More stupid Windoze users - Linux

This is a discussion on More stupid Windoze users - Linux ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7389529.stm How many times???...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: More stupid Windoze users

  1. More stupid Windoze users


  2. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Cork Soaker

    wrote
    on Thu, 8 May 2008 22:48:26 +0100
    :
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7389529.stm
    >
    > How many times???
    >


    As many times as it takes before the layperson understands
    he's a sucker, apparently. Note the following paragraph:

    Only those using Windows are vulnerable to the malicious program.

    Kudos to the editor for actually including this sentence.

    Of course the cognoscenti might try infecting themselves
    by installing the fakey player under WinE or some such.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > Note the following paragraph:
    >
    > Only those using Windows are vulnerable to the malicious program.
    >
    > Kudos to the editor for actually including this sentence.


    Amen to that!

    May I just point out that when the reverse was true some months ago (BBC
    referred to Windows Viruses as Computer Viruses) many of us wrote in
    and complained about it.
    It would (imo) be a nice touch if folks would remember to do the same
    now if/when opportunity arises, and compliment the author:-)


  4. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Hey, welcome back, Mr. 'Gruff'. I wondered where you had gone...

    ____/ bbgruff on Friday 09 May 2008 00:03 : \____

    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> Note the following paragraph:
    >>
    >> Only those using Windows are vulnerable to the malicious program.
    >>
    >> Kudos to the editor for actually including this sentence.

    >
    > Amen to that!
    >
    > May I just point out that when the reverse was true some months ago (BBC
    > referred to Windows Viruses as Computer Viruses) many of us wrote in
    > and complained about it.
    > It would (imo) be a nice touch if folks would remember to do the same
    > now if/when opportunity arises, and compliment the author:-)


    It's actually a lot of Mac users that complain about this too. That's why
    increased diversity in the market will put more pressure on journalists to
    change and this benefits both Mac and Free software users.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Hack to learn, don't learn to hack"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    02:00:02 up 24 days, 12 min, 3 users, load average: 1.93, 2.12, 2.05
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFII6PAU4xAY3RXLo4RAiUNAJ9YiGzys8HE2HjnDdFtEo oBd5pp6QCdGPvd
    VKmZ0TMT0iTOZZb08oii9Fk=
    =WcZt
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: More stupid Windoze users


    "Cork Soaker" wrote in message
    news:fvvsf3$ltu$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7389529.stm
    >
    > How many times???
    >


    From the article:


    It added that, so far, only 10% seem to have gone as far as to install the
    fake codec and be plagued with pop-ups.

    Other security companies have seen the trojan but not in such large numbers
    as McAfee.



    Well... an idiot will be an idiot. They don't have to get all of the users,
    the dumbest 10% is plenty. Most likely the same 10% of people that would
    install a linux codec/plugin-in if they were told this was needed to play
    the video/music.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  6. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    > Well... an idiot will be an idiot.


    Agreed.

    > They don't have to get all of the users, the dumbest 10% is
    > plenty. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


    Self explanatory.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  7. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > As many times as it takes before the layperson understands he's a
    > sucker, apparently. Note the following paragraph:
    >
    > Only those using Windows are vulnerable to the malicious program.
    >
    > Kudos to the editor for actually including this sentence.


    Exactly. All too rare that they mention that, just ASSumming that
    everyone is running Microshaft crapware.

  8. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Kudos to the editor for actually including this sentence.

    >>
    >> Exactly. All too rare that they mention that, just ASSumming that
    >> everyone is running Microshaft crapware.

    >
    > An assumption, regrettably, that isn't that far off; after all,
    > Microsoft does hold over 80% of the desktop market, and probably holds
    > over 90%.


    Far-off enough to make it negligent of them to not mention that it's only
    Windows users who are at risk, when there's two very viable alternatives,
    for those who do not want to run an OS that is so easily and routinely
    compromised.

  9. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    wrote
    on Sat, 10 May 2008 09:16:10 -0500
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Kudos to the editor for actually including this sentence.
    >>>
    >>> Exactly. All too rare that they mention that, just ASSumming that
    >>> everyone is running Microshaft crapware.

    >>
    >> An assumption, regrettably, that isn't that far off; after all,
    >> Microsoft does hold over 80% of the desktop market, and probably holds
    >> over 90%.

    >
    > Far-off enough to make it negligent of them to not mention that it's only
    > Windows users who are at risk, when there's two very viable alternatives,
    > for those who do not want to run an OS that is so easily and routinely
    > compromised.


    An excellent point; were Microsoft to provably dominate over 98% of the
    market, things might be slightly different. As it is, "Other" (which
    includes Linux, MacOSX, and I've no idea what else) is around 10-20%.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  10. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv


    >> Far-off enough to make it negligent of them to not mention that it's
    >> only Windows users who are at risk, when there's two very viable
    >> alternatives, for those who do not want to run an OS that is so
    >> easily and routinely compromised.


    If there are two very viable alternatives to Windows, then there's no
    monopoly. Dumbass freetard.




  11. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS

    wrote
    on Mon, 12 May 2008 21:05:51 -0400
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    >
    >>> Far-off enough to make it negligent of them to not mention that it's
    >>> only Windows users who are at risk, when there's two very viable
    >>> alternatives, for those who do not want to run an OS that is so
    >>> easily and routinely compromised.

    >
    > If there are two very viable alternatives to Windows, then there's no
    > monopoly. Dumbass freetard.
    >


    A Google on 'Microsoft monopoly definition'
    (sans quotes) coughed up, among other things,
    http://www.thisnation.com/question/027.html

    While somewhat instructive it displays an appalling lack of
    elementary economics. In all cases, assuming a well-run
    company, marginal revenue must equal marginal cost.
    That is to say, if the cost of a sale (which presumably
    includes such thing as packaging and marketing; not sure if
    product support would be budgeted on a per-seat basis or
    as general overhead) is greater than the revenue realized
    from that sale, the sale should not be done. Contrariwise,
    if the cost of a sale is less than the revenue, make that
    sale and realize the (raw) profit thereby.

    If one knows elementary differential calculus, then it's
    very obvious; the total revenue realized from sales of all
    product is simply R(u) - C(u) = integral(u=0,N) (dR - dC),
    where R(u) = total revenue realized by selling n units, and
    C(u) = cost. To maximize profits, solve dR/du = dC/du
    for u, the cusp point on the curve.[*]

    In other words, Microsoft, even though it might be
    construed as a monopoly, does not have the ability to set
    prices as high as it wants (unless it wants to realize no
    revenue!), although it will set them higher than a pure
    competitive solution (where marginal revenue = marginal
    cost = actual price) would warrant. Of course the pure
    competitive solution realizes absolutely no profits --
    bad for business.

    http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    refers to US of A v. Microsoft Coporation, civil action
    98-1232. The term "monopoly power" occurs very frequently
    in this document. This is apparently the rather infamous
    decision rendered by none other than Thomas Penfield
    Jackson on 1999-11-05.

    Wikipedia suggests that
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm is the
    final judgement for this civil action, and among other
    things establishes certain prohibitions against future
    behavior.

    For those so interested the US DOJ maintains
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
    The Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final
    Judgements (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f230600/230647.htm)
    is rather dry, but might be instructive.

    As for alternatives to Windows on the desktop, the
    following are or were alternatives:

    4DOS (replacement for COMMAND.COM) (dead)
    GEM (required CP/M or DOS) (dead)
    AmigaOS (on different hardware) (dead unless something weird happens)
    Mac OS (on different hardware) (replaced)
    Mac OSX (on different hardware) (10.5)
    HURD (in development)
    200-500+ Linux distros, together with GUIs such as KDE and Gnome
    (varies)
    BSD (dead?)
    FreeBSD (7.0)
    OpenBSD (4.3)
    NetBSD (4.0)
    SymbianOS (mobiles) (current)
    several Unix variants (some on different hardware) (varies)
    Atari MultiTOS (on different hardware) (dead)
    VMS (on different hardware) (unknown)
    OpenVMS (6.1)
    Xenix (dead)
    OS/2 (dead)
    Netware (unknown, probably dead by now)
    Aegis/DomainOS (on different hardware) (dead)
    Plan 9 (on different hardware?) (unknown)
    TRON (on different hardware) (unknown)
    Xinu (on different hardware) (unknown)

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

    has a more complete list. And yes, there were Unix
    desktops; I was using two of them at one point (Solaris
    and HP-UX), for engineering development work...three if one
    counts Aegis, but Apollo is now deep inside HP somewhere,
    along with Compaq, and the Unix desktop is now more or less
    dead (though Linux is an excellent substitute).
    [*] this is of course an idealization.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: More stupid Windoze users

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 12 May 2008 21:05:51 -0400
    > :
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    >>
    >>>> Far-off enough to make it negligent of them to not mention that
    >>>> it's only Windows users who are at risk, when there's two very
    >>>> viable alternatives, for those who do not want to run an OS that
    >>>> is so easily and routinely compromised.

    >>
    >> If there are two very viable alternatives to Windows, then there's no
    >> monopoly. Dumbass freetard.





    Thanks for supporting me. "What he said." would also have been sufficient.




+ Reply to Thread