XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of us

[Pooh Bear]

John Larkin wrote:

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

They have an essentially captive market - buy a Dell etc.... and you
*have* to have Windows. Doesn't even matter if it's any good or whatever.
Word simply drives me nuts !


Graham

 

[Fred Abse]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:48:57 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:54:09 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


The only OS from Microsoft that is high quality by my standards is
MS-DOS.


That's because IBM debugged it for them.

They hadn't written it anyway, AFAIK, they bought it in.

Buy shit.
Get IBM to rewrite it.
Sell it.
Become market leader.


--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[Larry Brasfield]

This is too much like an advocacy thread for my taste,
so I am not going to debate these off-topic issues. My
purpose is only to inject a few facts which I happened
to be positioned to know.

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.16.13.08.39.300103@cerebrumconfus.it...

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:48:57 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:54:09 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


The only OS from Microsoft that is high quality by my standards is
MS-DOS.


That's because IBM debugged it for them.

The report I have heard, from one of the people who was
at Microsoft during the development of MS-DOS after an
early version was purchased from Tim Paterson, is that
IBM was a very important customer, able to have their way
with respect to features, but that the ongoing development
of MS-DOS was done at Microsoft. Among others who
contributed to that effort was Tim himself. We can thank
IBM for the '\' as path component separator, against the
better judgement of the developers who were using Unix
at the time for development support. (Those developers'
influence can be seen in the DOS 2.x API evolution.)

They hadn't written it anyway, AFAIK, they bought it in.

Tim Paterson wrote the pre-1.0 version that Microsoft
bought from his company. Shortly afterward, Tim was
hired by Microsoft and was working there as of 1997.

Buy shit.

I doubt that very much. I worked with Tim for several
years and knew him to be meticulous programmer who
rarely wrote bugs. Of course, I never saw the code he
sold to Microsoft, but I doubt he metamorphized from a
sloppy programmer to a careful one.

Get IBM to rewrite it.

Did not happen.

Sell it.
Become market leader.

As an early shareholder, I'm not complaining.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

 

[Charles Schuler]

Its hard to say if I get disoriented or confused by facts, because when it
comes to this topic, no facts have been presented from the "I love
Microsoft" gang.

There are a number of guys here from whom I have learned a great deal. You
are certainly not one of them.

As I said tho, there is no point dragging it on and on. Unless there is
actual conversation and give and take, its just a waste of time.

"Security is, as we all know, a process, not a product. So when you use
Linux, you're not using a perfectly safe OS. There is no such thing. But
Linux and Mac OS X establish a more secure footing than Microsoft Windows,
one that makes it far harder for viruses to take hold in the first place,
but if one does take hold, harder to damage the system, but if one succeeds
in damaging the system, harder to spread to other machines and repeat the
process. When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, Linux may not be
completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and
stupidity - but it is much more resistant. To mess up a Linux box, you need
to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. I
know which one I'll trust. How about you? "

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

 

In <aOydnYSalv3W8fzfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, on 04/16/05
at 03:49 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

"Security is, as we all know, a process, not a product. So when you use
Linux, you're not using a perfectly safe OS.

<bullshit snipped>

mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box,
you just need to work on it. I know which one I'll trust. How about you?
"

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

As Arthur said to Susan, whom he was being forced to marry in the
movie........... "your such an asshole"

JB

 

[Charles Schuler]

As Arthur said to Susan, whom he was being forced to marry in the
movie........... "your such an asshole"

You have now denigrated me inferentially and that strongly indicates that
you are bankrupt for any reasonable responses and thus must now resort to
name calling. You have lost big time, my friend. You might want to review
the rules of reasonable debating. You are still "dead wrong" and now have
become shrill and id-driven. Note that I never denigrated you and would
never sink that low.

 

In <CIadnfy1_J7eF_zfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>, on 04/16/05
at 05:57 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

As Arthur said to Susan, whom he was being forced to marry in the
movie........... "your such an asshole"

You have now denigrated me inferentially and that strongly indicates that
you are bankrupt for any reasonable responses and thus must now resort
to name calling. You have lost big time, my friend. You might want to
review the rules of reasonable debating. You are still "dead wrong" and
now have become shrill and id-driven. Note that I never denigrated you
and would never sink that low.

Aww, we ain't friends, and your responses won't win any prizes for
debating. In fact, you have yet to reply with anything beyond a dopey
quote. Debating? Anytime my 'friend' any time.

Heck, you didn't even pick no my spelling It should have been written
"you're such an asshole"

It would help if you posted just what you do think, rather than just
throwing out a silly quote every time anyone posted a message you are not
able to deal with, or think clearly on. Explain why you do that, when it
would be just as easy for anyone on the other side of it, to find a quote
that they think applies, and just keep posting it. Don't talk about
debate, when you don't even participate.

When you posted a denigrating remark about me, I replied and all you chose
to offer was some standard, off the shelf quote from someone else. So far,
all you have ever said on this whole topic is that phony quote, and "you
are dead wrong" Hardly words to win a debate with, and certainly not even
worthy of your tombstone. I'm not wrong, I am quite right about the issue.

I said that I am learning from people on this list. Its just that you are
teaching all the wrong lessons.

Have a good day.

John

 

[Charles Schuler]

Aww, we ain't friends, and your responses won't win any prizes for
debating. In fact, you have yet to reply with anything beyond a dopey
quote. Debating? Anytime my 'friend' any time.

Dopey quote? And your credentials shadow his? You should let his employer
know that you are much better and that you should replace him.

Heck, you didn't even pick no my spelling It should have been written
"you're such an asshole"

Your spelling is eclipsed by your attitude. Interesting that folks who
can't spell "chamois" can spell "asshole." But, that's another issue.

It would help if you posted just what you do think, rather than just
throwing out a silly quote every time anyone posted a message you are not
able to deal with, or think clearly on. Explain why you do that, when it
would be just as easy for anyone on the other side of it, to find a quote
that they think applies, and just keep posting it. Don't talk about
debate, when you don't even participate.

I have found that it is fruitless to debate with zealots.

When you posted a denigrating remark about me, I replied and all you chose
to offer was some standard, off the shelf quote from someone else. So far,
all you have ever said on this whole topic is that phony quote, and "you
are dead wrong" Hardly words to win a debate with, and certainly not even
worthy of your tombstone. I'm not wrong, I am quite right about the issue.

The quote was used as it is a reasoned reponse from someone with experience
and credentials. I qutoed it because it sums up what I believe. It is a
moderate position and admits to product vulnerabiliities, on all fronts.
Extreme and unequivalcal opinions are not in any one's best interest
(except, of course, for the occassional frustrated poster who has personal
issues and needs to vent).

I said that I am learning from people on this list. Its just that you are
teaching all the wrong lessons.

I am not teaching. I sometimes respond to outlandish statements, as they
compell me to do so. When one posts "absolutes", one can expect my kind of
response. This issue is hardly like "conservation of angular momentun." One
should be careful about being "lofty" in arenas such as these.

Have a good day.

You too, John. Nothing personal about any of this, by the way. We all
profit by reasoned discourse and that might even improve products like
Windows (Yeah, I admit that's a far stretch of the imagination).
Personally, I don't like Windows but happen to be tethered to it to make a
buck. Is it terrible, heck no ... it's useable and I prove that every day.

 

In <p76dnWptJYVpBPzfRVn-1g@comcast.com>, on 04/16/05
at 07:04 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

Aww, we ain't friends, and your responses won't win any prizes for
debating. In fact, you have yet to reply with anything beyond a dopey
quote. Debating? Anytime my 'friend' any time.

Dopey quote? And your credentials shadow his? You should let his
employer know that you are much better and that you should replace him.

I don't think that his employment has anything to do with it. In fact,
everything else aside, I am not able to see what his quote has to do with
anything. Seems to me the issue was the poor architecture of the windows
operating system, which simply allows too easy access to all services on
the computer, whereas other operating systems have been built from the
ground up with security in mind to where they do not allow outside
hackers access to the file system, and their services. I believe this is a
true fact.

Always when this comes up, people twist the topic as if to say that if it
was Linux number one, linux would be as virus infected as windows, but
that is just not relevant. The key to viruses on windows machines is the
ability of it to move itself across any connected network. I will never
say never, but that is not really possible to do on an *nix or even an
OS/2 system.

Therefore, the effect of the virus is quite limited, and would hardly be
worth the effort to create in the first place, as the damage would barely
make the local news. Somehow, this always gets overlooked, and so most
people walk away thinking poor old microsoft is just a victim, when they
are providing the vehicle to spread the virus in the first place. That
point, and your quote have nothing to do with each other.

Heck, you didn't even pick no my spelling It should have been written
"you're such an asshole"

Your spelling is eclipsed by your attitude. Interesting that folks who
can't spell "chamois" can spell "asshole." But, that's another issue.

I assume you spelled "chamois", since without a definition, you could be
trying to say pretty much any word, and still misspell it. You could be
referring to women's underwear for all know.... Besides, its rather
fascinating to note that you can infer that I am stupid and cannot spell,
and that is not denigrating, but when I call you an asshole, it is. Who
sets these rules, anyway? Better to avoid it all together. I will work
harder at that.

I have found that it is fruitless to debate with zealots.

If you were paying attention to the thread, I espoused that theory some
time back when I walked away from a never ending argument with folks who
refuse to actually discuss the issues. Sounds like you think the same way.

The quote was used as it is a reasoned reponse from someone with
experience and credentials. I qutoed it because it sums up what I
believe.

I can live with that, but you posted it half a dozen times in response to
posts that had nothing to do with your man's position.

It is a moderate position and admits to product
vulnerabiliities, on all fronts.

The vulnerability of linux or OS/2 was not the topic at hand, until folks
walked off with the subject, as if to say that since linux *might* be
vulnerable, then its okay for microsoft to completely ignore its own
weakness. That is hardly a defense.

On a larger scale, linux is not mainstream, it is not all that popular in
the real world, and its strengths and weaknesses have no bearing on
whether M$ should be held accountable for the inherent flaws in its
products, and its complete and utter failing to deal directly with the
cause.

When Ford Pintos were blowing up left and right, we didn't defend Ford by
saying that "well, other cars might explode if they are hit just right."
We expected Ford to deal with the problem to the best of their ability.
Cars, death, and computers may not be on the same plane, but the fact is,
we forced Ford to fix it, and we ought not let M$ off the hook, just
because someone else knows how to infect Linux. That does not sound like
the kind of attitude that will get us all better products to work with.

When one posts "absolutes", one can expect my kind
of response.

Could there possibly be a more 'absolute' and outlandish statement than
yours, wherein you answered a well thought out, and point by point
commentary by merely declaring "you are dead wrong?" Doesn't get more
absolute than what you said, so consider that if it bothers you when
someone speaks absolutes, its quite possible that the effect will also
arise ino thers, when you do the same thing.

Nothing personal about any of this, by the way.

Can't take anything too personal on usenet

Personally, I don't like Windows but happen to be tethered to it to make
a buck. Is it terrible, heck no ... it's useable and I prove that every
day.

I am in the same boat, and I am unwilling to just let it be crappy, and
not at least desire that microsoft do a better job. Posting on usenet is
not the only time I let my position be known. Whether microsoft reads
their mail or not, I do not know, but I am unable to just sit by and watch
them torture people just because there is no one to challenge them.

People use inferior products all the time. Failure to stand up and demand
quality is how we got here in the first place. Very few have ever seen an
operating system outside of windows, but I know for an "absolute" fact
that when they do, many of them are stunned to know that another one even
exists, that things can work, they are easy to maintain, interfaces can be
logical and useful, and even tho most are tethered to windows, it can only
help to have more and more people know that we didn't have to wait 12
years to get an OS that did not crash on a daily basis, that
multi-threading multi-tasking is not something new, and that virused can
be mostly emliminated with a little investment of time and effort.

Another 'fact' is that if Microsoft has approached its system design with
security in mind, most of all of this could have been avoided, and we
would not have to buy addon tools, and deal with virus and spyware issues
on a daily basis. The only entity that can work this problem, seems to be
an entity that simply does not care, being as they are a monopoly, and all
competition has been destroyed. legally or not, it happened, and what we
have today is a result of that monopoly, for surely if OS/2 was allowed to
compete on fair, level ground, Microsoft would not be able to sit back and
watch viruses spread around the globe because of the shortcomings of their
system architecture. They would be forced to solve the problem, or lose
their position on the desktop.

I think those are all valid points. Certainly open for discussion, but
"you are dead wrong" is not the correct response to them.

JB

 

[Charles Schuler]

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

I still disagree with you and, in fact, have not even wavered one angstrom.
However, I was "dead wrong" to tell you that you were "dead wrong" and will
avoid that type of response in the future. Peace!

 

In <4KGdnWRTvtDGMf_fRVn-2g@comcast.com>, on 04/17/05
at 02:35 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

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

I still disagree with you and, in fact, have not even wavered one
angstrom. However, I was "dead wrong" to tell you that you were "dead
wrong" and will avoid that type of response in the future. Peace!

Yea, and in most of my posts I pointed out the concept of the virus not
only infecting the machine, but taking data and propagating itself across
the network as being unique to M$. I left that out of the quote you
pasted, so I guess its just a matter of having not expressed myself fully,
and correctly, each and every time I post. <shrug>

I will stand by what I have written, and say that windows is too
vulnerable to viruses and is used by the virus, to spread itself. No such
thing as an absolute in these matters, but Linux and OS/2 are not
structured to permit this to happen. A virus getting into linux or OS/2 is
pretty much going to die there. A virus in M$ has access to the entire
machine, all its data, and the network connection. There is a big
difference there.

History will show that in the last days of our society, we deteriorated to
a gang of people and businesses that refused to take responsibility for
our own actions, and escaped the wrath of the sheep by simply pointing out
someone else who had done it, which somehow means our actions ought to be
permitted as well. The simple fact that many think Linux and other OS's
are also open to virus infections really ought not excuse microsoft from
dealing with the issue more decisively. Their's is the only OS of
consequence, and so when someone derides their lack of effort at shoring
up their horrid architecture, it is just not good enough to cry back that
"its only because they are number one" or that "linux can get a virus too"


Too many excuses, and not enough action.

All that you have ever said is just those same words, which I don't think
are much along the lines of defense, but more of an excuse. Microsoft
ought to deal with the problem. Until people force them to, why on earth
should they? Let us all sit back, and take the abuse because, well, linux
and OS/2 might get viruses as well, so that pretty much means its okay for
microsoft to allow them as well. Excuses, excuses, excuses. That is all
that is left anymore

JB

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:00:49 +0100, Fred Abse wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:48:57 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:54:09 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


The only OS from Microsoft that is high quality by my standards is
MS-DOS.


That's because IBM debugged it for them.

They hadn't written it anyway, AFAIK, they bought it in.

Buy shit.
Get IBM to rewrite it.
Sell it.
Become market leader.

The way I heard it, Billy put Digital Reasearch's DOS (maybe CP/M) in a
new package and IBM, in their innocence (thinking, "Ah, heck, we'll sell
maybe five hundred of these things"), let him keep the rights.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bob Monsen]

Rich Grise wrote:

The way I heard it, Billy put Digital Reasearch's DOS (maybe CP/M) in a
new package and IBM, in their innocence (thinking, "Ah, heck, we'll sell
maybe five hundred of these things"), let him keep the rights.

Cheers!
Rich

Read "Accidental Empires" by Cringley. He gives a great account of how
it all happened to come about.

Bob Monsen

 

[Fred Abse]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:11:14 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:00:49 +0100, Fred Abse wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:48:57 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:54:09 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


The only OS from Microsoft that is high quality by my standards is
MS-DOS.


That's because IBM debugged it for them.

They hadn't written it anyway, AFAIK, they bought it in.

Buy shit.
Get IBM to rewrite it.
Sell it.
Become market leader.

The way I heard it, Billy put Digital Reasearch's DOS (maybe CP/M) in a
new package and IBM, in their innocence (thinking, "Ah, heck, we'll sell
maybe five hundred of these things"), let him keep the rights.

The way I heard it, Allegedly. IBM approached Gary Kildall, but he
wanted too much money per machine. They then approached Gates, who didn't
actually *have* an operating system to offer, but went out and bought
something called QDOS (QD for quick and dirty) from Seattle Computer
Systems, who had written it as an in-house kludge to do some development
work. IBM realized it wasn't good enough, but, by this time they were
locked-in, and had to do a major rewrite themselves. They then *gave* the
improved product back to Gates.

Certainly, at the time, IBM's official view was that the personal computer
market was not going to take off in a big way.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)