How is saying "I felt this game was good quality and well done: hopefully such quality will be brought to this title as well" an attempt to 'piss off' Fallout fans?
And what exactly am I fanboy of? Please explain, because the last time I checked I thought Oblivion was good but not great, and I have never played Fallout in my life. Please, please extrapolate on how my attempt to bring some moderation to the conversation was fanboyism.
Ahhh, GI, spouting shit like normal That's right! If someone says something you don't agree with, it can't be that they have a different opinion to you... so they must be lying!
You teach those opinionated bastards a lesson!
(In other words, try to learn what subjectivity is and you might just make another comment on/. without looking like an idiot.)
You are absolutely hilarious, though I'm sure you don't intend to be.
1) I still don't work for Microsoft, sorry! As I've told you probably 20 times before, I work for an ISP in the UK. No, I'm not telling you which one, though I'm sure you could find out. Strangely enough though all the google results for 'macthorpe' are either my comments on Slashdot or a bookshop that I, frankly, have nothing to do with. Although I have been there - they have a good comic selection and I would highly recommend them!
2) Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. There is a massive difference between threatening to kill someone and comparing the cost of hiring an astroturfer to destroy what little reputation you have with the cost of a hitman. If I actually wanted to threaten you with death, I would be a lot more overt about it than that, because that's the kind of guy I am.
Microsoft wouldn't modbomb you, and do you know why? All you've ever done is make the OSS community look like a bunch of drooling lunatics. You lie, troll, and insult and drag your 'colleagues' down with you by association.
If Microsoft pay any attention to your (quite frankly) insignificant life existence on here it's to congratulate you on doing more for them than any amount of money they could spend on here ever would.
Regardless, it would cheaper for them to have you killed than spend good money on employing people to mod you down.
Why don't you answer them yourself?
All I advocate is user freedom ...and yet when someone tells you they use Microsoft by choice you belittle them and insult their intelligence.
Why do you get angry when people point out M$'s flaws, both moral and product? Why do you get so angry by the idea that someone wouldn't choose to use GNU/Linux?
Is your love of M$ so great that your own freedom is unimportant and you are willing to put up with software that's second rate? I think you need to work out how to ask a question without loading it.
Paradoxically, the people who whine the loudest are the biggest defenders. Can you cite any kind of reference to that, because that argument doesn't even make any sense.
Office, Outlook, Exchange and the other things you praise, are they more important than your freedom? No, they aren't. I still have my freedom to choose to use them. If I stop wanting to use Windows, I can stop. I can buy a Mac, or install Linux. That's freedom. Not "everyone has to use GNU/Linux because only our freedom is free enough". That's not freedom at all.
The ownership of your computer and it's contents? Are you pretending that if I decided to keep my data and install Linux that I couldn't access it? Once again, some proof that using a different operating system automagically locks my data away from me would be nice.
There's something wrong with your world view. Which leads us right back to "Why are you so angry that someone doesn't agree with you?"
It's keeping you from seeing that Vista is not selling, that XP never sold well enough and that the non free way of doing business is over. Actually, yes, this guy's world view is is keeping from seeing a completely fictional world spawned from your imagination. Vista is selling (you should check some of your other replies), XP sold more than enough, and the 'non-free' way of doing business isn't going anywhere.
I don't know about the rest of Europe, but games and movies are already regulated by age restrictions - it's illegal to sell games/films marked '18' to anyone below that age.
I don't think anything here would change much, but then I haven't RTFA, so I could be wrong.
Note that the first one isn't even Microsoft 'stuffing channels' as you so often accuse them of doing - it's a small distributor, commenting that they've sold Vista at an alarmingly high rate since launch.
So much for that sleep, then, eh? I hope you had good dreams about you and RMS spooning on a penguin-shaped bed.
No, actually, a 'reasonable person' wouldn't conclude that when the article actually states:
Q8 Bots Q8bot is a very small bot, consisting of only 926 lines of C-code. And it has one additional noteworthiness: It's written for Unix/Linux systems. It implements all common features of a bot: Dynamic updating via HTTP-downloads, various DDoS-attacks (e.g. SYN-flood and UDP-flood), execution of arbitrary commands, and many more. In the version we have captured, spreaders are missing. But presumably versions of this bot exist which also include spreaders.
Emphasis mine.
So these 'reasonable people' who know far more about computer security than you ever will actually assume the exact opposite of what you do. Nice try at misrepresenting the linked document though, you almost got me there.
A paranoid person will wonder if M$ has not honeynetted honeynet themselves with bogus infected GNU/Linux machines. No, not even paranoia stretches that far.
Irritating Windoze defender If that's a label that I apparently have to assume to tell the truth around here, then I'll take it with gusto.
You are a busy bunny!
I'd believe you if you were running some other software to monitor your network activity, but that's beside the point. Nice assumption, but the parent didn't say he wasn't running a network monitor. Considering I trust dedazo's opinion more than your clueless rantings, I would assume he is.
I think they have vastly underestimated the problem, that botnets are entirely Windoze driven and that most of the steps taken by people like you are ineffective Have you ever heard of Q8bot or kaiten? Probably not, but they're Unix/Linux flavoured bots. So much for your 'all botnets are Windoze' FUD.
None of these things is really effective Even though two of them are labeled as "Excellent anti-leak protection", and Comodo managed to pass every single test they tried? Where did you pull that 'fact' from?
using Microsoft's auto-update is the surest way to have your computer broken. More Grade A bullshit. Auto-Update has not broken or even affected any of the machines that I have built for various friends, family and others. None of them.
Free software welcomes the people you and M$ despise It's only ever you that talks about 'hatred' and 'despising' users. Something you want to share?
Just to let you know, if someone disagrees with you, it's not necessarily FUD.
Bill Gates has done his best to make life difficult for other software, so there are some problems. Winmodems, cheap wifi chips and other hardware are best avoided and perform poorly under Windoze too. This, however, is.
Disabling the service is not a good option for Windows Vista because the OS uses the Indexing Service for the search function built into the shell. If you disable it, it merely changes the default behaviour of that search function to file-by-file search. It's slower but the search still works.
Can you tell me how Google would gain market share by making up a problem? Because there's no need for GDS on Vista. If Google get it removed by lying about it to the DoJ, then GDS has a need again. Simple.
They did not want to report the problem to anyone but the Federal DOJ. Because they know that anyone with half an ounce of computer knowledge would be able to destroy this claim in about 5 seconds, as I have done repeatedly, to you, for the last few hours.
We only know about it because the former M$ lawyer now in charge of the DOJ took the unusual step of telling State Governments not to persue the matter and one or two of them spilled the beans. I can't even begin to fathom how you thought that the fact that Google refused to disclose anything about the problem makes Microsoft look bad.
I'm done wasting my time with you on this - if you don't get by now you are being deliberately obtuse.
I always find it interesting how you only ever answer the one point of mine that you feel you could do best at. Well, good work - you know more about Linux than me. How about addressing anything else that I've said. Give it a try.
GDS does not work well on Vista. You keep saying this without much of a basis. At this point, from basic reasoning, it's more likely to be Google's than Microsoft's fault. We have an MS rep who has stated that Windows Search is engineered not to interfere with other running programs including GDS, and also stated that Google have made no attempt to ask Microsoft to rectify any perceived problem. We have a refusal to comment at all from Google. Which one looks more suspicious here?
You can attribute it to malice, as the technically competent Google people did, or incompetence as you would. Ooooh, burn. Google are more technically competent than me - unlike you, I actually don't have a problem with admitting to my inadequacies.
Either way, Vista is a loser. Considering that if I'm correct (which is likely, considering I actually have evidence and neither you nor Google have seen fit to provide any whatsoever) that the incompetence would be on Google's side of this particular contretemps, I fail to see how 'Vista is a loser' when it comes out that Google were making the whole thing up to try and artificially gain marketshare through deceit.
Just to note, your link refers to something from 14 years ago. If you could keep your arguments within this millenium, that would be fantastic.
Selective quoting also does not help you.
So, everyone else gets the job done without stepping on each others toes but only M$ can do it on Vista. The opposite of what I said. I provided you a quote from a Microsoft spokesman to say that Windows' indexer actually runs at a lower priority than all other software, so everyone else is perfectly capable of also indexing and will actually be treated better in Vista than Microsoft's own offering. Not to mention my further proof that there are mechanisms provided to disable Microsoft's functionality so that any perceived difference in performance can be eradicated regardless.
KDE and Gnome don't interfere with each other in the GNU/Linux world What is your point here? KDE and GNOME are never running at the same time, so how would it be possible to get them into a position where they could interfere with each other or not?
GDS works great on OSX You keep saying this but it occurs to me that you couldn't possibly know it. You don't have a Mac, and common sense would dictate that you would refuse to buy a Mac for the same reason you wouldn't buy a PC with Vista.
Yet, for some reason only M$ works on Vista. This alone gives weight to Google's charges Again, that's not true, and your deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote completely eradicates whatever credibility your statements had left.
Besides common sense, we have reputation and history as a guide. Google knows it's platforms and has a sterling reputation. M$ has been proved guilty of sabotage in the DRDOS case above and Netscape. It's obvious you are on the M$ side, I just wonder why. You're wondering why because you can't actually wrap your head around the possibility of Microsoft being in the right about this. You cling to things that happened 8, 10, 14 years ago and hold them as gospel, and warp your own perception of current affairs to fit, rather than act rationally. You even go so far as to accuse those who disagree with you of namecalling and ad hominem, and in the same breath accuse those same people of bribery, corruption, and deception, yet you seem blissfully unaware of the hypocrisy.
Regarding Google's 'sterling' reputaion - from their active censorship of websites in China to farming people's browsing habits and data closer to home, it's obvious to me that they, too, are not to be trusted. Why don't you try and take two steps back and be objective for once. It won't kill you.
Ignoring the usual infantile rhetoric, I'll cut to the heart of what you're trying to say.
From the article:
Microsoft spokesman Evans said no one has specifically asked the company to create a new way to turn off Windows Vista's desktop search program. He noted that Microsoft designed the program's indexer to scale back its activities when other programs are active on a computer, so that it doesn't cause the type of system drag that Google is reportedly citing.
"We don't think this is an issue, and we specifically designed it to make sure it wasn't an issue," Evans said. So Microsoft are in fact saying that there is no issue with GDS because Windows Indexing changes behaviour to ensure other programs are given priority over it, including GDS. All that is in the article, so I assume you haven't read it. Not only that but Google haven't even bothered to request that Microsoft change the service's behaviour, instead crying "antitrust" without making any move to solve the problem with them.
Regarding OSX and Spotlight, GDS actually uses extensions of Spotlight to achieve some of it's indexing, so that's a fairly simple reason why they're not complaining. They don't do this with Windows Indexing because they can't - however, as I've stated before, Windows Indexing doesn't interfere one iota with what GDS does, so it's completely irrelevant. The fact that Linux's indexing does or does not 'suck life' (what does that even mean?) is also completely irrelevant. There is no GDS on Linux.
I did enjoy you accusing me of namecalling. The irony is palpable.
Instant Search merely interacts with the indexing service. If you turn Windows Search off (which is trivial) then indexing stops and the Instant Search reverts to doing a file-by-file search a la Win98/95, which is exactly what Google's Desktop Search doesn't do.
You're right to say that the Instant Search box cannot be removed, but Google are saying that the indexing that is being done interferes with their own indexing, which in fact it does not as Windows Search indexing only occurs on idle CPU cycles, so Google's will be given a higher priority. They're also saying you can't deactivate it, which you can - GDS modifies the Services when it sets itself to start on boot, so it's once again trivial to include in that a method of deactivating Windows Search. As I mentioned in another post, they tacitly admit that GDS works fine by providing Sidebar plugins and other miscellaneous extras that are designed specifically for Vista.
Google's arguments here are disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst - I have a feeling they're trying to get Windows Search removed merely to cripple Windows searching and create a niche which doesn't currently exist for them in Vista.
Except once again you haven't read a single thing on the thread and have jumped straight to the only conclusion we could have expected from you - 'MS am bad, lol'.
1) Windows Search does not break Google Desktop Search. In fact, if they are run side by side Google's search will have a higher system priority. Google even tacitly admit it works fine here.
2) Of course Google don't care about Linux tools - they don't make a version of GDS for Linux.
3) Windows Search is very easily disabled, far more easily than anything I've had to do in Linux - screenshot here. It's even possible to do it automatically during an installation as long as admin rights are granted, so why this is beyond Google, employers of supposedly the brightest minds in IT, I don't know.
As usual, though, ignore the facts and get those dollar signs in there as soon as you can!
Wow, whatever your day job is, please, please, please don't give it up to try and analyse two-line Slashdot comments.
Looking at your posting history, it would be easy to accuse you of being a Microsoft shill. However, I think that is rather too kind. Apart from anything else, it implies that you are being paid to defend them at every opportunity. Well spotted - I'm not a Microsoft shill, though apparently defending them makes me one to people like Twit up there. Computing for me is a hobby and I use Windows as a matter of preference, as difficult as it is for most of the residents of this site to believe. I have used Ubuntu twice before and more recently Mandriva and have gone back to Windows each time.
I don't think you are gaining any reward at all for the time you spend posting. I think you're doing it for the love of a multi billion dollar company that doesn't even know you exist. In fact I very much doubt that they would piss on you if you were on fire. I usually only post when I personally have something to say or to dispel stupid lies. My posting history centres on Microsoft Windows because it's what I know the most about. Connect the dots, and you'll realise that most of the time, I will have something to say about Windows or I can correct someone who has got something wrong about Windows. I don't see how you can read any more into that.
Sometimes I post to blatantly troll Erris/twitter into a zealot-y rage, but that's for amusement more than anything else.
Perhaps you could branch out a bit and spend some of your time writing in support of other companies that need it? You know, AT&T, IBM, Pfizer or the market leader of your choice. I don't know enough about them to comment, so I don't, other than that IBM has a reputation for supporting open source and are usually the ones I see opposing Microsoft, usually using the same tactics as they do.
Maybe it's an American thing to try and defend the overdog against perceived slights from others. To me it will always seem like a pathetic waste of time and a manifestation of a psychology that I will never truly understand and probably don't want to. This makes me laugh, because I'm British. It basically sums up your entire post - you don't know shit about me, so I don't know why you wasted your time writing this at all.
Please feel free to set me right about your motivations, if you can spare a few moments between searching the web for people using "M$" instead of their properly registered trademark. I hope you feel more educated now. Feel free to come back when you can spare a few moments from talking out of your arse about something you don't know about, hmm?
You actually don't have a damn clue how these work, do you? Instead of reading the comments that tell you how they work and why they didn't, you're still clinging to your pathetic "MS sucks" Linus blanket and pouting.
Slashdot Mirror
How is saying "I felt this game was good quality and well done: hopefully such quality will be brought to this title as well" an attempt to 'piss off' Fallout fans?
And what exactly am I fanboy of? Please explain, because the last time I checked I thought Oblivion was good but not great, and I have never played Fallout in my life. Please, please extrapolate on how my attempt to bring some moderation to the conversation was fanboyism.
You teach those opinionated bastards a lesson!
(In other words, try to learn what subjectivity is and you might just make another comment on
Ker-spam!
You are absolutely hilarious, though I'm sure you don't intend to be.
1) I still don't work for Microsoft, sorry! As I've told you probably 20 times before, I work for an ISP in the UK. No, I'm not telling you which one, though I'm sure you could find out. Strangely enough though all the google results for 'macthorpe' are either my comments on Slashdot or a bookshop that I, frankly, have nothing to do with. Although I have been there - they have a good comic selection and I would highly recommend them!
2) Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. There is a massive difference between threatening to kill someone and comparing the cost of hiring an astroturfer to destroy what little reputation you have with the cost of a hitman. If I actually wanted to threaten you with death, I would be a lot more overt about it than that, because that's the kind of guy I am.
Sorry, no points for you. Play again tomorrow!
Microsoft wouldn't modbomb you, and do you know why? All you've ever done is make the OSS community look like a bunch of drooling lunatics. You lie, troll, and insult and drag your 'colleagues' down with you by association.
If Microsoft pay any attention to your (quite frankly) insignificant life existence on here it's to congratulate you on doing more for them than any amount of money they could spend on here ever would.
Regardless, it would cheaper for them to have you killed than spend good money on employing people to mod you down.
I wasn't asked for proof that Vista was 'flying off the shelves'. I was asked to prove that it's selling.
Anything else?
I don't know about the rest of Europe, but games and movies are already regulated by age restrictions - it's illegal to sell games/films marked '18' to anyone below that age.
I don't think anything here would change much, but then I haven't RTFA, so I could be wrong.
Here.
And here.
Also, here.
Note that the first one isn't even Microsoft 'stuffing channels' as you so often accuse them of doing - it's a small distributor, commenting that they've sold Vista at an alarmingly high rate since launch.
So much for that sleep, then, eh? I hope you had good dreams about you and RMS spooning on a penguin-shaped bed.
Q8 Bots
Q8bot is a very small bot, consisting of only 926 lines of C-code. And it has one additional noteworthiness: It's written for Unix/Linux systems. It implements all common features of a bot: Dynamic updating via HTTP-downloads, various DDoS-attacks (e.g. SYN-flood and UDP-flood), execution of arbitrary commands, and many more. In the version we have captured, spreaders are missing. But presumably versions of this bot exist which also include spreaders.
Emphasis mine.
So these 'reasonable people' who know far more about computer security than you ever will actually assume the exact opposite of what you do. Nice try at misrepresenting the linked document though, you almost got me there. A paranoid person will wonder if M$ has not honeynetted honeynet themselves with bogus infected GNU/Linux machines. No, not even paranoia stretches that far. Irritating Windoze defender If that's a label that I apparently have to assume to tell the truth around here, then I'll take it with gusto.
Not only is this a dupe, but Google's argument was already shown in the comments to that article to be a complete sham.
Have Google actually deigned to comment on the issue yet? Last time I checked they were shunning any reasonable debate on the matter.
I've already wrecked all your arguments once on this topic.
Don't make me do it again.
I'm done wasting my time with you on this - if you don't get by now you are being deliberately obtuse.
Google seem to be taking it seriously enough to accuse Privacy International of being in bed with Microsoft, which is a laughable accusation.
Privacy International responded via an open letter here.
Selective quoting also does not help you. So, everyone else gets the job done without stepping on each others toes but only M$ can do it on Vista. The opposite of what I said. I provided you a quote from a Microsoft spokesman to say that Windows' indexer actually runs at a lower priority than all other software, so everyone else is perfectly capable of also indexing and will actually be treated better in Vista than Microsoft's own offering. Not to mention my further proof that there are mechanisms provided to disable Microsoft's functionality so that any perceived difference in performance can be eradicated regardless. KDE and Gnome don't interfere with each other in the GNU/Linux world What is your point here? KDE and GNOME are never running at the same time, so how would it be possible to get them into a position where they could interfere with each other or not? GDS works great on OSX You keep saying this but it occurs to me that you couldn't possibly know it. You don't have a Mac, and common sense would dictate that you would refuse to buy a Mac for the same reason you wouldn't buy a PC with Vista. Yet, for some reason only M$ works on Vista. This alone gives weight to Google's charges Again, that's not true, and your deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote completely eradicates whatever credibility your statements had left. Besides common sense, we have reputation and history as a guide. Google knows it's platforms and has a sterling reputation. M$ has been proved guilty of sabotage in the DRDOS case above and Netscape. It's obvious you are on the M$ side, I just wonder why. You're wondering why because you can't actually wrap your head around the possibility of Microsoft being in the right about this. You cling to things that happened 8, 10, 14 years ago and hold them as gospel, and warp your own perception of current affairs to fit, rather than act rationally. You even go so far as to accuse those who disagree with you of namecalling and ad hominem, and in the same breath accuse those same people of bribery, corruption, and deception, yet you seem blissfully unaware of the hypocrisy.
Regarding Google's 'sterling' reputaion - from their active censorship of websites in China to farming people's browsing habits and data closer to home, it's obvious to me that they, too, are not to be trusted. Why don't you try and take two steps back and be objective for once. It won't kill you.
From the article: Microsoft spokesman Evans said no one has specifically asked the company to create a new way to turn off Windows Vista's desktop search program. He noted that Microsoft designed the program's indexer to scale back its activities when other programs are active on a computer, so that it doesn't cause the type of system drag that Google is reportedly citing.
"We don't think this is an issue, and we specifically designed it to make sure it wasn't an issue," Evans said. So Microsoft are in fact saying that there is no issue with GDS because Windows Indexing changes behaviour to ensure other programs are given priority over it, including GDS. All that is in the article, so I assume you haven't read it. Not only that but Google haven't even bothered to request that Microsoft change the service's behaviour, instead crying "antitrust" without making any move to solve the problem with them.
Regarding OSX and Spotlight, GDS actually uses extensions of Spotlight to achieve some of it's indexing, so that's a fairly simple reason why they're not complaining. They don't do this with Windows Indexing because they can't - however, as I've stated before, Windows Indexing doesn't interfere one iota with what GDS does, so it's completely irrelevant. The fact that Linux's indexing does or does not 'suck life' (what does that even mean?) is also completely irrelevant. There is no GDS on Linux.
I did enjoy you accusing me of namecalling. The irony is palpable.
Instant Search merely interacts with the indexing service. If you turn Windows Search off (which is trivial) then indexing stops and the Instant Search reverts to doing a file-by-file search a la Win98/95, which is exactly what Google's Desktop Search doesn't do.
You're right to say that the Instant Search box cannot be removed, but Google are saying that the indexing that is being done interferes with their own indexing, which in fact it does not as Windows Search indexing only occurs on idle CPU cycles, so Google's will be given a higher priority. They're also saying you can't deactivate it, which you can - GDS modifies the Services when it sets itself to start on boot, so it's once again trivial to include in that a method of deactivating Windows Search. As I mentioned in another post, they tacitly admit that GDS works fine by providing Sidebar plugins and other miscellaneous extras that are designed specifically for Vista.
Google's arguments here are disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst - I have a feeling they're trying to get Windows Search removed merely to cripple Windows searching and create a niche which doesn't currently exist for them in Vista.
Except once again you haven't read a single thing on the thread and have jumped straight to the only conclusion we could have expected from you - 'MS am bad, lol'.
1) Windows Search does not break Google Desktop Search. In fact, if they are run side by side Google's search will have a higher system priority. Google even tacitly admit it works fine here.
2) Of course Google don't care about Linux tools - they don't make a version of GDS for Linux.
3) Windows Search is very easily disabled, far more easily than anything I've had to do in Linux - screenshot here. It's even possible to do it automatically during an installation as long as admin rights are granted, so why this is beyond Google, employers of supposedly the brightest minds in IT, I don't know.
As usual, though, ignore the facts and get those dollar signs in there as soon as you can!
I think the point was more that this is the Anglican church, not the Catholic church.
Sometimes I post to blatantly troll Erris/twitter into a zealot-y rage, but that's for amusement more than anything else. Perhaps you could branch out a bit and spend some of your time writing in support of other companies that need it? You know, AT&T, IBM, Pfizer or the market leader of your choice. I don't know enough about them to comment, so I don't, other than that IBM has a reputation for supporting open source and are usually the ones I see opposing Microsoft, usually using the same tactics as they do. Maybe it's an American thing to try and defend the overdog against perceived slights from others. To me it will always seem like a pathetic waste of time and a manifestation of a psychology that I will never truly understand and probably don't want to. This makes me laugh, because I'm British. It basically sums up your entire post - you don't know shit about me, so I don't know why you wasted your time writing this at all. Please feel free to set me right about your motivations, if you can spare a few moments between searching the web for people using "M$" instead of their properly registered trademark. I hope you feel more educated now. Feel free to come back when you can spare a few moments from talking out of your arse about something you don't know about, hmm?
You actually don't have a damn clue how these work, do you? Instead of reading the comments that tell you how they work and why they didn't, you're still clinging to your pathetic "MS sucks" Linus blanket and pouting.
Grow up.