Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
RE: [Full-Disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2
From: joe (mvpjoeware.net)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 18:13:48 CDT
>>but would be very comfortable in saying this will not
>>occur. Had MS wanted to follow a *nix like path, they could have a long
>>ago... They were doing *nix back in 1980.
>Error. read ur history. they never DID. they bought it. Called Xenix.
>Like all technology in M$ product, its often stolen or bought. If they
>could have integrated a nix type kernel at the time while keeping full
>DOS compatibility ( as majority of software at that time rested on DOS
>), they would have. They've got bsd telnet, tracert, whole bsd tcp ip
>stack for win2000 ( go read www.insecure.org/namp/ for explanations on
>the MS tcp/ip stack). They obviously don't excel in the unix word ( nor
>networking world ) if they have to steal such bricks in 'their' OS
Like I said, they were doing *nix back in 1980. Whether they bought it or
created it, they had it IF they wanted to use it. I have no doubt in their
ability to have integrated it with the other stuff they were doing if they
had chosen to. They didn't choose to.
As for where the stack and those tools came from, I have legal access to the
OS source, I can see where it comes from. You aren't as accurate as you
would like to think.
>>Two things. First, have you seen Monad? If not, you might want to look at
>>before even trying to spout your normal uninformed opinion. You will
>>probably find that someone is going to be trying to duplicate portions of
>>that functionality in your favorite non-MS OS shortly. Second, now you are
>>whining about names?
>I am talking the piss of a company that refuted unix for years, to
>finally integrate it.
?. The creation of a new shell isn't integrating *nix. Once again, go check
out Monad before spouting. It definitely isn't *nix but I can say that there
will be some people on the *nix side trying to duplicate some things. Again
this is good. If you see someone else doing something good, work it into
your product as well. If this didn't happen, the face of the various *nix
knockoffs would be very different, none of them would be allowed to use
something good someone else had figured out. That wouldn't make much sense.
> >Err no, their goal is to maintain a profit and compete
> With no competitors ?
You are free to believe what you will. The investments MS has made in other
software/computer companies though should help you understand the answer to
>>>M$ business model is a threat to our freedom, and i would
>>>like our childrens to have a choice, and not be formated
>>>the M$ way.
>>Last I looked, MS wasn't the only OS writer out there and you aren't being
>>forced to use it.
>You are. Can you buy a x86 computer with no M$ on it ? Do you know that
>laptops get their warrantees voided if you remove M$ from it ?
Absolutely you can buy machines without Microsoft Software. As for your
second comment, there probably are cases that this is true but there are
also laptops you can buy with Linux on them or no OS on them. My last 3
machines I have purchased have all had no OS on them. You can even buy a
desktop from Dell with Linux though I understand from my Dell friends they
don't sell very well.
>> How is it that your children won't have a choice? Or are
>>you forecasting the death of the *nix derivitives? I hope not and expect
>>are wrong if you are, they have their uses.
>Cause they already don't have a choice now. They get given laptops with
>M$ on it at school. Now ...whos trolling here ?
Schools are giving kids laptops now? Do you mean they are letting kids use
school laptops? In that case, this is a choice of the school. This isn't MS
saying it has to be that way. Buy your kid his/her own laptop, don't rely on
the school and people's tax dollars. Then put whatever the heck you want on
it. Alternatively, load up vmware on the laptop and run Linux or BSD in the
>Do not even go there. Why do they have it installed at home in the first
>place ? So Its a monopoly, and have to just shut the fsck up, accept
>it, keep quiet and pay ? Don't think, we did it for you before with
>loads of money invested too, so that surely is a factor of trust.
>Criticism is banned. Yeah thats fair.
I think it is there because MS has done the most to get the computers into
people's homes. They have done the most to make machine's usable for
everyone and inexpensive enough for many. The only other company that has
done anything decent in these areas is Apple and that is in the former, not
the latter category. Apple gave tons of machine's away in schools to hook
kids into wanting them and that didn't work out so well because the costs
were still a bit much for people at home. Now we have a case where the free
OSes are realizing that the world isn't going to change to use their OS, so
they change to be as similar as possible to the OS that is on top. I
actually think this is great, it opens up the choices. However don't expect
right around the corner Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their 2.3 children will be
running BSD at home. It isn't there yet and at present, the interface is
still chasing what MS has, not revolutionizing it.
You obviously also do not understand the concept of a monopoly. A monopoly
is when there is only one supplier of a good or service, there is no choice
period. This does not describe situation we have. Anyway, it isn't an end to
monopoly you are looking for. It is an end to MS, if SUSE (or name your fav
vendor) should all of a sudden become immensely popular and own 99% of the
desktops you would be singing some religious hymn about it. Not touting how
bad monopolies are.
Criticism is absolutely not banned, but if you are going to criticize,
understand what you are talking about. You run around spouting half truths
and incorrect information intermixed with religious quotes like it means
something simply because you believe it must be so probably because you have
heard it from 14 other religious zealots.
> Define security ? Define company Policy of Internet and Computer usage ?
Consider the real world. We actually didn't back down on our stance of what
we did, though we took a beating for a long time over it. Even the lower
costs of support didn't quell the complaining. While it is true the PCs are
the company's PCs and any way they want to configure them is up to them,
they also have to look at whether or not the configuration causes a slow
down in productivity. If people are always bitching because they can't load
their favorite news program (pointcast was the big one back then)
productivity goes down. You can threaten the people with disiplinary action
but you can't fire your entire marketing department or treasury department.
> So thats the reason to still give administrator rights to the default
> install ? Do you realise that unpatched machines get infected in a
> breeze because the default user has Administrator rights ?
If I install Linux or BSD right now from CD, do I or do I not have root
access? Am I allowed to log on and use root?
> The cost in patching is nothing compare to cost in software
> licenses....and that's what it was about.
LOL! At home, I completely agree with you. Get a job in a large company some
time. And by large I mean hundreds of thousands of machines.
> Are you an idiot ?? Do you understand technically why a virus CANNOT
> EASILY spread on a nix based permissions filesystem ? If not, look up to
Nope, and contrary to your writing I don't believe you are either. I just
think you may be misinformed and bit too far into the zealot stage. You seem
to think that every issue is due to some hole, totally disregarding the
issues with users simply doing anything they are told to do in an email or
instructions. Is it tougher to spread something in the *nix world, yes. Is
it because it is inherently safer? No.
>>My Windows machines I use do real multitasking, are stable, and are not
>>prone to virii.
>Yours. The average compromised box out there isn't. And in 90 % of the
>cases, it is a M$ machine. Coincidence ? Sure....
Nope, not at all. Consider the penetration of Windows compared to anything
else. Windows has more dumb users than any other operating system in the
history of computers. Simple fact, you can't get around it. If they all
jumped to Mac OSX, Mac OSX would have the most dumb users in the history of
computers. As surely as that number moving so would the most attacked and
penetrated platform numbers move.
If the level of intelligence and capability of Windows users came up to the
level of Linux users and especially of BSD users then many issues would
slide into the background. Unfortunately for Linux, its user's intelligence
averages are going to go down as they get more penetration of the desktops.
Watch how Linux gets dumbed down for their use and as issues start to creep
in more and more.
> 1) Get your facts right before defending some company that obviously you
> don't know. Ever read the EULA ? I doubt.
> 2) Accept that Cristicism will always enrich our vision and accept that
> people CAN, and SHOULD for obvious reasons, not feel part of that MASS
> that you embrass. Happy to feel normal ?
I agree with these statements. Get your facts straight. As for criticism, I
fully accept it. I dish out far more of it to MS than I think you ever will,
I just tend to do it in a forum that will accomplish something. I have had
MS chasing me down for pissing them off. I have also watched them slowly
trying to get better. As I always say on this list, I don't look at this as
religion. I think religion as screwed the world up enough. A lot of stupid
people saying and doing a lot of stupid things in the name of religion,
whether than be for a god or for an OS.
So now, to bring this back... Do you have any valid gripes about XP SP2 that
have encountered, or is your entire story one of whining about things you
don't really know about?
From: devis [mailto:deviseasynix.net]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 3:23 PM
To: joe; Full-disclosure
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.