XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of us

[Charles Schuler]

"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:115tutlm9i7b4bd@corp.supernews.com...

Charles Schuler wrote:

And when Linux becomes as popular, the virus writers will go after that OS
and bring it to it's knees. Damned unfortunate that some folks can't
understand that the biggest kid is the target.

Actually, the kid who has the most servers is the target. Taking down
some grandma isn't nearly as appealing as taking down eBay, Amazon.com,
or Google.

Yes, that is true. Are they all running Windows?

 

In <APGdnYsHLqOfasPfRVn-rA@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 07:04 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

I ain't flaming you, but I think you need to see how viruses work before
you can declare every OS to be vulnerable to hackers. Its one thing to
break into a computer, its another to be able to take it over. Can't do
that with a MAC, linux, OS/2, or actually, any other OS. Just windows.

You have made an unequivocal statement and you are dead wrong. There is
nothing special about Windows, other than its popularity. Cell phones
are vulnerable. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Charles, I disagree. You don't seem to have the understanding of the
subsystem in windows, and how it is exploited by hackers.

If what I say is wrong, how come such a large majority of viruses can only
propagate via Outlook. Using any other mail reader stops those viruses
dead in their tracks.

Using Mozilla will basically eliminate spyware. Those apps take advantage
of flaws and weaknesses inherent only in Microsoft products.

These steps cannot be duplicated on a *nix or OS/2 based system.

I am sorry we disagree, and I know we will never reach a common ground,
but your declaring me to be dead wrong without any factual data to back
you up is rather weak.

The topic here is computer OS's, not crappy java based cell phones. Facts
would help you position, rather than tossing out unrelated scenarios.

JB

 

In <dL2dncA5ONNNZMPfRVn-tA@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 07:16 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425ef676$4$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...
In <CYydnbzCqt78bsPfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 06:49 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:



Micro$oft's part
was finding immoral and illegal methodologies to merchandise it.

Huh? You make very little sense!

They stole, blackmailed, and used extortion to obtain an illegal monopoly.
Weren't you paying attention during the trail? Ignorance is no excuse.

Yes, and I'd guess that I paid more attention than many. You sound like
a lawyer sitting on one side of a complex issue and who has a major
network microphone and camera stuck in his face and who is making big
money by distorting facts.

Charles, its now up to you to show me which facts I have distorted. Is it
the one where M$ was found guilty? Is it the one where we learned that
bill blackmailed IBM into bailing on the only OS that could have ever
threatened his empire? Come on, you are not backing up your position, you
are only declaring it.

JB

 

[TCS]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:53:03 -0600, learning@learning.com <learning@learning.com> wrote:

In <KOedneLLgbjmf8PfRVn-vQ@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 05:36 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said: >Bill
Gates is just a human being. His big mistake was in becoming too
successful. America (don't know about other cultures) applauds a little
success but boos too much of it.

It was the illegal and unethical methods he used to become successful that
seem to strike the nerve in a lot of people. I don't begrudge people
success, but he broke the law in a major way, and by the time anyone moved
to stop him, the damage was done.

Kudos for being a smart criminal, but not for being a good man with a
quality product.

And when Linux becomes as popular, the virus writers will go after that
OS and bring it to it's knees. Damned unfortunate that some folks can't
understand that the biggest kid is the target.

No. Linux cannot be "taken over" by a virus and used to propagate itself
across a network. It can be infected, but it will not give control to a
virus. Damn shame some folks just dont' understand that without the
ability to move the virus across the network, its pretty much dead in the
water.

More than that, microsoft users nearly universally run as administrators.
No sane linux users does all work as root. When running as
root/administrator, all security checks are disabled and something
as mondane as the browser can destroy the system.

This is 60's technology; someday windows users will discover it.

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425ef3d5$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

Currently the biggest source of frustration comes from things like
viruses,
worms, adware, spam, etc. These aren't exactly Microsoft's fault. The
problem is caused by degenerate elements
of
society that have obtained excessively high levels of technological
sophistication.

It does not take a Harvard Graduate to create and propagate a virus. Its
really rather easy, so don't be giving kudos to hackers who are still in
high school.

Oh I wasn't giving them kudos. I called them degenerate elements of
society. There is however a difference between these people and your run of
the mill criminals guilty of things like armed robbery of convenience
stores. Convenience store robbers typically have IQs deep in the moron
category and are unable to master technology much more sophisticated to use
than a gun. These hackers are potentially more dangerous in the sense that
they have mastery of everyday realatively high technology products and
usually have IQs noticeable above 100. Generally speaking hackers are more
likely to be crafty and adaptable, unlike your ordinary thug.

It is okay to say its not M$'s fault. Their goal has never been security,
or virus free computers. On the other hand, if we bought cars that didn't
have windshields, and our faces were pockmarked from all the rocks flying
about at 75MPH, we may blame the rocks, but we turn to the car maker to
fix the obvious problem and protect our faces. The car makers don't wait
till a lot of people get their heads smashed before seeing and fixing the
problem.

There is an important difference between your analogy and the situation with
MS products. Rocks aren't people, and they aren't adaptable. If auto
makers realize the problem and try to thwart the rocks' efforts by placing
winshields in vehicles, the rocks don't adapt to work around the barrier.
They don't increase their density and kinetic energy to puncture the glass.

Hackers on the other hand are people, and are quite adaptable. You can fix
old problems previously identified, but being adaptable people hackers can
find new ways to wreak havoc. A more accurate anology would be a patient
who has become infected with an incurable disease and blames doctors for not
fixing the problem. The doctor isn't to blame, nor is the pharmacutical
industry to blame. Neither of them created the problem, and both are in
fact working towards finding a solution. The problem is humanity doesn't
know everything there is to know about germs and they are crafty and
adaptable just like humans are. In the absence of technology that
fundamentally alters the dynamics of the situation, the germs will remain
one step ahead of those working to combat them.

It is within their power to fix 90% (I made that number up) of the
problems by simply configuring it out of the box to close many of the
holes that are not design flaws, but designs on purpose.

Well I do agree that Microsoft probably could make less vulnerable products
out of the box if they spent more time and effort during the design
considering every possible vulnerability. Indeed they should probably do
this. I wouldn't suggest going so far in this effort that it paralyzes new
product development and the furtherment of human technology however. Don't
get me wrong, Microsoft isn't perfect, and they do have room to improve. On
the other hand, they aren't just a bunch of evil villians deliberately
making products designed to frustrate people's existances.

 

[Charles Schuler]

I am sorry we disagree, and I know we will never reach a common ground,
but your declaring me to be dead wrong without any factual data to back
you up is rather weak.

Now we do agree (to disagree). Weak? Don't think so at all. Unequivocal
statements often hang their issuers out there to twist in the wind ... you
should carefully reconsider what you wrote. Your position is backed up what
factual data?

 

In <d3mvq4$nej$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, on 04/14/05
at 04:56 PM, "Fritz Schlunder" <me@privacy.net> said:

learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425ef3d5$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...
Currently the biggest source of frustration comes from things like
viruses,
worms, adware, spam, etc. These aren't exactly Microsoft's fault. The
problem is caused by degenerate elements
of
society that have obtained excessively high levels of technological
sophistication.

It does not take a Harvard Graduate to create and propagate a virus. Its
really rather easy, so don't be giving kudos to hackers who are still in
high school.

Oh I wasn't giving them kudos. I called them degenerate elements of
society.

Well, I was referring more to the technological pedastal you put them on,
as if it requires any genius to write a virus. BTDT, its not a big thing.

It is okay to say its not M$'s fault. Their goal has never been security,
or virus free computers. On the other hand, if we bought cars that didn't
have windshields, and our faces were pockmarked from all the rocks flying
about at 75MPH, we may blame the rocks, but we turn to the car maker to
fix the obvious problem and protect our faces. The car makers don't wait
till a lot of people get their heads smashed before seeing and fixing the
problem.

There is an important difference between your analogy and the situation
with MS products.

Yes, and you didn't get it I pointed out that the way we react to
those flaws in every other element of society is to cause the manufacturer
to deal with it, directly, efficiently, and quickly. When viruses spread
across the planet, shutting down businesses, and potentially harming
people who depend on the computer to run trains, planes, safety systems
etc, the only people getting blamed are the hackers, while the M$ lackies
are out in force telling everyone that M$ is doing all they can to avert
the problems, when that is just not the truth at all.

and they are crafty and adaptable just like humans are. In the absence
of technology that fundamentally alters the dynamics of the situation,
the germs will remain one step ahead of those working to combat them.

If a germ is propagated only by anal sex, and you stop having anal sex,
you don't have a virus anymore. Germs cannot adapt to deal with measures
known to stop the spread of the disease. Germs might stay one step ahead,
but humans can control the method used to spread those germs.

Well I do agree that Microsoft probably could make less vulnerable
products out of the box if they spent more time and effort during the
design considering every possible vulnerability.

This is where we don't see eye to eye I am in agreement that any OS
can be compromised by a concerted effort, but M$ can either eliminate self
opening emails, and forbide applications from taking over the OS, or they
can just keep letting hackers have the keys, the wheel, and a full tank
of gas.

My position is not to that we need to constrict the OS so that absolutely
nothing can go wrong. That is not possible. What is possible is to get rid
of some of the 'features' that are so obviously responsible for
practically all the virus/spyware issues we are seeing. They will never
all go away. Linux and OS/2 can be infected. I agreed with that, but those
systems purposely restrict what a wayward or unwelcome app can do, and M$
ought to do the same thing in the name of security and safety, for the
benefit of their customers.

Indeed they should
probably do this. I wouldn't suggest going so far in this effort that it
paralyzes new product development and the furtherment of human technology
however.

What new product development? XP? There is nothing new there. M$'s new
product development consists of buying out competitors and killing their
products. I am in favor of new technology, but I search in vain for an
example of it coming out of Redmond. How about IE? That puppy hasn't been
updated for like three or four years. New technology? If there was any,
people would get excited, use it, and maybe not be so quick to jump on
M$'s refusal to deal with the problems. They had a chance when they
ditched the Win9* architecture, but no, we just got the same old problems
in a new environment.

Having been around and worked on the early development of microprocessors
and the PC, I had high hopes. M$ wrecked those hopes, in the name of $$$,
when they could have had both.

Don't get me wrong, Microsoft isn't perfect, and they do have
room to improve. On the other hand, they aren't just a bunch of evil
villians deliberately making products designed to frustrate people's
existances.

I see a lot of "I love Microsoft" in that statement <g> You are entitled
to that mindset, as much as I am gonna stay on the "I think they suck"
bandwagon.

The world of computing would be a much better place if there was
competition, and a level playing field. M$ is keeing things down, and not
preventing progress in the computer world. without competitors to show
customers that they can have secure computers and great features, there is
no way the masses will ever see what it is that they are missing. How much
money does one company really need?

Thanks,

JB

 

In <TZGdnT2zV7SUm8LfRVn-ow@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 08:08 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

I am sorry we disagree, and I know we will never reach a common ground,
but your declaring me to be dead wrong without any factual data to back
you up is rather weak.

Now we do agree (to disagree). Weak? Don't think so at all.

All you said was that I was "dead wrong" Hardly a position to defend
yourself by.

Unequivocal statements often hang their issuers out there to twist in
the wind ... you should carefully reconsider what you wrote.

I did, and I stand by what I said.

Your
position is backed up what factual data?

By the fact that other operating systems cannot progagate viruses. By the
fact that even I have managed to write viruses that took over M$
computers. By the fact that M$ stole their way to the top, and was found
guilty of illegal activities that guaranteed their monopoly, by the facts
that people who take the time to understand and investigage agree that
microsoft software is inherently flawed and wide open to attacks which we
have seen over and over again.

Those who do not agree that the software is flawed, only say it because
they are parroting PC magazine and are not aware of the structure of the
operating system, and how it invites viruses As I said in another post,
the mere fact that I can make a windows PC safe from nearly all the common
viruses and spyware by changing a few settings, and simply not using two
major M$ applications pretty well defends my position.

I wrote what is true, and I wrote to explain my position. You just wrote
"you are dead wrong" Even if you don't like what I said, its still gotta
count for more than just "you are dead wrong"

JB

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425efeaa$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

You have made an unequivocal statement and you are dead wrong. There is
nothing special about Windows, other than its popularity. Cell phones
are vulnerable. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Charles, I disagree. You don't seem to have the understanding of the
subsystem in windows, and how it is exploited by hackers.

Root kits and other hacking tools exist for non MS based products as well.
Once you have obtained root access, you are in and free to cause whatever
havoc you want. Linux based viruses have been demonstrated before (usually
made by non-malicious people simply trying to prove or disprove that Linux
is fundamentally immune). Linux is clearly not fully immune. It may (or
may not be) more or less vunlnerable than MS products. Linux is not
typically the target of hackers, most likely because it hasn't become
socially acceptable and cool to make malicious Linux products.

If what I say is wrong, how come such a large majority of viruses can only
propagate via Outlook. Using any other mail reader stops those viruses
dead in their tracks.

Because these products were designed to exploit Outlook and not other
products. A virus that nature designed to infect certain species of
reptiles typically will not infect humans. That isn't to say that viruses
designed to effect humans can't/don't exist.

Using Mozilla will basically eliminate spyware. Those apps take advantage
of flaws and weaknesses inherent only in Microsoft products.

True, but that isn't proof that Mozilla doesn't have its own inherent flaws
and weaknesses that could be exploited. Whoever is top dawg is most likely
to be targetted.

 

In <d3n0ro$oo0$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, on 04/14/05
at 05:14 PM, "Fritz Schlunder" <me@privacy.net> said:

learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425efeaa$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

Root kits and other hacking tools exist for non MS based products as
well.

I never said they were not. I see now that it is pointless to continue
until what I write is actually read.

Linux is clearly not fully
immune. It may (or may not be) more or less vunlnerable than MS
products.

It is. I never said it was immune. Never.

Linux is not typically the target of hackers, most likely
because it hasn't become socially acceptable and cool to make malicious
Linux products.

And because it is too damned difficult to get around it, but that fact
makes no difference, does it?

Because these products were designed to exploit Outlook and not other
products. A virus that nature designed to infect certain species of
reptiles typically will not infect humans. That isn't to say that
viruses designed to effect humans can't/don't exist.

A new paragraph straight out of the I Luv M$ handbook.....

Using Mozilla will basically eliminate spyware. Those apps take advantage
of flaws and weaknesses inherent only in Microsoft products.

True, but that isn't proof that Mozilla doesn't have its own inherent
flaws and weaknesses that could be exploited. Whoever is top dawg is
most likely to be targetted.

Keep ignoring the conversation and the points being made. I am sure you
will be getting a big check from M$ for this thread.....

There is a very big difference between writing software, and having
someone find a flaw, and fixing it, compared to writing it, knowing it is
flawed, and just not caring to deal with the problem because the customer
has no options. Until people see that, I guess there is not much point in
all of this.

JB

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:115tucdqu3a8q6b@corp.supernews.com...

You are being too obvious. They don't pay you to just lurch into
a subject change is order to hit every talking point in the current
Microsoft FUD checklist. You are supppsed to make it seem as if the
taling points came up naturally in the course of the conversation.

This will *not* look good on your performance review!

Ah crap! Hadn't though of that!

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425f0651$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

and they are crafty and adaptable just like humans are. In the absence
of technology that fundamentally alters the dynamics of the situation,
the germs will remain one step ahead of those working to combat them.

If a germ is propagated only by anal sex, and you stop having anal sex,
you don't have a virus anymore. Germs cannot adapt to deal with measures
known to stop the spread of the disease. Germs might stay one step ahead,
but humans can control the method used to spread those germs.

Okay getting a little too graphic for my fragile mind, but...

While you may be able to stop that particular virus, nature is adaptable and
given enough time will concoct a new disease that exploits some other
weakness instead.

Don't get me wrong, Microsoft isn't perfect, and they do have
room to improve. On the other hand, they aren't just a bunch of evil
villians deliberately making products designed to frustrate people's
existances.

I see a lot of "I love Microsoft" in that statement <g> You are entitled
to that mindset, as much as I am gonna stay on the "I think they suck"
bandwagon.

Well I don't love Microsoft, but I don't hate them either. They are just a
company just like any other that makes decisions that it believes to be the
best given the circumstances. If I had been in Bill Gates' shoes from the
beginning, I can't guarantee I would have/nor currently make different
decisions. As powerful as Bill Gates is he isn't all powerful. Similarly
as powerful as the president of the USA is, he isn't all powerful either
(which is to say not all problems in the world can be blamed on the US
president). The solution to some types of problems requires more power than
even the most powerful person in the world. That isn't to say that people
in power couldn't make changes that would help fix the problems that do
exist. And that isn't to say that people in power don't abuse their
positions by not acting when they should act.

 

Okay,


On behalf of the good folks in this group who have helped me with actual
electronics issues, and are no doubt weary of this crap, I am walking away
from this M$ crap.

Don't care what anyone reads into it, all it comes down to is the same
shit, different year. Heard it all before, and having stated my opinions,
there is nothing more to be gained by wasting anymore time on it. I'll
read other's perspectives, so don't go thinking I am just ducking people's
opinions, but there is nothing new here, and nothing more for me to say
on the subject.

Thanks for sharing.

JB

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425f0a49$3$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

In <d3n0ro$oo0$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, on 04/14/05

Linux is not typically the target of hackers, most likely
because it hasn't become socially acceptable and cool to make malicious
Linux products.

And because it is too damned difficult to get around it, but that fact
makes no difference, does it?

Well that is the thing, it isn't really a fact. It is an assumption. It
may be a correct assumption, or it could be false. If it is a valid
assumption it can never fully be proved to be valid (although certainly
evidence can help support that idea). On the other hand if it is an invalid
assumption it could some day be proved invalid (ex: lots of people did start
hacking Linux).

Keep ignoring the conversation and the points being made. I am sure you
will be getting a big check from M$ for this thread.....

Hmmm... You aren't the first person to claim Microsoft is paying me. I
wonder why? Maybe because it is perceived by many to be socially "uncool"
to work for Microsoft. Ironically this very statement helps demonstrate one
of Bill Gates' points.

 

[TCS]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:04:30 -0400, Charles Schuler <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

I ain't flaming you, but I think you need to see how viruses work before
you can declare every OS to be vulnerable to hackers. Its one thing to
break into a computer, its another to be able to take it over. Can't do
that with a MAC, linux, OS/2, or actually, any other OS. Just windows.

You have made an unequivocal statement and you are dead wrong. There is
nothing special about Windows, other than its popularity. Cell phones are
vulnerable. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Actually, you're the one who is dead wrong. Windows is different due to the
way it is used: as an administrator with all protections turned off. Any
process, including the browser, can write to any part of the system at any
time.

A linux user can't catch a virus from a file because the linux hasn't
the ability to modify system files in order for the virus to propagate.
The linux user in the web browser can't install spyware that intercepts
network activity.

As a windows user, you just don't know any better.

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425f121c$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

Okay,


On behalf of the good folks in this group who have helped me with actual
electronics issues, and are no doubt weary of this crap, I am walking away
from this M$ crap.

Don't care what anyone reads into it, all it comes down to is the same
shit, different year. Heard it all before, and having stated my opinions,
there is nothing more to be gained by wasting anymore time on it. I'll
read other's perspectives, so don't go thinking I am just ducking people's
opinions, but there is nothing new here, and nothing more for me to say
on the subject.

Awww sweet! You're forfeiting? That means I win. Wahoo! Time to do a
victory dance.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:6lbt515ebmu3bkio1c8qhjhd9rl7fqol4p@4ax.com...

That's correct. To Microsoft, neither bugs nor users are significant.

John

To Microsoft, users *are* bugs.

Ken

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:TPmdnf7NN5LXQsPfRVn-hg@comcast.com...

"Fritz Schlunder" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:d3ml9h$ama$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
I know in the past Microsoft has released
security bulletins which detail the possible security loopholes alongside
with the fixes.

They're in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" scenario here. If
they just tell you, "Hey, here's a new patch that increases security, but
we're not going to tell you exactly what it fixes," people will accuse
them of installing spyware or something equally bad.


But that's because of previous bad behavior by Microsoft. They're damned if

they do and damned if they don't, because they did.

Ken

 

[TCS]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:04:30 -0400, Charles Schuler <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

I ain't flaming you, but I think you need to see how viruses work before
you can declare every OS to be vulnerable to hackers. Its one thing to
break into a computer, its another to be able to take it over. Can't do
that with a MAC, linux, OS/2, or actually, any other OS. Just windows.

You have made an unequivocal statement and you are dead wrong. There is
nothing special about Windows, other than its popularity.
and the fact that any process can write to any part of the system at any

time.

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <D1F7e.18910$1S4.1879022@news.xtra.co.nz>, ken123@xtra.co.nz
says...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:6lbt515ebmu3bkio1c8qhjhd9rl7fqol4p@4ax.com...


That's correct. To Microsoft, neither bugs nor users are significant.

John



To Microsoft, users *are* bugs.

What kind of bug are you? ;-)

Outhouse Excess, no less! :-(

--
Keith