Tuckerfan, why don’t you just stfu, go to the Microsoft website, download the official version on XP SP2 and make your machine more secure? you can find it on www.microsoft.com/downloads or specifically here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1a8ce553-ab76-4a63-99da-b4ed914c1514&DisplayLang=en
Please note, that the link does not work if you type www.m$.com or variants thereof.
What makes you think I haven’t done that already? Did I say that I didn’t do it? Isn’t it possible for me to have installed SP2 (readily available not only where you mentioned, but other places the mods wouldn’t like me to mention 
), and still be pissed off about the way M$ handled the whole BitTorrent business? Or is that too much for you to grasp?
Am I missing something? That link goes to a page for “Office XP Update: Service Pack 2” released in 2002.
Tuckerfan, at this point you’re simply parroting all of the ludicrous “OMG M$ are EEEVIL!1!” glurge that pours off slashdot on a daily basis. It’s difficult to know where to start. Suffice to say that the vast majority of it is predicated on the completely false assumption that Microsoft have some mysterious power to force the consumer to buy anything they want. Take TCPA for example. At its root this is has the potential to be truly useful; the notion of trusted computing (which has been widely misused in this thread) is an extremely powerful weapon against malicious software of all sorts. Its development is part of a consortium effort, and if the frankly stupid notion that it will render Linux unusable is to come about, it would require companies like Sun, Novell, IBM and not to mention all the hardware manufacturers in the world to cooperate. This would be the business equivalent of whipping out a Magnum and shooting themselves collectively in the nuts. And even this is to ignore that if consumers still want to buy non-TCPA hardware, they will. Yes, MS have a near-monopoly on the home PC OS market. This does not mean they are capable of economic magic. For crying out loud, in the original Palladium white paper it was made very clear that at the most the user would be presented with a popup asking if they wanted to run untrusted software. Try learning about trusted computing before you start banging on about how naughty it is.
Let me know when someone builds one, and then we’ll discuss how exactly we’re being forced to buy it.
This was a dickheaded suggestion by Orrin Hatch (IIRC) or one of the other rent-a-legislators which was rightly laughed out of the park. Again, let me know if anyone actually does this (or even if anyone with any credibility suggests it).
Er, cite? If you’re talking about probable compatibility issues because it’s a completely new OS, then excuse me if I say “big fucking deal”. We’re talking about software which may not be release until 2007 here.
My god! Those dastards! And did you know there’s these fuckheads called Hertz who force you to pay for their cars and then give them back?
Pardon? Either you rent it or you purchase it; it’s up to you. If you purchase it, you don’t have to rent it; it’s your choice as a consumer. I utterly fail to see what’s evil about offering consumers a choice. I think a subscription service would be ace, myself. Why should music be different to, say, television?
It’s entirely possible, but the point is that your entire complaint is moot, because MS have not prevented anyone from downloading the patch, since it is freely available on their site. They have simply acted to make sure that any download sources are legitimate. You can bitch all you like about how unfair it is, but the fact is that MS are perfectly within their rights to act as they did, and have some eminently sensible reasons for doing so. Deal with it.
And lest someone come along and accuse me of being some Microsoft hack, this post was written on a PC happily dual-booting XP and Suse. I think Linux is great for many things, and just wish some of the people using it would get on with it and stop viewing it as a struggle against Da Man…
Yet the vast majority of computers in use today are Windows based machines. M$ is heavily entrenched and it’s going to be a while before that begins to change. Given M$'s habit of deliberately reworking it’s products to be incompatible with those made by other corporations, switching to something like OpenOffice can be difficult, especially when someone in your office insists on buying the latest and greatest M$ product the moment it’s released. He might be able to read the files you generate, but you won’t be able to read his until sometime later.
Of course, for TCPA to work, all these companies have to come together as a consortium.
Oh yeah, and like no company has ever done a boneheaded move.
Assuming it’s still available, or that software written for TCPA PCs will be able to run on it.
And specifications change over time. Did you bother to read my link on TCPA? Not some slashdotted leetgeek spouting about the dangers of the “evil” M$ corporation, but the summary of a university professor’s paper which he was preparing for an industry conference.
And exactly where did I say that I think that it was going to be a successful idea?
Orrin Hatch’s idea’s total bullshit, I agree. But the RIAA has been pushing for something similar which is technically similar. They’re wanting to be able to destroy the files of MP3s which might or might not be legal. Technically possible, but unlikely to come about simply because there’s not really any way (at present) to be able to ensure that only illegally copied files will be destroyed. But it exemplifies the narrow-minded thinking of these jerks. Instead of trying to figure out a way to make a profit off of new technology, they’re trying to suppress it. This is bad for business.
My source from this comes from a poster on a machinist’s board who’s a programmer, and does machining as a hobby. I’ve seen enough of his posting to give cred to his comments, if you’re not willing to accept them, I can understand that. (I will query him to see if he can find me a verifiable cite, however.) It is not a backwards compatibility issue here, however. It has more to do with DRM, and making it difficult to use files which were generated by software that isn’t digitally signed as being in compliance with DRM. This doesn’t mean, of course, that the file’s illegal. If you’re using an older version of the software, or a version by a company which doesn’t follow DRM, you’re going to have problems.
Nope, sorry, their idea is that you’ll have to do both. If you buy the CD and want to listen to it in any other format than that CD (like say ripping it to your PC), you’ll have to pay a rental fee for it. Wanna transfer that file to your MP3 player, you’ll have to pay another rental fee for that as well. Certainly, an idea where you play a flat monthly fee and get to listen to all the music you want has merits, but that’s not what I’m talking about here.
And it’s perfectly within my rights to bitch about how much I don’t like it. You deal with it.
Amazingly, however, no company has voluntarily signed up for a technology that would at a stroke make their entire business model entirely ineffective, let alone an entire bleeding industry. You expect the utterly impossible. And had you read praxim’s link, you would know that in fact there is a testing version of the chip running quite happily under Linux. It is not, repeat NOT the paranoid’s wet dream that it is made out to be; it is a security technology that will help greatly in the prevention of viruses and other malware. We would be utterly stupid to dismiss it simply because Microsoft are involved in its inception.
It will be available if people want to buy it. This is how capitalism works. See my earlier points about Microsoft not being magicians.
Apparently you didn’t read your own link, as he makes plain that TCPA is a fundamentally good idea, but that the early proposals need some changes to become fully workable (he also makes some completely unjustified conclusions, but this is another thread). Well blow me down with a feather. As a computer science academic myself, I’m quite well acquainted with the concept of trusted computing and TCPA, thank you, and have seen more than enough utter shit spouted by academics in non peer-reviewed publications (notably the recent “study” that “proved” that file sharing “improved sales”) to know that their word is not gospel. And yes, that includes me. You linked to an opinion piece on someone’s personal website. It has nothing to do with the rationality of trusted computing as a concept for security, and even less to do with the mystery economics by which we’ll all be forced to use it.
If it’s not, why are you worried? Or were you just throwing it out there as yet another fictional red herring with no relevance to the SP2 distribution question?
I quite agree, but this has nothing to do with Microsoft preventing the untrustworthy distribution of software on which the security of the majority of the computing world will soon rely. This, to me, is obvious. The RIAA have been largely misguided in their efforts to support vigilante justice, and they will not succeed, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they are fundamentally right - people are stealing their product. Annoying, but true.
Again, since Longhorn is not due for release until 2007, I’m more than happy to completely discount anything a random machinist on a random BBS has to say. I don’t see how he can possibly know, since at most he has illicitly downloaded a pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha version and discovered that something doesn’t work. Even Microsoft don’t know what’s going into the final version at this point. This is what I mean about paranoia; it is in MS’s interest to create software that people can use, and if they create software that people can’t use, people won’t bleeding well buy it because MS aren’t magicians.
Here’s the point. If you don’t like the business model that you have fictionalised above (note: it does not exist), then don’t buy the music released using it! Of the ridiculously small number of uncopyable music CDs released to date, I have bought exactly none, since I value being able to make digital copies for my personal consumption (my views about filesharing are a matter of record, and I have no sympathy with those who view it as their right to send the music they bought to anyone who wants it). This is my choice as a consumer, and it will remain so. I simply don’t see how I can be forced to re-pay for something I’ve already bought. And more importantly, no-one is trying to force me. It’s paranoid bullshit dreamt up by idiots who think it’s their god-given right to copy music and that the music should be freeeeee maaaaaan. Fuck it. Pay for what you want, and don’t for what you don’t. That’s all there is to it.
You started a pit thread based on a frankly daft premise (that MS shouldn’t care about uncontrolled third party distribution of their security updates). You have no reason to complain, since you’re perfectly free to get the update from MS. Surely you’ve noticed that even in the Pit people expect a bare minimum of reasoning (other than “M$ are eeevil maaan”). I still haven’t seen a rebuttal of the fundamental argument, which is this:
[ul][li]MS can’t quality control P2P distribution of SP2,[/li][li]If a virus-laden copy of SP2 gets distributed, MS will take it up the arse publicity-wise, and general security will be damaged,[/li][li]MS are quite within their rights to insist that distributors of their own software be authorised,[/li][li]Therefore, MS should stop unauthorised distribution.[/ul][/li]Feel free to rebut any of these points. None of them have anything to do with MS being evil, or a monopoly, or the music business, or TCPA, or how Bill Gates is going to force us all to wear silly hats, or how he really stole Windows from IBM or Apple or DOS from UNIX or any of this shit. It’s plain common sense.
So what about the folks at the virus software companies? TCPA goes into effect, and there’s not really much need for their product, is there? After all, if the OS is written in such a way as to make viruses impossible, not much need for anti-virus software is there? And you’re also assuming that the folks in the business world will be smart enough to realize that the idea they’re promoting will be the death-knell of their industry, and thus will stop. Apple has shown that plenty of folks are willing to pay to download music, but the RIAA’s still not happy with the idea.
Yes, but if people don’t know that it’s available, how are they going to buy it? And even if there’s a demand for the item, it doesn’t mean that anyone’s going to sell it. Lots of people would be like to order their cable channel line-up ala cart, but they can’t. Even if you don’t want sixteen home shopping channels on your TV, you’re stuck with them.
Hey, I like the idea of not having to worry about viruses, and I think that the technology has great potential, but I’m not overly optimistic that it’ll be used in the way to benefit most individuals. Far too often, corporations will pay more attention to short term gains, than long term profitability. And file sharing may or may not boost sales, but it is influencing playlists and record promotions. This company tracks the popularity of files being shared on P2P networks, and then sells that data to the record labels, music video channels, and radio stations.
Because it wastes time and money that could be better spent on other things, like promoting new artists, or ensuring that the artists get the royalties that they deserve from the record labels.
Sadly, however, things do not exist in a vacuum. The arguments used by one industry are frequently adopted by those in another industry to bolster their case. And while the arguments might be totally misguided, not only do you have them tying up the time of various government bodies as they hash the ideas out (after all, which do you think is more imporant, dealing with matters related to national security, homelessness, AIDS, or illegal file sharing?), but you also run the risk of legislators “buying” the lobbiests off with a law that will do more harm than good. Remember the trouble the various electronics companies had with Congress when VCRs were introduced? And while that did get resolved in a manner beneficial to consumers, the battle’s still not completely over, since parts of the DMCA would make it difficult (if not illegal) for you to record TV programs for your own personal use.
He’s a hobby machinist, and a software engineer professionally. I don’t know if he’s seen an actual version of the software or not, nor do I know how he would have done so if he has (mind you, the alpha version of the software has been released to vendors). Here’s the thread where he and I discussed the matter. Also, here’s the reference link he provided me when I asked him about it. And it’s not really paranoia, it’s in M$'s best interest to not release software with known security holes, but they have. If they’re going to botch something as essential as that from the get-go, why should it stand to reason that’s going to be their only mistake?
Okay, so no one buys the music released that way, eventually the record labels will pull their heads out of their asses and drop that idea idea. In the meantime, the artists will suffer. The rank and file employees at the labels will suffer as well, since they’ll be the first to get the ax, and not the “geniuses” who thought up the idea in the first place. That’s one of the problems I have with downsizing, it’s rarely the source of the company’s problem that get let go.
[quote]
You started a pit thread based on a frankly daft premise (that MS shouldn’t care about uncontrolled third party distribution of their security updates). You have no reason to complain, since you’re perfectly free to get the update from MS. Surely you’ve noticed that even in the Pit people expect a bare minimum of reasoning (other than “M$ are eeevil maaan”). I still haven’t seen a rebuttal of the fundamental argument, which is this:
[ul][li]MS can’t quality control P2P distribution of SP2,[/li][li]If a virus-laden copy of SP2 gets distributed, MS will take it up the arse publicity-wise, and general security will be damaged,[/li][li]MS are quite within their rights to insist that distributors of their own software be authorised,[/li][li]Therefore, MS should stop unauthorised distribution.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Apparently you missed Mockingbird’s suggestion of how M$ could have done it, and maintained a level of security. You’ve yet to prove that a virus laden version of SP2 distributed via P2P software will cause M$ to take it up the ass publicitywise (in fact, I’d be willing to bet that you can’t point to one example of a company having to take it up the arse for virus laden software that’s been illegally distributed). It’s quite within the rights of a cop to pull me over for speeding if I drive 1 MPH over the speed limit, since I’m violating the law, and potentially putting people’s lives at risk, yet how many cops out there are going to be willing to do so?
And sadly, common sense is often quite lacking in the world today. It should have been common sense for Ford to not sell a car which is prone to explode when it gets rear ended, yet they went ahead and sold the Pinto, anyway, even though they knew that the cars were at risk for explosion in a collision. Should have been common sense for Coke not to tinker with its formula, but they tried selling “New Coke” anyway. Should have been common sense that when a piece of foam hit the shuttle’s wing during launch that it would damage the shuttle especially since NASA had been warned about that possibility, yet Columbia burned up on re-entry. Part of being human is that we do stupid things.
Oh yeah, and my box is running better since I installed SP2. I don’t know what changes they made besides improving the security problems, but I’ve noticed a definite performance boost, and so far, I’ve not had a problem with any of my programs working.
But the AV companies are a) relatively tiny, and b) not involved in the TCPA specification effort. Sun, IBM, Novell and many others whose business models rest in part or in whole upon non-MS software are involved. Do you really, really think that they’re going to go “So only MS software works on this? Hey, great idea!”. There is a difference between a new technology making an old one obsolete and deliberately making the entire PC world MS-only. I’ll say it again, this is bullshit paranoia.
This presumably is why the music industry is licensing its music all over the place and legal download services are mushrooming? I’m not going to argue the music business stuff any more, because it’s irrelevant and I’ve done it to death in too many other threads.
Because they can’t magically be forced to buy the (fictional, remember) stuff that only lets them run MS! If you can explain to me how MS will magically stop non-TCPA hardware from being made, remove it from public awareness, magically swap everyone’s old computers for TCPA ones and somehow prevent the media from noticing this at all, then I’ll agree with you (with the caveat that of course TCPA DOESN’T STOP LINUX FROM RUNNING). Otherwise, I will continue to think that you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. Since you still don’t seem to have read praxim’s link, let me quote directly from Microsoft:
Funny, I actually know (in passing) the guy who wrote that link. He makes some good points, some bad points, and some wild assumptions (most notably the frequent Magic MS assumption). Firstly, he’s conflating just about every new proposed security technology under the sun, and cherry-picking what he can to paint it in the worst possible light. He’s mostly talking about TCPA, not Longhorn (since again it probably won’t be released until 4 years after he last updated the article). He’s mostly directly contradicting even things that MS say about the technology, which let’s remember doesn’t exist. He assumes that TCPA is magically going to appear with the introduction of Longhorn, when even MS freely acknowledge that uptake of the new technology will be slow even after its introduction, which isn’t likely to be for years. So for your link to be even vaguely correct, MS would have to bring out TCPA hardware, make everyone in the world buy it, and incorporate it into Longhorn in about 3 years. This, again, would be magic, and MS aren’t magic.
Mockingbird’s suggestion was perfectly reasonable, and if MS have bandwidth issues with the network install (which I don’t believe they do, since several people seem to have obtained it without problems from MS) then they could indeed host a torrent themselves. This is entirely nothing to do with whether they should let untrusted third parties do it for them without their permission.
Frankly I don’t know how to prove it, since nothing comparable has previously happened with such a high profile. It is clear to me that if the Downhill Battle torrent had in fact been malicious then it would have made it into the media in a huge way, and that the vast majority of people don’t know enough about computers to be able to make the relevant distinction; they will simply see “XP SP2… virus” and not download it. Headlines don’t make subtle distinctions; they don’t say “Third-party unlicensed download adds malicious payload to otherwise innocent software”. They say
VIRUS STRIKES MS UPGRADE!
This isn’t something one can prove, it’s simply obvious to me that it will be the case. It’s clearly obvious to Microsoft too, and even if you disagree with them, you must certainly agree that they’re within their rights to protect their own software if they deem it necessary. If you don’t believe me, consider how many people were enticed into deleting the entirely innocent jdbmgr.exe simply because an email told them to. Microsoft are entirely sensible to protect the public perception of an essential security upgrade.
No, I don’t think that they’re going to make it an M$ only world, but I do think that they’ll make it difficult for me to run programs written by the nice guys who create and distribute programs for free. A good number of the programs I use to protect and tweak my PC are written by guys in their spare time, and who aren’t necessarily professional programmers. All of it works better than the stuff I’ve tried being produced by major corporations out there. I don’t want to see that go away, nor do I have perfect faith that some clever cracker won’t be able to find a workaround for the TCPA and we end up dealing with the same kind of crap in the future that we’re dealing with now.
Plenty of artists refuse to allow Apple and the other services to sell their music, Apple’s also catching a lot of flack from the RIAA folks over it’s copy protection features, since it’s fairly easy to defeat.
Right and companies never phase out old technology that they deem to be obsolete. Which is why NASA doesn’t have to buy spare parts off of eBay for the space shuttle. And companies never spend tons of money marketing they’re newest product which only has a few minor new bells and whistles in comparison to their older product, and they never cut the marketing budget for their older products. Companies also can set up and run two production lines producing different products for the same price that it takes to set up and run one production line. You’re right, I am living in cuckoo land.
Of course, no one ever buys a new PC. I’m doing all of this on the original Timex-Sinclair T1000 I bought back in the 1980s. And, of course, no one said that it would happen in simply three years.
There was also my sugestion about allowing other software companies and the various hardware manufacturers make it available as well, that you seem to have forgotten.
Again, you’re assuming that a large number of people would, in fact, use BitTorrent to obtain the file and that it would be infected. Why is it perfecrtly acceptable for you to assume something, but not me?
If it’s so obvious, then it should be easy for you to prove, right? After all, let’s look at the definition of “obvious”
Despite the fact that MS say they won’t, their white paper says they won’t, and indeed even some Linux types have a prototype running under Linux which proves they won’t? Well, let it not be said I didn’t try, but if you’re willing to completely and utterly ignore all the evidence to the contrary, there’s simply no point in even debating it. You can make up any number of evil features that would certainly be very damaging, but they just don’t exist. Why do you persist in saying that the technology does something it has been categorically proven not to do?
I have no idea what all this has to do with anything. For TCPA to take over it must offer the consumer a benefit. If it doesn’t, it won’t. End of story. No question. I repeat, this is how capitalism works. If there is a demand for something, such as PCs that run any software, then someone will try to sell them. I can’t make this any plainer.
Yes you did, you said it was all going to come in with Longhorn, and so did your links. Which is a load of rubbish. Which is my point. And I didn’t say no-one ever bought a new PC, I said that expecting the entire population of the world to upgrade to an incompatible system within three years was dumb. And it is.
Because I had a peek at the torrent, and observed thousands of people downloading the patch. It was posted on slashdot (you’ve heard of the “slashdot effect”, right?), it was posted on the BBC, it was all over the flipping place. This isn’t an assumption, it’s basic fact. Lots of people were downloading it. And the problem with your assumption is that it’s unsupportable. You’re trying to say that if something bad happens, no-one will blame Microsoft. This is plainly ludicrous, and even your own thread serves as disproof of your assumption. Here you are, blaming Microsoft for every evil under the sun, several evils that aren’t under the sun and never will be, and even some good ideas which don’t deserve blame at all. And yet you still maintain that there wouldn’t be a whiff of adverse publicity if a virus were distributed with SP2? Please.
Perhaps you should go and look up the definition of proof before you start quoting the dictionary. I am talking about a potential future event. Proof doesn’t come in to it. I happen to believe that my prediction is well-justified, however, and have offered several convincing arguments in its favour, none of which you have rebutted, preferring instead to just insist that no-one would blame MS while happily doing so yourself in any number of different contexts.
And you missed my link earlier in the thread where on multiple occasions M$ has deliberately rigged their websites so that they don’t work with the Opera browser, even though they say that they checked the site and found that it will work with Opera. You’re also forgetting the cases where M$ has had to pay out damages to companies which were able to prove in court that M$ deliberately introduced software which made software produced by their competitors unusable.
And there was a demand for faster ways for the SP2 patch to be distributed, but instead of seeking out ways to speed up the distribution of the patch, M$ slapped down folks trying to do so. When Preston Tucker announced his car, the reaction of the automakers wasn’t to try and adapt to Tucker’s new ideas, it was to try and shut Tucker down. That’s also how capitalism works.
I said that many of the features which were going to come into place with Longhorn would cause this. Unrelated to TCPA are the steps M$ and other companies intend to put in place using the new 64-bit processors which can have a similar effect. 64-bit processors are already on sale, and programs are just now starting to trickle out that take advantage of those new processors.
And can you prove that the folks using those sources are the kind of choad gulping idiots who’d be unable to handle a virus attack? (Seems to me that the only kinds of folks who read slashdot are the hardcore geek-types, not ignorant fools.) Or who’d complain that they got burned by M$ over an infected file? Or that the folks who’re currently using other P2P programs to download the patch are going to run around screaming and hollering in panic because they got a virus? (We’ll ignore the fact that most of the P2P software out there has built-in virus scanners.)
And it’s okay for you to believe your prediction of future events, but not for me to believe mine? Even though I’ve shown proof of M$ using underhanded tactics in the past? And where have I blamed M$ for something that wasn’t their fault? Have I attacked M$ for the actions of third party vendors? Have I said that it’s M$'s fault that msn.com pages don’t load correctly when viewed with the Swedish Chef version of Opera?
I’m more than aware of Opera compatibility problems, thankyou (I am typing this post in Opera). You’ll notice however that as soon as it was pointed out that MS were serving up an incompatible stylesheet to Opera users, it was remedied. Browser compliance is certainly a tricky issue, but believe it or not MS are not the only ones at fault, and I say that as one who wouldn’t touch IE with a bargepole. CSS compliance in particular is the biggest misnomer around, and every browser has its quirks.
Which has been debunked. The link you posted as “proof” was about TCPA. No-one has enough information about Longhorn to be able to make the sort of pronouncements you’ve made, because it’s not even nearly done yet.
Pardon? I’m writing this on a 64-bit machine, so I’d be quite interested to find out what on earth this has to do with anything in this thread. Did you just stick it in there because it sounds sorta sinister and let you write “M$” for the millionth time? What “similar effect” are you talking about?
No, but that’s not the point, is it. The point is the publicity caused by a virus-ridden version of SP2 doing the rounds. As for the assertion that anyone who can use bittorrent must be computer-literate enough to protect themselves from unknown and potentially new viruses, well. If this is the sort of security assurance you like to rely upon, I can see how you’d not understand Microsoft’s objections. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; security is not about saying “it’ll probably be alright”, or “it’ll be alright if …”, it’s about making damn sure that it’ll be alright, which is precisely what Microsoft has done. No ifs, no buts, certainty.
If you believe this, you’ll believe anything. Try reading at -1 some time, it’s … illuminating. Suffice to say that the intersection of hardcore geeks and ignorant fools is far from empty.
I can categorically assure you that BitTorrent does not. So yes, you’d be well-advised to ignore that “fact”.
It’s a debate, man. I have given several reasons why I think Microsoft will suffer if a virus gets out on SP2. You, by contrast, have simply said that you don’t think they will. You’re more than free to believe what you want, but if you’re going to start a discussion it’d be awfully nice if you tried to defend your view, rather than just falling back on your right to hold it.
Every time you claimed that they were going to stop you from running third-party or free software? Something, remember, which not only isn’t their fault, but hasn’t happened, isn’t going to happen and hasn’t even been proposed by anyone, ever? Remember that?
Oh, sod it. You’re right. MS (sorry, M$) are evil, they deleted my homepage, filleted my cat, burnt my hair and made fun of my belly button. They have the magic ability to force me to buy a computer that will somehow prevent me from running most of the software I want, listening to music I own, and will also stop me from going out and buying a computer that does do these things. Fuck knows how, but if I say “M$” enough it’s sure to be credible. Wahey!
And if it had been a simple coding error, that would be one thing, but Opera managed to prove in court that it wasn’t a simple coding error which caused this.
It’s done enough that they’ve provided software vendors with an alpha version so that they can be ready to go with versions of their software when Longhorn is finally released.
There was a GQ thread about an anti-virus program which was designed to run on 32-bit machines and would never need updating because it would be able to recognize the kinds of operations that a virus would use and shut it down. Another poster found that curious, since M$ said that they’d only be able to do something like that under 64-bit processors. I’ve done a hamster flail, but not be able to find the correct thread yet.
Yes, but your argument kind o f falls flat in light of M$'s track record, doesn’t it? Given that they’ve knowing released software with security holes in it, and haven’t been bothered to patch them until someone made a very big stink about it. And the only way to have absoulte security with a computer system is not to use it.
Yes, well, I’m sure that the hardcore geeks take no end of delight out of mercilessly savaging the ignorant fools.
Oh, I know BitTorrent doesn’t, but most of the others do. You think that M$ wouldn’t like to be able to shutdown every P2P network out there?
I’ve also given you several reasons, based on M$'s past actions why I think that they will, but you pretty much choose to ignore them.
M$ also announced that they’d checked their sites with thrid party browsers and found that they worked just fine, but they didn’t and Opera’s got the settlement to prove it. M$ didn’t announce that they were going to block Opera users from viewing their site, they simply did it.
Oh, cut the “Poor me hysterics.” Corporations have obligations to their shareholders that they have to fulfill in the manner they see fit. I seriously doubt that Apple, IBM, or any other company would behave differently if they had the same kind of market domination that M$ does. The only reason that companies have ever modified their behaviour was because of enough people getting in their faces and bitching about it. When consumers have sat back and allowed companies to run rough-shod all over them they have gotten well and truely screwed. Why should M$ be any different?
Wait a second…
Now Microsoft is being lambasted for being TOO careful?
What the fuck, dude? What kind of retarded Backwards-world do you come from?
And if those efforts at being careful were directed improving M$'s code, that would be one thing, but they’re not. They’re being directed at those trying to accelerate the distribution of M$'s security patch, which as everyone agrees, the sooner folks get that downloaded and installed on their machines, the better.
Ah, well, you just threw your credibility right out the window here. :rolleyes:
Well, shit, since you said it, it MUST be true.
Sorry, chuckles, but to get angry at a company for not wanting to lose control of its product is just stupid.
Yeah. I called you stupid. Ans since I said it, it MUST be true.
You know, I had half a line-by-line dissection post written again, but I just can not be bothered. I guess some people will continue to bash MS for everything under the sun, but all I ask is that you please apply a little rationality before leaping off the deep end. MS acted here to protect you. Yes, you. Get a bloody grip. Computers are a tool, not a political bloody adventure, and not a football team. Here you are screaming blue bloody murder because MS have protected their copyrighted software entirely legally in order to maximise the security of their users, and you’re accusing me of hysterics? Sheesh.
Incidentally, Opera did not “prove in court” that the acts were intentional, Microsoft settled for pocket change before it ever went to court. You can infer from that what you will (and I know it will be the worst), but it does not prove anything. Moreover, having actually experienced the problems myself (and I do apologise for again insisting on facts, so inconvenient I know), I can attest that they weren’t functional but aesthetic; misaligned borders and suchlike. Moreover, using the IE stylesheet didn’t solve the problems. You try cross-developing a website some time, see how easy you find it.
BONK
Being careful INCLUDES ensuring genuine provenance of the software! Do you pick up condoms from puddles? You may think you’re a-okay downloading your updates from fuck knows where, but Microsoft clearly disagrees. So do I, so do lots of people. You CAN NOT BE SURE IT IS SAFE. You can take steps to protect yourself, but NOT EVERYONE WILL. Therefore it is prudent to stop unsafe distribution. It just doesn’t get simpler than this.
Clearly, Dead Badger cannot be trusted, because he actually uses letters when abbreviating Microsoft’s title rather than dollar signs.
Only a rational person would oh-so-BRILLIANTLY - nobody’s ever done it before, honest! - use a dollar sign to oh-so-SCATHINGLY point out that Microsoft is wealthy! Bwaha, so clever!
And show me where I accused M$ of being some Bond-like villian hell bent on rounding us all up and harvesting our organs? I haven’t, nor am I screaming blue bloody murder about it. Look at my OP, does it say, “M$ is the most vile and evil corporation to ever exist, and we must unite to destroy them!”? Nope. You keep trying to force me to state that I think M$ is the most vile company to ever exist, and I won’t because I don’t believe that.
Other companies have won patent infringement suits against M$, and the misalignment problems weren’t simply that text was appearing in the wrong place, in many cases it wasn’t appearing at all. It also made Opera totally unusable with M$'s sites. I know because I use Opera, and when I heard about the problems with M$'s sites, I checked them out.
And not everyone will download and install SP2, hell I know people running XP who aren’t using any of the patches. Because their machines are putting M$'s reputation at risk, should M$ have the right to force them to use the patches? After all, the license agreement that comes with the software only entitles you to the right to use the software, so shouldn’t M$ have the right to force those people to use the patches in order to protect itself? After all, they won’t be thinking, “Man, if only I had installed those patches, my machine never would have gotten hacked.” No, they’ll be thinking, “God damn crappy M$ software!”