(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo.TakeThisOut@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:ef2e1v$ll6$7@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <12h8v3onok1fp47.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com>, Mike wrote:
>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill.TakeThisOut@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message news:g68eu3-udh.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>> Wow - Linux has one user! Stop the presses!
>>>
>>> Two. Razz

>>
>> Still nothing.
>>
>>> Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
>>
>> Linux. Because even though we can't even *give* it away, it's *really*
>> great. Trust us.
>
> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can look at the
> source code to check it for yourself.

You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can download
Vista RC1 and try it out for yourself. Which is certainly easier for most
people than "looking at source code"!

Mike

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.DeleteThis@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
news:slrnehb61i.qi8.aznomad@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:21:10 -0400, Mike <no.DeleteThis@where.man> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <hJSdnV7XYp4__YjYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
>> Linonut <linonut.DeleteThis@bone.com> wrote:
>
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Mike belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>> > "Linonut" <linonut.DeleteThis@bone.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:Go6dnbIGkq8TtonYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> >> I think Mikey is laughing now.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, laughing at the Linux Loonies!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, you're coming across as quite loony yourself.
>
>>Such a devastating comeback from someone who calls himself "Linonut"!
>
> Do you keep such company that you've found excellent results with the
> "no I'm not but you are" comeback?
>
> Most people find that it doesn't work once they're no more than about ten
> years
> old.

Exactly why I was pointing that out to "Linonut".

Thanks for making my point!

Mike

Gregory Shearman · External Since: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 492

Mike wrote:

> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.RemoveThis@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.158617@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>
>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>
> Sure it is. Source?

Everywhere. Even my local newspaper on Saturday had an article in its IT
section about spam and how spammers use 'bots to send spam. These are of
course Windows machines. You cannot install these malware programs on Linux
machines.

But you were just making troll noises, right?

>> There's no end to human stupidity.
>
> Of course there is. The fact that Linux is going nowhere proves that
> there
> is a limit to human stupidity. Very few people are dumb enough to try to
> use it.

I've been using it for more than 10 years... how stupid am I? I don't pay
the windows tax. I don't get hit with viruses... NEVER have been hit with
viruses.... My machines only need rebooting after a kernel update.... such
STUPIDITY!

>
> Mike

--
Regards,

Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cgbRg.14212$b6.159290@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.158617@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>
>>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>>
>> Sure it is. Source?
>
> Everywhere. Even my local newspaper on Saturday had an article in its IT
> section about spam and how spammers use 'bots to send spam.

Your anecdote is not a source.

Mike

Gregory Shearman · External Since: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 492

Mike wrote:

> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:cgbRg.14212$b6.159290@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:IcPQg.13757$b6.158617@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> That's why the internet is weighed down by spamming winbots.
>>>
>>> Sure it is. Source?
>>
>> Everywhere. Even my local newspaper on Saturday had an article in its IT
>> section about spam and how spammers use 'bots to send spam.

Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!

> Your anecdote is not a source.

Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?

--
Regards,

Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.DeleteThis@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:tftRg.14565$b6.159700@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!

No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.

> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?

You telling it here is an anecdote.

Mike

Gregory Shearman · External Since: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 492

Mike wrote:

> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can download
> Vista RC1 and try it out for yourself. Which is certainly easier for most
> people than "looking at source code"!

So, you have to trust Microsoft not to allow your computer to become a
winbot or be infected with viruses. I don't like their track record on the
trust department....

But I'm not you.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ahtRg.14566$b6.159714@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can download
>> Vista RC1 and try it out for yourself. Which is certainly easier for
>> most
>> people than "looking at source code"!
>
> So, you have to trust Microsoft not to allow your computer to become a
> winbot or be infected with viruses. I don't like their track record on the
> trust department....

So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in the
success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed base by
giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the success
department.

But I'm not you.

Mike

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:28:34 -0400, Mike wrote:

>> Everywhere. Even my local newspaper on Saturday had an article in its IT
>> section about spam and how spammers use 'bots to send spam.
>
> Your anecdote is not a source.

Anecdotal evidence is not, in fact, sufficient to warrant a conclusion,
you're correct.

However, since virtually every tech-related news source has been pointing
this out for at least a year, and since at least one botnet has been
cracked, consisting of - by itself, mind you - over 100,000 hijacked
Windows machines, the sheer number of anecdotes is more than sufficient to
count as evidence. Ultimately, one could argue all evidence is anecdotal;
just because one can demonstrate, say, a flaw in Windows itself which
allows the hijackers to do this, that could just be anecdotal, too; it's
only that one copy of that one minor update, right?

Burying one's head in the sand and screaming "is not, is not" is hardly a
refutation of the fact that even the most cursory examination of tech news
will reveal that yes, in fact, Windows _is_ being hijacked, regularly, for
such purposes.

Cope.

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:14:51 -0400, Mike wrote:

>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill DeleteThis @sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:g68eu3-udh.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>> Wow - Linux has one user! Stop the presses!
>>
>> Two. Razz

>
> Still nothing.

"Nothing" would be zero. Let us know when you've completed second-grade
math.

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 08:44:45 -0400, Mike wrote:

>
>
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:tftRg.14565$b6.159700@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>
> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>
>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>
> You telling it here is an anecdote.

He gave the source. Cope. Idiot.

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 08:47:53 -0400, Mike wrote:

> So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in the
> success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed base by
> giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the success
> department.

You know, the sheer scope of the dishonesty of that post is overwhelming.
Let's see...

It assumes only "geeks" - rather than professionals - are involved, which
is simply untrue.

It assumes "1%" without foundation - but treats it as an absolute.

It assumes no financial interest, despite several companies - RedHat, for
example - having a definite financial interest.

It assumes that, on the whole, it is all about financial gains, which
isn't the case, but you bring up the whole financial thing again.

You say you don't like their record in the "success" department, but you
examine one thing which is largely irrelevant, one which is at best
questionable, in order to determine that "success".

In short, you're a troll. Of course, we've known this for some time,
however you've now - for me, at least - crossed the line between simple
ignorance and willful dishonesty.

Bye bye.

Gregory Shearman · External Since: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 492

Mike wrote:

> So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in
> the success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed
> base by
> giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the success
> department.

1) It's not a product. It's an open source operating system.

2) Because of its open source design it is far more secure than most of its
closed source rivals.

>
> But I'm not you.

Obviously. I use an open source operating system. I have done so for over 10
years. In that time I've never had a virus or had to reinstall because of
viral damage.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.RemoveThis@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:PXHRg.14668$b6.160421@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> So, you have to trust a bunch of geeks who have no financial interest in
>> the success of the product, a product which can't get above 1% installed
>> base by
>> giving said product away. I don't like their track record in the
>> success
>> department.
>
> 1) It's not a product.

Because it's not worth anything.

>It's an open source operating system.

Barely.

> 2) Because of its open source design it is far more secure than most of
> its
> closed source rivals.

Sure it is. We won't know for sure until hundreds of millions of users are
using it, will we? But that will never happen, so you have security by
obscurity.

Mike

Gregory Shearman · External Since: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 492

Mike wrote:

> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:tftRg.14565$b6.159700@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>
> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>
>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>
> You telling it here is an anecdote.
>
> Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet

--
Regards,

Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:a0IRg.14669$b6.160356@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:tftRg.14565$b6.159700@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>>
>> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>>
>>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>>
>> You telling it here is an anecdote.
>>
>> Mike
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet

Ah yes, wikipedia, that unbiased bastion of truth and light. So you
couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?

But even if *is* true, it still doesn't matter. As I said before, a couple
hundred thousand infected machines is *nothing* in the universe of Windows
machines. Doesn't affect me in the least. The dumb asses who are
infected deserve what they get from running without any kind of protection.

Mike

Mike

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.TakeThisOut@where.man> wrote:
>
> Sure it is. We won't know for sure until hundreds of millions of users are
> using it, will we? But that will never happen, so you have security by
> obscurity.

You are not using the term 'security by obscurity' correctly. That
refers to security that depends on the mechanism being kept secret
(i.e. closed source software). It more appropriately applies to
Microsoft and other closed source commercial offerings than it does
to Linux.

Here is an article written by Bruce Perens that explains it better
than I can:

http://slashdot.org/features/980720/0819202.shtml

And your assertion that the relatively smaller install base of Linux
somehow makes it a smaller target is also not true. Linux runs a
disproportionately large number of Internet servers, many of them
e-commerce sites, yet it suffers a comparatively small number of
security breaches compared to Windows servers. The lack of a Linux
monoculture certainly helps to reduce the impact of any exploit,
but that alone is not nearly enough to explain it's excellent track
record, especially considering how many tasty looking Linux servers
are out there in colo racks just begging the blacks hats to crack
them.

Just for good measure, here is an article regarding Linux security
and how it compares to Windows:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/35421.html

Cheers,

Thad

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.RemoveThis@where.man> wrote:
>
> Ah yes, wikipedia, that unbiased bastion of truth and light. So you
> couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?
>
> But even if *is* true, it still doesn't matter. As I said before, a couple
> hundred thousand infected machines is *nothing* in the universe of Windows
> machines. Doesn't affect me in the least. The dumb asses who are
> infected deserve what they get from running without any kind of protection.

It may not effect you, but personally I am sick of the constant bandwidth
burn from all those Windows bots trying to deliver spam to the customer
accounts on my colo server. And yes, I've looked at the logs and done
some traceback analysis... almost all of the spam is coming from malware
infected windows machines.

Thank goodness for iptables. At least most of those bots don't make it
much past the first TCP connection request.

Later,

Thad

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo.RemoveThis@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
wrote
on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:44:41 +1200
<ef2e1v$ll6$7@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> In message <12h8v3onok1fp47.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>, Mike wrote:
>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill.RemoveThis@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message news:g68eu3-udh.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>> Wow - Linux has one user! Stop the presses!
>>>
>>> Two. Razz

>>
>> Still nothing.
>>
>>> Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
>>
>> Linux. Because even though we can't even *give* it away, it's *really*
>> great. Trust us.
>
> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can look at the
> source code to check it for yourself.

If one knows how to read it. Smile

Fortunately, that's
a fair bit easier, even for one schooled in English and
math but otherwise not literate in C or C++, than trying
to disassemble machine language.

There are a lot of issues here, though, and suggesting
that one read the source code is a bit on the glib side,
especially since compiler hacks to miscompile that code
have been around since Unix.

Fortunately, the source code for gcc is available as well,
if one knows how to read *it* (byacc is a little obscure
but usable enough for neophytes, and LALR experts can make
it do all sorts of things Smile

).

--
#191, ewill3.RemoveThis@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill.TakeThisOut@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tnalu3-o6c.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo.TakeThisOut@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
> wrote
> on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:44:41 +1200
> <ef2e1v$ll6$7@lust.ihug.co.nz>:

>> You don't have to trust us, or anybody else. Because you can look at the
>> source code to check it for yourself.
>
> If one knows how to read it. Smile

Fortunately, that's
> a fair bit easier, even for one schooled in English and
> math but otherwise not literate in C or C++, than trying
> to disassemble machine language.
>
> There are a lot of issues here, though, and suggesting
> that one read the source code is a bit on the glib side,
> especially since compiler hacks to miscompile that code
> have been around since Unix.
>
> Fortunately, the source code for gcc is available as well,
> if one knows how to read *it* (byacc is a little obscure
> but usable enough for neophytes, and LALR experts can make
> it do all sorts of things Smile

).

When presented with source code and a binary, you can't ever be 100%
sure that the source code presented is the one used to create that binary.
Of course, you could just discard the binary and recompile yourself to be
sure that the source code and the binaries match.

But what do you do if the binary you're trying to verify is the compiler
itself?

- Oliver

(OS) The thing I *hate* most about Microsoft Windows.

(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.