Pay for MS anti-malware service!



Mark
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML

Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken flawed OS.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
Mark wrote:
> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>
> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
> flawed OS.

LOL! You must be a communist!

MS is in business to make money for its shareholders, not to make the
best OS it can for the sake of its customers!

If anything, it better for shareholder the more flawed MS can make its
OS and still get people to buy it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mark
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
I'm not a communist, just a person that thinks that a company should fix its product rather than sell a product to compensate for its flaws.

Since MS cannot make a products that are not riddled with flaws and security holes, what make you think MS can protect its own software? If it can protect its own software products, then they have the knowledge of programmers to make their products better.

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message news:egvFqfMWFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Mark wrote:
> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>
> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
> flawed OS.

LOL! You must be a communist!

MS is in business to make money for its shareholders, not to make the
best OS it can for the sake of its customers!

If anything, it better for shareholder the more flawed MS can make its
OS and still get people to buy it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system,
>maybe these anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>
>Windows users have already paid their dues/fees,
>they bought a broken flawed OS.



Actually the service is there for users who do not want to bother with
running there own anti spyware and anti virus products and backup products
and keeping them maintained and learning what they are and actually do etc.

The fact that some user goes to a site which fires a popup offering them
something "attractive to them" which they then click on and it runs a piece
of code which actually installs a trojan has nothing to do with the
operating system.

from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/onecare/default.mspx
Are you tired of spending time trying to protect and maintain your computer?
Are you worried that you're still not doing everything you should to keep it
safe and running at optimal performance? If your answer is "Yes," then
Windows OneCareT is for you. Windows OneCare is built specifically for
people who don't have the time or technical expertise necessary to secure
and manage a computer on a daily basis.

Windows OneCare helps protect and maintain your computer with an integrated
service that includes antivirus, firewall, PC maintenance, and data backup
and restore functionality.
- again al things a user could do for themselves IF they were interested in
spending the time and learning all about the products etc - but a huge
number do not have this time or interest hence our forthcoming OneCare
service.

Virus and Spyware have very little to do with the operating system in the
sense of flaws in it.

see also
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/may05/05-13WindowsOneCarePR.asp
for more real information on the service so that you can understand what we
are trying to do and offer to end users to help them protect themselves.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML

Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken flawed
OS.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
Mark wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:egvFqfMWFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Mark wrote:
>>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>>>
>>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>>
>>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a
>>> broken
>>> flawed OS.
>
>> LOL! You must be a communist!
>>
>> MS is in business to make money for its shareholders, not to make
>> the
>> best OS it can for the sake of its customers!
>>
>> If anything, it better for shareholder the more flawed MS can make
>> its
>> OS and still get people to buy it.
>
> I'm not a communist, just a person that thinks that a company should
> fix its product rather than sell a product to compensate for its
> flaws.
>
> Since MS cannot make a products that are not riddled with flaws and
> security holes, what make you think MS can protect its own software?

What makes you think I think that MS can protect its own software?

> If it can protect its own software products, then they have the
> knowledge of programmers to make their products better.

LOL! Obviously you got hung up on the joke of being a communist, and
didn't read or at least comprehend the rest of my post.

MS needs to sell software as flawed as possible to convince people to
keep buying every upgrade. And eventually they'll need to practically
give away their OS to compete with Linux, so they are trying to switch
over to a subscription service business model to keep the revenue
streaming in, once they have to really start competing with Linux.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system,
>> maybe these anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>
>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees,
>> they bought a broken flawed OS.
>
> Actually the service is there for users who do not want to bother with
> running there own anti spyware and anti virus products and backup
> products and keeping them maintained and learning what they are and
> actually do etc.

Ignornant? Stupid? Or just plain LAZY? Sign up for a NoOne Cares
Subscription!

>
> The fact that some user goes to a site which fires a popup offering
> them something "attractive to them" which they then click on and it
> runs a piece of code which actually installs a trojan has nothing to
> do with the operating system.

LOL! Are you saying that the SP2 popup blocker doesn't work?

>
> from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/onecare/default.mspx
> Are you tired of spending time trying to protect and maintain your
> computer?

No, I'm tired having to cover the hole in your patchwork quilt of an OS!

> Are you worried that you're still not doing everything you
> should to keep it safe and running at optimal performance?

No, I'd be much more worried relying on MS to cover my ass, when it
can't cover it's OS's ass right out of the box! And why isn't the OS
set for optimal performance to begin with?

Sound pretty fishy to me.

> If your
> answer is "Yes," then Windows OneCareT is for you.

Only the Ignorant, Stupid, or the just plain Lazy would answer yes!

> Windows OneCare is
> built specifically for people who don't have the time or technical
> expertise necessary to secure and manage a computer on a daily basis.

In other words, for Morons and Suckers!

> Windows OneCare helps protect and maintain your computer with an
> integrated service that includes antivirus, firewall, PC maintenance,
> and data backup and restore functionality.

And how much system overhead will it be eating up in the process of
doing all that?

> - again al things a user could do for themselves IF they were
> interested in spending the time and learning all about the products
> etc - but a huge number do not have this time or interest hence our
> forthcoming OneCare service.

Morons and Suckers!

> Virus and Spyware have very little to do with the operating system in
> the sense of flaws in it.

LOL! Except many are written to exploit the flaws in the OS. We are
not all Morons and Suckers, so please take you BS elsewhere!

I really can't believe you had the balls to say something so obviously
untrue!

>
> see also
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/may05/05-13WindowsOneCarePR.asp
> for more real information on the service so that you can understand
> what we are trying to do and offer to end users to help them protect
> themselves.

A subscription service to create a new revenue stream out of all them
Morons and Suckers out there!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mark
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
Microsoft's Windows OneCare subscription service seems like a service that should already be in the OS. Microsoft needs to make an OS that has far less maintenance and flaws where using Windows is not such a chore or scarcity. I have been providing Windows support, including the old days of DOS, from novice to technical users. Over all of these years one common element of use always sounds: Windows is a high maintenance OS. Malware certainly does not help and paying for such anti-malware service makes it worse. Buy an overpriced OS with numerous security flaws, crashes, problems, etc. and now the company that allows these malicious software to run wants us to pay for a service to hopefully stop or prevent them.

Security software, to me and in general, is not that secure. Security software such as anti-virus programs and firewalls do not protect Windows from harm until those programs gets updated. If those program do not get updated or the updates are flawed, security software is not much use.

No matter how Microsoft or other vendors try to automate something in Windows, there is always a flaw or security issue somewhere.

One difference I found between Windows and Mac OS X, security issues on Mac OS X are not severe and do not propagate over the Internet. I know that all OSes have flaws, but Microsoft security issues are ridiculously out of control. If Windows had a security flaw that remained on that one computer and it would not affect hundreds or thousands others computers, then Windows would not be so bad.

Out of my 20+ years of computing and remember Microsoft started as a company, it has brought computing from good to worse including making it complicated and perplexing.

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:Oqa$oiMWFHA.3976@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system,
>maybe these anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>
>Windows users have already paid their dues/fees,
>they bought a broken flawed OS.



Actually the service is there for users who do not want to bother with
running there own anti spyware and anti virus products and backup products
and keeping them maintained and learning what they are and actually do etc.

The fact that some user goes to a site which fires a popup offering them
something "attractive to them" which they then click on and it runs a piece
of code which actually installs a trojan has nothing to do with the
operating system.

from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/onecare/default.mspx
Are you tired of spending time trying to protect and maintain your computer?
Are you worried that you're still not doing everything you should to keep it
safe and running at optimal performance? If your answer is "Yes," then
Windows OneCareT is for you. Windows OneCare is built specifically for
people who don't have the time or technical expertise necessary to secure
and manage a computer on a daily basis.

Windows OneCare helps protect and maintain your computer with an integrated
service that includes antivirus, firewall, PC maintenance, and data backup
and restore functionality.
- again al things a user could do for themselves IF they were interested in
spending the time and learning all about the products etc - but a huge
number do not have this time or interest hence our forthcoming OneCare
service.

Virus and Spyware have very little to do with the operating system in the
sense of flaws in it.

see also
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/may05/05-13WindowsOneCarePR..asp
for more real information on the service so that you can understand what we
are trying to do and offer to end users to help them protect themselves.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML

Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken flawed
OS.

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>
> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
> flawed OS.

LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws. If you
are worried about security you should set your newsreader not to use HTML.

Kerry

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:27 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>
>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>> flawed OS.
>
> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.
> If you are worried about security you should set your newsreader not
> to use HTML.

I guess he'll need a NoOne Cares subscription to do it for him!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Richard Urban
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
You certainly live in a dream world!

The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced, sex
starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating! They use their
time to write the exploits that everyone has to protect against!

Wake up man!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken flawed
OS.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
Richard Urban wrote:
> You certainly live in a dream world!
>
> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced,
> sex starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating!
> They use their time to write the exploits that everyone has to
> protect against!
> Wake up man!

You too! "They use their time to write the exploits"

What do they exploit?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mark
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
OE6 defaults to HTML. I changed it to plain text, but it keeps defaulting back to HTML. So I just live with it. I have no problems with the HMTL editor, so I let it be.


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message news:eR2w$gNWFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>
>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>> flawed OS.
>
> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.
> If you are worried about security you should set your newsreader not
> to use HTML.

I guess he'll need a NoOne Cares subscription to do it for him!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Gene K
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
ALL software is crackable by anyone with determination, programming skills,
plus the time and will power. They are now working away on Firefox. In my
opinion, no one could afford to buy a "perfect" operating system. Frankly, I
doubt there is such a thing as any "perfect" software of any type.
Gene K
"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee5qdhMWFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I'm not a communist, just a person that thinks that a company should fix its
product rather than sell a product to compensate for its flaws.

Since MS cannot make a products that are not riddled with flaws and security
holes, what make you think MS can protect its own software? If it can
protect its own software products, then they have the knowledge of
programmers to make their products better.

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:egvFqfMWFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Mark wrote:
> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>
> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
> flawed OS.

LOL! You must be a communist!

MS is in business to make money for its shareholders, not to make the
best OS it can for the sake of its customers!

If anything, it better for shareholder the more flawed MS can make its
OS and still get people to buy it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OOj89gOWFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You certainly live in a dream world!
>
> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced, sex
> starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating! They use
> their time to write the exploits that everyone has to protect against!
>
> Wake up man!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>

Hate to tell you but a lot of the current malware is written with criminal
intent. They use compromised computers for everything from spam relays, ad
servers, identity theft, to denial of service extortion attempts. I had one
customer who's computer was being used as a porn ftp server without his
knowledge. It was done with a root kit and was very difficult to figure out
what was happening. It's getting much harder to remove it because it is
written for monetray gains rather than bragging rights. I think some of the
malware programmers know windows better than Microsoft.

Kerry

>
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
> flawed OS.
>

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
Sending in HTML implies reading in HTML. If you are worried about security then reading usenet posts with HTML enabled is not too smart. There are a lot of other newsreaders available.

You didn't answer the other question. Please tell me which OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.

Kerry
HTML enabled temporarily

"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eDQH5xOWFHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
OE6 defaults to HTML. I changed it to plain text, but it keeps defaulting back to HTML. So I just live with it. I have no problems with the HMTL editor, so I let it be.


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message news:eR2w$gNWFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>
>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>> flawed OS.
>
> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.
> If you are worried about security you should set your newsreader not
> to use HTML.

I guess he'll need a NoOne Cares subscription to do it for him!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
Gene K wrote:
> ALL software is crackable by anyone with determination, programming
> skills, plus the time and will power. They are now working away on
> Firefox. In my opinion, no one could afford to buy a "perfect"
> operating system. Frankly, I doubt there is such a thing as any
> "perfect" software of any type.

Is the Mozilla trying to sell you a subscription to help you protect its
browser?

Does it take the folks at Mozilla over 6 months to patch their holes,
like MS has taken to patch some of theirs?

Did Mozilla already get a lot money out of you for its software product?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Richard Urban
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
And what about the teen who was arrested this week where, in the
Netherlands?

Of course there are others!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:%23yg%23gfPWFHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OOj89gOWFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>
>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced, sex
>> starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating! They use
>> their time to write the exploits that everyone has to protect against!
>>
>> Wake up man!
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>>
>> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>
>> If you knew as much as you think you know,
>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>
>
> Hate to tell you but a lot of the current malware is written with criminal
> intent. They use compromised computers for everything from spam relays, ad
> servers, identity theft, to denial of service extortion attempts. I had
> one customer who's computer was being used as a porn ftp server without
> his knowledge. It was done with a root kit and was very difficult to
> figure out what was happening. It's getting much harder to remove it
> because it is written for monetray gains rather than bragging rights. I
> think some of the malware programmers know windows better than Microsoft.
>
> Kerry
>
>>
>> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>> flawed OS.
>>
>
>

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm not a communist, just a person that thinks that a company should fix its product rather than sell a product to compensate for its flaws.


Please name one computer operating system that was ever produced that
was 100% free of errors and defects.

Please also include the price per copy for that operating system.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Microsoft's Windows OneCare subscription service seems like a service that should already be in the OS.

And then watch the anti-trust and monopoly lawsuits start. Every
antivirus and antispyware company in the world would be out for blood.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not a communist, just a person that thinks that a company should
>> fix its product rather than sell a product to compensate for its
>> flaws.
>
>
> Please name one computer operating system that was ever produced that
> was 100% free of errors and defects.
>
> Please also include the price per copy for that operating system.


Please tell us where Mark said that an OS should be 100% free of errors
and defects.

I love how you have to distort what he said to twist things away from
the fact that MS is selling a subscription to cover all the holes in
MS's OS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft's Windows OneCare subscription service seems like a
>> service that should already be in the OS.
>
> And then watch the anti-trust and monopoly lawsuits start. Every
> antivirus and antispyware company in the world would be out for blood.


I thought MS has already promised MASW free to all Windows Users?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:

>Ron Martell wrote:
>> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft's Windows OneCare subscription service seems like a
>>> service that should already be in the OS.
>>
>> And then watch the anti-trust and monopoly lawsuits start. Every
>> antivirus and antispyware company in the world would be out for blood.
>
>
>I thought MS has already promised MASW free to all Windows Users?

And so long as it remains classed as a beta product the legal beagles
are being held in check. Beta software is traditionally provided
free.

But if and when the actual release version is provided free then the
fecal matter will impact the impeller. Legal precedents have already
been set, at least in Europe, with Media Player.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> Ron Martell wrote:
>>> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Microsoft's Windows OneCare subscription service seems like a
>>>> service that should already be in the OS.
>>>
>>> And then watch the anti-trust and monopoly lawsuits start. Every
>>> antivirus and antispyware company in the world would be out for
>>> blood.
>>
>>
>> I thought MS has already promised MASW free to all Windows Users?
>
> And so long as it remains classed as a beta product the legal beagles
> are being held in check. Beta software is traditionally provided
> free.
>
> But if and when the actual release version is provided free then the
> fecal matter will impact the impeller. Legal precedents have already
> been set, at least in Europe, with Media Player.

"Antispyware. Longhorn will include antispyware technology but not
antivirus technology, Allchin says." -
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/46080/46080.html

They should get busy now and get a injunction barring released until the
issue is settle, instead of waiting.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

GO
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:uTcVUdNWFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
> > anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
> >
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=200
5-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
> >
> > Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
> > flawed OS.
>
> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws. If you
> are worried about security you should set your newsreader not to use HTML.
>
> Kerry
>

Any large piece of software (such as an OS) is bound to have bugs and
security issues. But where the problem lies now is that MS is starting to
offer services (and will no doubt start charging people) to mask these
problems rather than fix them.

And yes, other systems have security flaws but when have you heard of any
other major exploits wreaking havoc on these systems? You may say that
these other systems just don't have the same market share as MS but consider
the Apache web server. AFAIK there are many more Apache servers on the web
compared to IIS. When have you heard of any Apache exploits crippling
entire networks?

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ow1KOtPWFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> And what about the teen who was arrested this week where, in the
> Netherlands?
>
> Of course there are others!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>

The only ones that get caught are the script kids. Their stuff is usually
pretty obvious and easy to remove. But you are right. That nerdy teenager
trying to hack into the girl next door's web cam could be next year's
malware programmer.

:-)

Kerry

>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:%23yg%23gfPWFHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OOj89gOWFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>>
>>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced, sex
>>> starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating! They use
>>> their time to write the exploits that everyone has to protect against!
>>>
>>> Wake up man!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban
>>>
>>> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>>
>>> If you knew as much as you think you know,
>>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>>
>>
>> Hate to tell you but a lot of the current malware is written with
>> criminal intent. They use compromised computers for everything from spam
>> relays, ad servers, identity theft, to denial of service extortion
>> attempts. I had one customer who's computer was being used as a porn ftp
>> server without his knowledge. It was done with a root kit and was very
>> difficult to figure out what was happening. It's getting much harder to
>> remove it because it is written for monetray gains rather than bragging
>> rights. I think some of the malware programmers know windows better than
>> Microsoft.
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>>
>>> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>>> flawed OS.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
"GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:e0LCXmQWFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:uTcVUdNWFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>> > anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> >
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=200
> 5-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>> >
>> > Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>> > flawed OS.
>>
>> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws. If
>> you
>> are worried about security you should set your newsreader not to use
>> HTML.
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>
> Any large piece of software (such as an OS) is bound to have bugs and
> security issues. But where the problem lies now is that MS is starting to
> offer services (and will no doubt start charging people) to mask these
> problems rather than fix them.
>

Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat business
model built on selling services. Some companies like IBM and Sun also sell
hardware but the business model is really based on selling services.
Microsoft has been one of the few exceptions so far. I'm not saying I like
the direction they are taking, just commenting that it's a common business
model in the computer industry. As far as I know Windows updates will still
be available free. They have said nothing about discontinuing updates. All
OS's are "flawed". Whichever one you use will need patches and updates. Most
software vendors follow the same path as Microsoft. Buy the current version.
You get updates for that version free for some amount of time. When a new
version comes out you pay to upgrade or not. Usually shortly after the new
version is out support ends for the old version. Any addons, telephone
support, etc. are extra cost. This is the services part of the model. Up
until now Microsoft has included some of the services for free. Most other
companies don't. Linux is not a company but a community. All the companies
that sell a linux distrobution are mostly following the same model.

> And yes, other systems have security flaws but when have you heard of any
> other major exploits wreaking havoc on these systems? You may say that
> these other systems just don't have the same market share as MS but
> consider
> the Apache web server. AFAIK there are many more Apache servers on the
> web
> compared to IIS. When have you heard of any Apache exploits crippling
> entire networks?
>
>

Apache has it's share of problems that need to be patched on a regular
basis. When did we start talking programs rather than OS's?

http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_20.html

http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_13.html

Check out the following exploits. All the major OS's and programs are well
represented on the list.

http://www.frsirt.com/exploits/

Kerry

DevilsPGD
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
In message <Ovj7#TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl> "Mark"
<xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:

>If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>
>Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken flawed OS.

If it were a Microsoft problem in the first place, you might have a
point. However, most spyware is installed by the user itself, no OS
flaw is exploited, and Microsoft isn't directly responsible.


--
Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts
have no place in organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

DevilsPGD
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
In message <OK1nCkOWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:

>Richard Urban wrote:
>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>
>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced,
>> sex starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating!
>> They use their time to write the exploits that everyone has to
>> protect against!
>> Wake up man!
>
>You too! "They use their time to write the exploits"
>
>What do they exploit?

In most cases, user stupidity.


--
Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts
have no place in organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <OK1nCkOWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>>
>>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced,
>>> sex starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating!
>>> They use their time to write the exploits that everyone has to
>>> protect against!
>>> Wake up man!
>>
>> You too! "They use their time to write the exploits"
>>
>> What do they exploit?
>
> In most cases, user stupidity.

Really? And what do you base "most" on?

But in some cases they do exploit user stupidity, and in other cases
they exploit Windows, its holes, and it weak security!


--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mark
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
All OSes have "bugs and security flaws", but not as severe as Windows.


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message news:%23l561iPWFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Sending in HTML implies reading in HTML. If you are worried about security then reading usenet posts with HTML enabled is not too smart. There are a lot of other newsreaders available.

You didn't answer the other question. Please tell me which OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.

Kerry
HTML enabled temporarily

"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eDQH5xOWFHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
OE6 defaults to HTML. I changed it to plain text, but it keeps defaulting back to HTML. So I just live with it. I have no problems with the HMTL editor, so I let it be.


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message news:eR2w$gNWFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>
>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>> flawed OS.
>
> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.
> If you are worried about security you should set your newsreader not
> to use HTML.

I guess he'll need a NoOne Cares subscription to do it for him!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
Check out the following exploits. All the major OS's and programs are well
represented on the list.

http://www.frsirt.com/exploits/

Kerry
HTML temporarily enabled (isn't it a nuisance)
If you can read this then congratulations you've managed to turn it off thereby giving you another level of security :-)

"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OLLZkMUWFHA.1508@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
All OSes have "bugs and security flaws", but not as severe as Windows.


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message news:%23l561iPWFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Sending in HTML implies reading in HTML. If you are worried about security then reading usenet posts with HTML enabled is not too smart. There are a lot of other newsreaders available.

You didn't answer the other question. Please tell me which OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.

Kerry
HTML enabled temporarily

"Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eDQH5xOWFHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
OE6 defaults to HTML. I changed it to plain text, but it keeps defaulting back to HTML. So I just live with it. I have no problems with the HMTL editor, so I let it be.


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message news:eR2w$gNWFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
>> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
>> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
>>
>> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
>> flawed OS.
>
> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.
> If you are worried about security you should set your newsreader not
> to use HTML.

I guess he'll need a NoOne Cares subscription to do it for him!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:


> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat business
> model built on selling services.

Yes, Redhat bases its business model on selling services, the same way that
Mandriva does, SuSE and others. BUT, the big difference is that they aren't
also selling the OS and on top of that charging for services like M$ is
proposing to do.

I can choose to pay a Linux distributor for their services (read support) or
get the OS without paying a thing if I don't require or want to pay for
their support. In the case of M$, to run their OSs, you MUST purchase them.
So I don't think you can make a case that M$ is just doing what others are
doing, like you're suggesting.

It strikes me, as it does many others, that this move by M$ is a conflict of
interest. It is M$ that is ultimately responsible for all the holes and
exploits in its OS model and after charging the outrageous amounts it
charges for its software, to turn around a plug these holes through a paid
subscription is not right. That looks like double dipping to me at the
end-user's expense.


--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
Ron Martell wrote:

> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not a communist, just a person that thinks that a company should fix
>>its product rather than sell a product to compensate for its flaws.
>
>
> Please name one computer operating system that was ever produced that
> was 100% free of errors and defects.
>
You know that is impossible!

> Please also include the price per copy for that operating system.
>
And you know that if you tie together this requirement with the one above,
it is impossible to do. So what's your point, anyways?

>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
Richard Urban wrote:

> You certainly live in a dream world!
>
No, it is you who live in a dream world.

> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced, sex
> starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating! They use
> their time to write the exploits that everyone has to protect against!
>
Not everyone - only in YOUR dream world. There a millions of computers
running in the real world that don't need to concern themselves with
spyware and spyware is NOT an issue for them.

> Wake up man!
>
I think you're the man that needs to wake up.

--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
DevilsPGD wrote:

> In message <OK1nCkOWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>>Richard Urban wrote:
>>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>>
>>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced,
>>> sex starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating!
>>> They use their time to write the exploits that everyone has to
>>> protect against!
>>> Wake up man!
>>
>>You too! "They use their time to write the exploits"
>>
>>What do they exploit?
>
> In most cases, user stupidity.
>
>
Then the OS should be intelligent enough to protect itself regardless of how
stupid its user is. It isn't rocket science, it's just a bad OS model that
MickeyMouse chose to use. Now they're (and their users) stuck with it until
they rewrite an OS from scratch that runs on a more secure model.

--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:4jKhe.1360006$6l.499038@pd7tw2no...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>
>> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat business
>> model built on selling services.
>
> Yes, Redhat bases its business model on selling services, the same way
> that
> Mandriva does, SuSE and others. BUT, the big difference is that they
> aren't
> also selling the OS and on top of that charging for services like M$ is
> proposing to do.

I just searched redhat.com trying to download the redhat enterprise distro
for free. I couldn't find it. Please point me to a link where I can download
it for free (not a trial version). I could well be wrong but I couldn't find
it.

>
> I can choose to pay a Linux distributor for their services (read support)
> or
> get the OS without paying a thing if I don't require or want to pay for
> their support. In the case of M$, to run their OSs, you MUST purchase
> them.
> So I don't think you can make a case that M$ is just doing what others are
> doing, like you're suggesting.
>
> It strikes me, as it does many others, that this move by M$ is a conflict
> of
> interest. It is M$ that is ultimately responsible for all the holes and
> exploits in its OS model and after charging the outrageous amounts it
> charges for its software, to turn around a plug these holes through a paid
> subscription is not right. That looks like double dipping to me at the
> end-user's expense.
>

You don't have to pay for Windows updates. There has been no announcement
that they are discontinuing that service. If you want more than that you
have to pay extra.

Your bias towards linux is showing. You cut out the parts of my post that
were about other operating systems. I have no axe to grind with linux. I was
showing examples of other companies that use a similar business model to
Microsoft. I believe that linux could be a viable alternative to Microsoft
but it won't be from the linux "community". It will be from one company that
markets their particular version exclusively. To survive they will have to
do many of the things that the linux community doesn't like about Microsoft.
That's the way business works. It's all about profit. If you don't show a
profit reasonably consistantly you go out of business. So far no one in the
computer industry has come up with a different business model that works.

Kerry

>
> --
> -=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
> A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
> community.
> Q. But isn't that backasswards?
> A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
> Outlook Express under Windoze.
> Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?
>
>
>

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:

> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
> news:4jKhe.1360006$6l.499038@pd7tw2no...
>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat
>>> business model built on selling services.
>>
>> Yes, Redhat bases its business model on selling services, the same way
>> that
>> Mandriva does, SuSE and others. BUT, the big difference is that they
>> aren't
>> also selling the OS and on top of that charging for services like M$ is
>> proposing to do.
>
> I just searched redhat.com trying to download the redhat enterprise
> distro
> for free. I couldn't find it. Please point me to a link where I can
> download it for free (not a trial version). I could well be wrong but I
> couldn't find it.
>
Sure, get the free version (no Redhat support) here ...

http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=64



--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?

GO
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
> I just searched redhat.com trying to download the redhat enterprise
distro
> for free. I couldn't find it. Please point me to a link where I can
download
> it for free (not a trial version). I could well be wrong but I couldn't
find
> it.

Redhat is no longer a free Linux distro. Fedora is now the Redhad
equivalent (more or less).

GO
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:#1ThRfRWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:e0LCXmQWFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> > news:uTcVUdNWFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> > If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system, maybe these
> >> > anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
> >> >
> >
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=200
> >
5-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
> >> >
> >> > Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they bought a broken
> >> > flawed OS.
> >>
> >> LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or security flaws. If
> >> you
> >> are worried about security you should set your newsreader not to use
> >> HTML.
> >>
> >> Kerry
> >>
> >
> > Any large piece of software (such as an OS) is bound to have bugs and
> > security issues. But where the problem lies now is that MS is starting
to
> > offer services (and will no doubt start charging people) to mask these
> > problems rather than fix them.
> >
>
> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat business
> model built on selling services. Some companies like IBM and Sun also sell
> hardware but the business model is really based on selling services.
> Microsoft has been one of the few exceptions so far. I'm not saying I like
> the direction they are taking, just commenting that it's a common business
> model in the computer industry. As far as I know Windows updates will
still
> be available free. They have said nothing about discontinuing updates. All
> OS's are "flawed". Whichever one you use will need patches and updates.
Most
> software vendors follow the same path as Microsoft. Buy the current
version.
> You get updates for that version free for some amount of time. When a new
> version comes out you pay to upgrade or not. Usually shortly after the new
> version is out support ends for the old version. Any addons, telephone
> support, etc. are extra cost. This is the services part of the model. Up
> until now Microsoft has included some of the services for free. Most other
> companies don't. Linux is not a company but a community. All the companies
> that sell a linux distrobution are mostly following the same model.


Yes, many of the Linux distro's sell services but AFAIK they are just
selling support for their product (MS does the same). What the Linux-es
don't do is sell services to mask underlying security problems with their
software, which is exactly what MS is doing with their anti-spyware and
anti-virus packages. It's like NoStop said....MS is double dipping here.


> > And yes, other systems have security flaws but when have you heard of
any
> > other major exploits wreaking havoc on these systems? You may say that
> > these other systems just don't have the same market share as MS but
> > consider
> > the Apache web server. AFAIK there are many more Apache servers on the
> > web
> > compared to IIS. When have you heard of any Apache exploits crippling
> > entire networks?
>
> Apache has it's share of problems that need to be patched on a regular
> basis. When did we start talking programs rather than OS's?
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_20.html
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_13.html
>
> Check out the following exploits. All the major OS's and programs are well
> represented on the list.
>
> http://www.frsirt.com/exploits/
>
> Kerry

I have never said that other systems/OSes do not have security issues. I
was just using Apache as an example as we were discussing viruses/malware
which can go beyond just the OS. Yes, Apache has exploits (which I never
denied) but my point was that exploits in Apache cannot cripple an entire
network. MS has some seriously underlying security issues with it's
software which must be addressed, but not with bandaids

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
"GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:e3ZcA0XWFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> I just searched redhat.com trying to download the redhat enterprise
> distro
>> for free. I couldn't find it. Please point me to a link where I can
> download
>> it for free (not a trial version). I could well be wrong but I couldn't
> find
>> it.
>
> Redhat is no longer a free Linux distro. Fedora is now the Redhad
> equivalent (more or less).
>
>

My point exactly. To stay in business you have to have a source of income.
To support software it has to be a stable known configuration/version.

Kerry

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:6zMhe.1358143$Xk.212215@pd7tw3no...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4jKhe.1360006$6l.499038@pd7tw2no...
>>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat
>>>> business model built on selling services.
>>>
>>> Yes, Redhat bases its business model on selling services, the same way
>>> that
>>> Mandriva does, SuSE and others. BUT, the big difference is that they
>>> aren't
>>> also selling the OS and on top of that charging for services like M$ is
>>> proposing to do.
>>
>> I just searched redhat.com trying to download the redhat enterprise
>> distro
>> for free. I couldn't find it. Please point me to a link where I can
>> download it for free (not a trial version). I could well be wrong but I
>> couldn't find it.
>>
> Sure, get the free version (no Redhat support) here ...
>
> http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=64
>

That's Fedora. I have that. I like it and am considering offering a
workstation based on it to my customers. I'm trying to decide what packages
they will need so I can reasonably support it for them. My understanding is
that Fedora is a test bed for Redhat and may or may not include all the
packages in Redhat Enterprise. In order to support Redhat Enterprise they
must have a stable, known configuration/version. They charge for that and
then sell related services. Other than the scale of the business and
percentage markup charged how is that different from most other software
companies including Microsoft? In a free enterprise society shouldn't the
price be based on what the market will pay? To say you have to charge a set
markup is socialism. The argument that Microsoft has a monopoly is specious.
Netware used to have a "monopoly" in the server market. Digital Research
used to have a "monopoly" in the small computer OS market. These
"monopolies" disintegrated when a better marketing program came along. The
satellite TV industry used to use the same argument that the cable companies
had a monopoly and they couldn't compete. Over time they improved their
marketing and in some markets they now have more installs than cable. It has
happened and will happen again in the software industry as well. That is
what the free market is all about. Please don't think I am bashing linux or
supporting Microsoft. I am just pro free enterprise. I admire what Microsoft
has achieved business wise. I think Windows XP as an OS is quite a bit less
secure and inherently less stable than linux. Server 2003 is a very good
server OS, the equal to linux, and in it's default configuration very
secure. Netware is better than both as a server OS. The marketplace has
dictated which ones I sell and work with every day. Ford Rangers with 4.0
ltr motors break down a lot. Does the repair shop tell the customer to buy a
new better vehicle because this one is piece of s&*t or do they explain the
problem and fix the vehicle for them? We have to live with reality and
today's reality is Windows is installed on most computers. The OP to this
thread was a broad anti-Microsoft statement that didn't offer any facts to
back up the statement. The poster seemed misinformed about the reality of
how business works. My posts have been towards rectifying that objectively.

Kerry



>
>
> --
> -=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
> A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
> community.
> Q. But isn't that backasswards?
> A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
> Outlook Express under Windoze.
> Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?
>
>
>

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
"GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:OEPr85XWFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>

<snip for brevity>

>
> Yes, many of the Linux distro's sell services but AFAIK they are just
> selling support for their product (MS does the same). What the Linux-es
> don't do is sell services to mask underlying security problems with their
> software, which is exactly what MS is doing with their anti-spyware and
> anti-virus packages. It's like NoStop said....MS is double dipping here.
>
>
>> > And yes, other systems have security flaws but when have you heard of
> any
>> > other major exploits wreaking havoc on these systems? You may say that
>> > these other systems just don't have the same market share as MS but
>> > consider
>> > the Apache web server. AFAIK there are many more Apache servers on
>> > the
>> > web
>> > compared to IIS. When have you heard of any Apache exploits crippling
>> > entire networks?
>>
>> Apache has it's share of problems that need to be patched on a regular
>> basis. When did we start talking programs rather than OS's?
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_20.html
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_13.html
>>
>> Check out the following exploits. All the major OS's and programs are
>> well
>> represented on the list.
>>
>> http://www.frsirt.com/exploits/
>>
>> Kerry
>
> I have never said that other systems/OSes do not have security issues. I
> was just using Apache as an example as we were discussing viruses/malware
> which can go beyond just the OS. Yes, Apache has exploits (which I never
> denied) but my point was that exploits in Apache cannot cripple an entire
> network. MS has some seriously underlying security issues with it's
> software which must be addressed, but not with bandaids
>
>
>

Do a google search for "iis exploits crash network" and "apache exploits
crash network" and see what comes up. You may be surprised. The apache
search generated many more hits. This is probably because apache has a
bigger market share :-) Both applications in their current patched versions
are pretty secure. I have customers running both programs and have had no
security problems. Both in older unpatched versions have exploits that will
crash the program and possibly the machine it is running on. There will
probably be more exploits that show up for the current versions. To crash a
network the network security would have to be very poor indeed. For this to
happen is more a case of bad network design than bad program design.

Kerry

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:

> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6zMhe.1358143$Xk.212215@pd7tw3no...
>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>
>>> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4jKhe.1360006$6l.499038@pd7tw2no...
>>>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat
>>>>> business model built on selling services.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Redhat bases its business model on selling services, the same way
>>>> that
>>>> Mandriva does, SuSE and others. BUT, the big difference is that they
>>>> aren't
>>>> also selling the OS and on top of that charging for services like M$ is
>>>> proposing to do.
>>>
>>> I just searched redhat.com trying to download the redhat enterprise
>>> distro
>>> for free. I couldn't find it. Please point me to a link where I can
>>> download it for free (not a trial version). I could well be wrong but I
>>> couldn't find it.
>>>
>> Sure, get the free version (no Redhat support) here ...
>>
>> http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=64
>>
>
> That's Fedora. I have that. I like it and am considering offering a
> workstation based on it to my customers. I'm trying to decide what
> packages they will need so I can reasonably support it for them. My
> understanding is that Fedora is a test bed for Redhat and may or may not
> include all the packages in Redhat Enterprise.

Yes, it is definitely bleeding edge. RD Enterprise on the other hand sticks
with the more tried and true packages.

> In order to support Redhat
> Enterprise they must have a stable, known configuration/version. They
> charge for that and then sell related services. Other than the scale of
> the business and percentage markup charged how is that different from most
> other software companies including Microsoft?

Duh, I thought you already answered the differences. Where does one pickup a
free Microsoft OS?

> In a free enterprise society
> shouldn't the price be based on what the market will pay? To say you have
> to charge a set markup is socialism.

Who has said that? Eventually people will clue in to the rip-off of M$'s
price structure and shoddy software and look elsewhere. This is happening
all the time and at a accelerating rate, especially amongst governments and
larger enterprises.

> The argument that Microsoft has a
> monopoly is specious.

Of course it has a monopoly. Where have you been? Why do you think the DOJ
went after M$, along with the EU and states within the USA? Windoze can be
found on something like 95% of the computers in this world. If that isn't a
monopoly, tell me what is.

> Netware used to have a "monopoly" in the server
> market. Digital Research used to have a "monopoly" in the small computer
> OS market. These "monopolies" disintegrated when a better marketing
> program came along. The satellite TV industry used to use the same
> argument that the cable companies had a monopoly and they couldn't
> compete. Over time they improved their marketing and in some markets they
> now have more installs than cable. It has happened and will happen again
> in the software industry as well. That is what the free market is all
> about. Please don't think I am bashing linux or supporting Microsoft. I am
> just pro free enterprise.

Well good for you. I'm not the least bit interested in arguing politics or
economics with you. So I'll stop now.

Goodbye.


--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?

DevilsPGD
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
In message <Ok8aBAUWFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message <OK1nCkOWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>>>
>>>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced,
>>>> sex starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating!
>>>> They use their time to write the exploits that everyone has to
>>>> protect against!
>>>> Wake up man!
>>>
>>> You too! "They use their time to write the exploits"
>>>
>>> What do they exploit?
>>
>> In most cases, user stupidity.
>
>Really? And what do you base "most" on?
>
>But in some cases they do exploit user stupidity, and in other cases
>they exploit Windows, its holes, and it weak security!

I base "most" on looking at tons of messages flowing through my mail
server that get snagged by my virus scanner.

I occasionally fire up a default configuration of OE (with nothing
changed other then the account details entered into the wizard the first
time OE starts), then I drop a bunch of infected messages into the
mailbox, let OE download them and figure out what it would take to get
infected.

Why? Well, because I can. Because I support a mail server, I support
mail clients (or rather, I help other server administrators support
their mail clients), and I support mail server virus scanner software.

Don't get me wrong, there are tons of legitimate security holes too --
Personally I wouldn't let IE or OE touch the 'net without hardening the
configuration somewhat -- But at the end of the day, as long as you have
automatic updates enabled, the biggest threat is the user.

Invariably it takes user interaction more then simply opening the
message, either a URL needs to clicked (And then typically a security
warning needs to be ignored), or an attachment needs to be launched.

The ones that amuse me the most are the ones where the user not only has
to launch the attachment, ignore the warning, but also enter a password
and then launch a file within the attachment and STILL people get
infected.

Spyware is a perfect example, spyware virtually never installs silently,
it almost always is mentioned in the EULA of some software the user
intended to install (Kazaa seems to be the most popular one I end up
cleaning up after these days). There is *nothing* an OS can do to
prevent the authorized user from intentionally installing software and
getting more then the user bargained for (or at least not without
hampering the user's ability to install the software that they want)

If you can suggest an OS design that will magically guess at which apps
a user installs are wanted, and which apps a user is installing that are
not wanted, I suspect you'll become a very rich man when Bill Gates buys
out your company.


--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

DevilsPGD
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
In message <xvKhe.1357850$8l.986362@pd7tw1no> NoStop
<nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> In message <OK1nCkOWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Urban wrote:
>>>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>>>
>>>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply faced,
>>>> sex starved lonely teens out there who are tired of masterbating!
>>>> They use their time to write the exploits that everyone has to
>>>> protect against!
>>>> Wake up man!
>>>
>>>You too! "They use their time to write the exploits"
>>>
>>>What do they exploit?
>>
>> In most cases, user stupidity.
>>
>>
>Then the OS should be intelligent enough to protect itself regardless of how
>stupid its user is. It isn't rocket science, it's just a bad OS model that
>MickeyMouse chose to use. Now they're (and their users) stuck with it until
>they rewrite an OS from scratch that runs on a more secure model.

So what would you suggest?

I'd agree that having the OS protect "itself" wouldn't be a bad thing,
and the NT security model makes it possible, although the default
installation makes it beyond the capabilities of an average mortal.

However, no OS security model can allow a user to install Kazaa, but
somehow prevent the user from installing all the spyware that Kazaa
includes as part of the package.

Most spyware doesn't need privileged access to the system, it just needs
access to display ads on the screen and/or to track what the user is
doing and report back. As long as it's bundled with an application that
interfaces with the user AND interfaces with the net, the spyware isn't
doing anything itself that the legitimate application couldn't be doing
at the same time.


--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <Ok8aBAUWFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> DevilsPGD wrote:
>>> In message <OK1nCkOWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "kurttrail"
>>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>>> You certainly live in a dream world!
>>>>>
>>>>> The anti spyware programs exist because there are many pimply
>>>>> faced, sex starved lonely teens out there who are tired of
>>>>> masterbating! They use their time to write the exploits that
>>>>> everyone has to protect against!
>>>>> Wake up man!
>>>>
>>>> You too! "They use their time to write the exploits"
>>>>
>>>> What do they exploit?
>>>
>>> In most cases, user stupidity.
>>
>> Really? And what do you base "most" on?
>>
>> But in some cases they do exploit user stupidity, and in other cases
>> they exploit Windows, its holes, and it weak security!
>
> I base "most" on looking at tons of messages flowing through my mail
> server that get snagged by my virus scanner.

LOL! And how many of them come from Linux, OSX, and other non-windows
machines?

None? I wonder why that is? Poor design mostly.

>
> I occasionally fire up a default configuration of OE (with nothing
> changed other then the account details entered into the wizard the
> first time OE starts), then I drop a bunch of infected messages into
> the mailbox, let OE download them and figure out what it would take
> to get infected.
>
> Why? Well, because I can. Because I support a mail server, I support
> mail clients (or rather, I help other server administrators support
> their mail clients), and I support mail server virus scanner software.
>
> Don't get me wrong, there are tons of legitimate security holes too --
> Personally I wouldn't let IE or OE touch the 'net without hardening
> the configuration somewhat -- But at the end of the day, as long as
> you have automatic updates enabled, the biggest threat is the user.
>
> Invariably it takes user interaction more then simply opening the
> message, either a URL needs to clicked (And then typically a security
> warning needs to be ignored), or an attachment needs to be launched.
>
> The ones that amuse me the most are the ones where the user not only
> has to launch the attachment, ignore the warning, but also enter a
> password and then launch a file within the attachment and STILL
> people get infected.
>
> Spyware is a perfect example, spyware virtually never installs
> silently, it almost always is mentioned in the EULA of some software
> the user intended to install (Kazaa seems to be the most popular one
> I end up cleaning up after these days). There is *nothing* an OS can
> do to prevent the authorized user from intentionally installing
> software and getting more then the user bargained for (or at least
> not without hampering the user's ability to install the software that
> they want)
>
> If you can suggest an OS design that will magically guess at which
> apps a user installs are wanted, and which apps a user is installing
> that are not wanted, I suspect you'll become a very rich man when
> Bill Gates buys out your company.



--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:29 PM
"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:s0Ohe.1359133$Xk.714505@pd7tw3no...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:6zMhe.1358143$Xk.212215@pd7tw3no...
>>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4jKhe.1360006$6l.499038@pd7tw2no...
>>>>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Selling services has been going on a long time. Isn't the Redhat
>>>>>> business model built on selling services.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Redhat bases its business model on selling services, the same way
>>>>> that
>>>>> Mandriva does, SuSE and others. BUT, the big difference is that they
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> also selling the OS and on top of that charging for services like M$
>>>>> is
>>>>> proposing to do.
>>>>
>>>> I just searched redhat.com trying to download the redhat enterprise
>>>> distro
>>>> for free. I couldn't find it. Please point me to a link where I can
>>>> download it for free (not a trial version). I could well be wrong but I
>>>> couldn't find it.
>>>>
>>> Sure, get the free version (no Redhat support) here ...
>>>
>>> http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=64
>>>
>>
>> That's Fedora. I have that. I like it and am considering offering a
>> workstation based on it to my customers. I'm trying to decide what
>> packages they will need so I can reasonably support it for them. My
>> understanding is that Fedora is a test bed for Redhat and may or may not
>> include all the packages in Redhat Enterprise.
>
> Yes, it is definitely bleeding edge. RD Enterprise on the other hand
> sticks
> with the more tried and true packages.
>
>> In order to support Redhat
>> Enterprise they must have a stable, known configuration/version. They
>> charge for that and then sell related services. Other than the scale of
>> the business and percentage markup charged how is that different from
>> most
>> other software companies including Microsoft?
>
> Duh, I thought you already answered the differences. Where does one pickup
> a
> free Microsoft OS?
>
>> In a free enterprise society
>> shouldn't the price be based on what the market will pay? To say you have
>> to charge a set markup is socialism.
>
> Who has said that? Eventually people will clue in to the rip-off of M$'s
> price structure and shoddy software and look elsewhere. This is happening
> all the time and at a accelerating rate, especially amongst governments
> and
> larger enterprises.
>
>> The argument that Microsoft has a
>> monopoly is specious.
>
> Of course it has a monopoly. Where have you been? Why do you think the DOJ
> went after M$, along with the EU and states within the USA? Windoze can be
> found on something like 95% of the computers in this world. If that isn't
> a
> monopoly, tell me what is.
>
>> Netware used to have a "monopoly" in the server
>> market. Digital Research used to have a "monopoly" in the small computer
>> OS market. These "monopolies" disintegrated when a better marketing
>> program came along. The satellite TV industry used to use the same
>> argument that the cable companies had a monopoly and they couldn't
>> compete. Over time they improved their marketing and in some markets they
>> now have more installs than cable. It has happened and will happen again
>> in the software industry as well. That is what the free market is all
>> about. Please don't think I am bashing linux or supporting Microsoft. I
>> am
>> just pro free enterprise.
>
> Well good for you. I'm not the least bit interested in arguing politics or
> economics with you. So I'll stop now.
>
> Goodbye.

If we're not arguing politics what have we been doing?

It was fun.

Kerry

>
>
> --
> -=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
> A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
> community.
> Q. But isn't that backasswards?
> A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
> Outlook Express under Windoze.
> Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?
>
>
>

GO
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:#aPKMdYWFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:OEPr85XWFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> >
> > Yes, many of the Linux distro's sell services but AFAIK they are just
> > selling support for their product (MS does the same). What the Linux-es
> > don't do is sell services to mask underlying security problems with
their
> > software, which is exactly what MS is doing with their anti-spyware and
> > anti-virus packages. It's like NoStop said....MS is double dipping
here.
> >
> >
> >> > And yes, other systems have security flaws but when have you heard of
> > any
> >> > other major exploits wreaking havoc on these systems? You may say
that
> >> > these other systems just don't have the same market share as MS but
> >> > consider
> >> > the Apache web server. AFAIK there are many more Apache servers on
> >> > the
> >> > web
> >> > compared to IIS. When have you heard of any Apache exploits
crippling
> >> > entire networks?
> >>
> >> Apache has it's share of problems that need to be patched on a regular
> >> basis. When did we start talking programs rather than OS's?
> >>
> >> http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_20.html
> >>
> >> http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_13.html
> >>
> >> Check out the following exploits. All the major OS's and programs are
> >> well
> >> represented on the list.
> >>
> >> http://www.frsirt.com/exploits/
> >>
> >> Kerry
> >
> > I have never said that other systems/OSes do not have security issues.
I
> > was just using Apache as an example as we were discussing
viruses/malware
> > which can go beyond just the OS. Yes, Apache has exploits (which I
never
> > denied) but my point was that exploits in Apache cannot cripple an
entire
> > network. MS has some seriously underlying security issues with it's
> > software which must be addressed, but not with bandaids
> >
> >
> >
>
> Do a google search for "iis exploits crash network" and "apache exploits
> crash network" and see what comes up. You may be surprised. The apache
> search generated many more hits. This is probably because apache has a
> bigger market share :-) Both applications in their current patched
versions
> are pretty secure. I have customers running both programs and have had no
> security problems. Both in older unpatched versions have exploits that
will
> crash the program and possibly the machine it is running on. There will
> probably be more exploits that show up for the current versions. To crash
a
> network the network security would have to be very poor indeed. For this
to
> happen is more a case of bad network design than bad program design.
>
> Kerry


Is the Apache search showing more hits signifigant? Maybe there's just
more information out there on Apache? I really don't know and as I've
already said I am aware that Apache is not bullet proof. But when was the
last time that you have heard about any of these Apache security
vulnerabilites being exploited and taking down entire businesses?
Anyways....this is getting a tad off topic....if you don't have a problem
with MS offering anti-virus/malware services, then that is fine but I do.
Introducing these services will just give MS less incentive to actually fix
the problems.

DevilsPGD
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
In message <OM9EhfbWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> "GO"
<aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

>Is the Apache search showing more hits signifigant? Maybe there's just
>more information out there on Apache? I really don't know and as I've
>already said I am aware that Apache is not bullet proof. But when was the
>last time that you have heard about any of these Apache security
>vulnerabilites being exploited and taking down entire businesses?

When was the last time you heard about any IIS6 exploits?


--
1989 - The movie "Batman," notches $100 million in 10 days,
proving once and for all that the public can't get enough
of men in tights.

GO
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:jruf81dsp3c70vn9ard979164dpqfotdan@news.readfreenews.net...
> In message <OM9EhfbWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> "GO"
> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> >Is the Apache search showing more hits signifigant? Maybe there's just
> >more information out there on Apache? I really don't know and as I've
> >already said I am aware that Apache is not bullet proof. But when was
the
> >last time that you have heard about any of these Apache security
> >vulnerabilites being exploited and taking down entire businesses?
>
> When was the last time you heard about any IIS6 exploits?

None recently, but that wasn't my point. MS needs to improve their security
practices (and not by just providing bandaid solutions) and I just brought
up Apache/IIS as examples; it may not be as relevant as it once was but I
thought it would demonstrate the point I was trying to make. And yes MS
has made some progress (IIS6 is a good case in point) but needs much more
work.

Not Me
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
How can you state that as a fact. Apple's software plus all the Linux,
Unix, etc, systems represent so small a market share of users that they
are usually ignored by virus. add ware,spy ware, and other malware
writers/purveyors. They attack the most prevalent software for obvious
reasons. I assume you operate using Windows XP and there is a reason for
that which I will let you explain. My first sentence alludes to the fact
that I doubt your personal usage/extensive knowledge of the other OS. If
Apple or Mandrake were 90% of the market, they would be being attacked
as much as Windows is now and probably suffering as many or more
adverse comments. The tech magazine and newspaper writers have to write
articles that will sell the subscriptions.
Gene K

Mark wrote:
> All OSes have "bugs and security flaws", but not as severe as Windows.
>
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m
> <mailto:kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m>> wrote in message
> news:%23l561iPWFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> Sending in HTML implies reading in HTML. If you are worried about
> security then reading usenet posts with HTML enabled is not too
> smart. There are a lot of other newsreaders available.
>
> You didn't answer the other question. Please tell me which OS
> doesn't have any bugs or security flaws.
>
> Kerry
> HTML enabled temporarily
>
> "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com <mailto:xpmark@hotmail.com>> wrote in
> message news:eDQH5xOWFHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> OE6 defaults to HTML. I changed it to plain text, but it keeps
> defaulting back to HTML. So I just live with it. I have no
> problems with the HMTL editor, so I let it be.
>
>
>
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org
> <mailto:dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org>> wrote in
> message news:eR2w$gNWFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
> > "Mark" <xpmark@hotmail.com <mailto:xpmark@hotmail.com>>
> wrote in message
> > news:Ovj7%23TMWFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> If Microsoft would FIX their Windows operating system,
> maybe these
> >> anti-malware programs would not need to exist.
> >>
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML
> <http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-13T161008Z_01_N12311064_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-MICROSOFT-ANTIVIRUS-DC.XML>
> >>
> >> Windows users have already paid their dues/fees, they
> bought a broken
> >> flawed OS.
> >
> > LOL please tell me what OS doesn't have any bugs or
> security flaws.
> > If you are worried about security you should set your
> newsreader not
> > to use HTML.
>
> I guess he'll need a NoOne Cares subscription to do it for him!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

GO
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
> If Apple or Mandrake were 90% of the market, they would be being
attacked
> as much as Windows is now and probably suffering as many or more
> adverse comments.

I often wonder what it would be like if that were the case. As Linux stands
right now, I would think you would see far less of the a problems as you do
with Windows, because from what I know of Linux/Unix it is inherently much
more secure than Windows. But I would also think if Linux became dominant
it would have to make some sacrifices to make it more user friendly, which I
would suspect it would make in more vulnerable at the same time.

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
"GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:uyRtbocWFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>> If Apple or Mandrake were 90% of the market, they would be being
> attacked
>> as much as Windows is now and probably suffering as many or more
>> adverse comments.
>
> I often wonder what it would be like if that were the case. As Linux
> stands
> right now, I would think you would see far less of the a problems as you
> do
> with Windows, because from what I know of Linux/Unix it is inherently much
> more secure than Windows. But I would also think if Linux became dominant
> it would have to make some sacrifices to make it more user friendly, which
> I
> would suspect it would make in more vulnerable at the same time.
>
>

All the linux distros I have tried default to a much more secure
installation than any version of windows except server 2003. I especially
like that linux defaults to a non-root user. The single biggest flaw in
windows is you have to have administrator rights do almost anything. "Run
as" really isn't that useful in windows. In linux it works. That doesn't
stop users from changing things. If linux was as popular as windows there
would be lots of "friends" fixing computers and unknowingly making them
vulnerable. We would probably still be better off because that is much
harder to do in linux but it can be done :-) Kazaa is kazaa with any OS. I
have some customers who bring in their computers every two months or so
because the teenagers just had to download music and heard the latest p2p
program was safe. Also even though linux is more secure flaws and exploits
are found. If it was as financially lucrative as windows exploits are now a
lot more effort would be expended. Only time would tell if the expenditure
produced results.

Kerry

DevilsPGD
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
In message <O82Kj0bWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "GO"
<aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

>
>"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
>news:jruf81dsp3c70vn9ard979164dpqfotdan@news.readfreenews.net...
>> In message <OM9EhfbWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> "GO"
>> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Is the Apache search showing more hits signifigant? Maybe there's just
>> >more information out there on Apache? I really don't know and as I've
>> >already said I am aware that Apache is not bullet proof. But when was
>the
>> >last time that you have heard about any of these Apache security
>> >vulnerabilites being exploited and taking down entire businesses?
>>
>> When was the last time you heard about any IIS6 exploits?
>
>None recently, but that wasn't my point. MS needs to improve their security
>practices (and not by just providing bandaid solutions) and I just brought
>up Apache/IIS as examples; it may not be as relevant as it once was but I
>thought it would demonstrate the point I was trying to make. And yes MS
>has made some progress (IIS6 is a good case in point) but needs much more
>work.

Yes, but it takes time. When was the last time any of my PCs were
infected with anything?

And I do plug my laptop into the net without a hardware firewall or any
third party software firewalls either, don't run any real time AV or
spyware/malware/whatever scanner.

The biggest issue with Windows at this point is the default
configuration, especially with regards to user accounts.

I agree 100% that they have a long way to go, but it's entirely possible
to run Microsoft systems connected to the net without becoming infected
by anything.

And no, I don't use IE, OE, or let Outlook touch the internet.


--
All generalizations are bad!

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:ae7g815oksc3gudh4kgav85h6biu3adtot@news.readfreenews.net...
> In message <O82Kj0bWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "GO"
> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
>>news:jruf81dsp3c70vn9ard979164dpqfotdan@news.readfreenews.net...
>>> In message <OM9EhfbWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> "GO"
>>> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Is the Apache search showing more hits signifigant? Maybe there's
>>> >just
>>> >more information out there on Apache? I really don't know and as I've
>>> >already said I am aware that Apache is not bullet proof. But when was
>>the
>>> >last time that you have heard about any of these Apache security
>>> >vulnerabilites being exploited and taking down entire businesses?
>>>
>>> When was the last time you heard about any IIS6 exploits?
>>
>>None recently, but that wasn't my point. MS needs to improve their
>>security
>>practices (and not by just providing bandaid solutions) and I just brought
>>up Apache/IIS as examples; it may not be as relevant as it once was but I
>>thought it would demonstrate the point I was trying to make. And yes MS
>>has made some progress (IIS6 is a good case in point) but needs much more
>>work.
>
> Yes, but it takes time. When was the last time any of my PCs were
> infected with anything?
>
> And I do plug my laptop into the net without a hardware firewall or any
> third party software firewalls either, don't run any real time AV or
> spyware/malware/whatever scanner.
>
> The biggest issue with Windows at this point is the default
> configuration, especially with regards to user accounts.
>
> I agree 100% that they have a long way to go, but it's entirely possible
> to run Microsoft systems connected to the net without becoming infected
> by anything.
>
> And no, I don't use IE, OE, or let Outlook touch the internet.
>
>

I use all three and have had no infections for many years. I am behind a
simple router, use the Windows SP2 firewall, and currently ezAntivirus. I do
use firefox for about 50% of my web use but it's because of the tabs not
security. I did have to change the defaults for all three to make them more
secure.

Kerry


> --
> All generalizations are bad!

Kelly
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
> All generalizations are bad!

All of them?

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:eUfVXndWFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
> news:ae7g815oksc3gudh4kgav85h6biu3adtot@news.readfreenews.net...
>> In message <O82Kj0bWFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "GO"
>> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
>>>news:jruf81dsp3c70vn9ard979164dpqfotdan@news.readfreenews.net...
>>>> In message <OM9EhfbWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> "GO"
>>>> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Is the Apache search showing more hits signifigant? Maybe there's
>>>> >just
>>>> >more information out there on Apache? I really don't know and as I've
>>>> >already said I am aware that Apache is not bullet proof. But when was
>>>the
>>>> >last time that you have heard about any of these Apache security
>>>> >vulnerabilites being exploited and taking down entire businesses?
>>>>
>>>> When was the last time you heard about any IIS6 exploits?
>>>
>>>None recently, but that wasn't my point. MS needs to improve their
>>>security
>>>practices (and not by just providing bandaid solutions) and I just
>>>brought
>>>up Apache/IIS as examples; it may not be as relevant as it once was but I
>>>thought it would demonstrate the point I was trying to make. And yes MS
>>>has made some progress (IIS6 is a good case in point) but needs much more
>>>work.
>>
>> Yes, but it takes time. When was the last time any of my PCs were
>> infected with anything?
>>
>> And I do plug my laptop into the net without a hardware firewall or any
>> third party software firewalls either, don't run any real time AV or
>> spyware/malware/whatever scanner.
>>
>> The biggest issue with Windows at this point is the default
>> configuration, especially with regards to user accounts.
>>
>> I agree 100% that they have a long way to go, but it's entirely possible
>> to run Microsoft systems connected to the net without becoming infected
>> by anything.
>>
>> And no, I don't use IE, OE, or let Outlook touch the internet.
>>
>>
>
> I use all three and have had no infections for many years. I am behind a
> simple router, use the Windows SP2 firewall, and currently ezAntivirus. I
> do use firefox for about 50% of my web use but it's because of the tabs
> not security. I did have to change the defaults for all three to make them
> more secure.
>
> Kerry
>
>
>> --
>> All generalizations are bad!
>
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
Kelly wrote:
>> All generalizations are bad!
>
> All of them?

Why not? I'm sure he never lies too.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Rock
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
Kelly wrote:

>>All generalizations are bad!
>
>
> All of them?
>

Generally speaking, yes.

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:30 PM
NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:

>Then the OS should be intelligent enough to protect itself regardless of how
>stupid its user is. It isn't rocket science, it's just a bad OS model that
>MickeyMouse chose to use. Now they're (and their users) stuck with it until
>they rewrite an OS from scratch that runs on a more secure model.

Consider the Sasser virus for an example of an exploit based on
stupidity.

A weakness was discovered in Windows, and a free update was issued by
Microsoft to patch it, and a security advisory was issued as well.
The creators of the Sasser virus downloaded the patch, reverse
engineered it to discover the weakness being patched and then
developed the Sasser virus to exploit that weakness.

Everyone who subsequently got infected by Sasser, and there were
millions of them, were basically victims of there own stupidity as the
patch to block the virus was already freely available.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ken Blake
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
In news:%23rANeSjWFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
Rock <rock@mail.nospam.net> typed:

> Kelly wrote:
>
>>> All generalizations are bad!
>>
>>
>> All of them?
>>
>
> Generally speaking, yes.


One of my favorite statements: "All generalizations are false,
including this one."

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
Ron Martell wrote:

> NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:
>
>>Then the OS should be intelligent enough to protect itself regardless of
>>how stupid its user is. It isn't rocket science, it's just a bad OS model
>>that MickeyMouse chose to use. Now they're (and their users) stuck with it
>>until they rewrite an OS from scratch that runs on a more secure model.
>
> Consider the Sasser virus for an example of an exploit based on
> stupidity.
>
OK, I'll agree the exploit was based on a "stupid" OS model.

> A weakness was discovered in Windows, and a free update was issued by

Was that a "stupid" weakness or just a "Microsoft apologist" weakness?

> Microsoft to patch it, and a security advisory was issued as well.

And everyone's grandma of course spends their time keeping up with security
advisories as they have little else to do with their lives (unlike virus
writers who I'm sure keep up with Windoze exploits). That's if they know
what a "security advisory" is in the first place.

> The creators of the Sasser virus downloaded the patch, reverse
> engineered it to discover the weakness being patched and then
> developed the Sasser virus to exploit that weakness.
>
Oh yes, I almost forgot. That damn "weakness" again. Of course the fact it
was there in the first place cannot in anyway be attributed to programming
errors in Windoze and its inability to protect itself from malicious code.
Right? End-users should just accept the fact that the OS they are using has
"weaknesses" and they are "stupid" if they don't constantly keep patching
these weaknesses and staying informed of the next one that is announced.
Seems to me to be almost a full time job keeping that OS running without
problems.

> Everyone who subsequently got infected by Sasser, and there were
> millions of them, were basically victims of there own stupidity as the
> patch to block the virus was already freely available.
>
Interesting way to turn things over on its head and blame the victims rather
than an inadequately programmed OS that would allow something like a virus
to do so much damage to the base OS itself. But I thought you'd just
finished saying that the creators of the virus downloaded the patch and
reverse engineered it and then exploited its weakness? So why is the
"stupidity" (your word) of the end-user to blame? Sorry you lost me here.
Because they missed or disregarded the advisory? Oh, I get it now.

As I said in my original post ... "the OS should be intelligent enough to
protect itself regardless of how stupid its user is." One way of doing this
is to NOT ALLOW a user to install, either consciously or unconsiously a
software program that will bring down the whole OS. This type of model has
been around since the 80's, but alas, Microsoft decided to not follow that
model but created their own insecure one and today people are still paying
the price for this shoddy and "stupid" model.

You might be interested in reading about the Windows design flaws here ...

"Windows is quite fragile, and the operating system can get corrupted quite
easily. This happens most often during the installation of updates, service
packs, drivers or application software, and the problem exists in all
versions of Windows so far. The heart of the problem lies in the fact that
Windows can't (or rather, is designed not to) separate application and
operating system code and settings. Code gets mixed up when applications
install portions of themselves between files that belong to the operating
system (occasionally replacing them in the process). Settings are written
to a central registry that also stores vital OS settings. The registry
database is basically insecure, and settings that are vital to the OS or to
other applications are easily corrupted."

"Another large part of the problem is Windows' lack of adequate separation
between code running on various system and user levels. Windows always
assumes that code runs with the highest privilege so that it can do almost
anything, including malicious intent. This makes it impossible to prevent
malicious code from invading the system. Users may (inadvertantly or
deliberately) download and run code from the Internet, but it's impossible
to prevent system level resources from damage by user level code."

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_2.html


--
Is Firefox still safer than IE?
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/050512/#story1

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:


>All the linux distros I have tried default to a much more secure
>installation than any version of windows except server 2003.

Can you identify specific security features/function that are not
uniquely server-oriented and which are not also present in Windows XP
Service Pack 2?

It is my understanding that Service Pack 2 for Windows XP does
incorporate the security enhancements found in Server 2003.

Thanks.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

DevilsPGD
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
In message <Au6ie.1376073$8l.1188126@pd7tw1no> NoStop
<nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:

>> Microsoft to patch it, and a security advisory was issued as well.
>
>And everyone's grandma of course spends their time keeping up with security
>advisories as they have little else to do with their lives (unlike virus
>writers who I'm sure keep up with Windoze exploits). That's if they know
>what a "security advisory" is in the first place.

Yeah, it's so hard to turn on Automatic Updates when the OS prompts you,
then forget about it and let the computer maintain itself.

Oh and for the record, my grandmother does know how to work the
automatic update feature, and Windows Update too. And yes, she figured
out all by herself.


--
Study reveals half the country has below-average intelligence.

PA Bear
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
The (leaked) announcement made no reference to MWAS being part and parcel of
OneCare (WOC) but I've asked a similar question of The Powers That Be.

An AV app is to be part of WOC, however, and many current AV apps already
identify and remove spyware/Trojanware/adware/malware.

MWAS is to be offered free of charge to users of all *supported* Windows
versions (Win2K, WinXP & Windows Server 2003).
--
~PA Bear


kurttrail wrote:
> I thought MS has already promised MASW free to all Windows Users?

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
PA Bear wrote:
> The (leaked) announcement made no reference to MWAS being part and
> parcel of OneCare (WOC) but I've asked a similar question of The
> Powers That Be.
> An AV app is to be part of WOC, however, and many current AV apps
> already identify and remove spyware/Trojanware/adware/malware.
>
> MWAS is to be offered free of charge to users of all *supported*
> Windows versions (Win2K, WinXP & Windows Server 2003).
>

Thanks for the info.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Rock
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
Ken Blake wrote:

> In news:%23rANeSjWFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
> Rock <rock@mail.nospam.net> typed:
>
>
>>Kelly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>All generalizations are bad!
>>>
>>>
>>>All of them?
>>>
>>
>>Generally speaking, yes.
>
>
>
> One of my favorite statements: "All generalizations are false,
> including this one."
>

hehe..the dog chasing it's tail.

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:31 PM
"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40th81p2cg0l3pat11bo7ishrdd62hrn1e@4ax.com...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>
>>All the linux distros I have tried default to a much more secure
>>installation than any version of windows except server 2003.
>
> Can you identify specific security features/function that are not
> uniquely server-oriented and which are not also present in Windows XP
> Service Pack 2?
>
> It is my understanding that Service Pack 2 for Windows XP does
> incorporate the security enhancements found in Server 2003.
>
> Thanks.
>

>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --

Server 2003 locks down internet explorer better. It has the security
configuration wizard. I'm not positive but I believe sever uses kerberos to
authenticate local accounts (could be wrong). The default security policy
has better security in 2003. Most of it can also be set up in XP but Server
defaults to a much more secure setup. I only have one server at home and
it's configured as a DC which is way more secure so I'm going off the top
off head for the items I can remember. If you need details I can find them.

Kerry

Kelly
07-09-2005, 11:32 PM
<LOL> Are you sure?

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com


"Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23rANeSjWFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Kelly wrote:
>
>>>All generalizations are bad!
>>
>>
>> All of them?
>>
>
> Generally speaking, yes.
>
> --
> Rock
> MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
>

Rock
07-09-2005, 11:32 PM
Kelly wrote:
> <LOL> Are you sure?
>

lol...I'm getting dizzy

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:32 PM
Rock wrote:
> Kelly wrote:
>> <LOL> Are you sure?
>>
>
> lol...I'm getting dizzy

What do you think about cliches? <beg>

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Kelly
07-09-2005, 11:35 PM
Surely, you speak in gest?

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Vote: Bo

"Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:OSL%2383wWFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Kelly wrote:
>> <LOL> Are you sure?
>>
>
> lol...I'm getting dizzy
>
> --
> Rock
> MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
>

Kelly
07-09-2005, 11:35 PM
They are my favorites and my children have been able to finish my sentences
for decades now!

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Vote: Bo

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eDT8h7wWFHA.160@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Rock wrote:
>> Kelly wrote:
>>> <LOL> Are you sure?
>>>
>>
>> lol...I'm getting dizzy
>
> What do you think about cliches? <beg>
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>


Pay for MS anti-malware service!