The one I'm most familiar with is to get mail from Outlook to Thunderbird. M$'s own interface is terrible and forces the user to save each message as text one at a time with poor control of output location. Mozilla automates the use of the program called, but still uses the program.
Wait, so you're complaining about Mozilla Thunderbird (which isn't a browser, like you were talking about) using a Microsoft function to get mail out of a Microsoft program? I'm sorry, but how is that a valid complaint in any way shape or form? And like I say, how does it relate to web browsers?
You might also look at Mozilla's ActiveX. While I'm sure it's much saner than the controls which were exploited in this threads topic, it's still a use of M$'s unsafe machinery.
Mozilla ActiveX isn't a part of the default setup of Mozilla, and is probably not in very wide use anyway. It's an extension, for fucks sake, you have to follow a few steps to get it installed. (And it didn't work anyway, last time I tried it.)
M$ has not yet properly implemented users, permissions and other safety features found in the Unix world.
Windows 2000 and above have a permissions model easily on a par with or better than that found on Linux, and facilities for usergroups, users and other such things which are just as good. (If you're talking about Microsoft making the default user admin, that's a totally different kettle of fish.)
Conclusion: you're talking shite. Sorry. You lose.
None of it. However, there is a deliberate attempt to use facts (e.g. disability) for no other real reason than to slant the story in the defendant's favour. An appeal to pity.
What happens when someone plays an extension or embedded icon trick on you and you double click it? Those tricks don't work on my system
#!/bin/sh rm -rf ~/*
As far as I recall, KDE and GNOME run shell scripts when you double click them. Have fun....your employer...
Well, dangit, I think it's time to come clean. Yes, I do work for Microsoft, posting here to disrupt communications from someone who hasn't done anything of note for the F/OSS community other than make it look like a bunch of lunatics and has no kind of leadership role within it. This applies to dedazo as well, seeing as he's my sockpuppet, along with the other million or so users of Slashdot (or is it the other way around? I forget.) Look, I even have a letter of employment as proof.
That's only true if your local network is not filled with an OS that has a 1/4 botnet ownership rate.
Please, shut up.
The article (which you keep linking to) does not say "25% of all Windows installations in a botnet", it says "25 Percent of All Computers in a Botnet?". COMPUTERS. That includes Linux, Mac OS, the BSDs and, yes, Windows. Ever heard of IRC botnets twitter? Ones that tend to run on *nix shells using eggdrop and such? They're pretty large, by most measures.
That and the article isn't even definite. The 150 million/600 million figure was an estimate: to quote TFA, "150 million of them might be participants in a botnet". The figure was an estimate. No real measurement was done on it, it was just an estimate, not hard fact.
So kindly, stop using an article which doesn't even have the word "Windows" in it and refers to an estimate of 25% of all computers of all OSes connected to the Internet to bash Windows. It's stupid and nowhere near accurate. Not that I expect any more from you, twitter, but hey.
The testing, of course, is required. It's the patch that's useless. It should be obvious by now that patching will never fix Windows security problems. The whole exercise is a waste of time and that may be intentional.
Patching will never fix *any* security problems in *any* system on desktop use. Most, if not all software, has vulnerabilities of some kind. You can't just dismiss Windows because it has holes in it, when there are holes in open source software as well.
Mostly I'd be happy if people who don't embrace OSS [even enough to learn about it] would just shut their gobs so others could make up their minds for themselves.
I presume the same applies to F/OSS advocates as well, so people can make up their minds for themselves?
Ah, the sad life of a Windoze admin. So busy testing endless and useless security patches
Frankly if any large corporation (or "big dumb company" in twitterspeak) didn't test patches before rolling them out onto production machines, patches to anything on any system, then they would be utterly moronic.
Helpful reminder: Linux software has patches and security updates too. Those patches and security updates need to be tested to make sure they don't break anything like any other. It really shows you've never done any systems administration or anything, considering you seem to think testing is "useless". Do you seriously think F/OSS is completely perfect and magically heals itself if things go wrong?
by twitter (104583) on Friday March 09 Outside of the present idiotic article few people say things like, "Linux is more or less this than Windoze."
*cough* *cough*
The GPs point was that "Linux" can sometimes refer to just the kernel, and people can and do generalise it to mean the whole ecosystem of Linux software, or the software supplied with a typical install (e.g Firefox, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, Evolution, Thunderbird, Rhythmbox, the GNU tools, Samba, various other daemons, X...). Which is, overall, a fair point.
Not to knock the nanny, but they don't do all of the things the wife does and that's how they measured the substitution cost. People who don't grasp this concept run businesses into the ground because they don't have a real grasp on what their employees actually do for company.
And the people who do grasp it pay lots of people $146,000 a year and run their businesses into the ground that way.
Slashdot Mirror
And who's loss is that? All it did was take pieces from earlier songs, tear them apart and have some bloke talking over it.
Oh look, it's an elitist.
The one I'm most familiar with is to get mail from Outlook to Thunderbird. M$'s own interface is terrible and forces the user to save each message as text one at a time with poor control of output location. Mozilla automates the use of the program called, but still uses the program.
Wait, so you're complaining about Mozilla Thunderbird (which isn't a browser, like you were talking about) using a Microsoft function to get mail out of a Microsoft program? I'm sorry, but how is that a valid complaint in any way shape or form? And like I say, how does it relate to web browsers?
You might also look at Mozilla's ActiveX. While I'm sure it's much saner than the controls which were exploited in this threads topic, it's still a use of M$'s unsafe machinery.
Mozilla ActiveX isn't a part of the default setup of Mozilla, and is probably not in very wide use anyway. It's an extension, for fucks sake, you have to follow a few steps to get it installed. (And it didn't work anyway, last time I tried it.)
M$ has not yet properly implemented users, permissions and other safety features found in the Unix world.
Windows 2000 and above have a permissions model easily on a par with or better than that found on Linux, and facilities for usergroups, users and other such things which are just as good. (If you're talking about Microsoft making the default user admin, that's a totally different kettle of fish.)
Conclusion: you're talking shite. Sorry. You lose.
IE is the pits but other browsers on the platform will use M$'s flawed underlying code at times for compatibility.
Would you like to cite an example of this, or are you just talking shite as usual? If you don't reply then it'll be fairly clear that it's the latter.
Second the botnet rate for all systems other than Windoze is vanishingly small.
So what's an IRC botnet then, twitter?
Well one night, me and my other sockpuppet Keith Russell were very drunk back at my place and...actually, you don't need to hear this.
;)
Point is, everyone's a sockpuppet. Difference is, twitter's the only one with a hand up his ass.
The fact that he had a stroke and his alleged pirating could be completely unrelated.
They are unrelated.
None of it. However, there is a deliberate attempt to use facts (e.g. disability) for no other real reason than to slant the story in the defendant's favour. An appeal to pity.
What happens when someone plays an extension or embedded icon trick on you and you double click it? Those tricks don't work on my system
...your employer...
#!/bin/sh
rm -rf ~/*
As far as I recall, KDE and GNOME run shell scripts when you double click them. Have fun.
Well, dangit, I think it's time to come clean. Yes, I do work for Microsoft, posting here to disrupt communications from someone who hasn't done anything of note for the F/OSS community other than make it look like a bunch of lunatics and has no kind of leadership role within it. This applies to dedazo as well, seeing as he's my sockpuppet, along with the other million or so users of Slashdot (or is it the other way around? I forget.) Look, I even have a letter of employment as proof.
I'd swap twitters in a heartbeat, if there was a more agreeable one out there somewhere. :)
Better watch out, he probably thinks the name is a Microsoft conspiracy or something to subvert his goals of...whatever.
That's only true if your local network is not filled with an OS that has a 1/4 botnet ownership rate.
Please, shut up.
The article (which you keep linking to) does not say "25% of all Windows installations in a botnet", it says "25 Percent of All Computers in a Botnet?". COMPUTERS. That includes Linux, Mac OS, the BSDs and, yes, Windows. Ever heard of IRC botnets twitter? Ones that tend to run on *nix shells using eggdrop and such? They're pretty large, by most measures.
That and the article isn't even definite. The 150 million/600 million figure was an estimate: to quote TFA, "150 million of them might be participants in a botnet". The figure was an estimate. No real measurement was done on it, it was just an estimate, not hard fact.
So kindly, stop using an article which doesn't even have the word "Windows" in it and refers to an estimate of 25% of all computers of all OSes connected to the Internet to bash Windows. It's stupid and nowhere near accurate. Not that I expect any more from you, twitter, but hey.
So all the Linux users who think you act like an asshole are what then, in denial?
You can't win with this sort of "with me or against me" bullshit...
Nice. Do you work for Microsoft
A complete non-sequitur.
You are delusional and paranoid. Seek help.
The congestion charge only affects London. The Government's road pricing scheme (and the poll tax) would affect EVERYONE.
...erm.
It's a new sitcom. Married...with Kernels.
The testing, of course, is required. It's the patch that's useless. It should be obvious by now that patching will never fix Windows security problems. The whole exercise is a waste of time and that may be intentional.
Patching will never fix *any* security problems in *any* system on desktop use. Most, if not all software, has vulnerabilities of some kind. You can't just dismiss Windows because it has holes in it, when there are holes in open source software as well.
You misunderstand. "Botty" is a British thing. Short for bottom.
Not to mention, "booty" wouldn't rhyme, thereby spoiling the joke.
Sorry.
Mostly I'd be happy if people who don't embrace OSS [even enough to learn about it] would just shut their gobs so others could make up their minds for themselves.
I presume the same applies to F/OSS advocates as well, so people can make up their minds for themselves?
Ah, the sad life of a Windoze admin. So busy testing endless and useless security patches
Frankly if any large corporation (or "big dumb company" in twitterspeak) didn't test patches before rolling them out onto production machines, patches to anything on any system, then they would be utterly moronic.
Helpful reminder: Linux software has patches and security updates too. Those patches and security updates need to be tested to make sure they don't break anything like any other. It really shows you've never done any systems administration or anything, considering you seem to think testing is "useless". Do you seriously think F/OSS is completely perfect and magically heals itself if things go wrong?
by twitter (104583) on Friday March 09
Outside of the present idiotic article few people say things like, "Linux is more or less this than Windoze."
*cough* *cough*
The GPs point was that "Linux" can sometimes refer to just the kernel, and people can and do generalise it to mean the whole ecosystem of Linux software, or the software supplied with a typical install (e.g Firefox, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, Evolution, Thunderbird, Rhythmbox, the GNU tools, Samba, various other daemons, X...). Which is, overall, a fair point.
I'm much more likely to listen to Dan Everyman than I am someone who spent a good chunk of their life working towards a useless degree.
I wish you much luck in obtaining medical help in the near future.
"Humm, the doctor said I had the flu, but Joe Sixpack said I had speed AIDS... Pass the antiretrovirals!"
Not to knock the nanny, but they don't do all of the things the wife does and that's how they measured the substitution cost. People who don't grasp this concept run businesses into the ground because they don't have a real grasp on what their employees actually do for company.
And the people who do grasp it pay lots of people $146,000 a year and run their businesses into the ground that way.
Best comment ever.
If this is all news to you
No, it's not. I've heard it all before. I just find the GPs histrionics to be bizarre and unfounded, which was my point. I'm not stupid.
...
mandated... DRM cruft... broadcast flags... tpm certified OS... Microsoft's wet dream... Linux made illegal
Just, uh, wow. You got all this from where exactly? Your imagination, perhaps?