lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: devis at (devis)
Subject: lame bitching about xpsp2

joe wrote:

>I am trying to figure out from all of your posts if you are just a troll or
>truly think you are saying something that can help.
>You complain about the past and then complain about SP2 in the same breath
>like you are saying, I don't like what they did, so I don't like what they
>will ever do. This is pretty silly. You follow with an RFC rant, so even as
>MS has started following RFC very closely (too closely for some now who
>realize now they didn't want RFC compliance, they wanted MS to do it the
>*nix way) you still would whine because they are also working on extending
>the RFCs to make them more useful or not following de facto *nix standards
>even if they aren't RFC. 
>>Well its similar at people who refuse somit in block 
>>before having tried it, its just plain stupidity and 
>>their ego gets hurts thinking they might have to start 
>>from zero.
>I can't really understand what you are saying here but it sounds like you
>are concerned that you will have to learn Windows, is this your real
Might be if i ever figure what there is to learn.

>>but after MacOS, i am pretty sure even M$ will use Unix as 
>>a base in future windows versions
>I do not work for MS 
You should obviously, putting that much energy into defending it.

>but would be very comfortable in saying this will not
>occur. Had MS wanted to follow a *nix like path, they could have a long time
>ago... They were doing *nix back in 1980. 
Error. read ur history. they never DID. they bought it. Called Xenix. 
Like all technology in M$ product, its often stolen or bought. If they 
could have integrated a nix type kernel at the time while keeping full 
DOS compatibility ( as majority of software at that time rested on DOS 
), they would have. They've got bsd telnet, tracert,  whole bsd tcp ip 
stack for win2000 ( go read for explanations on 
the MS tcp/ip stack). They obviously don't excel in the unix word ( nor 
networking world ) if they have to steal such bricks in 'their' OS 
writting process.

>>( sh geez thats original ).
>Two things. First, have you seen Monad? If not, you might want to look at it
>before even trying to spout your normal uninformed opinion. You will
>probably find that someone is going to be trying to duplicate portions of
>that functionality in your favorite non-MS OS shortly. Second, now you are
>whining about names?
I am talking the piss of a company that refuted unix for years, to 
finally integrate it.

>>The goal of M$ is to archieve total control of information,
>Err no, their goal is to maintain a profit and compete 
With no competitors ?

>as a business like
>they always have. The Microsoft world is not so religious as you have been
>raised to think. I realize this is unknown to you. But have faith...
Try to get out of your MS nest and realise that monopolistic behavior 
always lead to bad news, particularly for end users.

>>M$ business model is a threat to our freedom, and i would 
>>like our childrens to have a choice, and not be formated 
>>the M$ way.
>Last I looked, MS wasn't the only OS writer out there and you aren't being
>forced to use it.
You are. Can you buy a x86 computer with no M$ on it ? Do you know that 
laptops get their warrantees voided if you remove M$ from it ?

> How is it that your children won't have a choice? Or are
>you forecasting the death of the *nix derivitives? I hope not and expect you
>are wrong if you are, they have their uses. 
Cause they already don't have a choice now. They get given laptops with 
M$ on it at school. Now ...whos trolling here ?

>Your overall post is silly. You complain and whine saying MS is doing this
>this and that wrong but if there is any attempt on their part to correct
>things you just whine about that as well. Admit it, there is nothing that MS
>could do that would make you say, hmmm, maybe they have a good idea here. I
>can almost visualize the spittle forming on your lips as you type your
>responses. Dude, chill out. 
Dude, smoking something ? If not maybe you should.
I am very glad MS exists, if they didn't, computing and internet would 
not have kicked the way they did, and i could not be in contact that 
often with my parents. I am just stating that when something proves bad 
for years, its time for a rewrite and stop applying 25 megs patches to 
shitty code.  Do MS pay you to post such things ?

>BTW, re some of your other posts. 
>I recall nimda and I don't recall my Windows machines getting infected even
>though they sat on the internet. Sounds like it was a patching issue after
>You argue to use Windows like systems (e.g. OpenOffice), just not Windows.
>This simply points out you have a hard on for Microsoft, not that you have
>anything worth listening to. Making business users use non-Windows systems
>will not magically build in them a wish to learn more and become more
>computer proficient. Most business users don't really much like computers
>and view them as a necessary evil. Windows is tolerable because they have
>been using it at home and have a good idea on how to use it (which BTW,
>having all of those Windows machines at home helps reduce training costs at
>work). Slapping some alternative OS on the desktop be it Mac, BSD, *nix, or
>BeOS isn't going to cause a great desire to learn computers. Period. 
Do not even go there. Why do they have it installed at home in the first 
place ? So Its a monopoly, and  have to just shut the fsck up, accept 
it, keep quiet and pay ? Don't think, we did it for you before with 
loads of money invested too, so that surely is a factor of trust. 
Criticism is banned. Yeah thats fair.

>On the permissions thing. Windows could be locked down and run as non-admins
>ages ago. We did it in a corporate environment in 96 with NT. What were the
>results? People bitching because they couldn't load software 
Define security ? Define company Policy of Internet and Computer usage ?

>they wanted to
>load that had nothing to do with work and a rebuild rate going from at least
>one machine a week (we had thousands of machines) to none in six months. Of
>course if you run a different OS, the user's won't complain about not being
>able to do what they want... Oh wait yes they will, some people thought the
>same for the Win31 to WinNT 4 upgrade because it was a different OS with a
>different look and different rules and more security. 
So thats the reason to still give administrator rights to the default 
install ? Do you realise that unpatched machines get infected in a 
breeze because the default user has Administrator rights ?

>There are two benefits that a company would get right now if they jumped
>whole hog from Windows. 1. The misconception of lower cost of ownership
>because of reduced licensing costs and perceived reduction in cost of
>patching (*nix never has to be patched, it is never on the news). 
The cost in patching is nothing compare to cost in software 
licenses....and that's what it was about.

> 2. Less
>chance of being penetrated by a worm or virus because they have avoided the
>mono-culture... What happens if this is very successful and you have a new
>mono-culture... Oops.
Are you an idiot ?? Do you understand technically why a virus CANNOT 
EASILY spread on a nix based permissions filesystem ? If not, look up to 
it. Viruses aren't popular on nix based OS simply because it is much 
harder to harvest privileges higher than the ones the process that gets 
attacked/crashed has. Now give it the +s ( sticky bit ) and now you have 
something dangerous. But getting that +s permission on the binary comes 
down to gaining root privileges by an automated processes, and its not 
trivial, where gaining local system privileges on a M$ box IS. The 
LSASS.exe service that was overflowed not long ago by sasser, exists on 
all XP, on millions of computers, that install the same default 
administrator user, and this is WHY such a worm / code can spread that 
much and that fast. Same service, similar configurations ( not as much 
difference as a nix box can be ), so it is easy to automate it, with a 
little testing. It is not by popularity of the OS as i can read on the 
net everywhere. No, if linux / Mac OSX / bsd and others be more popular, 
still we won't see what we have seen in the past years. Talking about 
mono culture...I just want fairness and want computers to be sold for 
what they are. Not bundled with Mono culture ( no matter which ).

>My Windows machines I use do real multitasking, are stable, and are not
>prone to virii.
Yours. The average compromised box out there isn't. And in 90 % of the 
cases,  it is a M$ machine. Coincidence ? Sure....

> In fact I can't recall the last virus I had, I think it
>might have been form-a back in the mid 90's. Ditto for my BSD and Linux
>machines. They are all tools, they have their places. 
when the next unpatched hole gets exploited by the next spreading worm, 
they will not.

>Troll elsewhere. 
You seems in this case to be the M$ troll. You obviously didn't get the 
general vision, so :
1) Get your facts right before defending some company that obviously you 
don't know. Ever read the EULA ? I doubt.
2) Accept that Cristicism will always enrich our vision and accept that 
people CAN, and SHOULD for obvious reasons, not feel part of that MASS 
that you embrass. Happy to feel normal ?
I will not answer further as it seems pretty evident this leads nowhere 
and there, the word troll will be right.
btw, your post shows how bad the situation is already.
DOS Gone ? Try new folder => name it con, nul, lpt1, lpt2, lpt3, aux, 
com1, com2, com3 . O___o

Powered by blists - more mailing lists