From: mvp at joeware.net (joe)
Subject: lame bitching about xpsp2

> South California's, University of Michigan's and others, 
> which just shows that Windows isn't really written purely by M$...
> Of course, most, if not all, or even more, are still in Windows 2003.

I didn't say that they didn't use BSD pieces, I said that he wasn't as
accurate as he likes to think for the statement where he was naming specific
tools and pieces. Use of BSD pieces doesn't mean that it was used in its
entirety or even a lot, just that it was used in some manner, it could
possibly be limited to #define statements in a header file. If that is done
they still have to acknowledge the source. It can even be to acknowledge IP.
I've looked at most of the components the poster spoke of, not the release
notes, I am familiar with what companies and orgs the pieces came from.

I know I didn't even start to imply that MS had written all of Windows from
scratch. Actually I think that is one of the issues in that many pieces they
didn't completely write gets thrown together with other pieces they did
write. However if you can buy a tcp/ip stack or a zip implementation or a
SQL Server or metadirectory for less than it takes to build it and grow the
experience in-house, it makes business sense to do so. Microsoft is a
business. Once you realize that, you understand idealism and religion have
no place here. 

> Sure, they invest in companies writing software, 
> but only cause it doesn't compete in thier main market.

To this all I can say is duh? How often do you see Ford giving money to GM,
Hershey giving it to Morley, Goodyear giving it to BF Goodrich. Companies
INVEST money in other companies, they DONATE money to charities. If two
companies in the same market get together on a project they do it for mutual
benefit and then have to duck as the government comes after them. 

Microsoft invested a great deal of money into ActiveState to push
development of perl for the Win32 platform, do you feel they are out to make
perl a Microsoft product? Even though many of us have asked for perl
built-in they won't do it even though they have invested millions in it.


> But there aren't that many companies that do that. 

But there are, that is the point. There would be more companies doing so if
there was a market and a profit to be had in this space. i.e. If everyone
hated MS and Windows as much as you would like to think, other options would
be used. This isn't electricity where you get it through one company or
can't get it at all. This isn't oil where you only have one company
processing it. You don't have no choice but to use a computer loaded with MS
Software. 


> So most people end up buying MS software even if they don't want it.

Those people are flipping idiots. If they did that I could be how they would
be so mad. Easier to blame someone else than themselves for being a moron.


> And have you tried getting the refund for the cra^H^H^Hunwanted software?

No, because I don't buy things I don't want. Buying something you don't want
and then whining for a refund is a bit silly don't you think?


> Incorrect. Under UK law a company has a monopoly once:
> Market share is over 25%
> High Barriers to entry
> Abnormal Profits
> Can exercise control over price or output

I see, so Microsoft is exercising control over the price and output of other
Operating Systems? How much did they make you pay for your last copy of
Linux or BSD or ? Define what abnormal profits are? Because one company only
makes 1% on their gross does that mean anyone making 10% on their gross is
close to be called a monopoly?


> Ah, a traditional arguement. The users are stuipid, except I know 
> some users who as far, far more intelligent than you or I.

If they are far more intelligent than I on Windows then they are outside the
scope of this discussion because I am betting they patch and otherwise
secure their machines just fine. 


So to try and bring this back in once again, what are your specific gripes
about XP SP2? Did it work for you when you loaded or not? Do you even have a
Windows machine to load it on to have an opinion?

  joe





 

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of ktabic
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 11:35 AM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2

On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 19:13 -0400, joe wrote:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists