Post #25,242
1/23/02 8:40:54 AM
|
Windows virus.
Oops. I left out a couple words in the post heading. It should read "Windows is a virus".
T. Greene of the [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23777.html|Register], in a screed explaining how MS drove him to linux, describes how Windows fits his definition for a malicious piece of software.
-quote
....with Win-95 came other shocks. It didn't respond to DOS settings like 3.1. It had this bollocky 'registry' which took me ages to comprehend fully. It was Microsoft starting to refuse to let me do what I pleased with my god-damned computer.
[snip]
To me, the definition of malicious code is simple: any code that prevents my machine from doing what I wish it to do, and/or any code that makes my computer do anything I haven't instructed it to do. Under my definition, Windows had clearly become an extremely malicious virus.
-endquote
My question is; How do you focus on being a company known for "secure", "trusted" software when your flagship product has such a dismal reputation that it can be seriously called a virus?
I don't think they can do it. Too many good people have had to deal with this shoddy heap of steaming crap for too long. And lots of those people are in a position to make their opinions felt. Even if they wated to stay techs, many have been promoted (however unwillingly) into management slots with actual decision making power.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #25,296
1/23/02 2:08:49 PM
|
Now there's a quote I don't understand
It had this bollocky 'registry' which took me ages to comprehend fully. It was Microsoft starting to refuse to let me do what I pleased with my god-damned computer. Nobody "comprehends fully" the Registry. Myself, except for a couple of instances of Registry fun, I always had decent luck with Windows 95 and Windows 98. It was WinMe that was really got mucked up (especially when it started using the "restore disk" concept.) You know, I think I've actually had more NT blue screens than I've had Windows 98 crashes. That's a scary thought. I've had some XP crashes, but that turned out to be hardware (video card). "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #25,297
1/23/02 2:10:21 PM
|
When is a not-virus a virus
Windows did not infest his machine
he installed it
Windows did not replicate itself
it has a license that forbids that
Windows did not damage his software or hardware
you can call your elbow a rhinoceros if it makes you feel better but no one will want to see it in the zoo
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|http://wxxe.org]
|
Post #25,302
1/23/02 2:33:43 PM
|
I'll take this one
Let's say I have Win 95 and I install RealPlayer. I then download an Internet Explorer update. (Since MS testified under oath that it is part of the OS, this is fair game.) RealPlayer no longer works.
So their software, without my approval or consent, silently disabled other software that I installed. And there is no way of determining in advance that this will happen, nor any reliable way of preventing it.
It did damage my software.
I discover the problem, and try to uninstall the "update". It doesn't uninstall cleanly and I go to support.microsoft.com to figure out how to fix it. While there, the (silently installed) update agent sees that I don't have the latest version of something. It silently re-installs the update.
It did replicate itself.
Sounds viral to me.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #25,308
1/23/02 2:54:54 PM
|
Nicely Done, Drew!
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #25,340
1/23/02 5:24:17 PM
|
[tweeeeet] Point - Drew.
|
Post #25,363
1/23/02 8:03:16 PM
|
Re: I'll take this one
Your scenario may entertain the faithful but it is not valid
The writer who called Windows a virus clearly stated that it was a virus to him when he could not do what he wanted with his computer not when he was silly enough to use every default known to man or MS
I've been running Windows (many and/or all flavors) at home and as an administrator for years. Nothing of mine silently updates, not did I have to config the registry or do anything complex other than use a mouse to get it to run the way I wanted it to.
The writer did not give an example of 'viroid' behavior and you did not give a legitimate one
So....
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|http://wxxe.org]
|
Post #25,372
1/23/02 8:37:06 PM
|
Fine, lets be punctilious
And go with [?s] sig
Microsoft Outlook - one giant macro virus attractor
(We could list other add-ons with regular access to root, but I get writers cramp)
Oh - are *ALL* your M$ pieces patched consecutively to 1/23/02?
(And if you don't lie.. and they really Are.!.) Care to estimate the % worldwide that are:
A) Ever patched, from monopoly preload day 1?
B) Patched ~ 1/10th of available ones (IF you use IE at M$.com, that is - else it is apt to bounce you sans any patch until you "upgrade" - remember?)
C) Worldwide: patched 100% thru 1/23/02 ???
Rest case. For now.
(We won't go into what else gets broken after a patch - all those C-pointers that got lost in the er compiler?) Maybe we can just settle on it being Toxic Toy Software?
|
Post #25,436
1/24/02 8:23:15 AM
|
punctilious?
Ashton
we obviously have our differences but
my stuff is not all patched
have no idea what % worldwide is
have run patches the day I installed a new product
but this all has nothing to do with
a) the article that was cited at the beginning of this thread
b) my request for a legiitmate example
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|http://wxxe.org]
|
Post #25,672
1/25/02 7:57:56 AM
|
Well.. to be really punctilious -
I'd agree with your complaint. That is, Windows is unlikely to be downloaded onto someone's machine via Back Orifice or whatever.. and to replicate itself attached to e-mails etc.
But as metaphor.. ya gotta admit (??) that the number of worldwide hours/$ spent thus far - repairing Windows anomalies on all scales - approaches that of rebuilding the Great Pyramid, with the (missing) outer sheath of limestone replaced with Gold.
No?
Ashton
(it's hard to find adequate words about Windoze and its spawning matriarchs - those mothers..)
|
Post #25,472
1/24/02 12:23:29 PM
|
Windows runs the way I want it to, too.
But only when I'm playing Solitaire.
As soon as I try to do anything useful with it, it starts to give me grief. The more I try to do with it, the more resistance it gives me.
It wasn't always this way. Windows 2.01 didn't do a whole lot, but at least it got out of my way and let me do things myself.
I only use Windows when my job forces me to. And I don't install it myself. It comes preinstalled.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
