Darl no longer works for SCO from what I understand. He was removed some time ago. Though he doesn't, I believe he has (or tried to) purchase(d) some assets of SCO for a ridiculously low sum of money, like in the $30,000 range.
I believe Darly McBride hired his brother's lawfirm to handle this. I believe that is a means to funnel the company monetary assets out of SCO to the family. That's the way it seems to me.
If they are cloning the game from scratch fine. Wish they could come up with their own ideas and game designs.
But I read bullshit in this. There's no need to share the name if the product is completely different. What's the point? NO matter how you look at it there is no real major points. Change the name already and move on with their new venture.
Your phone conversation is now (at some point early in the initialization) digital (and so are VOIP calls), and hence it travels through your provider's computers. This ruling is total trash. The judge(s) should never be re-elected.
This is precisely the argument against cloud computing. You loose your protection under this ruling. Even if this ruling hadn't taken place, the government could still try to subpoena the repository of your data and would likely get the information.
The only way this should have been handled is the same way they handle a telephone conversation. It is private until the government shows reasonable cause with the proper paperwork issued by a Judge.
This ruling flies in the face of that long standing requirement. This ruling can now be used in the inverse to allow the government to listen in on phone conversations without a warrant and use that as evidence against you.
And, frankly everyone expects their emails to be private. The email being sent isn't the same as someone posting their opinions on a web page for everyone to read.
Generally I never reply to AC posts, but I'll make an exception.
Technically I do much more. Those are just the scanning parts. I used to tell my coworkers that it is lazy man's attitude to format and start over.
Second, these procedures are for customer computers. Those computers often have their life on them. Letters, photos, music, programs, etc. Some of them can't be replaced. If I were to back up, wipe and reinstall, I'd have to copy all that data back. After I return the computer to the customer they'd have a series of tasks to perform themselves such as setting up their printers, scanners, cameras, installation of their software, etc. So, the goal is to keep the computer as close to the customer's customized state as possible. Wiping and re-installation is the last resort.
Today, malware will replace your drivers, say for the ATA controller. They'll replace system files with their malware such as the login program. They'll modify the registry permissions by making it impossible for anyone to modify the registry keys to correct problems, while making a slew of changes to the system registry (which is complex and full of bloat). They will also insert themselves into the system restore by creating a restore point, thus when customers try to do a system restore they'll restore the malware.
The main reason I switch to their original computer environment is due to the registry and the fact that though Linux has a number of tools for scanning it doesn't scan the registry. And as I have stated about 20 times in this thread, no one program knows it all and almost none know enough to adequately clean a computer itself. You always need a compliment of programs.
To say that Linux doesn't have a large number of anti-malware programs is to compliment Linux. None of my Linux boxes have anti-malware products on them for the purpose of scanning Linux. They are installed to scan windows file systems.
And after review of the citation the referenced tests clearly prove my point. There are nearly no antivirus programs capable of detecting enough of the malware that is know, let alone detect new malware. The key here with MS SE is that it is basically a middle of the road product that gives no true additional insight into what's happening on the computer. Granted they have other tools, such as autoruns (which is really eye opening).
Microsoft's success rate averaged just about 56% while others averaged 70-80% or more. Though this is the case those other products are heavy on the system almost creating a hostile environment that makes the cure worse than the disease.
You need more than one program. None of them know it all and few know enough to adequately clean a badly infected machine, but all are probably adequate at keeping a machine relatively clean once it is known to be clean.
Sorry, but it does not, not in real world tests. When you, in a controlled manner, infect machines and then test them under loose guidelines you will certainly see that most programs work about the same.
MS SE is a good lightweight scanner for those machines not infected that need real time protection. If a machine is badly infected give up the ghost. And it just occurred to me, why are you protecting Microsoft's share in this. There are many programs that are better that are also free.
And anyone, absolutely everyone, stating that MS SE is good enough and stacks up to the best is really awaiting a tragedy, as NO ONE PROGRAM IS ENOUGH TO CLEAN AN INFECTED MACHINE. No citation needed.
I explain about IE and install Firefox with Adblock Plus and a nice theme. I explain how they might have gotten it. I do all the online updates from Microsoft, except those for DRM and those that spy on the user (such as WGA). I go through their installed programs and remove the crap and I run msconfig and turn off all the garbage.
I explain that malware can come from anywhere and that they should look up the software before installing it. I explain that one program isn't enough to detect and clean the malware from the computer and that there are different categories of malware (viruses and then there are adware/spyware). I explain about how keyloggers work and give them the run down so they understand that the internet isn't necessarily the safe arena to play in that they might think.
I have spent the past 6 years determining which programs are good and which ones are OK and which are just junk. I have many customers tell me that they have Norton or McAfee on their computer for protection, to which I reply that it didn't seem to do the job.
I can't remember back to a computer that came into my shop without some type of malware protection that wasn't infected. If a customer brings in their computer complaining of something other than malware I run a few scans anyway and inevitably they are infected, often pretty bad, even with their protection. I do frequently see people that have the pre-installed trial Norton that wasn't subscribed and hence not updated.
I had a friend bring her computer in saying it wouldn't turn on. Opened the case and there were 5 blow capacitors. I explained I would replace them for her, capacitor costs only and no labor. After that was done I tested the board. It worked flawlessly. I tested out her RAM. It was good. I then put it back into her computer and it wouldn't turn on. The power supply was blown. I replaced that at cost plus a small amount. During this time she stated it had been a good little computer. In looking at the HDD I noticed she had a bunch of folders in the root of the boot drive named found.001, etc. I brought this up to her and she stated they had problems and sometimes had to force it off. I checked the hard drive and it indicated that there was 38gigs of space used yet the when I used norton ghost to back it up with compression it took 98gigs (meaning something was wrong with the partition table and/or file system). I then began to run scans on it and found a large number of malware, including some extremely bad robot programs, keyloggers, and various other viruses. This I showed her came from her 17 yo son using bearshare to download GGW videos that also had tags for rape and underage. There were also infected music files. All in all there were hundreds of infections. She stated she used the computer to just pay some bills and do a bit of browsing.
When she got it back it had a new HDD, fixed capacitors, a new power supply, a fresh install of XP with all the updates, various anti-malware products with MS SE as the lightweight realtime scanner. I further showed her hulu.com, grooveshark.com, last.fm, and a few others to help appease her children's addiction to music and video, as a way to keep them legal and her out of a lawsuits way.
He was talking about effective common sense. If your friend is a grocery store clerk who uses her system to email and little else and someone else told her to use such and such habit you shouldn't listen to her advise. Whereas someone with a good reputation and karma on slashdot.org should have your attention. And he was also talking about email, when you receive an email with bogus instructions from a friend you shouldn't trust that as it could be a friend who has their computer roboted.
Your statement is only partially true. I'm talking about Microsoft's too, so my point stands. I never stated that it was a bad product, only that it is adequate for light scanning and only as a compliment to other products, IF you are already infected.
Frankly, I never scan initially on a Windows box anymore. I always remove the drive and insert it into a Linux box, then do manual cleaning there first. After that I then scan with a linux version of anti-virus products. After that's complete I copy over the virus detection tools for Windows and reinsert the drive into the original computer. When I boot I always restart in safe mode, if possible. Then I do some basic scanning, such as with Malwarebytes and then I reboot into regular windows and begin installation of anti-malware products. At the end of this I have run scans with no less that 5-10 products, depending on the OS version.
I run it with the expectation that is highly important and extremely appropriate and has a basis in utmost reality where common sense must prevail. That expectation is that **no product knows it all and not all know it well**. So, with a compliment of products I can cover most if not all the bases. Relying on one product is to invite reinfection or failure to adequately clean.
$30 that can't be a cost transferred to consumers, in any way. You tack $30 on without the proviso that the costs can't be inferred to the consumer in any way and you invite Microsoft to raise the cost of Windows by $60.
Your proposition regarding MS SE is ridiculous at best. And your experience is with your computer and maybe some others. Mine is with hundreds if not thousands a year. And I know how well or poorly SE works. You, pal, are a total looser. SE is good only for lightweight scanning and moderate cleaning. When a computer is really infected you cannot rely solely on SE. That's my point. Sheesh.
Microsoft wants us to pay (even though we aren't infected) for everyone else that is infected via a tax on internet use to make up for defects in their products which caused this mess to begin with? And how on earth (as it will do nothing but funnel money) is this supposed to help alleviate the problem? And isn't this proposition by the company responsible for the problem to begin with inviting a declaration of Microsoft being a utility and hence being regulated by the government?
Who in this living Universe is supposed to take Microsoft seriously after comments like this? Maybe the ISPs will enjoy the tax as it will funnel money to them to do what they are already doing, while granting them higher profits? Ultimately what the ISPs do is dump the subscriber into the local community to have their machines cleaned.
And why propose this unless you are trying to kill the likes of some of your competitors that rely on sales of anti-virus products to maintain revenue to stay in the competitive fight against the company that created this to begin with?
It doesn't always work on modern software either. The sheer number of possible installer errors for that products is crazy, and it isn't difficult to disable Security Essentials. I see it happen frequently where malware sees Security Essentials and does the dirty deed of making it fail to launch or install.
I clean this stuff off computers every day in my business as part of doing business in my shop. You can't honestly say that Security Essentials is top notch. It is a good product in that it doesn't nag you like AVG does and it isn't as heavy on the system as AVG, Norton, and McAfee. As far as malware detection goes it only knows so much and what it does know isn't that much. I use it as a final scan not as the main scan because it doesn't have the teeth of some of the other free products.
It's an OK product but you have to have a compliment of products to clean your machine. It is lightweight for monitoring to ensure some detection of infection and removal.
A company is legally liable if they list the reason for termination, especially since none of it has been proven. All a company can legally state is that the person was employed and that they are no longer with the company as of a specific date.
I worked for a company that terminated all the developers. They came in to find the doors to their offices rekeyed and locked.
Companies can terminate you for any reason at any time unless contractually obligated to do so otherwise.
Yes, Activision was quite heavy handed on this one.
The employees that were fired are highly employable. If Activision is the company releasing the reasons why they are likely in for a big lawsuit while those employed try hard to recover their reputation.
There are a lot of ways they benefit. One by having mechanisms built into Vista that patrol the user that weren't there in XP that were rejected by XP users when they released WGA. The next is that they actually denied consumers the choice even though consumers asked for it and in the end the only way to get it was to pay for the OS twice (once for Vista and once for XP). OEMs aren't just the big boys such as the royal OEMs.
This person's failure was obviously her failure of knowing the law or getting adequate legal council. Or Microsoft has deep pockets that get judges all hot and wet.
The OEMs were forced to sell Vista and were told not to allow XP. Microsoft's approach to forcing Vista was systematic. It isn't hard to see what they had done over the past two years. Those actions could only be taken by a monopoly in the manner they were, and then again only by a monopoly with something to gain. Microsoft had been directing Royal OEMs to remove support for XP in the BIOS tables and as well had been telling hardware vendors not to provide drivers for XP (sound, wireless, etc). They didn't direct this in this manner without some plan and thus benefit to themselves.
Really, it isn't hard to understand that users wanted X product but were forced to buy V product and then buy X product afterwords. When resellers said they were not able to comply and that Microsoft had discontinued their right to purchase the X product and then systematically denied support, and then lied about the availability of product keys. That's coercion of all parties--to say the least. When you consider Microsoft came up with more product keys after the netbook craze began you can see they were manipulating and coercing OEMs and thus consumers.
If I were this person I'd refile (as I'm sure the case didn't go to trial) and then subpoena all the OEMs and their communications in preparation of the Vista release. I'd be willing to bet there's some real telling details in those correspondences.
Slashdot Mirror
Darl no longer works for SCO from what I understand. He was removed some time ago. Though he doesn't, I believe he has (or tried to) purchase(d) some assets of SCO for a ridiculously low sum of money, like in the $30,000 range.
I believe Darly McBride hired his brother's lawfirm to handle this. I believe that is a means to funnel the company monetary assets out of SCO to the family. That's the way it seems to me.
If they are cloning the game from scratch fine. Wish they could come up with their own ideas and game designs.
But I read bullshit in this. There's no need to share the name if the product is completely different. What's the point? NO matter how you look at it there is no real major points. Change the name already and move on with their new venture.
Your phone conversation is now (at some point early in the initialization) digital (and so are VOIP calls), and hence it travels through your provider's computers. This ruling is total trash. The judge(s) should never be re-elected.
This is precisely the argument against cloud computing. You loose your protection under this ruling. Even if this ruling hadn't taken place, the government could still try to subpoena the repository of your data and would likely get the information.
The only way this should have been handled is the same way they handle a telephone conversation. It is private until the government shows reasonable cause with the proper paperwork issued by a Judge.
This ruling flies in the face of that long standing requirement. This ruling can now be used in the inverse to allow the government to listen in on phone conversations without a warrant and use that as evidence against you.
And, frankly everyone expects their emails to be private. The email being sent isn't the same as someone posting their opinions on a web page for everyone to read.
Generally I never reply to AC posts, but I'll make an exception.
Technically I do much more. Those are just the scanning parts. I used to tell my coworkers that it is lazy man's attitude to format and start over.
Second, these procedures are for customer computers. Those computers often have their life on them. Letters, photos, music, programs, etc. Some of them can't be replaced. If I were to back up, wipe and reinstall, I'd have to copy all that data back. After I return the computer to the customer they'd have a series of tasks to perform themselves such as setting up their printers, scanners, cameras, installation of their software, etc. So, the goal is to keep the computer as close to the customer's customized state as possible. Wiping and re-installation is the last resort.
Today, malware will replace your drivers, say for the ATA controller. They'll replace system files with their malware such as the login program. They'll modify the registry permissions by making it impossible for anyone to modify the registry keys to correct problems, while making a slew of changes to the system registry (which is complex and full of bloat). They will also insert themselves into the system restore by creating a restore point, thus when customers try to do a system restore they'll restore the malware.
The main reason I switch to their original computer environment is due to the registry and the fact that though Linux has a number of tools for scanning it doesn't scan the registry. And as I have stated about 20 times in this thread, no one program knows it all and almost none know enough to adequately clean a computer itself. You always need a compliment of programs.
To say that Linux doesn't have a large number of anti-malware programs is to compliment Linux. None of my Linux boxes have anti-malware products on them for the purpose of scanning Linux. They are installed to scan windows file systems.
And after review of the citation the referenced tests clearly prove my point. There are nearly no antivirus programs capable of detecting enough of the malware that is know, let alone detect new malware. The key here with MS SE is that it is basically a middle of the road product that gives no true additional insight into what's happening on the computer. Granted they have other tools, such as autoruns (which is really eye opening).
Microsoft's success rate averaged just about 56% while others averaged 70-80% or more. Though this is the case those other products are heavy on the system almost creating a hostile environment that makes the cure worse than the disease.
You need more than one program. None of them know it all and few know enough to adequately clean a badly infected machine, but all are probably adequate at keeping a machine relatively clean once it is known to be clean.
Sorry, but it does not, not in real world tests. When you, in a controlled manner, infect machines and then test them under loose guidelines you will certainly see that most programs work about the same.
MS SE is a good lightweight scanner for those machines not infected that need real time protection. If a machine is badly infected give up the ghost. And it just occurred to me, why are you protecting Microsoft's share in this. There are many programs that are better that are also free.
And anyone, absolutely everyone, stating that MS SE is good enough and stacks up to the best is really awaiting a tragedy, as NO ONE PROGRAM IS ENOUGH TO CLEAN AN INFECTED MACHINE. No citation needed.
You mark me as flambait for explaining myself and calling him a total looser because he failed to justify his remark calling me an ass-hat? Grow up.
As well, there's no citation needed. Anyone asking for one is a troll.
I explain about IE and install Firefox with Adblock Plus and a nice theme. I explain how they might have gotten it. I do all the online updates from Microsoft, except those for DRM and those that spy on the user (such as WGA). I go through their installed programs and remove the crap and I run msconfig and turn off all the garbage.
I explain that malware can come from anywhere and that they should look up the software before installing it. I explain that one program isn't enough to detect and clean the malware from the computer and that there are different categories of malware (viruses and then there are adware/spyware). I explain about how keyloggers work and give them the run down so they understand that the internet isn't necessarily the safe arena to play in that they might think.
I have spent the past 6 years determining which programs are good and which ones are OK and which are just junk. I have many customers tell me that they have Norton or McAfee on their computer for protection, to which I reply that it didn't seem to do the job.
I can't remember back to a computer that came into my shop without some type of malware protection that wasn't infected. If a customer brings in their computer complaining of something other than malware I run a few scans anyway and inevitably they are infected, often pretty bad, even with their protection. I do frequently see people that have the pre-installed trial Norton that wasn't subscribed and hence not updated.
I had a friend bring her computer in saying it wouldn't turn on. Opened the case and there were 5 blow capacitors. I explained I would replace them for her, capacitor costs only and no labor. After that was done I tested the board. It worked flawlessly. I tested out her RAM. It was good. I then put it back into her computer and it wouldn't turn on. The power supply was blown. I replaced that at cost plus a small amount. During this time she stated it had been a good little computer. In looking at the HDD I noticed she had a bunch of folders in the root of the boot drive named found.001, etc. I brought this up to her and she stated they had problems and sometimes had to force it off. I checked the hard drive and it indicated that there was 38gigs of space used yet the when I used norton ghost to back it up with compression it took 98gigs (meaning something was wrong with the partition table and/or file system). I then began to run scans on it and found a large number of malware, including some extremely bad robot programs, keyloggers, and various other viruses. This I showed her came from her 17 yo son using bearshare to download GGW videos that also had tags for rape and underage. There were also infected music files. All in all there were hundreds of infections. She stated she used the computer to just pay some bills and do a bit of browsing.
When she got it back it had a new HDD, fixed capacitors, a new power supply, a fresh install of XP with all the updates, various anti-malware products with MS SE as the lightweight realtime scanner. I further showed her hulu.com, grooveshark.com, last.fm, and a few others to help appease her children's addiction to music and video, as a way to keep them legal and her out of a lawsuits way.
So, yes, I do what you do and much more.
He was talking about effective common sense. If your friend is a grocery store clerk who uses her system to email and little else and someone else told her to use such and such habit you shouldn't listen to her advise. Whereas someone with a good reputation and karma on slashdot.org should have your attention. And he was also talking about email, when you receive an email with bogus instructions from a friend you shouldn't trust that as it could be a friend who has their computer roboted.
Because he used sarcasm doesn't make him a troll. Bad mod.
Your statement is only partially true. I'm talking about Microsoft's too, so my point stands. I never stated that it was a bad product, only that it is adequate for light scanning and only as a compliment to other products, IF you are already infected.
Frankly, I never scan initially on a Windows box anymore. I always remove the drive and insert it into a Linux box, then do manual cleaning there first. After that I then scan with a linux version of anti-virus products. After that's complete I copy over the virus detection tools for Windows and reinsert the drive into the original computer. When I boot I always restart in safe mode, if possible. Then I do some basic scanning, such as with Malwarebytes and then I reboot into regular windows and begin installation of anti-malware products. At the end of this I have run scans with no less that 5-10 products, depending on the OS version.
I run it with the expectation that is highly important and extremely appropriate and has a basis in utmost reality where common sense must prevail. That expectation is that **no product knows it all and not all know it well**. So, with a compliment of products I can cover most if not all the bases. Relying on one product is to invite reinfection or failure to adequately clean.
$30 that can't be a cost transferred to consumers, in any way. You tack $30 on without the proviso that the costs can't be inferred to the consumer in any way and you invite Microsoft to raise the cost of Windows by $60.
Your proposition regarding MS SE is ridiculous at best. And your experience is with your computer and maybe some others. Mine is with hundreds if not thousands a year. And I know how well or poorly SE works. You, pal, are a total looser. SE is good only for lightweight scanning and moderate cleaning. When a computer is really infected you cannot rely solely on SE. That's my point. Sheesh.
Microsoft wants us to pay (even though we aren't infected) for everyone else that is infected via a tax on internet use to make up for defects in their products which caused this mess to begin with? And how on earth (as it will do nothing but funnel money) is this supposed to help alleviate the problem? And isn't this proposition by the company responsible for the problem to begin with inviting a declaration of Microsoft being a utility and hence being regulated by the government?
Who in this living Universe is supposed to take Microsoft seriously after comments like this? Maybe the ISPs will enjoy the tax as it will funnel money to them to do what they are already doing, while granting them higher profits? Ultimately what the ISPs do is dump the subscriber into the local community to have their machines cleaned.
And why propose this unless you are trying to kill the likes of some of your competitors that rely on sales of anti-virus products to maintain revenue to stay in the competitive fight against the company that created this to begin with?
It doesn't always work on modern software either. The sheer number of possible installer errors for that products is crazy, and it isn't difficult to disable Security Essentials. I see it happen frequently where malware sees Security Essentials and does the dirty deed of making it fail to launch or install.
I clean this stuff off computers every day in my business as part of doing business in my shop. You can't honestly say that Security Essentials is top notch. It is a good product in that it doesn't nag you like AVG does and it isn't as heavy on the system as AVG, Norton, and McAfee. As far as malware detection goes it only knows so much and what it does know isn't that much. I use it as a final scan not as the main scan because it doesn't have the teeth of some of the other free products.
It's an OK product but you have to have a compliment of products to clean your machine. It is lightweight for monitoring to ensure some detection of infection and removal.
Microsoft and trustworthy computing together in one sentence is an oxymoron.
Those guys wouldn't understand trusted computing if it bit them on the ass.
A company is legally liable if they list the reason for termination, especially since none of it has been proven. All a company can legally state is that the person was employed and that they are no longer with the company as of a specific date.
I worked for a company that terminated all the developers. They came in to find the doors to their offices rekeyed and locked.
Companies can terminate you for any reason at any time unless contractually obligated to do so otherwise.
Yes, Activision was quite heavy handed on this one.
The employees that were fired are highly employable. If Activision is the company releasing the reasons why they are likely in for a big lawsuit while those employed try hard to recover their reputation.
My general opinion of Microsoft is that they don't make good software, they make software that's just good enough. That's my personal opinion.
Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.
There are a lot of ways they benefit. One by having mechanisms built into Vista that patrol the user that weren't there in XP that were rejected by XP users when they released WGA. The next is that they actually denied consumers the choice even though consumers asked for it and in the end the only way to get it was to pay for the OS twice (once for Vista and once for XP). OEMs aren't just the big boys such as the royal OEMs.
This person's failure was obviously her failure of knowing the law or getting adequate legal council. Or Microsoft has deep pockets that get judges all hot and wet.
The OEMs were forced to sell Vista and were told not to allow XP. Microsoft's approach to forcing Vista was systematic. It isn't hard to see what they had done over the past two years. Those actions could only be taken by a monopoly in the manner they were, and then again only by a monopoly with something to gain. Microsoft had been directing Royal OEMs to remove support for XP in the BIOS tables and as well had been telling hardware vendors not to provide drivers for XP (sound, wireless, etc). They didn't direct this in this manner without some plan and thus benefit to themselves.
Really, it isn't hard to understand that users wanted X product but were forced to buy V product and then buy X product afterwords. When resellers said they were not able to comply and that Microsoft had discontinued their right to purchase the X product and then systematically denied support, and then lied about the availability of product keys. That's coercion of all parties--to say the least. When you consider Microsoft came up with more product keys after the netbook craze began you can see they were manipulating and coercing OEMs and thus consumers.
If I were this person I'd refile (as I'm sure the case didn't go to trial) and then subpoena all the OEMs and their communications in preparation of the Vista release. I'd be willing to bet there's some real telling details in those correspondences.
They feared the Streisand effect.