Paul Thurrott is a Microsoft shill. That's right, by some kind of agreement, tacit and silent or outright, he works the market to stay frustations ISVs and techies are having and to promote MS crap at all odds.
Here's an actual example:
The general paranoia with Win2K was easy for him to work on. In the weeks immediately prior to release, he came out strongly AGAINST the new OS, knowing that a lot of people had seen the product in beta and were highly suspicious of what was under the bonnet.
Then the day the monstrosity was released, he came out strongly IN FAVOUR of it.
I have absolutely no respect for this man. His new article is probably just written to piss Apple people off anyway. That's the kind of thing the arrogant MS crowd find 'fun'.
Trouble is, can the machine's owner really be held responsible for such consequences when the OS vendor willfully misrepresented the concordant hazards and responsibilities of placing their product on the open Internet?
Yes, but the owners can start a class action against the OS vendor.
And if they ever did, against the only possible vendor in this context, I would contribute to their attorney fees.
Before all you drooling/.ers came along, this was a nice place. Before the kiddie p0rn sites, this was a nice place. Before AOL came along, this was a nice place. Before Windows 95 came along, this was a nice place. Before IE and OE and IIS and the WAB came along, this was a nice place.
It could still be a nice place, if what ruined the neighbourhood can be forced to leave. But right now, unfortunately, it looks more like your back yard at the trailer park.
I am a long-standing supporter of a free Internet, but who, aside from those growing up in your back yard, ever missed the subtle fact that with freedom comes responsibility?
And it is this responsibility we need to win back.
One thing is clear: if a car manufacturer brought out a vehicle as poor in terms of safety and security as Microsoft do with Windows and their other products, consumers wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
But car manufacturers have their own dealerships, while Microsoft have forced themselves onto computer store shelves, onto OEM hard drives, and on ISPs.
Yet starting where the responsibility lies is the only way to go. This topic does not need more discussion, such as with gun control, where it dies conveniently until the next school massacre; it needs action.
And only then will we be able to push Microsoft back where they belong, and restore a semblance of dignity to this community once called ARPANET.
How can you hold people responsible for holes in their system while microsoft produces software with numerous holes in it, but is not held responsible.
Because it's YOUR computer, no matter what Microsoft feel about it. You don't have to run an obviously defective OS, but you do have a responsibility to your fellow netizens.
Cluelessness is not an excuse; ownership establishes culpability.
Perhaps there should be laws to punish people who leave unpatched, unprotected computers sitting on the internet.
Of course. They're just as bad as the worm-writers. Without them, the worm-writers wouldn't have a chance.
Then again, without Microsoft, most of this would not be a problem. Perhaps computers and operating systems should have a UL-type of seal visible in the showroom 'Certified for use on the Internet'. Surely Microsoft would not qualify, and who would be unhappy about that?
There are laws that punish irresponsible gun owners, should we also punish negligent computer owners? What about negligent programmers?
Doctors are sued. There are malpractice lawsuits. Where's the difference?
Really you tell me how to detect a kernel level trojan on a windows box
You don't have to run Windows, but you do have to show responsibility to your fellow netizens. If Windows is the insecure POS it is, use something else.
I can always argue that I'd intended to patch but just hadn't found the time to do so
Cool. So if someone borrows my car and I know the brakes don't work, and they run over somebody, all I have to say is 'I'd intended to fix the brakes but just hadn't found the time to do so' and I'm off the hook - right?
... so basically you're saying there's no money in selling operating systems and software, and Bill Gates will never be a billionaire if he doesn't do the same as Steve Jobs?
They have decided to disable the 'feature' that hijacks a random http request every 8 hours and redirects to a webpage advertising their parental control system.
No question about it - the product managers at Belkin are sharp!;P
I came away from this extensive article with the feeling that I had not got the review I had been promised. With all that advertised hardware running and testing Panther, why mention it at all, if it doesn't come up for discussion again?
And this obsession with the Finder - if you don't like it, don't use it!
I think there are a lot of other things that could have been done here. If I want to know about all the new features in Panther, I can read an ad page at Apple. But a review is supposed to test these features, not simply mention them.
Micro Focus and Microsoft are bringing the mainframe to Windows and.Net'. The infrastructure of many countries is on IBM mainframes. Haven't Microsft done enough damage already? It's one thing to witness senseless Internet damage; it's quite another to watch whole countries go down because of these bumbling idiots.
Someone please put Microsoft out of our misery before this gets totally OTT.
It looks pretty obvious that D McB & Co are being paid a lot of money to 'mess with' the open source movement. The Halloween Documents spoke of fudding the person of Linus Torwalds as well. That might be next.
As much as it pains me to say it I think WMA would be more useful to the masses that Ogg.
Use and use. Giving in to Gates puts us right back where we were in the Browser Wars. I think we're all in agreement that Monopoly 101 is correct in its claim that monopoly is good for no one but the monopolist.
You're never going to know anything w/o the code. So many examples, they're too numerous to mention. It's hushed because of the panic it can cause.
MS once had a summer programmer who put 'The tree of evil bears bitter fruit - now crashing your system disk' into Word. It got in all the European editions.
The NT team loved putting in the names of beers in a screen saver. They used 'I love NT' in about seven languages to kick it off. Gates supposedly heard about it and went through the roof. So they disguised it for the next release.
Putting a back door in is not more difficult. And it's almost impossible to detect - if you don't have the code, and sometimes even if you do.
IBM's mainframes have long had a humungoid string which bypasses all security.
Slashdot Mirror
I respectfully submit that you don't know how to use the Panther Finder.
Maybe he just doesn't like it?
After all, the Finder is hardly a speed demon. Given that it's more a 'Mac' program than an NS program, this is hardly surprising.
Paul Thurrott is a Microsoft shill. That's right, by some kind of agreement, tacit and silent or outright, he works the market to stay frustations ISVs and techies are having and to promote MS crap at all odds.
Here's an actual example:
The general paranoia with Win2K was easy for him to work on. In the weeks immediately prior to release, he came out strongly AGAINST the new OS, knowing that a lot of people had seen the product in beta and were highly suspicious of what was under the bonnet.
Then the day the monstrosity was released, he came out strongly IN FAVOUR of it.
I have absolutely no respect for this man. His new article is probably just written to piss Apple people off anyway. That's the kind of thing the arrogant MS crowd find 'fun'.
... you now have to buy a new iPod every year, just like you do with OS X.
But let's support 'em, people!
When I got my degree, most of my classmates were good at programming, but couldn't admin or secure a paper bag, much less their personal computers.
If true, that's very sad, and your education was sorely lacking.
But I know a lot of people who never got degrees in personal computer security and still manage to protect themselves adequately.
For that, the only prerequisite is brains.
Trouble is, can the machine's owner really be held responsible for such consequences when the OS vendor willfully misrepresented the concordant hazards and responsibilities of placing their product on the open Internet?
Yes, but the owners can start a class action against the OS vendor.
And if they ever did, against the only possible vendor in this context, I would contribute to their attorney fees.
I have several friends who are CS majors and use Windows 98 with no virus protection or firewall.
So?
Rob Rosenberger ran a Win2K box on the net for months just to prove that no one with brains needed that stuff.
The Internet is about freedom.
/.ers came along, this was a nice place. Before the kiddie p0rn sites, this was a nice place. Before AOL came along, this was a nice place. Before Windows 95 came along, this was a nice place. Before IE and OE and IIS and the WAB came along, this was a nice place.
But it's also about responsibility.
Before all you drooling
It could still be a nice place, if what ruined the neighbourhood can be forced to leave. But right now, unfortunately, it looks more like your back yard at the trailer park.
I am a long-standing supporter of a free Internet, but who, aside from those growing up in your back yard, ever missed the subtle fact that with freedom comes responsibility?
And it is this responsibility we need to win back.
One thing is clear: if a car manufacturer brought out a vehicle as poor in terms of safety and security as Microsoft do with Windows and their other products, consumers wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
But car manufacturers have their own dealerships, while Microsoft have forced themselves onto computer store shelves, onto OEM hard drives, and on ISPs.
Yet starting where the responsibility lies is the only way to go. This topic does not need more discussion, such as with gun control, where it dies conveniently until the next school massacre; it needs action.
And only then will we be able to push Microsoft back where they belong, and restore a semblance of dignity to this community once called ARPANET.
How can you hold people responsible for holes in their system while microsoft produces software with numerous holes in it, but is not held responsible.
Because it's YOUR computer, no matter what Microsoft feel about it. You don't have to run an obviously defective OS, but you do have a responsibility to your fellow netizens.
Cluelessness is not an excuse; ownership establishes culpability.
Perhaps there should be laws to punish people who leave unpatched, unprotected computers sitting on the internet.
Of course. They're just as bad as the worm-writers. Without them, the worm-writers wouldn't have a chance.
Then again, without Microsoft, most of this would not be a problem. Perhaps computers and operating systems should have a UL-type of seal visible in the showroom 'Certified for use on the Internet'. Surely Microsoft would not qualify, and who would be unhappy about that?
There are laws that punish irresponsible gun owners, should we also punish negligent computer owners? What about negligent programmers?
Doctors are sued. There are malpractice lawsuits. Where's the difference?
Really you tell me how to detect a kernel level trojan on a windows box
You don't have to run Windows, but you do have to show responsibility to your fellow netizens. If Windows is the insecure POS it is, use something else.
I can always argue that I'd intended to patch but just hadn't found the time to do so
Cool. So if someone borrows my car and I know the brakes don't work, and they run over somebody, all I have to say is 'I'd intended to fix the brakes but just hadn't found the time to do so' and I'm off the hook - right?
it would have been better to credit GNU to the FSF, and not just to Stallman personally
I am sure RMS did not object. After all, RMS believes he created Linux and even the Internet, when we all know it was Apple, through Al Gore.
the Virginia Tech Big Mac has reached 10.28 teraflops
This is a bit like Formula 1 - great PR for the company. Except Ferrari and the rest pay for their supercars.
You'd think that after getting hit by TP's hammer they'd be smarter, but when it comes to arrogant stupidity, MS wear the crown.
... so basically you're saying there's no money in selling operating systems and software, and Bill Gates will never be a billionaire if he doesn't do the same as Steve Jobs?
That makes a lot of sense...
They have decided to disable the 'feature' that hijacks a random http request every 8 hours and redirects to a webpage advertising their parental control system.
;P
No question about it - the product managers at Belkin are sharp!
I came away from this extensive article with the feeling that I had not got the review I had been promised. With all that advertised hardware running and testing Panther, why mention it at all, if it doesn't come up for discussion again?
And this obsession with the Finder - if you don't like it, don't use it!
I think there are a lot of other things that could have been done here. If I want to know about all the new features in Panther, I can read an ad page at Apple. But a review is supposed to test these features, not simply mention them.
Micro Focus and Microsoft are bringing the mainframe to Windows and .Net'.
The infrastructure of many countries is on IBM mainframes. Haven't Microsft done enough damage already? It's one thing to witness senseless Internet damage; it's quite another to watch whole countries go down because of these bumbling idiots.
Someone please put Microsoft out of our misery before this gets totally OTT.
So far they are not fairing that well in all of these markets.
Freudian slip?
It looks pretty obvious that D McB & Co are being paid a lot of money to 'mess with' the open source movement. The Halloween Documents spoke of fudding the person of Linus Torwalds as well. That might be next.
Wasn't it bloody obvious?
As much as it pains me to say it I think WMA would be more useful to the masses that Ogg.
Use and use. Giving in to Gates puts us right back where we were in the Browser Wars. I think we're all in agreement that Monopoly 101 is correct in its claim that monopoly is good for no one but the monopolist.
You're never going to know anything w/o the code. So many examples, they're too numerous to mention. It's hushed because of the panic it can cause.
MS once had a summer programmer who put 'The tree of evil bears bitter fruit - now crashing your system disk' into Word. It got in all the European editions.
The NT team loved putting in the names of beers in a screen saver. They used 'I love NT' in about seven languages to kick it off. Gates supposedly heard about it and went through the roof. So they disguised it for the next release.
Putting a back door in is not more difficult. And it's almost impossible to detect - if you don't have the code, and sometimes even if you do.
IBM's mainframes have long had a humungoid string which bypasses all security.
And so forth.
Mod down. Troll.
$10,000,000 is a drop in the bucket for microsoft. The penalty should be stiffer.
Naturally. As WHG and SB totally lack ethics, it has to be interesting from their own viewpoint - that of power and greed.
Anything less and the law is a failure and a sham.
I wonder how many bugs windows has in bugtraq if you add windows, exchange, office (including outlook) iis, sql server, etc.
It's pretty easy to write a program to calculate that, but don't forget to use __int64.