Perhaps you should attempt basic comprehension skills before you flame someone for arguing the very same thing you believe. It shows the weakness of your mind.
You mask your disappointments and insecurities by convincing yourself you have accepted your situation, and therefore have no problems or weakness. To continue the facade requires constant feeding of the ego, which you placate with badly spelled ramblings toward other people who possess imagination and hope. Whereas you would convince yourself that you are "happy" living in a hole, the rest would be striving to climb out. That desire for the better situation is what has allowed our civilization to progress. In history, the envelopes was pushed by the dreamers, not dreary and cliched aggressive motivators like yourself. Cynicism is a spiraling hole almost as deep as the one you're sitting in. You despise the transferrence of anyone's blame because you inwardly harbor some for yourself, but believe it has dissipated because you think you're self-sufficient. The rest of us laugh as your reptilian brain lashes out in an attempt to hold onto the dream, making bizarre statements about not respecting and hiring people when nobody made such demands to begin with. The chip on your shoulder must be heavy indeed. It is very sad.
Hope is accepting that your current reality is just a curtain, a hindrance to be overcome. We should all strive for what's behind it.
You wish for people to stagnate because you feel insecure about your situation in life, and rather than face the hopelessness of trying to change it, you choose a laughable definition for "peace" and aggressively go after others with terms like "jagoff."
There is never a large enough supply of that recurring holier-than-thou internet type who loves to come onto messageboards and solve everyone's lives through lectures stating how "99.9%" of people's problems are entirely their fault, and that they should "get off their asses." There are few things more annoying then someone who must frantically remind everyone of how self-responsible they feel in order to convince themselves that they don't have weakness. Aggressiveness is an essential point to that presentation, because it further supports this delusion, because after all, someone so self-sufficient would obviously look down on others who have problems, right?
It is tragic in a way, though, that such a type must obviously must bolster their self-esteem by appearing so self-sufficient that they aggressively accuse others of not being in charge of their situations. One has to wonder what their obvious insecurities stem from. In any case, it was a nice troll, but clearly lacking in self-awareness.
Of course they were found to be a monopoly. But they reached a settlement regarding anticompetitive practices, remember? Don't worry; it's okay to be wrong.
Slashdot doesn't care as long as this article generates exposures for that nice big banner ad. Interesting that the ads appear on the pointless Microsoft articles and "today's SCO news" articles as well, isn't it? Financial motives influence the selection of articles these days.
It's like I said in a previous comment--Slashdot is not the cool tech news site it once was. It is now a corporate-owned site whose purpose is to generate geek page hits for banner ads.
Not surprisingly, the Microsoft articles always have banner ads. And what do you know? I look at the top of an obvious page-hit article like this, and it has a banner ad. Hmm.
You still provide no links. The burden of proof is on you. It's a fun game to play, but I tire of it. Clearly, you have nothing to offer but rhetoric and spin. Don't worry; it's okay to be wrong.
Honestly, what Slashdot is these days, rather than the great tech news site it used to be, is generating page hits. This means posting Microsoft articles at least once a day with some flippant remark or editorial in the summary so as to cause "controversial" discussion. The company likes that.
SCO is a big thing as well which gets hits, so even when there is no real news about it, we get "today's SCO news" posts.
It's getting harder and harder to believe the editors are genuine in their mantra that they simply post what interests them. Being corporate-owned, there are other motives at play in the selection of articles, the headline used, and the summary chosen or written.
Do you realize that when you and others make these sorts of wild-eyed claims without any proof at all, it makes the Linux community as a whole look crazy and unprofessional? I'm being serious.
"This problem occurs because of a regression error in the Windows XP SP1 versions of the kernel files (Ntoskrnl.exe, Ntkrnlmp.exe, Ntkrnlpa.exe, and Ntkrpamp.exe) that were included in the original 811493 security update. On May 28, 2003, Microsoft released a revised version of the 811493 security update for Windows XP SP1 to address this problem."
It's fixed and is a non-issue. Moderators were had.
I think the biggest problem is how the Windows Automatic Update feature is turned on by default on everyone's machines.
The real problem is people not reading the articles and seeing that it was not listed as a Critical Update, so it wouldn't be auto-installed anyway. Your point is moot.
But going into instructions on how to disable automatic updating is a nice way to get modded up, as well as falsely claiming "this is at least the 2nd or 3rd time" you've read an article about a malfunctioning patch.
It's not a surprise this was instantly modded up to "+5" when it is simply anecdotal claims from an Anonymous Coward named "fLaMePr0oF." Only on Slashdot...
The update conflicts with certain combinations of firewall software. Also, by "removed," it was removed from Windows Update. You purposely miss the facts to make Microsoft seem like liars.
Okay/. has an anti-MS bias. So do a lot of people, but losing network connectivity is pretty serious, especially on the world's monopoly OS.
At least the patch isn't corrupting filesystems, like the infamous untested Thanksgiving turkey Linux kernel that somehow got unleashed onto the masses. I still remember the headaches I had from that day.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should attempt basic comprehension skills before you flame someone for arguing the very same thing you believe. It shows the weakness of your mind.
You mask your disappointments and insecurities by convincing yourself you have accepted your situation, and therefore have no problems or weakness. To continue the facade requires constant feeding of the ego, which you placate with badly spelled ramblings toward other people who possess imagination and hope. Whereas you would convince yourself that you are "happy" living in a hole, the rest would be striving to climb out. That desire for the better situation is what has allowed our civilization to progress. In history, the envelopes was pushed by the dreamers, not dreary and cliched aggressive motivators like yourself. Cynicism is a spiraling hole almost as deep as the one you're sitting in. You despise the transferrence of anyone's blame because you inwardly harbor some for yourself, but believe it has dissipated because you think you're self-sufficient. The rest of us laugh as your reptilian brain lashes out in an attempt to hold onto the dream, making bizarre statements about not respecting and hiring people when nobody made such demands to begin with. The chip on your shoulder must be heavy indeed. It is very sad.
Next.
Hope is accepting that your current reality is just a curtain, a hindrance to be overcome. We should all strive for what's behind it.
You wish for people to stagnate because you feel insecure about your situation in life, and rather than face the hopelessness of trying to change it, you choose a laughable definition for "peace" and aggressively go after others with terms like "jagoff."
It's the saddest thing I've ever seen.
There is never a large enough supply of that recurring holier-than-thou internet type who loves to come onto messageboards and solve everyone's lives through lectures stating how "99.9%" of people's problems are entirely their fault, and that they should "get off their asses." There are few things more annoying then someone who must frantically remind everyone of how self-responsible they feel in order to convince themselves that they don't have weakness. Aggressiveness is an essential point to that presentation, because it further supports this delusion, because after all, someone so self-sufficient would obviously look down on others who have problems, right?
It is tragic in a way, though, that such a type must obviously must bolster their self-esteem by appearing so self-sufficient that they aggressively accuse others of not being in charge of their situations. One has to wonder what their obvious insecurities stem from. In any case, it was a nice troll, but clearly lacking in self-awareness.
Next.
Of course they were found to be a monopoly. But they reached a settlement regarding anticompetitive practices, remember? Don't worry; it's okay to be wrong.
They reached a settlement, remember? Don't worry; it's okay to be wrong.
I guess you conveniently forgot the settlement.
Next.
Slashdot doesn't care as long as this article generates exposures for that nice big banner ad. Interesting that the ads appear on the pointless Microsoft articles and "today's SCO news" articles as well, isn't it? Financial motives influence the selection of articles these days.
It's like I said in a previous comment--Slashdot is not the cool tech news site it once was. It is now a corporate-owned site whose purpose is to generate geek page hits for banner ads.
Not surprisingly, the Microsoft articles always have banner ads. And what do you know? I look at the top of an obvious page-hit article like this, and it has a banner ad. Hmm.
MS is found guilty of monopolistic, anticompetitive practices.
No, they weren't. Actually research what you say next time.
You still provide no links. The burden of proof is on you. It's a fun game to play, but I tire of it. Clearly, you have nothing to offer but rhetoric and spin. Don't worry; it's okay to be wrong.
Honestly, what Slashdot is these days, rather than the great tech news site it used to be, is generating page hits. This means posting Microsoft articles at least once a day with some flippant remark or editorial in the summary so as to cause "controversial" discussion. The company likes that.
SCO is a big thing as well which gets hits, so even when there is no real news about it, we get "today's SCO news" posts.
It's getting harder and harder to believe the editors are genuine in their mantra that they simply post what interests them. Being corporate-owned, there are other motives at play in the selection of articles, the headline used, and the summary chosen or written.
The burden of proof isn't on me. There is simply no evidence to be found. Nice dodge.
Next.
It's a terrible statement on the moderator who modded it up that he or she found it "Insightful."
Are you going to tell that to every user whenever there is a user demand?
What a complete and utter copout. Your entire argument has been shattered.
A bunch of claims with no evidence to back it up. Am I supposed to take this seriously?
Next.
Perhaps you should read it.
The website says Microsoft has released a revised version of the update that fixes the problem.
Therefore, it is a non-issue. What part do you not understand?
Perhaps you should attempt basic comprehension skills.
What the hell are you talking about? This problem is not "rare" and it was not fixed in SP1.
Yes, it was a rare problem. I never said it was fixed in SP1.
The problem ONLY AFFECTS SP1 users.
Where did I say otherwise?
I administer hundreds of desktops and this update had to be uninstalled from every XP SP1 machine because of the negative impact on performance.
Why didn't you install the revised patch that fixes the problem?
Why don't you actually read the thread before replying?
My post was clearly over your head. The patch is fixed; it's a non-problem.
Wow. What a funny lie.
Do you realize that when you and others make these sorts of wild-eyed claims without any proof at all, it makes the Linux community as a whole look crazy and unprofessional? I'm being serious.
The problem was so rare and minor, at first you had to specifically request the patch from Microsoft. Now it's already been fixed in the SP1 package.
You can do better than this.
Quoting from the site:
"This problem occurs because of a regression error in the Windows XP SP1 versions of the kernel files (Ntoskrnl.exe, Ntkrnlmp.exe, Ntkrnlpa.exe, and Ntkrpamp.exe) that were included in the original 811493 security update. On May 28, 2003, Microsoft released a revised version of the 811493 security update for Windows XP SP1 to address this problem."
It's fixed and is a non-issue. Moderators were had.
I think the biggest problem is how the Windows Automatic Update feature is turned on by default on everyone's machines.
The real problem is people not reading the articles and seeing that it was not listed as a Critical Update, so it wouldn't be auto-installed anyway. Your point is moot.
But going into instructions on how to disable automatic updating is a nice way to get modded up, as well as falsely claiming "this is at least the 2nd or 3rd time" you've read an article about a malfunctioning patch.
Next.
BS.
It's not a surprise this was instantly modded up to "+5" when it is simply anecdotal claims from an Anonymous Coward named "fLaMePr0oF." Only on Slashdot...
The update conflicts with certain combinations of firewall software. Also, by "removed," it was removed from Windows Update. You purposely miss the facts to make Microsoft seem like liars.
Come on, you can do better.
Okay /. has an anti-MS bias. So do a lot of people, but losing network connectivity is pretty serious, especially on the world's monopoly OS.
At least the patch isn't corrupting filesystems, like the infamous untested Thanksgiving turkey Linux kernel that somehow got unleashed onto the masses. I still remember the headaches I had from that day.