There are people whose only way of making a living is to work with Windows.
Those people sometimes feel very threatened if they learn something new about
Windows.
Consider your manner. Basically, you communicate that if you disagree
with someone, they are wrong, and not only that, they are to be scorned and
otherwise treated badly.
Slashdot readers should remember that no one is paid to comment on
Slashdot. If the underlying point is correct, it is not necessary to be
particularly intense about a detail that is in error.
In this case, the underlying point is correct. The Slashdot story
on which we are commenting is about malware. The point is being made that
there are a lot of unnecessary places for malware to hide. Maybe Microsoft
managers did not design Windows to be costly to maintain. But they certainly
allow that.
To "Wherever IE hides its TEMP directory (no, not the cache)" you
said, "Doesn't exist". However:
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Local
Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ for each value of user is where IE puts its "Temporary" files.
To "%SystemRoot% (really, I don't know why)" you said, " No temp
files are stored in this place by the operating system, save PAGEFILE.SYS
which is your virtual memory"
Maybe he left out some characters there, and meant the SystemRoot Temp
folder. Remember, %SystemRoot% is usually C:\WINNT. The PAGEFILE.SYS file is
in %SystemDrive%\ which is usually C:\, where Windows keeps its Temp and Tmp
folders. Windows XP puts HIBERFIL.SYS in %SystemDrive%\, and doesn't
always delete the file if Hibernation is turned off. HIBERFIL.SYS is huge,
a little larger than system memory.
To "[Any Drive]\[Random Characters].tmp" you said, "The operating
system does not create folders matching this pattern."
He is talking about files, not folders. I just checked a test system.
This is one of the results:
The fundamental issue is that Windows has no automatic method of
dealing with these unnecessary files. And that sometimes cause people
to buy another computer, because the file system becomes slower when there is
not much free space.
I just rebooted a test system. Result: Old.tmp files in Catroot.
Microsoft.NET files are present in a default install of Windows XP.
NT Backup is the backup program provided with the Windows OS. A backup
program is a necessary OS component.
You said, "It's Microsoft, they have plenty of REAL reasons to bash
them."
Okay, what are YOUR reasons?
Anyhow, the point is made that there are a LOT of places for malware
to hide, far more than even Slashdot readers generally know. Think how
difficult it is for the average user when "temporary" files fill the hard
drive and make Windows slower.
I wouldn't want anyone to think that I had listed all the temp folders created
by the Microsoft Windows operating system. I just had to stop to do something
else. Here are a few more:
One for each user who uses NT Backup:
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Windows NT\NTBackup\temp\
C:\WINNT\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\Tempo rary ASP.NET Files\
C:\WINNT\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\Temp orary ASP.NET Files\
C:\WINNT\system32\CatRoot\{127E0A1A-4EF2-11E1-86 08-01B04FC291E0}\TempDir\
C:\WINNT\system32\CatRoot\{F259E6C3-38EE-11E1-85 E5-01B04FC291E0}\TempDir\
C:\WINNT\system32\config\systemprofile\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\WINNT\system32\config\systemprofile\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
And don't forget cache folders made by the Windows XP OS, and temp folders
made by applications:
C:\WINNT\PCHEALTH\HELPCTR\Config\Cache
If you have Microsoft Office installed, there are two more apparently
for each user:
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Application
Data\OfficeUpdate12\Cache
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Application
Data\OfficeUpdate12\Temp
And Microsoft provided no guidance to developers, so software
companies put temporary files everywhere, and forget to delete them sometimes
(often). One one computer, I listed 75 cache folders, and those are
just the cache folders that begin with the letters "cache".
Try it yourself by running these commands with an account that has
administrator privileges:
%systemdrive%
CD \
DIR cache*.*/S/AD/B
The point is, there are temporary files stored in many, many places,
when Microsoft could have provided one Temporary files folder and one Cache
folder, and required that application developers use sub-folders in those
folders.
All that disorganization has the effect of making Windows more
expensive to administer. If an application forgets to delete its temporary
files, eventually that uses the available space, and the computer becomes
slow. Often people buy new computers when their computers get slow, making
Microsoft more money.
With better organization, there could be a program that deletes
unneeded files, making the Microsoft operating system far better for users.
You said, "... how many corporations would Microsoft be putting out of business by fixing all the problems with their operating systems?"
Yours is an argument being made nationally concerning the U.S. government. Something like, "If the U.S. government stops killing people for money, a lot of U.S. citizens will have to find other jobs."
The jobs will be there. Running a business or a country well helps create prosperity. Prosperity creates jobs.
"By default it will ask users if they want to install controls
after first showing them the signature information."
"... it is trivial to disable activex controls and it can be done
without launching the browser (right click on IE in your start menu, chose
internet properties.)"
"As per above, you certainly can disable it and it's quite easy to
do so."
It seems to me that your statements presume a high amount of technical
knowledge. In decades, I have never known even one user to have much technical
knowledge. They just want to use computers as a tool, not make computers a
time-consuming profession.
Every home user I have known will "install controls". What would they
do, call for technical help? Most users of computers don't have anyone to give
them technical help. The best they have is people like the Geek Squad at Best
Buy, an option that 1) is very expensive, 2) depends on people who probably do
not know the answer, 3) takes a lot of time, and 4) does not allow asking
single questions.
The underlying point is that the "default install" of Microsoft
operating systems is insecure beyond the ability of most users to correct,
and that Microsoft profits by providing an operating system that is, for most
users, effectively insecure.
I've seen this kind of statement frequently: "OS X is not better."
You said, "By default OSX and Linux run stuff unsandboxed with the same
privileges as the logged on user and the logged on user has lots of network
privileges, can set up cron jobs, and all other nice stuff..."
By default, and largely because they are forced, most Windows users
run with administrator privileges, and malware can modify the operating
system. I don't know OS X, but my understanding is that OS X is not
that insecure.
Also, you said, "Note: I'm not referring to the security
abomination that's called Vista - Vista's UAC just trains already click-thru
happy users to click-thru even more. If Microsoft cared about security they
should have implemented sandbox _templates_ or something similar."
You seem to agree with my underlying point, which is that Microsoft is
uncaring towards its users, apparently because Microsoft managers believe that
it is morally acceptable to use adversarial methods to make a profit.
You said, "Most of the windows malware _running_ out there don't
even care about root/admin privileges. Most are zombie machines to spam or
DDoS and spread. Don't need root/admin for that."
The high maintenance costs for Windows operating systems come partly
from users and malware having admin privileges. Zombies are not the biggest
problem, the biggest problem is that a stranger has complete and lasting
control over a user's computer.
Apparently Microsoft managers lack confidence in themselves. If
they had confidence, they would make a profit by making good products, and
would not depend on adversarial methods to make a profit.
I definitely agree with your point that operating systems have a long
way to go to provide the maximum possible security.
Acting out your anger is optional. Next time, try dealing with your anger yourself, rather than making it a problem for others.
You said, "The number of temp files or folders is nothing to do with security."
You didn't read what I said carefully. I said that, if temp files fill the hard drive, the file system becomes slower. And also, even worse, the defrag program refuses to operate. When computers become slow, many users buy a new computer.
A few temporary file locations in the Windows XP operating system:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Local Settings\Temp\ and
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ for each value of user. On the computer that had the trouble, there are several users.
C:\Documents and Settings\NetworkService\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\NetworkService\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
C:\Documents and Settings\LocalService\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\LocalService\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
C:\Documents and Settings\Default User\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\Default User\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
According to Microsoft, these may all be different:
%SystemRoot%\Temp\
%SystemDrive%\Temp\
%SystemRoot%\Tmp\
%SystemDrive%\Tmp\
In my opinion, it doesn't matter how many temp file locations defined by the operating system there are, if the number is more than, let's say, 2. I've seen computers infected with malware that uses temp file locations of other users to store files, marked read only. There is no method provided by Microsoft, that runs automatically, that deletes read only temp files in all the locations, and does that securely under OS control, so that malware cannot use those locations between computer re-starts. That's my understanding, and you haven't said differently.
Also, most users don't know to run Disk Cleanup. The point is, most users are not technically knowledgeable, and are not able to maintain Windows, and, as the New York Times article to which I linked says, they buy new computers, because that is cheaper than trying to maintain the OS.
The fundamental point: Given what I have just mentioned, I don't see that Microsoft is caring towards its customers. The company could do far, far better. Microsoft apparently doesn't do better because Microsoft managers believe it is morally acceptable to use adversarial methods to make a profit.
I didn't know I had a website. I just looked, and I can see I do. I don't have much time to make a web site, and I had forgotten that I had an index.html. Normally, I just provide links to particular articles.
Bruce Schneier, well-known computer security analyst, said in his November 15 newsletter that this article is "A well-written analysis of the major security/ privacy/ stability concerns of Windows XP." Mr. Schneier wrote the books Applied Cryptography and Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World, and other books.
Back then, several years ago, I thought Bruce was being overly generous. However, soon after I published my article, which was translated into French and Spanish by readers, and other languages for which I could not find an editor to verify the translation, security vulnerabilities were found that I predicted in the article.
How many "remote holes" have been found in the base install of Windows? Hundreds? Remote holes in the base install are what count for novice Windows users, who are mostly at home, with no network, and use their computers only for email, web surfing, and typing a few letters, and signs like "wet paint".
I don't understand your objection, if you are objecting.
Apparently ALL anti-virus software gives false positives. Most of the users
have little technical knowledge, and the software makers want to give the
impression their software is more useful than it really is. I've seen numerous false
positives on systems I use. One "virus" was a text file, with a.TXT extension, and
nothing in it but documentation!
But why is anti-virus software so important? Apparently only because Microsoft
profits more when its software is full of bugs and malware, and Microsoft is
very adversarial toward its customers.
The true cost of a Microsoft operating system is perhaps 10 times its
retail cost, because of the heavy maintenance expenses.
Microsoft's anti-customer behavior: Here are some paragraphs I
wrote to someone having problems with temp files taking gigabytes of drive
space.
On one computer I checked, temp files were stored in 49 different
places, and that includes only temp file folders made by the Windows operating
system and not temp file folders made by application software.
Why doesn't Microsoft provide a utility to find all the temporary file
folders and delete the files when starting or shutting down the computer?
Apparently because the company is heavily engaged in adversarial behavior.
Most people don't know that temporary files are a problem, and they certainly
don't know where to find them; that was a challenge even for me. The temp
files sometimes take so much space that there is not enough free space, and
the file system begins running much slower.
The file defragmentation program won't run when there is limited free
space. A fragmented file system is much slower. And most people don't even
know that the defragmentation program exists, or why they should run it. So,
their computers become imperceptibly slower and slower until they buy a new
computer.
That's apparently why Microsoft software has so much malware, also. At
present, there are 30
known vulnerabilities in Windows XP alone that haven't been fixed. There
are 7 known
vulnerabilities in the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer
browser the the company has not fixed.
Some people say Microsoft software is targeted more often because
there are so many copies in use. However, it is well known how to write secure
software. Apparently Microsoft managers don't let their programmers finish
their work.
Many people who don't know how to keep Microsoft products running buy
new computers. Every time someone buys a new PC, they buy a new copy of the
Microsoft operating system, even if they already owned a copy. So Microsoft
makes more money if the company has defective products.
Microsoft gives each new version of Windows a new name, and many
people think the new version is a new product. Somehow it has been arranged that people pay
the full amount for new versions, instead of an upgrade price.
Note that the Apple operating system, OS X, and the Open BSD operating system have very few
vulnerabilities. (The Open BSD web site says 2 in 10 years.) So it is possible
to make a secure operating system. The volunteers that make the Open BSD
system do security reviews of software to make sure vulnerabilities are not released to
customers.
We use Microsoft operating systems because of historical reasons, and
because it is expensive to change. In actuality, the business very seldom uses
software that runs only under Microsoft Windows, and that is only in specific
departments, where it would be easy to provide a second computer.
Before you laugh, this action was the result of intense research by the managers of Sprint. They thought, "How can we get ourselves on Reddit and Digg and Slashdot as a mean, ugly company, without paying advertising costs?" And they found an answer!
Apparently true. And countries run by religious leaders fail economically, as in Iran.
However, Osama bin Laden gets followers because of the Saudi regime he says is repressive. If the regime were not repressive, he could not get followers, and that would make a big difference.
So, it is one idea that is operative in this case, and the fact that Osama's other ideas may not be sensible is not relevant to the particular issue of the present violence in the world, which has been supported by the Bush family and their affectionate relationships with people who don't support democracy. The Bush family calls Prince Bandar, "Bandar Bush", as though this man is a good friend of the family, which I seriously doubt. I think the Bush family is manipulated.
The parent comment, and others, minimize the issue. The issue is fraud by the medical profession. The medical system in the U.S. is broken.
Okay, this is an exaggeration to try to be funny: If you open your
window on a quiet night, you can hear the crying of hundreds of people. Film
studio executives in Hollywood are crying because they have to spend $20
million to market a movie that cost $20 million to film, but Michael Moore is
invited to sell his movie Sicko from the podium in the U.S. federal
government's House of Representatives, and the New York Times publishes a
photograph, shown in the NYT article For Filmmaker,`Sicko' Is a Jumping-Off Point
for Health Care Change. Quote from the article: "Even the haters agree
this film is genius!"
When I last checked Fandango.com, there were 1651 "must see" ratings, 115 "go" ratings, and
only 62 lower ratings. Sicko is the highest rated movie ever, apparently.
Complaining about Michael Moore is evidence of ignorance. He does the
best he can. Do not demand that your evidence be sugar-coated and delivered on
a silver plate. Get it where you can, and cross-check it carefully, or know
you are purposely avoiding being part of the solution to the problems.
For those whose real purpose is having a way to act out their anger,
while hiding it from themselves, get help. Work on resolving your anger,
rather than listening to anger sellers like Rush Limbaugh.
One last thing: If you had educated yourself about what the U.S.
government is doing and has
done, you would have known that Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 451,
while faulty in presentation, was entirely based on fact. For example, George
W. Bush really does hold hands in an affectionate way with Saudis who control
the Saudi government. Osama bin Laden's major complaint was that the U.S.
government was supporting a Saudi government he thinks should be replaced. I'm
against violence from any source, but certainly a Saudi citizen like bin Laden
has a right to object to a regime in his own country that many Saudis say is
repressive.
Absolutely right. MOD PARENT UP. The only disagreement I have is that it was
far, far worse than you say.
We had six distributors of MS-DOS in the early 90's. All of them were
entirely legitimate in other ways, but were selling pirated copies, apparently
unknowingly. I called a distributor in Los Angeles, and the president of the
company told me his copies were pirated, too. It wasn't possible for small
companies to buy legal copies of DOS. Apparently, in what I imagine was
collusion that is illegal under the anti-trust laws, Microsoft had arranged to
try to discourage smaller companies from building and selling computers, as a
way of appeasing its largest customers.
I was really, really upset by this. I called the Microsoft legal
department. It isn't possible to call the Microsoft legal department any more;
they closed that possibility. But back then I got a woman on the telephone who
was obviously young and inexperienced. I got her name and gave her the names
of the companies selling pirated copies.
That created a situation in which Microsoft had to act, or create a
verified case in which the company encouraged piracy.
However, what really happened underneath the facade was that the same
behavior continued. An honest company pays a lot of Microsoft Office, A
dishonest company pays $90, according to spam emails that I just viewed. That
apparently illegal behavior drove the other office product companies out of
business. There has always been a choice: Legal Microsoft Office for hundreds
of dollars, or illegal copies that most customers cannot recognize as illegal,
for $50 to $90. Apparently Microsoft would rather encourage, or at least not
stop, piracy as a way of preventing legitimate competition.
Thanks for the information. I knew AT&T (a new name for SBC) is disfunctional, but I didn't know the social dynamics. I posted several ideas in comments in this thread in another story: AT&T is NOT AT&T, it is SBC.
Several years ago, a short piece in The Atlantic Monthly, a respected U.S. magazine, compared Bill Gates to Satan. I'm guessing Satan found that quite annoying.
A rich person can give a lot of money to charity to try to give people a better impression of himself. With Bill Gates, that isn't working.
Note that the Power consumption and efficiency section in the linked article shows CPU power plotted against cost of the CPU, rather than CPU power plotted against the cost of the electricity.
For computers that are on much of the day, the cost of the electricity over the perhaps 4-year life of the system is significant, and more important than relatively small differences in the cost of the CPU.
Although the article has some flaws, it is very useful.
Quote from the Slashdot story: "In short, the original Microsoft analysis was good PR and poor research." It amazes me how easily people accept abuse, and give excuses for being abused. It was not "good PR". My best understanding is that Microsoft's analysis was an intentional lie.
My rule number one in dealing with Microsoft: Unless forced by
circumstances,
never upgrade to a new version of Windows until the second service pack is
released. Let other people have the grief. The huge number of bugs in Windows XP before SP2 was very expensive
for us. If I remember correctly, SP2 fixed more than 630 bugs, and some of the
fixes were not documented. It is not only the vulnerabilities that are
expensive.
Quote from the link in the Slashdot story: "Also, the entire networking stack was rewritten for Vista, and that
means lots of new bugs are present. I have already spoken to other
researchers who have not disclosed such flaws publicly. However, a
good start for learning about some is the Symantec paper that analyzed
Vista during the BETA phases and revealed numerous issues."
Microsoft has, in my opinion, a long, long history of not allowing their programmers to finish their jobs. There were even security vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Help protocols!
Slashdot Mirror
There are people whose only way of making a living is to work with Windows. Those people sometimes feel very threatened if they learn something new about Windows.
Consider your manner. Basically, you communicate that if you disagree with someone, they are wrong, and not only that, they are to be scorned and otherwise treated badly.
Slashdot readers should remember that no one is paid to comment on Slashdot. If the underlying point is correct, it is not necessary to be particularly intense about a detail that is in error.
In this case, the underlying point is correct. The Slashdot story on which we are commenting is about malware. The point is being made that there are a lot of unnecessary places for malware to hide. Maybe Microsoft managers did not design Windows to be costly to maintain. But they certainly allow that.
To "Wherever IE hides its TEMP directory (no, not the cache)" you said, "Doesn't exist". However:
C:\Documents and Settings\ user \Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
for each value of user is where IE puts its "Temporary" files.
To "%SystemRoot% (really, I don't know why)" you said, " No temp files are stored in this place by the operating system, save PAGEFILE.SYS which is your virtual memory"
Maybe he left out some characters there, and meant the SystemRoot Temp folder. Remember, %SystemRoot% is usually C:\WINNT. The PAGEFILE.SYS file is in %SystemDrive%\ which is usually C:\, where Windows keeps its Temp and Tmp folders. Windows XP puts HIBERFIL.SYS in %SystemDrive%\, and doesn't always delete the file if Hibernation is turned off. HIBERFIL.SYS is huge, a little larger than system memory.
To "[Any Drive]\[Random Characters].tmp" you said, "The operating system does not create folders matching this pattern."
He is talking about files, not folders. I just checked a test system. This is one of the results:
Directory of C:\WINDOWS\Installer
09/09/2006 03:44 AM 110,950 MSI26.tmp
04/11/2006 09:13 PM 474,624 MSI68.tmp
04/11/2006 05:08 PM 70,545,476 MSIBC.tmp
04/11/2006 05:08 PM 474,624 MSIC6.tmp
4 File(s) 71,605,674 bytes
The fundamental issue is that Windows has no automatic method of dealing with these unnecessary files. And that sometimes cause people to buy another computer, because the file system becomes slower when there is not much free space.
I just rebooted a test system. Result: Old .tmp files in Catroot.
Microsoft.NET files are present in a default install of Windows XP.
NT Backup is the backup program provided with the Windows OS. A backup program is a necessary OS component.
You said, "It's Microsoft, they have plenty of REAL reasons to bash them."
Okay, what are YOUR reasons?
Anyhow, the point is made that there are a LOT of places for malware to hide, far more than even Slashdot readers generally know. Think how difficult it is for the average user when "temporary" files fill the hard drive and make Windows slower.
I wouldn't want anyone to think that I had listed all the temp folders created by the Microsoft Windows operating system. I just had to stop to do something else. Here are a few more:
o rary ASP.NET Files\
p orary ASP.NET Files\
6 08-01B04FC291E0}\TempDir\
5 E5-01B04FC291E0}\TempDir\
One for each user who uses NT Backup:
C:\Documents and Settings\ user \Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Windows NT\NTBackup\temp\
C:\WINNT\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\Temp
C:\WINNT\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\Tem
C:\WINNT\system32\CatRoot\{127E0A1A-4EF2-11E1-8
C:\WINNT\system32\CatRoot\{F259E6C3-38EE-11E1-8
C:\WINNT\system32\config\systemprofile\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\WINNT\system32\config\systemprofile\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
And don't forget cache folders made by the Windows XP OS, and temp folders made by applications:
/S /AD /B
C:\WINNT\PCHEALTH\HELPCTR\Config\Cache
If you have Microsoft Office installed, there are two more apparently for each user:
C:\Documents and Settings\ user \Application Data\OfficeUpdate12\Cache
C:\Documents and Settings\ user \Application Data\OfficeUpdate12\Temp
And Microsoft provided no guidance to developers, so software companies put temporary files everywhere, and forget to delete them sometimes (often). One one computer, I listed 75 cache folders, and those are just the cache folders that begin with the letters "cache". Try it yourself by running these commands with an account that has administrator privileges:
%systemdrive%
CD \
DIR cache*.*
The point is, there are temporary files stored in many, many places, when Microsoft could have provided one Temporary files folder and one Cache folder, and required that application developers use sub-folders in those folders.
All that disorganization has the effect of making Windows more expensive to administer. If an application forgets to delete its temporary files, eventually that uses the available space, and the computer becomes slow. Often people buy new computers when their computers get slow, making Microsoft more money.
With better organization, there could be a program that deletes unneeded files, making the Microsoft operating system far better for users.
You said, "... how many corporations would Microsoft be putting out of business by fixing all the problems with their operating systems?"
Yours is an argument being made nationally concerning the U.S. government. Something like, "If the U.S. government stops killing people for money, a lot of U.S. citizens will have to find other jobs."
The jobs will be there. Running a business or a country well helps create prosperity. Prosperity creates jobs.
You said:
"By default it will ask users if they want to install controls after first showing them the signature information."
"... it is trivial to disable activex controls and it can be done without launching the browser (right click on IE in your start menu, chose internet properties.)"
"As per above, you certainly can disable it and it's quite easy to do so."
It seems to me that your statements presume a high amount of technical knowledge. In decades, I have never known even one user to have much technical knowledge. They just want to use computers as a tool, not make computers a time-consuming profession.
Every home user I have known will "install controls". What would they do, call for technical help? Most users of computers don't have anyone to give them technical help. The best they have is people like the Geek Squad at Best Buy, an option that 1) is very expensive, 2) depends on people who probably do not know the answer, 3) takes a lot of time, and 4) does not allow asking single questions.
The underlying point is that the "default install" of Microsoft operating systems is insecure beyond the ability of most users to correct, and that Microsoft profits by providing an operating system that is, for most users, effectively insecure.
I've seen this kind of statement frequently: "OS X is not better."
You said, "By default OSX and Linux run stuff unsandboxed with the same privileges as the logged on user and the logged on user has lots of network privileges, can set up cron jobs, and all other nice stuff..."
By default, and largely because they are forced, most Windows users run with administrator privileges, and malware can modify the operating system. I don't know OS X, but my understanding is that OS X is not that insecure.
Also, you said, "Note: I'm not referring to the security abomination that's called Vista - Vista's UAC just trains already click-thru happy users to click-thru even more. If Microsoft cared about security they should have implemented sandbox _templates_ or something similar."
You seem to agree with my underlying point, which is that Microsoft is uncaring towards its users, apparently because Microsoft managers believe that it is morally acceptable to use adversarial methods to make a profit.
You said, "Most of the windows malware _running_ out there don't even care about root/admin privileges. Most are zombie machines to spam or DDoS and spread. Don't need root/admin for that."
The high maintenance costs for Windows operating systems come partly from users and malware having admin privileges. Zombies are not the biggest problem, the biggest problem is that a stranger has complete and lasting control over a user's computer.
Apparently Microsoft managers lack confidence in themselves. If they had confidence, they would make a profit by making good products, and would not depend on adversarial methods to make a profit.
I definitely agree with your point that operating systems have a long way to go to provide the maximum possible security.
Acting out your anger is optional. Next time, try dealing with your anger yourself, rather than making it a problem for others.
You said, "The number of temp files or folders is nothing to do with security."
You didn't read what I said carefully. I said that, if temp files fill the hard drive, the file system becomes slower. And also, even worse, the defrag program refuses to operate. When computers become slow, many users buy a new computer.
A few temporary file locations in the Windows XP operating system:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
C:\Documents and Settings\ user \Local Settings\Temp\ and
C:\Documents and Settings\ user \Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
for each value of user . On the computer that had the trouble, there are several users.
C:\Documents and Settings\NetworkService\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\NetworkService\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
C:\Documents and Settings\LocalService\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\LocalService\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
C:\Documents and Settings\Default User\Local Settings\Temp\
C:\Documents and Settings\Default User\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\
According to Microsoft, these may all be different:
%SystemRoot%\Temp\
%SystemDrive%\Temp\
%SystemRoot%\Tmp\
%SystemDrive%\Tmp\
In my opinion, it doesn't matter how many temp file locations defined by the operating system there are, if the number is more than, let's say, 2. I've seen computers infected with malware that uses temp file locations of other users to store files, marked read only. There is no method provided by Microsoft, that runs automatically, that deletes read only temp files in all the locations, and does that securely under OS control, so that malware cannot use those locations between computer re-starts. That's my understanding, and you haven't said differently.
Also, most users don't know to run Disk Cleanup. The point is, most users are not technically knowledgeable, and are not able to maintain Windows, and, as the New York Times article to which I linked says, they buy new computers, because that is cheaper than trying to maintain the OS.
The fundamental point: Given what I have just mentioned, I don't see that Microsoft is caring towards its customers. The company could do far, far better. Microsoft apparently doesn't do better because Microsoft managers believe it is morally acceptable to use adversarial methods to make a profit.
I didn't know I had a website. I just looked, and I can see I do. I don't have much time to make a web site, and I had forgotten that I had an index.html. Normally, I just provide links to particular articles.
Anyhow, look at this article on my "web site": Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. Quote:
Bruce Schneier, well-known computer security analyst, said in his November 15 newsletter that this article is "A well-written analysis of the major security/ privacy/ stability concerns of Windows XP." Mr. Schneier wrote the books Applied Cryptography and Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World, and other books.
Back then, several years ago, I thought Bruce was being overly generous. However, soon after I published my article, which was translated into French and Spanish by readers, and other languages for which I could not find an editor to verify the translation, security vulnerabilities were found that I predicted in the article.
How many "remote holes" have been found in the base install of Windows? Hundreds? Remote holes in the base install are what count for novice Windows users, who are mostly at home, with no network, and use their computers only for email, web surfing, and typing a few letters, and signs like "wet paint".
I don't understand your objection, if you are objecting.
Apparently ALL anti-virus software gives false positives. Most of the users have little technical knowledge, and the software makers want to give the impression their software is more useful than it really is. I've seen numerous false positives on systems I use. One "virus" was a text file, with a .TXT extension, and
nothing in it but documentation!
But why is anti-virus software so important? Apparently only because Microsoft profits more when its software is full of bugs and malware, and Microsoft is very adversarial toward its customers.
The true cost of a Microsoft operating system is perhaps 10 times its retail cost, because of the heavy maintenance expenses.
Microsoft's anti-customer behavior: Here are some paragraphs I wrote to someone having problems with temp files taking gigabytes of drive space.
On one computer I checked, temp files were stored in 49 different places, and that includes only temp file folders made by the Windows operating system and not temp file folders made by application software.
Why doesn't Microsoft provide a utility to find all the temporary file folders and delete the files when starting or shutting down the computer? Apparently because the company is heavily engaged in adversarial behavior. Most people don't know that temporary files are a problem, and they certainly don't know where to find them; that was a challenge even for me. The temp files sometimes take so much space that there is not enough free space, and the file system begins running much slower.
The file defragmentation program won't run when there is limited free space. A fragmented file system is much slower. And most people don't even know that the defragmentation program exists, or why they should run it. So, their computers become imperceptibly slower and slower until they buy a new computer.
That's apparently why Microsoft software has so much malware, also. At present, there are 30 known vulnerabilities in Windows XP alone that haven't been fixed. There are 7 known vulnerabilities in the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer browser the the company has not fixed.
Some people say Microsoft software is targeted more often because there are so many copies in use. However, it is well known how to write secure software. Apparently Microsoft managers don't let their programmers finish their work.
Many people who don't know how to keep Microsoft products running buy new computers. Every time someone buys a new PC, they buy a new copy of the Microsoft operating system, even if they already owned a copy. So Microsoft makes more money if the company has defective products.
Microsoft gives each new version of Windows a new name, and many people think the new version is a new product. Somehow it has been arranged that people pay the full amount for new versions, instead of an upgrade price.
The New York Times article Corrupted PC's Find New Home also makes that point.
Note that the Apple operating system, OS X, and the Open BSD operating system have very few vulnerabilities. (The Open BSD web site says 2 in 10 years.) So it is possible to make a secure operating system. The volunteers that make the Open BSD system do security reviews of software to make sure vulnerabilities are not released to customers.
We use Microsoft operating systems because of historical reasons, and because it is expensive to change. In actuality, the business very seldom uses software that runs only under Microsoft Windows, and that is only in specific departments, where it would be easy to provide a second computer.
"DOJ Accidentally Gives Lawyer Wiretap Transcript"
Maybe it was not an accident, but someone in government who wants to help stop the corruption.
"... before Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva decides to invade Slashdistan for badmouthing."
Oh? How many Iraqis has Lula killed? Zero.
Lula has a long way to go to be as corrupt as the Bush administration.
To me, all the jokes above are a bit sad, since they represent an inadequate response to extremely extensive U.S. government corruption.
Before you laugh, this action was the result of intense research by the managers of Sprint. They thought, "How can we get ourselves on Reddit and Digg and Slashdot as a mean, ugly company, without paying advertising costs?" And they found an answer!
Apparently true. And countries run by religious leaders fail economically, as in Iran.
However, Osama bin Laden gets followers because of the Saudi regime he says is repressive. If the regime were not repressive, he could not get followers, and that would make a big difference.
So, it is one idea that is operative in this case, and the fact that Osama's other ideas may not be sensible is not relevant to the particular issue of the present violence in the world, which has been supported by the Bush family and their affectionate relationships with people who don't support democracy. The Bush family calls Prince Bandar, "Bandar Bush", as though this man is a good friend of the family, which I seriously doubt. I think the Bush family is manipulated.
... see the movie Sicko.
The parent comment, and others, minimize the issue. The issue is fraud by the medical profession. The medical system in the U.S. is broken.
Okay, this is an exaggeration to try to be funny: If you open your window on a quiet night, you can hear the crying of hundreds of people. Film studio executives in Hollywood are crying because they have to spend $20 million to market a movie that cost $20 million to film, but Michael Moore is invited to sell his movie Sicko from the podium in the U.S. federal government's House of Representatives, and the New York Times publishes a photograph, shown in the NYT article For Filmmaker,`Sicko' Is a Jumping-Off Point for Health Care Change. Quote from the article: "Even the haters agree this film is genius!"
When I last checked Fandango.com, there were 1651 "must see" ratings, 115 "go" ratings, and only 62 lower ratings. Sicko is the highest rated movie ever, apparently.
Complaining about Michael Moore is evidence of ignorance. He does the best he can. Do not demand that your evidence be sugar-coated and delivered on a silver plate. Get it where you can, and cross-check it carefully, or know you are purposely avoiding being part of the solution to the problems.
For those whose real purpose is having a way to act out their anger, while hiding it from themselves, get help. Work on resolving your anger, rather than listening to anger sellers like Rush Limbaugh.
One last thing: If you had educated yourself about what the U.S. government is doing and has done, you would have known that Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 451, while faulty in presentation, was entirely based on fact. For example, George W. Bush really does hold hands in an affectionate way with Saudis who control the Saudi government. Osama bin Laden's major complaint was that the U.S. government was supporting a Saudi government he thinks should be replaced. I'm against violence from any source, but certainly a Saudi citizen like bin Laden has a right to object to a regime in his own country that many Saudis say is repressive.
Absolutely right. MOD PARENT UP. The only disagreement I have is that it was far, far worse than you say.
We had six distributors of MS-DOS in the early 90's. All of them were entirely legitimate in other ways, but were selling pirated copies, apparently unknowingly. I called a distributor in Los Angeles, and the president of the company told me his copies were pirated, too. It wasn't possible for small companies to buy legal copies of DOS. Apparently, in what I imagine was collusion that is illegal under the anti-trust laws, Microsoft had arranged to try to discourage smaller companies from building and selling computers, as a way of appeasing its largest customers.
I was really, really upset by this. I called the Microsoft legal department. It isn't possible to call the Microsoft legal department any more; they closed that possibility. But back then I got a woman on the telephone who was obviously young and inexperienced. I got her name and gave her the names of the companies selling pirated copies.
That created a situation in which Microsoft had to act, or create a verified case in which the company encouraged piracy.
However, what really happened underneath the facade was that the same behavior continued. An honest company pays a lot of Microsoft Office, A dishonest company pays $90, according to spam emails that I just viewed. That apparently illegal behavior drove the other office product companies out of business. There has always been a choice: Legal Microsoft Office for hundreds of dollars, or illegal copies that most customers cannot recognize as illegal, for $50 to $90. Apparently Microsoft would rather encourage, or at least not stop, piracy as a way of preventing legitimate competition.
Sometimes, the dislike of Bill Gates is more than dislike, sometimes people say he is Satan, or a friend of Satan: Bill Gates: Disliked.
Here are some other reasons he is disliked: Don't accept abuse. MS apparently lied.
Thanks for the information. I knew AT&T (a new name for SBC) is disfunctional, but I didn't know the social dynamics. I posted several ideas in comments in this thread in another story: AT&T is NOT AT&T, it is SBC.
It was only a joke, talking about a Slashdot story that could wait until tomorrow, or until 1,000,002,007.
Yup. It's the U.S. billion.
I decided I would think about this a billion years from now, in the year 1,000,000,2007. No hurry, right?
Quote from the linked article: "That cell, anticipating Bill Gates by three billion years, separated itself from the community and refused to share."
Bill Gates is one of the most disliked people on earth for his refusal to finish his products, and his reliance on adversarial business tactics.
See Microsoft Memories. See Another Bill Gates Meets Satan story.
Several years ago, a short piece in The Atlantic Monthly, a respected U.S. magazine, compared Bill Gates to Satan. I'm guessing Satan found that quite annoying.
A rich person can give a lot of money to charity to try to give people a better impression of himself. With Bill Gates, that isn't working.
Note that the Power consumption and efficiency section in the linked article shows CPU power plotted against cost of the CPU, rather than CPU power plotted against the cost of the electricity.
For computers that are on much of the day, the cost of the electricity over the perhaps 4-year life of the system is significant, and more important than relatively small differences in the cost of the CPU.
Although the article has some flaws, it is very useful.
MOD PARENT UP!
Quote from the Slashdot story: "In short, the original Microsoft analysis was good PR and poor research." It amazes me how easily people accept abuse, and give excuses for being abused. It was not "good PR". My best understanding is that Microsoft's analysis was an intentional lie.
My rule number one in dealing with Microsoft: Unless forced by circumstances, never upgrade to a new version of Windows until the second service pack is released. Let other people have the grief. The huge number of bugs in Windows XP before SP2 was very expensive for us. If I remember correctly, SP2 fixed more than 630 bugs, and some of the fixes were not documented. It is not only the vulnerabilities that are expensive.
Quote from the link in the Slashdot story: "Also, the entire networking stack was rewritten for Vista, and that means lots of new bugs are present. I have already spoken to other researchers who have not disclosed such flaws publicly. However, a good start for learning about some is the Symantec paper that analyzed Vista during the BETA phases and revealed numerous issues."
Microsoft has, in my opinion, a long, long history of not allowing their programmers to finish their jobs. There were even security vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Help protocols!