostalgia film to recall his past? What about the rest of us?
And what the hell is wrong with you?
"Only fools prefer the past.",to quote a quite famous sci-fi writer (you wouldn't know what I'm talking about in a million years).
Anyway, do take things less seriously in the future, and stop whining.You'll live longer (guaranteed).
P.S: What I said, it was just for fun. Even I didn't take it seriously. And I was mostly making fun of the nostalgic not-quite-hip name, not the film( I actually kinda liked the original, especially the excellent ending).But I'm young, I never learn , etc. etc.
Oh , and by the way, you are an Anonymous Coward.You're not allowed to speak.
I know I'm being naive, and that all of you are too busy discussing the most complicated aspects of the film...
But if apes did evolve the way they did, weren't the physical weaknesses supposed to be the first to go? But in the film
we've got smart apes but still that, apes. They don't have less hair or improved hands or anything? Maybe it's because they used
humans to do all the hard work? Or is it working the same way as in George Orwell's Animal Farm (where the physical characteristics happen only at the end).
Oh, and if the human population was 4 times the ape population, how come the apes won when the races first met? That would mean that apes were both physically and mentally superior to humans.
Now, I'm not trying to be smart here, these are simple questions, which admittedly I cannot answer. Anyone?
LOL.I have never met anyone who'll ever go and see such a ridiculously-named film (not in the 21st century, anyway):
Tim:How are you Phil? Were where you last night?
Phil: Oh, I went to see 'Planet of the Apes'.
(2 second of silence)
(People burst into laughs)
Tim: You went to see what!
Not funny,really. Especially when there's nothing better to go and see.
Yeah, let's bring MS's life-saving Intellisense to the dashboard:
"Hey, it looks like you're falling asleep.Would you like me to..."
"What. Give me a blowjob?"
"I don't understand what you mean.Please re-phrase your question. For example: How do I..."
"Fuck off."
Or perhaps:
"A major change in driving style has been detected.You will have to re-activate your car if you want to use the steering wheel or slow down to less than 50 mph. Please click 'Connect' to automatically get a product re-activation code, otherwise you'll have to exit your car immediately."
Slashdot Mirror
But not as cool as taking your photo using your monitor.
AFAIK, XP stands for the 2 greek letters pronounced khai and rho.
Ah,no. R is rho, but X is pronounced 'Heee'.
And this is bad because?
I didn't say it's bad , I just said that it's radically different, and radical differences don't help make an easy switch. Read the whole post please.
That's an excellent question: People who like (or have to use) Windows can find open-source replacements for most of the closed source apps they run. In fact, that's a nice way to fade a Windows house to a Linux/Open-Source house: Changing the operating system and consequently all the applications is way too drastic for most houses. Cross-platform open-source software are both cost-effective AND non-MS (which means you have a choice).
.NET stuff later).
/Office XP box (a 'hasn't crashed,ever' combination)... You might want to try out GIMP for Win if you're into that kind of stuff, or Mozilla as a replacement of IE (can't think of a reason to do that, though).
One of the downsides is that for some of the applications, you really have to adapt the Unix Way Of Thought & Work (and realise that not everything reads it's config from the registry). That's not really a downside, but it's one of the reasons people are afraid to jump to Linux in the first place! Another downside is that GUI open-source software have a way of looking,well, unfinished, as opposed to the exoterically polished MS software.
Now, let's see... IIS to Apache shouldn't be too painful, unless you have an site based on MS technology (or plan to use
MS Office to StarOffice... Well, I don't like StarOffice and I love MS Office but I guess this is a matter of taste. Get rid of Outlook though if you don't use Exchange Server (question: does an open-source Exchange Server-compatible alternative exist?) . If it's pre-2002 version (which at least blocks any executable attachments), it's going to cost you a lot.
Personally, I also use GCC and the command line tools on my Windows XP
What's Now State of the Art in Encryption Technology?
NOT'ing the data, AND (at the same time!) shift it one bit to the right.
That'll teach them.
Poor Microsoft
Poor!?!
From someone who's running XP RC2:
- If you have a legal copy, WPA is no problem. You just click 'Next' , then 'Finish'.Done. And Microsoft can't use your PC spec info; it's a one-way hash code.(BTW, it's been cracked.)
- It's not bloated: It runs perfectly fine on my p250 128MB, with visual styles enabled. All the patronising features (simple file sharing and that puppy on the search bar) can be easily disabled.)
- It's stable.Mostly.
- It's got a pretty nice stealth firewall (grc.com's ShieldsUP says so, anyway.). And the built-in cd-writing's convenient too.
- It DOES run every one as administrator by default, for Win9x legacy reasons. Not hard to change that, but the default 'Limited User' profile has problems with older apps and games. The trick is to put the users in the predefined 'Power Users' group.
- It's still Windows. If you hate Windows, it probably won't change your mind, but nevertheless it's the best Windows to work with.
It's got lots of other features too, so if you have a question before you consider upgrading, I'm here for you(so nice of me isn't it)
I really like reading Slashdot, and I also learn a lot by reading (ie. the latest Mozilla version numbers and how to ignore ACs :). But every time Windows or Microsoft appears on the headlines, unheard of amounts of FUD comments get posted.
I happen to be somewhat informed on the subject, so I'll let you know that:
- Windows Limited Edition Server is called thus because it's a very temporary edition, some sort of a door to Windows.NET server (32 and 64-bit), which will appear sometime next year. Windows LE Server is mostly just a rushed-up 64-bit Win2000, to be bundled with Itaniums.
- Windows NT 4.0 on the Alpha was NOT 64-bit.
- Windows XP 64-bit betas have been kicking around since Windows XP Beta 1.
- The Linux community (including me, a Linux apprentice), must find something else to says about Windows than 'It crashes all the friggin time' and stuff. Have you used Windows XP? I'm using it right now. If it'll ever crash (it hasn't until now), it will be in the same way Linux crashes : due to driver problems and stuff like that.It also runs great on my p250, and if you like your OS clean, you can remove the controversial features (Windows Messenger, EVEN IE 6). But we'll think of something, surely.
Microsoft is also considering an x86-64 port of Windows XP, but they have not announced their decision yet.
Do you mean Windows XP 64-bit Edition ? It's been announced a few months ago. Try www.microsoft.com/windowsxp for more info.
If the software matures
Period.
...And it's STILL using the keyboard controller to access RAM over 1MB.
Hehe...Good point. But it was meant to be read only by the guy who posted the parent.
That's not my name. That's my nickname (duh), and it's a joke (course I'm biased). And you're neither funny nor smart, nor brave enough to create an account with your real name. And you probably don't have many friends (or dates) either.Bye sucker.
We have many times more developers than Microsoft
Yes, but we most of us are not nearly as co-ordinated and motivated (read: well-payed) as the Microsoft guys.And Microsoft is not the 'Closed Source Movement', it's the movement's leader.There is a huge number of closed-source companies following, so it's not as simple as you say it is.
The OS(Open Source) movement desperately needs a leader if it wants to succeed as a major movement. But, as always, leaders tend to slowly become evil dictators. Don't fool yourselves that the OSS is a society of do-gooders.Nuh-uh. It's leader (be it RedHat or any other OS company you can think of) is just as vulnerable to evil manipulating actions as Microsoft itself(though IMHO there are no evil companies, just clumsy and greedy ones).
You sir, are a complete idiot. I will not tolerate idiots, especially when they talk. Linux is not Linsux, and your completely brainless rant about it being a 'hobby' OS should be pointed to the thousands of Linux web server(example) sysadmins who enjoy the reliability and stability of this 'beta' thing. Now, I'm mainly a Windows user, but I have learned to appreciate both OSes, and accept their shortcomings. You give computing (and Windows by the way) a bad name, simply by existing.
Other people: Please ignore this post and its AC parent.Thank you.
the Home Edition of Windows XP executes all applications with full administrative ("root") privilege
Wrong, it doesn't. It will of course if you log in as admin, but one thing MS encourages with XP is the multi-user security model, so that simple users can at last have permission-based security.
But everyone does have access to raw sockets.
If computers did rule the logic world, the way humans do now, wouldn't the opposite happen (the future becoming entirely predictable)? I mean, since logic will be processed using circuits,wouldn't the quantum mumbo-jumbo on which the laws of uncertainty are based and which probably add some randomness in the human brain be overriden? Have you ever seen a computer behave weird because of a group of molecules behaving slightly differently (this is possible, but astronomically unlikely)? On the contrary, in the human brain(which works using chemical reaction, much more vulnerable to subtle random changes) this is much more likely to change the result. If computers do get smarter than humans, wouldn't we be able to follow a set of rules to predict an outcome?
Anyway, all this 'the future is predictable' talk is nonsense, IMHO. The only way to completely predict output/reaction, is to have the input beforehand. And since the input is ever changing, it look slike the only way to achieve that is to have an identical universe (shifted slightly into the future) with you.
But I'm not really into this kind of stuff, so if you are more into it than I am, please publish your educated guess (that is what we're all posting here isn't it).
You're right. But Indexing Service works in conjunction with IIS.Not exactly a part of IIS, but kind of.If you do not have IIS enabled, you are not vulnerable to the attack. And since most of the times it's the IIS's fault, I'm talking about that.
IIS: It Isn't Secure.
.NET later. That one's a very good reason. If the world DOES jump on .NET bandwagon would you like to stay behind( don't think '.NET port to Linux')? Could be very bad for business. On the other hand, if .NET doesn't work out, you can always jump to Apache.
.NET.
But no, really I can tell you why IIS is still a choice as a web server, and also I'll tell you why it is so insecure.
(WARNING: As Always, IMHO).
IIS is still a choice because:
a) You can teach virtually anyone to perform simple administration on an IIS server.
b) You don't need to use a command prompt (no, it doesn't really scare people, they just tend to believe it's such a fuss to make things work.)
c) It comes with Windows 2000/NT (if you had a choice to 'Run Your Very Own Web Server(R) while running MS Office and games, without having to boot to another OS, what would you think would be better?).The fact that It's There(r), is also extremely important;otherwise, people who had to use a Windows server would use Apache for Win32 instead.
d) It's a breeze to install and enable (incorrectly of course;there are plenty of configing and patching you can do on IIS to make it safe/er, but no-one seems to bother:'Who whould try to hack ME?')
e) It means that it'll be easier for you to migrate to
Now, why IIS is insecure:
a) Do you remember how long it took Microsoft to realise the Internet was going to be the next big thing? That hurt them. Sure, they did release a web server (their lamest ever --IIS 2.0), but it was behind its time.IIS 4.0 was their first proper attempt, and while it worked, Microsoft had a lot to learn about security. They had to release patches constantly to help the poor early-adopters (nobody new it was going to be so open), which unfortunately, were quite a lot.IIS continued to grow, as it fitted the bill as a method to extend businesses with a Windows/NT infrastructure to the Internet. So, now we have 20% of the Internet, running IIS.
b) IIS is also insecure because 50% of it's sysadmins are idiots. 50%, not all of them, not none of them. 50% . Now, if you pushed a *nix sysadmin to run IIS (you would have to push real hard though), you would get a web server (being configed and patched correctly) which would totaly evade most (if not all) of the IIS hacking frenzies and DoS attacks of the past 2 years. Including Code Red (the MS patch for that buffer overflow buf was published a few months ago.The wise IIS sysadmins noticed.).
c) Remember, IIS is young. It's about 6-7 years old, but it wasn't taken seriously since Windows NT 4.0, 4-5 years ago.As with Windows 2000, the time for IIS to become a proper,feasible solution is longer than that. And isn't Apache much older (please enlighten)?
And how will IIS become secure?
IIS 6.0 will be the first IIS to be reasonably secure, IMHO of course. Because it will incorporate all the fixes until now (quite a lot, shouldn't they be running out of bugs?) , but most importantly because it will patch itself (that's what I heard anyway).
Now for your opinion: Will IIS 6.0 be a proper web server? Think about it and don't reject it: There wasn't a single reason to consider it if you were happily running the latest version of Apache, but now there is:
Think, think, and then post. And please correct me if I'm wrong.Thank you.
Oh and some things I'd like to point out, because some people get it wrong:
a) When you install Windows 2000 OR WinNT 4, it won't install IIS.Not even with full install. You have to install it separately AFTER the OS installation is complete, so people know when it's installed.
b) The Internet won't cease to exist, and this isn't a conspiracy by Microsoft (probably).
Okay, jobs.osdn.com may be running M$, but check out the netcraft site for www.osdn.com and compare uptimes. That is all you should need to know about web server choice.
Apparently, if jobs.osdn.com is running MS, then uptimes is NOT the only thing you need to know. And (correct me if I'm wrong, I most likely am), it looks like this site hasn't been around for long enough to have a long uptime.
And the reboots could be for patching the OS against 'Code Red'.
Well, still...
a) Is the AtheOS web site down? I'm not able to browse their site.
b) Does anybody know about any other similar 'new-age' OSes in development?
And by the way, 'atheos' IS the exact word for 'atheist' in Greek.
I guess that was an insult to you.You probably went to see the movie. ,who's supposed to watch it, your average 40-70 year old longing for a nostalgia film to recall his past? What about the rest of us?
And what the hell is wrong with you?
,to quote a quite famous sci-fi writer (you wouldn't know what I'm talking about in a million years).
Anyway, mega-brain, is it supposed to be a bad,shallow film too, just to be more faithful to the 'movie days of yore'? Have you any idea what you're saying? You're saying that only those who've been through the original should watch it.Ask the producers that. I don't think they'll agree with you, you idiot.
It was supposed to be a sequel which would be able to reach the classic status of it's predecessor.According to you
"Only fools prefer the past."
Anyway, do take things less seriously in the future, and stop whining.You'll live longer (guaranteed).
P.S: What I said, it was just for fun. Even I didn't take it seriously. And I was mostly making fun of the nostalgic not-quite-hip name, not the film( I actually kinda liked the original, especially the excellent ending).But I'm young, I never learn , etc. etc.
Oh , and by the way, you are an Anonymous Coward.You're not allowed to speak.
I know I'm being naive, and that all of you are too busy discussing the most complicated aspects of the film...
But if apes did evolve the way they did, weren't the physical weaknesses supposed to be the first to go? But in the film we've got smart apes but still that, apes. They don't have less hair or improved hands or anything? Maybe it's because they used humans to do all the hard work? Or is it working the same way as in George Orwell's Animal Farm (where the physical characteristics happen only at the end).
Oh, and if the human population was 4 times the ape population, how come the apes won when the races first met? That would mean that apes were both physically and mentally superior to humans.
Now, I'm not trying to be smart here, these are simple questions, which admittedly I cannot answer. Anyone?
LOL.I have never met anyone who'll ever go and see such a ridiculously-named film (not in the 21st century, anyway):
Tim:How are you Phil? Were where you last night?
Phil: Oh, I went to see 'Planet of the Apes'.
(2 second of silence)
(People burst into laughs)
Tim: You went to see what!
Not funny,really. Especially when there's nothing better to go and see.
Yeah, let's bring MS's life-saving Intellisense to the dashboard:
"Hey, it looks like you're falling asleep.Would you like me to..."
"What. Give me a blowjob?"
"I don't understand what you mean.Please re-phrase your question. For example: How do I..."
"Fuck off."
Or perhaps:
"A major change in driving style has been detected.You will have to re-activate your car if you want to use the steering wheel or slow down to less than 50 mph. Please click 'Connect' to automatically get a product re-activation code, otherwise you'll have to exit your car immediately."