I guess AOL makes sense, but I'm having trouble even imagining what Microsoft has to do with your theory. I don't get your use of the term "suicidal" either.
Money wasted on these measures could have solved bandwith problems directly by building better networks.
Without discounting the *manner* in which Comcast is going about this, perhaps it would be good to consider the fact that money, like bandwidth, is not infinite. While P2P is of course used for legitimate reasons, let's face it: the vast majority of traffic there is generated by people downloading movies, music and warez. It's not like there's 30 million americans exchanging Linux distro ISOs out there. This is not a popular sentiment I'm sure, but if I were a Comcast customer maybe I wouldn't be so pissed at this, since I really don't care for all the teenagers downloading the latest Naruto episode. People are a lot smarter than you seem to give them credit for. They know about upload caps and can tell when they lose speed because everyone in the neighborhood (on the same switch) is using the internet.
However, they are still going about it in the wrong way.
The problems of OS9 do not make Vista a modern or capable OS
The fact that it's raining in Toronto right now doesn't influence the color of my shirt, either. Why then did you make the initial comparison?
has reached the 1993 design goals / marketing hype of NT.
Please point out where in that article there is a mention of a disconnect between design goals and what NT is doing today? And marketing hype, as well. If you link to something, it helps when it's relevant to the point you're trying to make.
They still don't have adequate memory and process management, proper user separation, or a good network stack.
That's ridiculous, NT has been doing that fairly well since 1993 and has been getting better since. The fact that you seem to hate it doesn't change reality one bit.
Sooner than later, M$ will be forced to use fresh BSD and or GNU/Linux code the way Apple did when they ate Next to make OSX.
That's a nice prediction, but I fail to see how that is relevant to anything here.
Re:Vista is like MacOS 9, but does not work as wel
on
Leopard as the New Vista?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, OS 9 was an rather unstable (if visually attractive) platform, especially for high-memory usage scenarios. If you doubt that here's the Wikipedia article, wich states plainly enough:
While Mac OS 9 lacks the functionality of a modern operating system, such as protected memory and full pre-emptive multitasking, lasting improvements include the introduction of an automated Software Update engine and support for multiple users.
I used OS 9 for a few years, and while it was mostly OK, that annoying little sad Mac popped up once too often when working with Photoshop and PageMaker 7 for my liking. It's plain enough that you never used it.
Maybe it was more functional than Windows 95, but it was closer to it from a platform perspective than to Windows XP, so whatever failings XP had or has, OS 9 is still a full generation behind it. In reality it wasn't until OS X that Apple had a real operating system, much like NT4 for Microsoft. Your comparison is completely off the mark.
They are valid, I think, in context. "Office" in the context of a software productivity suite can probably be upheld. I don't see "Joe's Office" in Detroit selling printer consumables being a threat to the trademark. "Office Online", a software productivity suite, might.
There's a brand of kitchen towels in Brazil I think called "Linux". Has the entity that protects the Linux trademark gone after them? No. Would they go after ReactOS if they decided to re-brand themselves and sell their wares under the "Linux" name? Probably.
As far as the courts are concerned, it's all about context. That's why "Lindows" got nailed. If they were selling Pokemon stickers Microsoft probably wouldn't have bothered, don't you think?
That is not explained there. Do you think I'm incapable of reading through an article and understanding what it says? Microsoft found that 60% of computers it scanned with the MSRT had *some sort* of malware in them. It doesn't claim 60% of all "Windoze" machines are in a botnet, numbskull.
Pounding sand in the name of freedom and alternate window managers for Unix-like OSes is still pounding sand. Read through my post more carefully and try again.
The reality is that even though Microsoft (or "M$" as you call them) are guilty of some really dumb security fuckups in the past, the numbers simply don't back up your angry assertions. The latest four or five botnet infection waves have spread through email attachments that require significant user interaction to take over a machine.
It doesn't really matter how many safeguards you build into the system, ignorant users will do dumb things. And when you're talking about a universe of almost a billion PCs, the odds are against everyone. What people like you always fail to mention is that a botnet does not have to be massive to do damage. Botnets usually range in the tens of thousands of machines, which is a relative drop in the bucket compared to the overall number of "Windoze" machines out there. If "M$ Windoze" was to blame, there would be half a billion machines in those botnets, and they would get 0wned the moment they were turned on. That's simply not the case.
Anyway, I was wondering about the tone and demeanor of this post and then I realized this account is actually a sock puppet of the infamous twitter. I guess it's late and I'm not thinking straight....
My guess is that the number of people who would say "No" is directly proportional to the number of PCs that are not infected.
BTW, I think this is an interesting essay in the sense that it dares suggest that users are mostly responsible for the security of their computers, not Microsoft. The vast majority of people who have 0wned machines are in that state because they did something they shouldn't have. There's no coding around that, I think. Unless we deny users the right to use their computers... or educate them.
this with Windows, [...] I cannot run it under certain Virtual machines, I cannot install it on more than so many computers [...] For without the GPL, I cannot distribute the code to others, and others cannot distribute the code to me!
Without your apparent need to use Windows, the EULA or any other restrictions would not apply, so I don't see what the huge difference is with Linux or the GPL. I think you picked a really bad analogy here, though of course the mods love posts like yours.
Vista is "perfect" and anyone complaining is a malicious liar
Interesting link. I liked this part:
My firsthand experience leads me to believe that a lot of the negative "issues" buzzed about the OS on the net are just inaccurate, malicious or plain wrong. File-sharing is easy and indistinguishable from XP (minus the Aero look) once you understand how the OS is set up. DRM (or at least the effects thereof) is practically nonexistent unless you personally decide to buy protected content.
Ironically, if you're a Linux user, you may be slightly more comfortable with Vista's new "security everywhere, access denied by default" set than the average Windows user (this is not to be interpreted as an argument for or against switching).
I enjoy the conservative reaction to Michael Moore. They hate him so much that they discount anything he says automatically. He could tell a conservative his hair is on fire and that conservative would use his final breath denying it as just another liberal plot.
No less interesting is the liberal reaction to Michael Moore. If I wasn't looking hard I'd think he was Moses coming down that mountain with the Ten Commandments in his backpack.
Moore is an alarmist. He gives you a tunnel vision POV of a problem and then tells you "see? see how bad it is!! run for the hills!!!"
He's no better than the people he's "unmasking" or whatever he's trying to do and raking in hundreds of millions in the process.
They're simply looking at an opportunity to make some money by offering advertising services to the health care industry.
That's a little disingenous, isn't it? Considering the context of that blog post?
Since apparently, everyone knows that Moore is always right, "Sicko" can't be any different than Bowling for Columbine or Farenheit 9/11, right? I'd bet the attitude wouldn't be so lenient towards Google if they'd offered the US government or firearm manufacturers a "Get the facts" campaign after those.
M$... Windoze... M$... Dell... Windoze... I've got no need for a new computer because my six year old hardware does what I need it to do. People with virused out computers now have a less expensive option that's going to get a lot of recommendations.
Here's an idea. Instead of doing the same old thing and trolling Slashdot for fun, maybe you can stop talking the talk and walk the walk for a change. Buy a machine. If you don't "need" one, give it away. Better yet, get together with friends or family, buy a few and donate them to a school in need. Or low-income families. This time around they get support from a large company. Hell, buy one and ship to to Peru or something.
Do something instead of just carrying on about how "M$ is teh badd" on Slashdot. Judging from your posting history your life seems to be consumed by that for some reason.
Oh, how little you understand us. It's _fine_ if you don't like Mac.
"Us"? You know, I have lots of computers. They run mostly Windows and BSD, with the occasional Linux box for measure. I don't identify myself with them. They're just boxes with an operating system. They just help me do my job(s). I'm not emotionally attached to them. I find it rather sad that someone would think that buying an appliance makes them part of some elite group of people.
And no, I don't dislike OS X at all. That's not the point.
Aren't Mac users apparently proud of paying through their teeth for everything? Even the occasional "upgrade" available at a very accessible $129+ seems to be no problem at all. As a mostly Windows user I really can't complain about costs since I got my copies of Windows at $39 or whatever the OEM license goes for these days with a new box. Add to that the few ~$50 shareware utility I prefer to free alternatives and I can't say that I'm being "gouged" as goes the vox populi when talking about the cost of Windows.
If Ballmer wants Mac users to help subsidize Vista for the rest of us poor sods that run ugly beige boxes, I'm all for it. It will be up to them to decide whether or not it's worth it. And if it's not, I'd suggest they rush to CDW or whatever and get a copy of XP as soon as possible. They'll be able to use it until 2011 or so.
And besides, why would Mac users need Vista at all? That would be a direct contradiction of their own mantra.
Don't you just hate how they are paying people to fill Wikipedia with this kind of spam? No bother, the truth will out.
Please, point out for us what is "spam" in that article. Please point out where Microsoft is "paying" to add this spam. If you're referring to this, I'd invite you to load up that story and read it at +5 so you can read through the "OMFG M$ IS PAYING PEOPLE TEH WIKIPEDIA" hysteria.
Finally, if you are so concerned about "spam" in that article, I'd suggest you edit it and see if your POV sticks. That's the beauty of Wikipedia.
Ramen ate through a few poorly maintained Red Hat 6.0 and 7.0 servers running WUFTP. It did not eat through Debian, Mandrake and other distributions because there are lots of ftp servers to chose from.
And Blaster didn't infect all the machines that were patched a month before it was released. Your point is valid but hardly some sort of mystical advantage for Linux.
For group ware, Kontact works well enough even when naively set up. It's like Outlook should be.
You really have no idea whatsoever what "groupware" is (I assume you mean "enterprise collabrolation" here, because otherwise even OE is great). Or for that matter how Outlook is used. Do you?
You seem to do this quite often for some reason. Do you have a particular problem with people who don't hold the same views as you, to the point of calling them "apologists"?
Oh, and you might want to try to use a few more "M$" deals in your post. They'll make you look mature and relevant.
Who's talking about an exploit? I can get people "infected" with XPI the same way people get "infected" by clicking "Yes" on that annoying ActiveX install dialog. It's much easier than trying to find an exploit. But we're drifting here - the issue is a PC vendor pre-installing something on my box. That's even easier, because it doesn't require user intervention!
but there are a number of things to prevent you from actually getting it installed.
Like what, a badly designed whitelist and a dialog where you have to click "No"? And you figure that the same people who used to click "Yes" on IE will click on "No" in Firefox, correct?
Until then, your full of hot air.
I think you're taking this too personally. Social engineering and stupidity are far more profitable for spammers and scammers than any exploit Microsoft could ever dream of.
Maybe it would make more sence if you were a three or four year old kid fascinated with fire and we gave the matches to you.
Funny you mention that, because I think that's the level of cognitive awareness needed to turn this into a "it's all Microsoft's fault" debate.
And actualy the lawsuite for spilt coffee and a million bucks entailed the coffee being so hot it melted the cup
Yes, well. Would you rather I use another example of a frivolous lawsuit? There's lots of them to go around.
This type of stuff shouldn't be able to happen after how many exploits causing malicious harm to computers.
I don't understand this. Are you saying it's Microsoft's fault, or that Acer is less culpable?
I can do lots of bad stuff with an XPI extension, like turn your machine into a spam zombie, download kiddie porn and randomly delete your documents. Would you mind much if I blame the Mozilla foundation for things like that?
Slashdot Mirror
Money wasted on these measures could have solved bandwith problems directly by building better networks.
Without discounting the *manner* in which Comcast is going about this, perhaps it would be good to consider the fact that money, like bandwidth, is not infinite. While P2P is of course used for legitimate reasons, let's face it: the vast majority of traffic there is generated by people downloading movies, music and warez. It's not like there's 30 million americans exchanging Linux distro ISOs out there. This is not a popular sentiment I'm sure, but if I were a Comcast customer maybe I wouldn't be so pissed at this, since I really don't care for all the teenagers downloading the latest Naruto episode. People are a lot smarter than you seem to give them credit for. They know about upload caps and can tell when they lose speed because everyone in the neighborhood (on the same switch) is using the internet.
However, they are still going about it in the wrong way.
The fact that it's raining in Toronto right now doesn't influence the color of my shirt, either. Why then did you make the initial comparison?
has reached the 1993 design goals / marketing hype of NT.
Please point out where in that article there is a mention of a disconnect between design goals and what NT is doing today? And marketing hype, as well. If you link to something, it helps when it's relevant to the point you're trying to make.
They still don't have adequate memory and process management, proper user separation, or a good network stack.
That's ridiculous, NT has been doing that fairly well since 1993 and has been getting better since. The fact that you seem to hate it doesn't change reality one bit.
Sooner than later, M$ will be forced to use fresh BSD and or GNU/Linux code the way Apple did when they ate Next to make OSX.
That's a nice prediction, but I fail to see how that is relevant to anything here.
I used OS 9 for a few years, and while it was mostly OK, that annoying little sad Mac popped up once too often when working with Photoshop and PageMaker 7 for my liking. It's plain enough that you never used it.
Maybe it was more functional than Windows 95, but it was closer to it from a platform perspective than to Windows XP, so whatever failings XP had or has, OS 9 is still a full generation behind it. In reality it wasn't until OS X that Apple had a real operating system, much like NT4 for Microsoft. Your comparison is completely off the mark.
There's a brand of kitchen towels in Brazil I think called "Linux". Has the entity that protects the Linux trademark gone after them? No. Would they go after ReactOS if they decided to re-brand themselves and sell their wares under the "Linux" name? Probably.
As far as the courts are concerned, it's all about context. That's why "Lindows" got nailed. If they were selling Pokemon stickers Microsoft probably wouldn't have bothered, don't you think?
It's not my fault that you can't get your sockpuppets and trolls straightened up.
Pounding sand in the name of freedom and alternate window managers for Unix-like OSes is still pounding sand. Read through my post more carefully and try again.
It doesn't really matter how many safeguards you build into the system, ignorant users will do dumb things. And when you're talking about a universe of almost a billion PCs, the odds are against everyone. What people like you always fail to mention is that a botnet does not have to be massive to do damage. Botnets usually range in the tens of thousands of machines, which is a relative drop in the bucket compared to the overall number of "Windoze" machines out there. If "M$ Windoze" was to blame, there would be half a billion machines in those botnets, and they would get 0wned the moment they were turned on. That's simply not the case.
Anyway, I was wondering about the tone and demeanor of this post and then I realized this account is actually a sock puppet of the infamous twitter. I guess it's late and I'm not thinking straight....
BTW, I think this is an interesting essay in the sense that it dares suggest that users are mostly responsible for the security of their computers, not Microsoft. The vast majority of people who have 0wned machines are in that state because they did something they shouldn't have. There's no coding around that, I think. Unless we deny users the right to use their computers... or educate them.
Without your apparent need to use Windows, the EULA or any other restrictions would not apply, so I don't see what the huge difference is with Linux or the GPL. I think you picked a really bad analogy here, though of course the mods love posts like yours.
Interesting link. I liked this part:
Not quite the effect you were going for, eh?
No less interesting is the liberal reaction to Michael Moore. If I wasn't looking hard I'd think he was Moses coming down that mountain with the Ten Commandments in his backpack.
Moore is an alarmist. He gives you a tunnel vision POV of a problem and then tells you "see? see how bad it is!! run for the hills!!!"
He's no better than the people he's "unmasking" or whatever he's trying to do and raking in hundreds of millions in the process.
That's a little disingenous, isn't it? Considering the context of that blog post?
Since apparently, everyone knows that Moore is always right, "Sicko" can't be any different than Bowling for Columbine or Farenheit 9/11, right? I'd bet the attitude wouldn't be so lenient towards Google if they'd offered the US government or firearm manufacturers a "Get the facts" campaign after those.
Here's an idea. Instead of doing the same old thing and trolling Slashdot for fun, maybe you can stop talking the talk and walk the walk for a change. Buy a machine. If you don't "need" one, give it away. Better yet, get together with friends or family, buy a few and donate them to a school in need. Or low-income families. This time around they get support from a large company. Hell, buy one and ship to to Peru or something.
Do something instead of just carrying on about how "M$ is teh badd" on Slashdot. Judging from your posting history your life seems to be consumed by that for some reason.
You sure seem angry over a setting that takes all of 12 seconds to change.
"Us"? You know, I have lots of computers. They run mostly Windows and BSD, with the occasional Linux box for measure. I don't identify myself with them. They're just boxes with an operating system. They just help me do my job(s). I'm not emotionally attached to them. I find it rather sad that someone would think that buying an appliance makes them part of some elite group of people.
And no, I don't dislike OS X at all. That's not the point.
If Ballmer wants Mac users to help subsidize Vista for the rest of us poor sods that run ugly beige boxes, I'm all for it. It will be up to them to decide whether or not it's worth it. And if it's not, I'd suggest they rush to CDW or whatever and get a copy of XP as soon as possible. They'll be able to use it until 2011 or so.
And besides, why would Mac users need Vista at all? That would be a direct contradiction of their own mantra.
Please, point out for us what is "spam" in that article. Please point out where Microsoft is "paying" to add this spam. If you're referring to this, I'd invite you to load up that story and read it at +5 so you can read through the "OMFG M$ IS PAYING PEOPLE TEH WIKIPEDIA" hysteria.
Finally, if you are so concerned about "spam" in that article, I'd suggest you edit it and see if your POV sticks. That's the beauty of Wikipedia.
When you reach for the #4 key, do you think "hah! take that, Microsoft!"? Because if you do, you need a new hobby.
And Blaster didn't infect all the machines that were patched a month before it was released. Your point is valid but hardly some sort of mystical advantage for Linux.
I can see how the whole Vista thing may be in serious jeopardy now.
You really have no idea whatsoever what "groupware" is (I assume you mean "enterprise collabrolation" here, because otherwise even OE is great). Or for that matter how Outlook is used. Do you?
Oh, and you might want to try to use a few more "M$" deals in your post. They'll make you look mature and relevant.
Do you by any chance work at this company? Have you ever worked there? At all?
Who's talking about an exploit? I can get people "infected" with XPI the same way people get "infected" by clicking "Yes" on that annoying ActiveX install dialog. It's much easier than trying to find an exploit. But we're drifting here - the issue is a PC vendor pre-installing something on my box. That's even easier, because it doesn't require user intervention!
but there are a number of things to prevent you from actually getting it installed.
Like what, a badly designed whitelist and a dialog where you have to click "No"? And you figure that the same people who used to click "Yes" on IE will click on "No" in Firefox, correct?
Until then, your full of hot air.
I think you're taking this too personally. Social engineering and stupidity are far more profitable for spammers and scammers than any exploit Microsoft could ever dream of.
Funny you mention that, because I think that's the level of cognitive awareness needed to turn this into a "it's all Microsoft's fault" debate.
And actualy the lawsuite for spilt coffee and a million bucks entailed the coffee being so hot it melted the cup
Yes, well. Would you rather I use another example of a frivolous lawsuit? There's lots of them to go around.
This type of stuff shouldn't be able to happen after how many exploits causing malicious harm to computers.
I don't understand this. Are you saying it's Microsoft's fault, or that Acer is less culpable?
I can do lots of bad stuff with an XPI extension, like turn your machine into a spam zombie, download kiddie porn and randomly delete your documents. Would you mind much if I blame the Mozilla foundation for things like that?