Re: Not very encouraging :(
From: XP Slave (P@spamnotyahoo.com)
Date: 11/22/02
- Next message: eric-cherokee: "Admin User is not really and Admin?"
- Previous message: Mimi: "XP Security downloads"
- In reply to: Max Burke: "Re: Not very encouraging :("
- Next in thread: Chris Jackson [MVP]: "Re: Not very encouraging :("
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "XP Slave" <Tyler P@spamnotyahoo.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:41:49 -0500
"Max Burke" <mlvburke@%$%#@.nz> wrote in message
news:u8WH5qdkCHA.384@tkmsftngp09...
> > XP Slave scribbled:
>
> >> "Max Burke" wrote in message
>
> > I don't believe
> > you've never had a problem with any Windows OS or application.
>
> >> Did I say I had NEVER had any problems with any windows OS or
> >> application? No *I* didn't.
> >> Try reading *again* what I did say.
>
> > It was implied.
>
> Not it wasn't; That just the 'slant' you put on it......
>
OK, it appeared to be implied.
> >> But I'll clarify it for you, any and all of the *minor* problems I
> >> have ever had with using windows OS'es and MS applications have
> >> nearly always been of my own making through incorrect use of said OS
> >> and/or application; A *very few* have been through
> >> incompatibilities with hardware or third party applications, and
> >> again they only happened because I was trying to do something that
> >> could not be done....
>
> > When you actually try doing something more with your system than an
> > initial install and then letting it sit in a corner we'll talk....
>
> I do a lot with that system; For example, can you run dual radio pager
> decoders that are feed signals from communications receivers on your
> system? Can you run communications receiver control programs on your
> system? Can you build your own serial port decoder interfaces to run on
> your system?That's just three of the unusual applications and hardware I
> run on my 486 which runs Win95......
>
Serial I/O read/write. That's sure putting a LOT of stress on that system!
> > That's virtually an impossibility.
>
> >> Naaaa, that's just *your* opinion that it's an impossibility.....
>
> >>> Even Mr. Gates himself
> >>> experiences problems due to bugs in his OS's. LOL
>
> >> Because *you* say so????
>
> > No, because it occurs when he's attempting to demo his products such
> > as when his systems crashed at the Chicago Trade show when he was
> > introducing WIN98. And, the fact that with each new revision of
> > Windows he makes the statement of how prone to crashing the previous
> > revision was.
>
> And that's the *basis* of this fiction of yours is it?
>
If that's how you define fiction I can now understand why you're so
confused.
> >> Sure users *can* have problems with MS OS'es and applications, but
> >> show *any* OS and/or computer program that cant; Then show me how
> >> PEBCAK problems are the fault of MS, it's OS'es, and/or
> >> applications..... The biggest bug that causes computer problems are
> >> ones sitting in front of the computer......
> >> Or to put it another way (as stated so eloquently by another
> >> participant in this thread):
> >> It's awfully hard to refute fiction.....
>
> > Based on your writings I'll have to admit that you're the expert on
> > fiction.
>
> Well gee it's you making up fictions and then trying to pass it off as
> fact that ALL windows users are subject to.....
See above...
>
> >> Try reading COLA (Comp.os.Linux.advocacy) for one week, then get
> >> back to me and tell me how Microsoft.public.windowsxp.general is no
> >> different....
> >> I'll expect your report on Thursday 28th November; Make it no more
> >> than 500 words, with verifiable examples from both groups showing
> >> how both are *no different*.....
>
> > Again, there are Windows newsgroups of the same ilk. Proves nothing
> > one way or another.
>
> Then you wont have any trouble doing this report will you...... ;-))
Waste of time.
>
> >> Because it's their *CHOICE* to do so. That I DONT have any problems
> >> with at all, mostly because it will make MS do the best it can for
> >> those of us that choose to use their products and services.....
>
> >> No matter how you look at it MS alone provides for anyone who wants
> >> to use a computer the means and ability to do so far better that
> >> any other 'corporate entity' does. That's why the vast majority of
> >> personal computers throughout the world run MS OS'es and
> >> applications....
>
> > Again, not true at all.
>
> >> Of course it is.
>
> > Mac's and newer flavors of linux give users
> > access to anything they need.
>
> >> Yeah RIIIGHHHTT....
> >> I guess that's why you have to troll the WWW to find all manner of
> >> patches, drivers, updates, etc, etc, etc just to *install a distro of
> >> Linux, let alone get it running....
>
> > Yep, never have to do this with Windows products!
>
> To get the OS installed and running? No you dont.....
>
What good is the OS without NIC's, printers, scanners, cd-rw/dvd, digital
camera, etc?
Let's see you upgrade that 486 to W2K.
> > Thank goodness
> > they make half of your hardware obsolete with each new revision so we
> > can all by new hardware with nice bug-free drivers.
>
> I guess that's why *I* have run a 486 DX100 since 1992 with DOS/Windows
> 3.1/Windows 95A on it huh.....
> Ten years and look at all the upgrades I wasn't forced to install......
>
> Now what was it you were claiming again?
>
"they make half of your hardware obsolete with each NEW revision" - I guess
that's why you haven't bothered to upgrade. Smart choice!
> > Yeah, Yeah, I
> > know, it's up to the manufacturers to write the drivers.
>
> For their own products? For sure it is.......
>
> > It couldn't
> > be that Microsoft is constantly changing core OS functions each time
> > rather than concentrating on just delivering a stable and secure
> > platform for a change.
>
> No it couldn't; what it (the above comment) is, is simply an opinion
> being passed off as fact....
Sure, pure fiction. That's why a device quits working when you upgrade from
say W2K to Windows XP. Users are just imagining that it doesn't work and
isn't supported by the newer version. Microsoft isn't changing the way
calls are made to the kernel and data passed back and forth, it's the
manufacturers who modify their drivers to make sure the devices don't work
in the newer version of Windows. Smart move.
>
> >> No version of Linux gives me access to the CDRom on my 486, and
> >> apparently never will.
>
> > If you open your PC case you'll see a little white plug with red,
> > black and possibly yellow wires. That needs to be plugged into the
> > back of your cdrom drive.
>
> ROTFLOL.....
> The CD rom and sound card it's attached to works just fine under DOS,
> windows 3.1, Windows for workgroups and windows 95; It even runs well as
> a third CD Rom on my networked XP box. Running various distros of Linux
> from a Boot floppy, and trying to get them to recognise that there is a
> working CD rom attached to the system is the problem; Even a 1995
> slackware distro that claimed to have support and drivers for that
> particular sound card/CD Rom setup cant find the CD Rom to install from.
> It's not as though it's an unusual or obscure setup; Creative Sound
> Blaster Pro multimedia kits with a Sony CD Rom weren't (and aren't)
> exactly unusual let alone obscure......
>
> The latest IPCop distro fails to recognise the CD Rom as well; just like
> Knoppix failed to. Had to copy that distro to the hard drive to install
> it and try it out; But it didn't even recognise the audio hardware on my
> XP box, and it ran like a one-legged dog on my XP box as well.
>
Good thing these issues never crop up in the Windows products!
> >> You can claim it's because of the business practices of MS, and got
> >> to court to get legally enforced judgements against MS just so you
> >> can compete with MS if you want, but in the end all you do is make
> >> lawyers rich, and miss the crucial fact that to compete against MS
> >> you need to be providing what your potential customers want, and
> >> are willing to pay for, NOT $1000 per hour fees to a lawyer so
> >> they can tell some judge you dont think it's fair you cant do what
> >> MS is doing......
>
> >>> Where in the h*ll did this court shi* come from? I happen to
> >>> believe the market place will end up dictating to MS how they will
> >>> have to change their business model, not the other way around.
> >>
> >> Well gee you are complaining about the way MS conducts it's business
> >> in the market place aren't you?
>
>
> > No, I'm lamenting the fact that they constantly change their products
> > and implementation philosophy every three years forcing companies to
> > upgrade and retrain.
>
> It's called developing, upgrading, and creating new products and
> services. Dont you think they should be allowed to do that?
>
As they continue doing this with the frequency and verocity of their current
pace they will lose more and more customers. As I said, capitalism at its
best.
> > And you can't fathom the fact that these
> > organizations AREN'T free to just go out and convert everything
> > overnight to another OS platform.
>
> Who said they do? They however do have the power and choice to decide
> what their upgrade path will be. That's what you have to do when running
> a *succesfull business. It's NOT something MS makes them do; To claim
> it is, is simply more fiction on your part.
>
BS - They either upgrade or become unsupported. Sure, it's their choice to
become unsupported.
> >> # I'd be all in favour of legislation that mandates Open Standards
> >> where applicable, and requires government bodies to seriously
> >> consider Open Source alternatives. But what we're getting is
> >> attempts to *require* use of Open Source software - effectively
> >> criminalizing an official's decision to buy commercial software to
> >> meet their needs. First in Peru, and now here. And at LinuxWorld it
> >> is apparently being preached and accepted as part of the "party
> >> doctrine." http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/wlg/1840
>
> > They won't have to force it. It's already happening because
> > companies are fed up with the ever changing licensing schemes,
> > bloatware, buffer overruns, short life cycles, etc....It's great to
> > watch capitalism at its best.
>
> And MS will just disappear in a puff of smoke huh......... ;-)))
>
Of course not. But their ability to almost totally dictate the direction
the IBM PC platform will continue to diminish.
> Some reading for your 'enlightenment'..... Enjoy.
> # The Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, or TCPA, was formed by
> Compaq, HP, IBM, Intel and Microsoft. All five companies have been
> individually working on improving the trust available within the PC for
> years. These companies came to an important conclusion: the level, or
> "amount", of trust they were able to deliver to their customers, and
> upon which a great deal of the information revolution depended, needed
> to be increased and security solutions for PC's needed to be easy to
> deploy, use and manage. An open alliance was formed to work on creating
> a new computing platform for the next century that will provide for
> improved trust in the PC platform.
Of course this is necessary due to all of the inherent design and coding
flaws in the current Windows platform. Tsk, Tsk.
> http://www.trustedcomputing.org/tcpaasp4/index.asp
>
> TCPA usage models:
> http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/USAGE_MODELS_020702.pdf
>
> TCPA will undermine the General Public License (GPL), under which many
> free and open source software products are distributed. The GPL is
> designed to prevent the fruits of communal voluntary labour being
> hijacked by private companies for profit. Anyone can use and modify
> software distributed under this licence, but if you distribute a
> modified copy, you must make it available to the world, together with
> the source code so that other people can make subsequent modifications
> of their own.
> At least two companies have started work on a TCPA-enhanced version of
> GNU/Linux. This will involve tidying up the code and removing a number
> of features. To get a certificate from the TCPA consortium, the sponsor
> will then have to submit the pruned code to an evaluation lab, together
> with a mass of documentation showing why various known attacks on the
> code don't work. (The evaluation is at level E3 - expensive enough to
> keep out the free software community, yet lax enough for most commercial
> software vendors to have a chance to get their lousy code through.)
> Although the modified program will be covered by the GPL, and the source
> code will be free to everyone, it will not make full use of the TCPA
> features unless you have a certificate for it that is specific to the
> Fritz chip on your own machine. That is what will cost you money (if not
> at first, then eventually).
>
> You will still be free to make modifications to the modified code, but
> you won't be able to get a certificate that gets you into the TCPA
> system. Something similar happens with the linux supplied by Sony for
> the Playstation 2; the console's copy protection mechanisms prevent you
> from running an altered binary, and from using a number of the hardware
> features. Even if a philanthropist does a not-for-profit secure
> GNU/Linux, the resulting product would not really be a GPL version of a
> TCPA operating system, but a proprietary operating system that the
> philanthropist could give away free. (There is still the question of who
> would pay for the user certificates.)
>
> People believed that the GPL made it impossible for a company to come
> along and steal code that was the result of community effort. This
> helped make people willing to give up their spare time to write free
> software for the communal benefit. But TCPA changes that. Once the
> majority of PCs on the market are TCPA-enabled, the GPL won't work as
> intended. The benefit for Microsoft is not that this will destroy free
> software directly. The point is this: once people realise that even
> GPL'led software can be hijacked for commercial purposes, idealistic
> young programmers will be much less motivated to write free software.
>
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
>
> What will the OSS/*nix community do when TCPA becomes part of the
> OSS/*nix products and services of all the above companies?
> Find some other OS to use?
>
Nope, they'll all be happily content knowing that the entire world is now
productive on a stable and secure platform - at last.
> --
> mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
> Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
> See Found Images at:
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
>
- Next message: eric-cherokee: "Admin User is not really and Admin?"
- Previous message: Mimi: "XP Security downloads"
- In reply to: Max Burke: "Re: Not very encouraging :("
- Next in thread: Chris Jackson [MVP]: "Re: Not very encouraging :("
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
