2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft - Microsoft Windows ; Windows, a second rate OS with a first rate marketing scheme. proof that if you know how to sell crap to Americans, they will happily buy it....

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

  1. 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    Windows, a second rate OS with a first rate marketing scheme. proof that if
    you know how to sell crap to Americans, they will happily buy it.





  2. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    you probably use a toy operating system like os x or linux, right?


  3. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    Pez D Spencer wrote:

    > you probably use a toy operating system like os x or linux, right?



    yep. used to use windows. got tired of fooling with my antivirus program and
    having to deal with spyware/adware. no more of that now.



  4. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    If you don't like Windows, then what ya doin' here? Go get Linux or maybe a
    Mac and tell THEM how crap you think Windows is.

    Personally, I think any OS that becomes as popular, no, hang on, I mean
    widely used as Windows, you gonna get problems. Give hackers the chance to
    start on Linux, and then that'll have as many security holes, too. Linux
    doesn't run half the software that Windows does, and I think Windows does
    quite well.



  5. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:24:11 -0500, CorporateGeorge
    wrote:

    > Windows, a second rate OS with a first rate marketing scheme. proof that if
    > you know how to sell crap to Americans, they will happily buy it.
    >
    >
    >


    OK, your opinion.

    So, in your opinion, what _is_ a first rate OS?


    --
    ==== Tecknomage ====
    "It ain't what you don't know that will hurt you, it's what
    you think you know that ain't so." Will Rogers

  6. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

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

    On 2006-04-13, Lindsay spake thusly:
    > If you don't like Windows, then what ya doin' here? Go get Linux or maybe a
    > Mac and tell THEM how crap you think Windows is.


    There are enough people doing that already. Go take a look at C.O.L.A.
    some time.

    "crap" is a broad and rather ambiguous term when applied to
    an OS. For instance, I could say I think windows is crappy, but what do
    I mean? Security? Interface? EULA? As for being here, it's kind of
    an interesting change of pace from other advocacy groups. I'm sure
    I'm not the only one who thinks so. Eh Tim?

    I personally hate windows, and am vocal about it for a number of
    reasons, but mainly because of the execs of the company that produces it.

    Redmond is home to some very brilliant programmers. The fact that the
    the end product is so horrible in design and execution can be
    attributed to one of two things:

    1) Windows is designed to be inadequate and insecure to ensure a continued
    cash flow in the form of updates and frequent new releases of the same product.
    "windows (fill in the blank version) is the most secure version ever! Viruses,
    worms, (etc, etc.). If you can blame problems with the OS on crackers, you have
    a built in upgrade cycle entrenched.

    2) Incompetance on the part of Ballmer and Gates. I don't for a moment believe
    this is true, but I felt I had to mention it in the interest of completeness.

    Over the years, Microsoft has fostered some serious ill will not only from
    frustrated, angry users, but from frustrated, angry developers and business
    "partners". This will be their undoing. They have a history of abandoning
    all three groups, or worse, actively engaging in destructive behavior. In
    the short term, it has paid off. In the long term, they will implode as
    a result. A frequent sin that they are caught in, is monopolistic practices.
    I am referring to unethical, illegal business practices that result in a
    company dominating a market. A good example of this, and certainly not
    the only one, is how MS crushed Netscape by giving away EI for free at a
    time when Netscape was the dominant browser, but didn't have the capital
    to fend off this illegal attack (yes it was illegal, as decided in a judgement
    of a case brought to trial by the justice dept.). Microsoft lost millions but
    was able to hold out longer than netscape, who crashed and burned.

    Macs are fine machines. I have an eMac and a Powerbook. I also have a PC
    running Fedora Core Linux.

    > Personally, I think any OS that becomes as popular, no, hang on, I mean
    > widely used as Windows, you gonna get problems.


    By problems, I assume you mean, Security. It is safe to say that at this
    point, windows is more well known to the average user. The same is not
    true of crackers. They are familiar with all systems, although they often
    specialize in a particular type of attack or OS. A cracker dosen't care
    if you like system (A) over system (B) as long as they can break into
    one of them. Like most thiefs, they will take the path of least resistance.

    The real test of security is how well it repels attacks under any conditions
    at any time. A good analogy is comparing safes. If acme safe company model
    coyote is insecure while being at the top of the cliff where others can see
    it, relying on being buried in the sand for security, where it can't be seen,
    offers no security at all.

    OTOH, if the roadrunner safe company model speedy is secure whether it
    is buried in the sand where it can't be seen, or sitting on the road at
    the top of the cliff where it is clearly visible, obviously the roadrunner
    model speedy is the most secure safe.

    Windows security is like the Coyote, and suffers from a deplorable design
    flaw - It was not designed from the bottom up with security as a priority.
    security was an afterthought; an add on. It will never provide good
    protection as a result. Security was a building block of *nix that goes
    all the way back to AT&T Unix. So this can't be attributed to the
    development of the internet.

    Safety by obfuscation is no safety at all. This is one of the reasons that
    Bruce Schneier publishes the source to his encryption algorythms. A good
    example of this is blowfish. Blowfish, and it's child, Twofish are arguably
    the most secure, free, open source encryption algorythms available to date.

    The best minds in encryption have tried to crack blowfish encrypted data and
    have (last I checked, about a year ago) never been able to get beyond the
    third iteration. If they can't do it *with* the source available, it means
    the algorythm is (for now) secure.

    > Give hackers


    In this area, it's important not to get your terms wrong. You are describing
    individuals who illegally or otherwise break into systems for malicious
    or criminal puposes. These are crackers. People who are self taught computer
    Enthusiasts, IT professionals that modify their own software systems (such as
    freeBSD or Linux), or volunteers to OSS projects, are Hackers. This is a
    generalization, but think of it this way; Crackers are out to make your
    life miserable, Hackers are contributing to the computer community in one
    way or another.

    > the chance to start on Linux, and then that'll have as many
    > security holes, too.


    Crackers try all the time. You should see my IPtables Firewall log.

    They are for the most part, unsuccessful, which is why Linux has been adopted
    by many companies such as IBM. Those intrusions into Linux systems that are
    successfull tend to be traceable to poor user practices such as habitually
    running as root for day to day tasks. Windows boxes tend to be compromised
    a matter of minutes after being connected to a high speed internet connection.
    I kid you not. One thing I didn't know until recently is that root kits
    are available for windows and pathetically easy to use.

    One of the advantages of Linux is that when security holes are detected
    which is fairly rare, the OSS community typically has a fix within a few hours,
    even making a modified kernel available if needed. I wish this were so for
    windows users. MS can take months to release fixes for serious problems once
    they are willing to admit that the problems exist.

    > Linux doesn't run half the software that Windows does, and I think Windows does
    > quite well.


    Well, yes, and no. Linux has software that does everything you could possibly
    want to do, and most of the time runs from one of Linux's very good GUI's.
    Linux also has software that you probably will never use, such as apache web
    server, FTP servers, domain name servers, Network servers, Linux to Mac to
    windows servers, database servers, and much more. Linux also offers a large
    choice of GUI's to run each with it's own strenghs and weaknesses. Having
    said that, there are times I wish I could run certain commercial windows
    titles such as turbo tax. Well, come to think of it, I think it's available
    for the mac. In fact, AFAIK, most windows titles are available for the Mac.

    Eventually vendors will start writing ports to Linux as they watch the
    market grow.

    I Don't like windows. I despise MS. But I truly believe that a user should
    use what ever is most comfortable, works best, and is the most productive
    OS available. I really mean that.

    Regards,

    Mathew


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFEWSMSlkJ5K/IU2ToRAlNCAJ41+wwI4KbH8gKfQC+KRbW/MKyJQACgkfs9
    /931EJactrVrT1yoJ/2+ZNs=
    =6bh5
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

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

    On 2006-04-23, Derek Currie spake thusly:
    > In article ,
    > Tecknomage wrote:
    >
    >> So, in your opinion, what _is_ a first rate OS?

    >
    > There is no perfect operating system.


    True!

    > But the most secure OS is any flavor of BSD Unix, such as FreeBSD. It


    I just go with *nix. Kind of a one-size-fits-all. I don't use
    BSD because I don't like the licence. It makes it too easy for it to get
    highjacked by commercial interests.

    > used to be Mac OS (MOS 7, 8, 9) but it has been discontinued.


    Don't know about Puma and up, but Jaguire had a mac os mode you could
    drop to from OSX. As for being the most secure, i would have to disagree
    with you.

    > Mac OS X
    > is the most secure GUI OS. It has been proven to have vulnerabilities,
    > but incredibly, orders of magnitude, less than Windows.


    Not so incredible. Windows just wan't built from the ground up
    with security in mind. Neither was MSDOS.

    > There remains no
    > malware 'in the wild' for Mac OS X.


    I don't know if that's true or not. I haven't ever had any problem
    with it on my mac, but my wife mostly uses it.

    > Mac OS X also wins at ROI (return on investment). It always has.


    What, for corporate clients? Interesting Assertion. I frankly don't
    know if this is true of not.

    > Mac OS X wins at COO (cost of ownership). It always has.


    As opposed to what? Windows? Well, yes. But have you priced Tiger
    lately? I do like the integrated software and free updates
    though.

    > Mac OS X consistently wins accolades for having the best look and feel,
    > and best ease of use. The only people who I have ever say otherwise are
    > those who learned on Windows, came to Mac OS X late, and have not yet
    > adjusted to the differences.


    The problem is that the very thing that you are applauding is a major
    stumbling block for people truly learning about computers. The weakness
    of the OSX GUI (like the Windows GUI) is that it Locks users into
    believing that a computer should only work from a GUI interface, and that
    is, to say the least, extremely limiting. It also fosters the "I wan't
    the most eye candy for the buck" attitude, regardless of how well engineered
    the OS is. Don't get me wrong; I think OSX is a great system with an
    impressive GUI.

    > I can personally say that with Windows one
    > has to constantly out-think what oblique procedure Microsoft is
    > inflicting upon you. It is very disorienting to have to change your
    > thinking back to trusting your intuition, which is what you have to do
    > with Mac OS X.
    >
    > Windows, one can indeed say, has many more applications, good or bad.
    > And for some people this is the critical point. My brother for example
    > makes his livelihood using corporate personnel management software,
    > Oracle, Peoplesoft, SAS etc. There are no versions for Mac OS X. So for
    > these folks there is no alternative. So that makes Windows their 'First
    > Rate OS', and who can blame them for saying so?


    It comes down to how much they want to use a mac. The software is
    available to do the jobs you mentioned, it just has different brand
    names. The only "can't do it" really, is if the boss forces certain
    programs to be used.

    > Windows also works, usually, on any old POS PC that any old Joe Blow can
    > mash together in their basement. No way will Mac OS X ever do that, and
    > if you ask me that is a great thing. I hope it never does. So, for those
    > who like the choice (chaos?) in hardware choices in the design of the
    > PC, Windows is their 'First Rate OS' and again who can blame them.


    Not so fast Kimosabe'. The new MacTel machines may change all that.
    time will tell.

    Windows will not run on any old PC. Depends on the version, but windows
    is very persnikity about the platform. Then there's the per CPU
    license .....

    > Linux if FREE. It also runs on any old POS PC and also runs on any old
    > Mac as well! It opens up windows of possibility that proprietary OSes
    > can only imagine. It brings together communities of users and developers
    > in a common cause, which is evolving an OS for the masses designed by
    > the masses.


    Here! Here!

    > To all of them, Linux is their 'First Rate OS' and who can
    > blame them. (I should note that Mac OS X is about 90% Open Source


    Sorry, but I don't see it. The OSX Kernel is based on NextStep, Darwin,
    and BSD. BSD is only one player. %90 open source? Apple would disagree,
    me thinks.

    > , and
    > does benefit from much of the same community that evolves Linux. Windows
    > is zero % Open Source and will most likely forever remain so).
    >
    >
    > Conclusion: If you want to go by hard statistics then BSD Unix wins, and
    > Mac OS X is it's best GUI version.


    The GUI is an interface. It's not an OS version. But I digress ....

    By the way, what hard stats are you referring to?

    Speaking of GUI's, I am a Linux man, and I have to tell you, I was astounded
    by the quantity and quality of the GUI's available that run on the Xwindow
    system. It actually makes choosing a GUI like deciding which chocolate
    to get at a candy store.

    > However, that does not necessarily
    > answer all the needs or perceptions of everyone. Therefore, this is not
    > a simple question with a simple answer.
    >
    >
    > However, I do encourage people to make their lives as Microsoft-Free as
    > possible. I won't go into any argument to support this statement for
    > now, but in many fundamental ways Windows is the worst, most dangerous
    > operating system available. The fewer people that use this awful OS the
    > more developers will turn to supporting the superior alternatives.
    >
    >
    >:-Derek



    I hope that more people become aware of the danger of using
    the internet with windows. Everything from identity theft to
    covertly taking control of your computer remotely is not
    uncommon.

    Regards,

    Mathew



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFEWSzTlkJ5K/IU2ToRAkmwAKDJ3EJFOzeDa6nR+JKg/LZiErFQyACcDe33
    5QtWDUkp43rOtXUqbzI2UyA=
    =yV1V
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  8. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    Mathew P. wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 2006-04-13, Lindsay spake thusly:
    >> If you don't like Windows, then what ya doin' here? Go get Linux or maybe
    >> a Mac and tell THEM how crap you think Windows is.

    >
    > There are enough people doing that already. Go take a look at C.O.L.A.
    > some time.
    >
    > "crap" is a broad and rather ambiguous term when applied to
    > an OS. For instance, I could say I think windows is crappy, but what do
    > I mean? Security? Interface? EULA? As for being here, it's kind of
    > an interesting change of pace from other advocacy groups. I'm sure
    > I'm not the only one who thinks so. Eh Tim?
    >
    > I personally hate windows, and am vocal about it for a number of
    > reasons, but mainly because of the execs of the company that produces it.
    >
    > Redmond is home to some very brilliant programmers. The fact that the
    > the end product is so horrible in design and execution can be
    > attributed to one of two things:
    >
    > 1) Windows is designed to be inadequate and insecure to ensure a continued
    > cash flow in the form of updates and frequent new releases of the same
    > product. "windows (fill in the blank version) is the most secure version
    > ever! Viruses, worms, (etc, etc.). If you can blame problems with the OS
    > on crackers, you have a built in upgrade cycle entrenched.
    >
    > 2) Incompetance on the part of Ballmer and Gates. I don't for a moment
    > believe this is true, but I felt I had to mention it in the interest of
    > completeness.
    >
    > Over the years, Microsoft has fostered some serious ill will not only from
    > frustrated, angry users, but from frustrated, angry developers and
    > business "partners". This will be their undoing. They have a history of
    > abandoning all three groups, or worse, actively engaging in destructive
    > behavior. In the short term, it has paid off. In the long term, they will
    > implode as a result. A frequent sin that they are caught in, is
    > monopolistic practices. I am referring to unethical, illegal business
    > practices that result in a company dominating a market. A good example of
    > this, and certainly not the only one, is how MS crushed Netscape by giving
    > away EI for free at a time when Netscape was the dominant browser, but
    > didn't have the capital to fend off this illegal attack (yes it was
    > illegal, as decided in a judgement of a case brought to trial by the
    > justice dept.). Microsoft lost millions but was able to hold out longer
    > than netscape, who crashed and burned.
    >
    > Macs are fine machines. I have an eMac and a Powerbook. I also have a PC
    > running Fedora Core Linux.
    >
    >> Personally, I think any OS that becomes as popular, no, hang on, I mean
    >> widely used as Windows, you gonna get problems.

    >
    > By problems, I assume you mean, Security. It is safe to say that at this
    > point, windows is more well known to the average user. The same is not
    > true of crackers. They are familiar with all systems, although they often
    > specialize in a particular type of attack or OS. A cracker dosen't care
    > if you like system (A) over system (B) as long as they can break into
    > one of them. Like most thiefs, they will take the path of least
    > resistance.
    >
    > The real test of security is how well it repels attacks under any
    > conditions at any time. A good analogy is comparing safes. If acme safe
    > company model coyote is insecure while being at the top of the cliff where
    > others can see it, relying on being buried in the sand for security, where
    > it can't be seen, offers no security at all.
    >
    > OTOH, if the roadrunner safe company model speedy is secure whether it
    > is buried in the sand where it can't be seen, or sitting on the road at
    > the top of the cliff where it is clearly visible, obviously the roadrunner
    > model speedy is the most secure safe.
    >
    > Windows security is like the Coyote, and suffers from a deplorable design
    > flaw - It was not designed from the bottom up with security as a priority.
    > security was an afterthought; an add on. It will never provide good
    > protection as a result. Security was a building block of *nix that goes
    > all the way back to AT&T Unix. So this can't be attributed to the
    > development of the internet.
    >
    > Safety by obfuscation is no safety at all. This is one of the reasons that
    > Bruce Schneier publishes the source to his encryption algorythms. A good
    > example of this is blowfish. Blowfish, and it's child, Twofish are
    > arguably the most secure, free, open source encryption algorythms
    > available to date.
    >
    > The best minds in encryption have tried to crack blowfish encrypted data
    > and have (last I checked, about a year ago) never been able to get beyond
    > the third iteration. If they can't do it *with* the source available, it
    > means the algorythm is (for now) secure.
    >
    >> Give hackers

    >
    > In this area, it's important not to get your terms wrong. You are
    > describing individuals who illegally or otherwise break into systems for
    > malicious or criminal puposes. These are crackers. People who are self
    > taught computer Enthusiasts, IT professionals that modify their own
    > software systems (such as freeBSD or Linux), or volunteers to OSS
    > projects, are Hackers. This is a generalization, but think of it this way;
    > Crackers are out to make your life miserable, Hackers are contributing to
    > the computer community in one way or another.
    >
    >> the chance to start on Linux, and then that'll have as many
    >> security holes, too.

    >
    > Crackers try all the time. You should see my IPtables Firewall log.
    >
    > They are for the most part, unsuccessful, which is why Linux has been
    > adopted by many companies such as IBM. Those intrusions into Linux systems
    > that are successfull tend to be traceable to poor user practices such as
    > habitually running as root for day to day tasks. Windows boxes tend to be
    > compromised a matter of minutes after being connected to a high speed
    > internet connection. I kid you not. One thing I didn't know until recently
    > is that root kits are available for windows and pathetically easy to use.
    >
    > One of the advantages of Linux is that when security holes are detected
    > which is fairly rare, the OSS community typically has a fix within a few
    > hours, even making a modified kernel available if needed. I wish this were
    > so for windows users. MS can take months to release fixes for serious
    > problems once they are willing to admit that the problems exist.
    >
    >> Linux doesn't run half the software that Windows does, and I think
    >> Windows does
    >> quite well.

    >
    > Well, yes, and no. Linux has software that does everything you could
    > possibly want to do, and most of the time runs from one of Linux's very
    > good GUI's. Linux also has software that you probably will never use, such
    > as apache web server, FTP servers, domain name servers, Network servers,
    > Linux to Mac to windows servers, database servers, and much more. Linux
    > also offers a large choice of GUI's to run each with it's own strenghs and
    > weaknesses. Having said that, there are times I wish I could run certain
    > commercial windows titles such as turbo tax. Well, come to think of it, I
    > think it's available for the mac. In fact, AFAIK, most windows titles are
    > available for the Mac.
    >
    > Eventually vendors will start writing ports to Linux as they watch the
    > market grow.
    >
    > I Don't like windows. I despise MS. But I truly believe that a user should
    > use what ever is most comfortable, works best, and is the most productive
    > OS available. I really mean that.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Mathew
    >
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
    >
    > iD8DBQFEWSMSlkJ5K/IU2ToRAlNCAJ41+wwI4KbH8gKfQC+KRbW/MKyJQACgkfs9
    > /931EJactrVrT1yoJ/2+ZNs=
    > =6bh5
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    Linux will never have the hacks and virus troubles MS had, mainly because we
    set off on a different path right at the beginning. The strong base that we
    sit on is very different to MS Windows.

    They will of cause be vulnerabilities found but as you said, they get fixed,
    openly and quickly. None are a real threat, but by taking the minor threats
    seriously we are well geared up for if a major one turns up.

    Consider the sort of data that is still held on mainframe computers, the
    criminal world would love to get access to the data. They have been
    breaches of security, but not from hacking, the breaches needed a way in
    passwords or keys, the basic 'try a password till one works' approach.
    Which of cause wouldn't work now.


    But we have to be fair to MS too, no one could have expected the massive
    onslought of virus's and hacks that came along, the first large waves just
    happened to coincide with the release of NT and NT client. Then because
    they were both heavily breached by attackers there was no point in
    businesses paying the extra cost of an NT client, they might as well just
    have Win98.

    So businesses were now on the wrong platform, the least secure, the least
    easy to make secure. NT was intended as the secure one, it was on that one
    where the protection for the onslaught should have gone, and it could have
    done it too, Win98 was little more than a games machine for home use.

    What MS did wrong then though was instead of saying 'Right, we need to
    tighten up the platforms that people are using, stop automatic code
    execution, put in a firewall, seal up the kernel area', No what they did
    wrong, was ignore it, as if they were saying 'It's your own fault for not
    buying the more expensive NT client'. It was down to Norton, McAfee and the
    others to protect the users machines, MS weren't interested.

    They have had many oppertunities to put things right over the years, with a
    very feeble attempt at it in XP. But of cause no one uses the 'user'
    accounts, because the split of functionality between user and admin is
    wrong. Users wont go into admin just to update the anti-v, or add a web
    control and other almost daily things, because the process is too long
    winded on XP. Instead the users are all admin, so XP is not much more
    protection from hack/virus than Win98 was.

    I'm not anti-MS, windows is still a good product, it is definately not the
    product it should have been. But it is a good product if you put it onto
    its correct shelf in the super market, next to the Xbox, the play station,
    the mp3 players.


  9. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    In article ,
    "Mathew P." wrote:

    > (I should note that Mac OS X is about 90% Open Source
    >
    > Sorry, but I don't see it. The OSX Kernel is based on NextStep, Darwin,
    > and BSD. BSD is only one player. %90 open source? Apple would disagree,
    > me thinks.


    Yeah, the 90% was a grab out of the air I am afraid. The base kernel for
    Mac OS X is called the 'Mach' kernel version 3.3 I believe, with of
    course plenty of added tweaks from Apple over the years. It is embedded
    in the Darwin OS. Darwin in its entirety is Open Source. And Darwin is
    the core underpinning of Mac OS X. Riding on top would be Apple's Java
    implementation, which sadly Sun has forbidden to become Open Source, as
    well as all the GUI and GUI-only core applications, both Carbon and
    Cocoa, such as the Finder. (For reasons I cannot comprehend, the Finder
    is still written in Carbon). On PPC Macs the OS also includes the
    Classic environment. On Intel Macs that is replaced by Rosetta.

    Sorry to put you to sleep.

    > > Conclusion: If you want to go by hard statistics then BSD Unix wins, and
    > > Mac OS X is it's best GUI version.

    >
    > By the way, what hard stats are you referring to?


    Hmmm. There was a study in the first half on 2005 that determined the OS
    with the best security record. I apologize that I don't have it. I would
    be willing to bet that the SANS Institute (much as I resent their
    anti-Mac bias lately) probably has it referenced. I am too burnt and
    hungry at the moment to look for myself:



    > I hope that more people become aware of the danger of using
    > the internet with windows. Everything from identity theft to
    > covertly taking control of your computer remotely is not
    > uncommon.


    Yeah. With more Mac users tossing Windows on their Macs via Boot Camp
    and Parallels Workstation I expect a lot of surprises when they take
    Windows on a stroll through the Internet. It has a very different
    complexion from a Windows user point of view.

    But some stuff, like phishing, is universal. Knowing HTML, I find it
    child's play to identify phishing in an email. But Jane Blow won't.


    Kewl chatting with your Mathew.

    --
    Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
    Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease
    of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge.

    [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded
    the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]

  10. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft


    "Mathew P." wrote in message
    newsq96g.768$yh.426@trnddc04...
    >
    > Redmond is home to some very brilliant programmers. The fact that the
    > the end product is so horrible in design and execution can be
    > attributed to one of two things:
    >
    > 1) Windows is designed to be inadequate and insecure to ensure a
    > continued
    > cash flow in the form of updates and frequent new releases of the same
    > product.
    > "windows (fill in the blank version) is the most secure version ever!
    > Viruses,
    > worms, (etc, etc.). If you can blame problems with the OS on crackers,
    > you have
    > a built in upgrade cycle entrenched.
    >
    > 2) Incompetance on the part of Ballmer and Gates. I don't for a moment
    > believe
    > this is true, but I felt I had to mention it in the interest of
    > completeness.
    >

    There is also the notion that you don't know how to evaluate a product,
    mathew! If something doesn't fit your idea of an ideal, it only means
    that it wasn't designed to please you. Perhaps MS doesn't care what you
    think.

    > Over the years, Microsoft has fostered some serious ill will not only
    > from
    > frustrated, angry users, but from frustrated, angry developers and
    > business
    > "partners". This will be their undoing. They have a history of
    > abandoning
    > all three groups, or worse, actively engaging in destructive behavior.
    > In
    > the short term, it has paid off. In the long term, they will implode
    > as
    > a result. A frequent sin that they are caught in, is monopolistic
    > practices.
    > I am referring to unethical, illegal business practices that result in
    > a
    > company dominating a market. A good example of this, and certainly not
    > the only one, is how MS crushed Netscape by giving away EI for free at
    > a
    > time when Netscape was the dominant browser, but didn't have the
    > capital
    > to fend off this illegal attack (yes it was illegal, as decided in a
    > judgement
    > of a case brought to trial by the justice dept.). Microsoft lost
    > millions but
    > was able to hold out longer than netscape, who crashed and burned.
    >

    You have no accurate understanding of the law, mathew! NOTHING that MS
    did vis-a-vis Netscape was ever called illegal in any court in any land.
    Netscape was a one trick pony offered a chance to partner with MS when
    it became apparent that a browser had to be included in any OS platform
    distribution. Netscape declined, forcing MS to hire another company,
    thinking they were king of the hill and no one could hope to learn
    enough to replace them! Arrogance to an extreme and folly, too. Now
    Netscape is just a logo passed around from one place to another and all
    those idiots are long gone.




  11. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    On May 4, 2006, Derek Currie wrote:
    > Hmmm. There was a study in the first half on 2005 that determined the OS
    > with the best security record. I apologize that I don't have it. I would
    > be willing to bet that the SANS Institute (much as I resent their
    > anti-Mac bias lately) probably has it referenced. I am too burnt and
    > hungry at the moment to look for myself:
    >
    >


    If you ever locate it, please post the info. I've rummaged around SANS and
    can't find it.


  12. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

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

    On 2006-05-04, Derek Currie spake thusly:
    > In article ,
    > "Mathew P." wrote:
    >
    >> (I should note that Mac OS X is about 90% Open Source
    >>
    >> Sorry, but I don't see it. The OSX Kernel is based on NextStep, Darwin,
    >> and BSD. BSD is only one player. %90 open source? Apple would disagree,
    >> me thinks.

    >
    > Yeah, the 90% was a grab out of the air I am afraid.


    That's ok. I tend to throw a few air balls from time to time ;-)


    > The base kernel for
    > Mac OS X is called the 'Mach' kernel version 3.3 I believe, with of
    > course plenty of added tweaks from Apple over the years.


    Of course! I totally forgot about Mach. (slapping self on face violently)

    > It is embedded
    > in the Darwin OS. Darwin in its entirety is Open Source. And Darwin is
    > the core underpinning of Mac OS X.


    Really ..... I thought Darwin was proprietary. Like you say, too tired,
    too hungry .....


    > Riding on top would be Apple's Java
    > implementation, which sadly Sun has forbidden to become Open Source, as
    > well as all the GUI and GUI-only core applications, both Carbon and
    > Cocoa, such as the Finder. (For reasons I cannot comprehend, the Finder
    > is still written in Carbon). On PPC Macs the OS also includes the
    > Classic environment. On Intel Macs that is replaced by Rosetta.
    >
    > Sorry to put you to sleep.


    Not at all! I like talking to someone who talks RATHER THAN SHOUTING

    ;-)

    >> > Conclusion: If you want to go by hard statistics then BSD Unix wins, and
    >> > Mac OS X is it's best GUI version.

    >>
    >> By the way, what hard stats are you referring to?

    >
    > Hmmm. There was a study in the first half on 2005 that determined the OS
    > with the best security record. I apologize that I don't have it. I would
    > be willing to bet that the SANS Institute (much as I resent their
    > anti-Mac bias lately) probably has it referenced. I am too burnt and
    > hungry at the moment to look for myself:
    >
    >


    LOL!

    I am biased. I am very confident in my mac's security, and don't even
    run it through my linux box as a firewall. But I have to tell you,
    Linux is the most cast iron, reinforced concrete, OS I have ever used.

    >> I hope that more people become aware of the danger of using
    >> the internet with windows. Everything from identity theft to
    >> covertly taking control of your computer remotely is not
    >> uncommon.

    >
    > Yeah. With more Mac users tossing Windows on their Macs via Boot Camp
    > and Parallels Workstation I expect a lot of surprises when they take
    > Windows on a stroll through the Internet. It has a very different
    > complexion from a Windows user point of view.
    >
    > But some stuff, like phishing, is universal. Knowing HTML, I find it
    > child's play to identify phishing in an email. But Jane Blow won't.
    >
    >
    > Kewl chatting with your Mathew.


    Yea, it's getting so bad, I can't even log onto my favorite porn site
    anymore :-)

    I have noticed that surfing with firefox in Linux is like wearing
    a Nixon mask in Starbucks; Nobody can tell who you are, the
    server is unsure whether it's safe to try to put double Caff on your
    table, but they sure are curious about you.

    Anyway, It will be interesting to see what happens with the macs once
    the mactels become widely used.

    regards,

    Mathew


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFEZXV7lkJ5K/IU2ToRAk8gAJ0c2dJdBlbhF8izVYvBKAeaJqnQ3ACg3bhs
    aIemu8BeZSnx5WlGwboAnGg=
    =phWb
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    "Always do the right thing: It will delight / Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies
    some and astound the rest" - Mark Twain / Psychotronic protection, low prices

  13. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    In article <0001HW.C0841C4400174040F0335530@newsgroups.bellsou th.net>,
    Tim Murray wrote:

    > On May 4, 2006, Derek Currie wrote:
    > > Hmmm. There was a study in the first half on 2005 that determined the OS
    > > with the best security record. I apologize that I don't have it. I would
    > > be willing to bet that the SANS Institute (much as I resent their
    > > anti-Mac bias lately) probably has it referenced. I am too burnt and
    > > hungry at the moment to look for myself:
    > >
    > >

    >
    > If you ever locate it, please post the info. I've rummaged around SANS and
    > can't find it.


    FOUND IT!

    I also found a related article. Here goes:

    1) This is an oldie but goody. It is a couple months older than I had
    remembered. First I will give you the announcing article I first read on
    the subject, then I will send you over to the source article itself.
    Note that you will get the most information from the first article as
    the actual report will cost you some ? pounds:

    A) OS X is world's most secure operating system, report concludes
    <http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/65331/os...re-operating-s
    ystem-report-concludes.html>

    > Mac OS X and BSD Unix have been named as the world's safest and most secure
    > online computing environments after a year-long study by enterprise security
    > specialists mi2g.
    >
    > In what is describes as 'the most comprehensive study ever undertaken',
    > mi2g's Intelligence Unit analysed over 235,000 security breaches against
    > permanently online systems and found that Mac OS X or BSD (on which OS X is
    > partly based) accounted for just 4.82 per cent of all successful attacks.
    > Linux was the least secure, with 65.64 per cent while Windows accounted for
    > most of the remainder. . .



    B) 2004-11-02, News Alert, Deep study: The world's safest computing
    environment


    > London, UK - 2 November 2004, 02:30 GMT - The most comprehensive study ever
    > undertaken by the mi2g Intelligence Unit over 12 months reveals that the
    > world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating
    > system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD
    > (Berkley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin. This is
    > good news for Apple Computers(AAPL) whose shares have outperformed the
    > benchmark NASDAQ, S&P and Dow indices as well as Microsoft (MSFT) by over
    > 100% in the last six months on the back of revived sales and profits. The
    > last twelve months have witnessed the deadliest annual period in terms of
    > malware - virus, worm and trojan - proliferation targeting Windows based
    > machines in which over 200 countries and tens of millions of computers
    > worldwide have been infected month-in month-out. . .


    The full report is for sale for ?29.38 at:



    2) This one is even older, but still respectable. Note that Mac OS X
    uses Darwin as its base operating system upon which everything else is
    built. Darwin is 100% Open Source Unix. It is also based on OpenBSD:

    OpenBSD: The most secure OS around
    By Steven Vaughan-Nichols
    November 5, 2001

    <http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda...9,2822483,00.h
    tml>

    > You're probably sick and tired of running into the latest Windows security
    > snafu. And you're undoubtedly painfully aware that most versions of Unix have
    > their own major security holes, such as the recent HP-UX whopper. I'm
    > guessing that you're wondering if there's a network operating system that
    > gets security right. There is: OpenBSD.
    >
    > Unlike other operating systems, with the exception of close relative NetBSD,
    > the open source OpenBSD was built from the ground up to be secure. How do
    > they do it? In no small part, it's by constantly auditing the operating
    > system's code for potential security problems.
    >
    > For example, the entire source code tree for OpenBSD is audited for that
    > most frequent of security problems: buffer overflows. Since 1996, the
    > operating system has had a team of auditors working on finding potential
    > problems and fixing them before they can develop into security holes.
    > OpenBSD, which runs on the Intel platform but has been ported to many
    > others, is also a big believer in fully disclosing any potential security
    > problems to the public as they come up and then immediately attacking and
    > fixing them. Unlike most operating system vendors, the OpenBSD crew is
    > proactive rather than reactive to security problems.
    >
    > Are you listening Apple, Microsoft, and all the Unix vendors? This isn't
    > rocket science. It's barely computer science; it's simply quality assurance
    > testing for security.


    Actually, Apple did listen. However, there are elements of OpenBSD that
    have yet to be built into Darwin, including some security features. Yes,
    Mac OS X has room for improvement. Note that Apple just released a large
    security update just this week.


    :-Derek

    --
    Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
    Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease
    of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge.

    [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded
    the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]

  14. Re: 2nd Rate Operating System--Monopoly$oft

    Derek Currie wrote:


    Is it just me, or did they award the title of "most secure OS" based on
    how many attacks are reported?

    Wouldn't a much better measure be what to put those numbers up against
    the number of systems actually running those OS's?

    I mean, seriously, of course Linux boxes get attacked. Practically the
    entire internet runs on Linux. Likewise for Windows since practically
    all home users run Windows. The Mac numbers are so low mostly because so
    few people uses macs!

    - NRen2k5

+ Reply to Thread