N
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Alpha
What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there are in
Linux? Get a life.
Linux? Get a life.
F
~ FreeSpirit ~
====================================NoStop said:
Er, no.... to mess up a Windows box all you have to do is try and *USE* it.
;-)
FS~
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
I suggest you read the article and see how ludicrous it is.
What they are suggesting is impossible.
If you can create an OS with an "unconditional warranty" against "bad code",
you will be extremely rich if you succeed at the impossible.
More than likely you will be sued for failure to cover the terms of your
"unconditional warranty".
There are very few products that have such a warranty.
What they are suggesting is impossible.
If you can create an OS with an "unconditional warranty" against "bad code",
you will be extremely rich if you succeed at the impossible.
More than likely you will be sued for failure to cover the terms of your
"unconditional warranty".
There are very few products that have such a warranty.
A
Alpha
PS
This Andy has no job other than being a parasite off of Microsoft. What a
jerk.
This Andy has no job other than being a parasite off of Microsoft. What a
jerk.
Alpha said:What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there are
in Linux? Get a life.
A
Alpha
Another note: Why not sue NASA because the space shuttle is still being
debugged? Or Congress because the legislation it crafts is buggy? Anything
with millions of interacting components does not yet have a science of
reliability. That must come first, and no one has really developed a
sufficient model for this yet.
There is absolutely no computer system that is capable of being
unconditionally guaranteed.
debugged? Or Congress because the legislation it crafts is buggy? Anything
with millions of interacting components does not yet have a science of
reliability. That must come first, and no one has really developed a
sufficient model for this yet.
There is absolutely no computer system that is capable of being
unconditionally guaranteed.
Alpha said:PS
This Andy has no job other than being a parasite off of Microsoft. What a
jerk.
R
Robert Moir
NoStop said:
On the one hand the guy doesn't appear none too bright. On the other hand,
I don't think we should blindly accept faults either - though he really is
an idiot for claiming that Microsoft are the only company to ship
"defective" software... My Apple iBook is on release 10.4.2 of OS X, and
every single Linux install I've tried has failed to work perfectly on my mix
of old and new testbed machines.
And before anyone replies to claim my "perfection" expectations are
unreasonable, they should read the article referenced above and realise that
is the standard Microsoft are being held to.
--
R
Robert Moir
Jupiter said:I suggest you read the article and see how ludicrous it is.
What they are suggesting is impossible.
If you can create an OS with an "unconditional warranty" against "bad
code", you will be extremely rich if you succeed at the impossible.
More than likely you will be sued for failure to cover the terms of
your "unconditional warranty".
There are very few products that have such a warranty.
Absolutely. OTOH the current "typical" software warranty basically says that
the disk it comes on will be without defects - or at least the disk will be
replaced free if thats not the case - but other than that you've got no
right to expect anything more. The pendulum arm is just as extreme at the
top of its arc no matter which side its swinging towards today!
N
NoNoBadDog!
NoStop said:
Sorry to see your stupid, lame excuse for wasting oxygen back on the
newsgroups.
For the uninitiated, NoStop couldn't find his own a** with both hands and a
map. He has never once given a correct piece of advice, and seems to think
he knows everything.
Bobby
G
Gordon
Alpha said:What stupidity. NoStop...have you seen how many security holes there
are in Linux? Get a life.
So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO anti-malware
program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO full of holes?
N
NoNoBadDog!
Another idiot who believes there are no Linux threats. Where do theseGordon said:So that's why my Linux install needs NO antivirus prgram and NO
anti-malware program and NO anti-spyware program? Because it's SO full of
holes?
whacko's come from...are they breeding them somewhere?
If you knew *anything* about Linux, you would know that there *are* viruses,
trojans and other threats in the wild that attack Linux boxes.
Bobby
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Or perhaps you rely more on luck.
But there is no such thing, so what are you relying on?
A quick search finds many:
http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=linux
And:
http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=li...s_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
If more than a few minutes was used, I am sure more can be easily found.
It seems like your computer may be an accident waiting to happen.
Or possibly you never power the computer on?
But there is no such thing, so what are you relying on?
A quick search finds many:
http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=linux
And:
http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=li...s_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
If more than a few minutes was used, I am sure more can be easily found.
It seems like your computer may be an accident waiting to happen.
Or possibly you never power the computer on?
N
NoStop
Sorry to see your stupid, lame excuse for wasting oxygen back on the
newsgroups.
For the uninitiated, NoStop couldn't find his own a** with both hands and
a
map. He has never once given a correct piece of advice, and seems to
think he knows everything.
Bobby
Nice to see all the Wintards jump to the defence of MickeyMouse. Only a
Wintard would be content to pay big money for an "o/s" as full of holes and
bugs as XP has been and then shoot at the messenger because they're too
stupid to shoot at the message.
Agreed, that a lot of software contains bugs. But those are usually fixed in
a swift fashion or else the software ceases to be used. Wintards on the
other hand appear to be stupid enough to keep giving Gate$ a chance to fix
a lame product with patch after patch after patch as they continue to
struggle to keep their computers working. What are we up to? SP #2 (each
patch containing dozens of bug fixes) and still more fixes coming down the
pipe. This is almost 5 years after this toy operating system was initially
released! Consumers deserve better and that is all the article is
advocating.
No need to be such apologists you guys. Anyone with any brains can see
you're just sheeple and part of the MickeyMouse Fan Club. When the next
poor souls come here and post the silly problems they're having, just tell
them it's what's expected when one runs Windoze. Live with it! A fix will
come ... eventually (more likely when you cough up more money for the next
version, so you can start the whole game again). You'll be laughing stocks,
as you so rightfully deserve within the computing community - as your buddy
Billy laughs all the way to the bank.
It's people like you, that bow to Redmond, that helps keep this silliness
afloat. Fortunately, many thousands are finally waking up, have smelled the
coffee, and have given up on MickeyMouse. The MickeyMouse Fan Club is
losing its members and eventually only you fundamentalists will be left
reading your KB articles wondering why your computers are always crapping
out on you even after you've patched it for the umpteenth time. You all
need to be thanking your lucky stars that other developers (outside of M$)
keep your computers running at all. If it wasn't for anti-virus,
anti-trojan, anti-spyware programs, your lame O/S would bite the dust in
the first 5 minutes of a Net connection. I think it's time YOU stopped
apologizing for this. Grow some balls fellas.
N
NoStop
If you knew *anything* about Linux, you would know that there *are*
viruses, trojans and other threats in the wild that attack Linux boxes.
Bobby
You sure are an ignorant fella, aren't you Bobby? A typical Wintard that
thinks the bug infested eXPerience is all that exists in the computer
world.
G
Guest
NoStop you really are retarded!!!
If you bothered to do any research into what you are posting you would find
that linux vulnerabilities are on the up (yes it's true). The only reason
you don't here to much about them is because Linux is an OS that has not been
widely deployed.
Go to www.securityfocus.com, select vulnerabilities, filter that by Linux
and see how many faults there really are with Linux.
Next you'll be saying firefox is a better browser than IE because it is more
secure, but as with the rest of your posts that'll be wrong to because there
really are vulnerabilities in that to. If you can provide proof that Linux
or Macs are any more secure than Windows please bring your proof to the table
and I'm sure we'll all bow before your extensive knowledge.
If you can't provide the proof, then f**k Off back to crayons and colouring
books and stop posting the bull that you do. If you really hate Microsoft
and it's products stay off the sites.
If you bothered to do any research into what you are posting you would find
that linux vulnerabilities are on the up (yes it's true). The only reason
you don't here to much about them is because Linux is an OS that has not been
widely deployed.
Go to www.securityfocus.com, select vulnerabilities, filter that by Linux
and see how many faults there really are with Linux.
Next you'll be saying firefox is a better browser than IE because it is more
secure, but as with the rest of your posts that'll be wrong to because there
really are vulnerabilities in that to. If you can provide proof that Linux
or Macs are any more secure than Windows please bring your proof to the table
and I'm sure we'll all bow before your extensive knowledge.
If you can't provide the proof, then f**k Off back to crayons and colouring
books and stop posting the bull that you do. If you really hate Microsoft
and it's products stay off the sites.
N
NoNoBadDog!
Steve;
It's of no use. The idiot known as NoStop will not accept any proof that
Linux has vulnerabilities also. When they are pointed out to him, he
reduces himself (or perhaps raises himself) to the level of childish
name-calling. He is a complete loser who doesn't have a clue, and
apparently does not want to.
Bobby
It's of no use. The idiot known as NoStop will not accept any proof that
Linux has vulnerabilities also. When they are pointed out to him, he
reduces himself (or perhaps raises himself) to the level of childish
name-calling. He is a complete loser who doesn't have a clue, and
apparently does not want to.
Bobby
A
All Things Mopar
Alpha commented thusly:
True, very, very, true.
However, on the virtually all "hard" consumer products today
with computers, the bug rate is miniscule compared to a PC O/S
or app, even though the number of lines per code is similar,
even larger.
For example, in any new Chrysler Group vehicle, depending on
options, there're more than 25 /major/ computers, some with
tens of millions of lines of code. And, reliability has to be
ensured from -80 deg to +160 and under all sorts of operator
conditions, including rank stupidity. All the while, these
systems must meet hundreds of state and federal regulations.
In short, the computers /must/ reliably talk to each other and
must be able to perform as intended day in and day out,
/every/ time the car is driven.
Take, for example, the SKIM system (Sentry Key Immobilizer
Module). It has encryption bit lenght 4 times the maximum
allowed for export by U.S. law, hence the system must be
modified to export cars to Canada or Europe. The system is
sophisticated enough that even if a car thief has his own SKIM
computer with matching ignition key, he still cannot start the
car, as /three/ more computers are hidden in the vehicle, in
places changed from time-to-time to prevent thieves from
finding and spoofing them.
The method of creating at least the illusion of software
reliability is old-fashioned, and deceptively simple. Testing,
testing, and more testing. Manual, automated, and computer-
based. But, the number of "alpha", "private beta", and "public
beta" testers of new cars isn't 150,000, for example as with
XP SP2, it is /very/ small. But, a big difference, of course,
is that the operating environment is fully controlled, that
is, the code doesn't have to worry about hundreds of video
cards, printers, DVD burners, and countless application
software. But, it not only /is/ possible to "guarantee"
software reliability, it is guaranteed /in writing/ - it's
called new car warrenties and both voluntary and mandatory
recalls to correct "bugs".
Another set of major computers includes the transmission
controller and engine controller, and drive by wire systems.
Car buyers have this romantic notion that the car will
actually start and run everytime they turn the key, for
upwards of 150,000 or more miles, regardless of conditions,
including complete disregard for maintenence.Further, buyers
fully expect the car to perform well, have excellent
driveability, deliver superior gas mileage, and pass all state
or Federal emmissions testing, no matter where they live.
Knowing that competing makes buy and tear down cars to
determine manufacturing techniques and learn how new features
work, software engineers also embed encryption, "traps", and
"nasty-ware" in their code to thwart reverse-engineering to
learn how the module is designed and its features calibrated
to the parts of the car being computer controlled. Reverse-
engineering of software is illegal in the U.S., but the car
guys make it very difficult to learn anything at all.
Now, compare any of this to Windoze. If you just paid $32K for
a new Charger HEMI R/T as I just did yesterday (just picked up
the car last night), I would be /outraged/ if it wanted me to
"activate" its software in order to be able to keep driving,
and I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to periodically download
critical fixes and allow the software to "call home"
periodically", again to "ensure authenticity" and keep driving
without some twit at WalMar bypassing the security in my SKIM
and stealing my car. And, I would not take kindly to having to
continually "upgrade" my software in order for "bugs" to be
repaired, only to find new bugs created. Finally, I would
simply flat refuse to pay $35 /up front/ to even talk to a
tech support specialist about some failure somewhere in my
car. However, problems can and do arise, whether computer-
related or just through shitting engineering or manufacturing,
and it does cost money to repair that. But, beginning in the
1980s, Americans quickly found out that it /was/ possible to
get better cars cheaper from the Japanese, which launched the
greatedst re-think/re-design of the entire concept of motoring
since the dawn of the horseless carriage. And, the "war" is
hardly over. But, the computers in these modern beasties /do/
work, and work very well.
So, we consumers take a completely different view of what
we'll accept in the operation of a car, DVD player, TV,
dishwasher, microwave, telephone, yada, yada, yada, than we do
with Windoze or some $800 graphics app from a company that
makes clay bricks. We don't expect /them/ to produce reliable
code and we don't vote with our wallets, so what incentive do
they have to actually ensure any semplence of reliability?
And, we're very willing to shell out money nearly yearly for
"upgrades", themselves buggy by definition.
"hard" consumer goods, on the other hand, are expected to
operated /as advertised/ for the life of the product and then
some. When they don't, the manufacturer often pays literally
with its economic life - they go out-of-business or at least
suffer devastating losses for their investors. They either
learn to build cars that work - including the computers that
run the entire car, even the radios and power windows - or the
customer will simply go down the street to a competitor for
their next "upgrade".
Now, before somebody reminds me that cars frequently get
recalled, that is true. Although the percentage of cars in a
given recall that actually /have/ the "bug" is often on the
order of 0.01% of the total production run recalled. It's just
that it is virtually impossible to determine exactly which
vehicles out of a production run of maybe millions that may
have the "bug", although at least the start and end date of
the suspect production run can be determined. So, it hits Page
One when Chevy recalls 2.5 million pickups, but nothing ever
appears to tell owners if /their/ particular truck has the
problem. Cheap to fix? Hell, no! Are they fixed? Hell, yes!
So, software buyers/users, throw off your chains! Rise-up and
protest! Refuse to buy code with "activation" schemes devised
to euphemistically "ensure authenticity", return for refund
software found unfit for the intended purpose, and encourage
alternate sources to be developed. For example, as the
Japanese and Koreans have shown American and European
automakers how cars /can/ be built with quality and very low
cost/price, it truly does suprise me that they've not yet
decided to target the PC O/S and app developers of the world.
If/when they do, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel.
So, my friends, if you expect medicrity, don't be suprised if
you get it!
There is absolutely no computer system that is capable of
being unconditionally guaranteed.
True, very, very, true.
However, on the virtually all "hard" consumer products today
with computers, the bug rate is miniscule compared to a PC O/S
or app, even though the number of lines per code is similar,
even larger.
For example, in any new Chrysler Group vehicle, depending on
options, there're more than 25 /major/ computers, some with
tens of millions of lines of code. And, reliability has to be
ensured from -80 deg to +160 and under all sorts of operator
conditions, including rank stupidity. All the while, these
systems must meet hundreds of state and federal regulations.
In short, the computers /must/ reliably talk to each other and
must be able to perform as intended day in and day out,
/every/ time the car is driven.
Take, for example, the SKIM system (Sentry Key Immobilizer
Module). It has encryption bit lenght 4 times the maximum
allowed for export by U.S. law, hence the system must be
modified to export cars to Canada or Europe. The system is
sophisticated enough that even if a car thief has his own SKIM
computer with matching ignition key, he still cannot start the
car, as /three/ more computers are hidden in the vehicle, in
places changed from time-to-time to prevent thieves from
finding and spoofing them.
The method of creating at least the illusion of software
reliability is old-fashioned, and deceptively simple. Testing,
testing, and more testing. Manual, automated, and computer-
based. But, the number of "alpha", "private beta", and "public
beta" testers of new cars isn't 150,000, for example as with
XP SP2, it is /very/ small. But, a big difference, of course,
is that the operating environment is fully controlled, that
is, the code doesn't have to worry about hundreds of video
cards, printers, DVD burners, and countless application
software. But, it not only /is/ possible to "guarantee"
software reliability, it is guaranteed /in writing/ - it's
called new car warrenties and both voluntary and mandatory
recalls to correct "bugs".
Another set of major computers includes the transmission
controller and engine controller, and drive by wire systems.
Car buyers have this romantic notion that the car will
actually start and run everytime they turn the key, for
upwards of 150,000 or more miles, regardless of conditions,
including complete disregard for maintenence.Further, buyers
fully expect the car to perform well, have excellent
driveability, deliver superior gas mileage, and pass all state
or Federal emmissions testing, no matter where they live.
Knowing that competing makes buy and tear down cars to
determine manufacturing techniques and learn how new features
work, software engineers also embed encryption, "traps", and
"nasty-ware" in their code to thwart reverse-engineering to
learn how the module is designed and its features calibrated
to the parts of the car being computer controlled. Reverse-
engineering of software is illegal in the U.S., but the car
guys make it very difficult to learn anything at all.
Now, compare any of this to Windoze. If you just paid $32K for
a new Charger HEMI R/T as I just did yesterday (just picked up
the car last night), I would be /outraged/ if it wanted me to
"activate" its software in order to be able to keep driving,
and I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to periodically download
critical fixes and allow the software to "call home"
periodically", again to "ensure authenticity" and keep driving
without some twit at WalMar bypassing the security in my SKIM
and stealing my car. And, I would not take kindly to having to
continually "upgrade" my software in order for "bugs" to be
repaired, only to find new bugs created. Finally, I would
simply flat refuse to pay $35 /up front/ to even talk to a
tech support specialist about some failure somewhere in my
car. However, problems can and do arise, whether computer-
related or just through shitting engineering or manufacturing,
and it does cost money to repair that. But, beginning in the
1980s, Americans quickly found out that it /was/ possible to
get better cars cheaper from the Japanese, which launched the
greatedst re-think/re-design of the entire concept of motoring
since the dawn of the horseless carriage. And, the "war" is
hardly over. But, the computers in these modern beasties /do/
work, and work very well.
So, we consumers take a completely different view of what
we'll accept in the operation of a car, DVD player, TV,
dishwasher, microwave, telephone, yada, yada, yada, than we do
with Windoze or some $800 graphics app from a company that
makes clay bricks. We don't expect /them/ to produce reliable
code and we don't vote with our wallets, so what incentive do
they have to actually ensure any semplence of reliability?
And, we're very willing to shell out money nearly yearly for
"upgrades", themselves buggy by definition.
"hard" consumer goods, on the other hand, are expected to
operated /as advertised/ for the life of the product and then
some. When they don't, the manufacturer often pays literally
with its economic life - they go out-of-business or at least
suffer devastating losses for their investors. They either
learn to build cars that work - including the computers that
run the entire car, even the radios and power windows - or the
customer will simply go down the street to a competitor for
their next "upgrade".
Now, before somebody reminds me that cars frequently get
recalled, that is true. Although the percentage of cars in a
given recall that actually /have/ the "bug" is often on the
order of 0.01% of the total production run recalled. It's just
that it is virtually impossible to determine exactly which
vehicles out of a production run of maybe millions that may
have the "bug", although at least the start and end date of
the suspect production run can be determined. So, it hits Page
One when Chevy recalls 2.5 million pickups, but nothing ever
appears to tell owners if /their/ particular truck has the
problem. Cheap to fix? Hell, no! Are they fixed? Hell, yes!
So, software buyers/users, throw off your chains! Rise-up and
protest! Refuse to buy code with "activation" schemes devised
to euphemistically "ensure authenticity", return for refund
software found unfit for the intended purpose, and encourage
alternate sources to be developed. For example, as the
Japanese and Koreans have shown American and European
automakers how cars /can/ be built with quality and very low
cost/price, it truly does suprise me that they've not yet
decided to target the PC O/S and app developers of the world.
If/when they do, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel.
So, my friends, if you expect medicrity, don't be suprised if
you get it!
K
kurttrail
Robert said:Absolutely. OTOH the current "typical" software warranty basically
says that the disk it comes on will be without defects - or at least
the disk will be replaced free if thats not the case - but other than
that you've got no right to expect anything more. The pendulum arm is
just as extreme at the top of its arc no matter which side its
swinging towards today!
If you are not willing to stand behind your product post-sale, then you
have no business trying to micromanage how it used post-sale.
Eventually, the Corporate Software Giants will have to start putting
their money where there software is, and stop throwing out bug-riddle
software, or lose out to Open-Sourse alternatives. If you are a
Government or a corporation, and having to spend mega-bucks on keep
software patched, then you might as well spend less money on the
software to begin with.
The gravy train will not last forever, and those unwilling to change
will die out, even Microsoft.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
K
kurttrail
Steve said:NoStop you really are retarded!!!
If you bothered to do any research into what you are posting you
would find that linux vulnerabilities are on the up (yes it's true).
The only reason you don't here to much about them is because Linux is
an OS that has not been widely deployed.
Go to www.securityfocus.com, select vulnerabilities, filter that by
Linux and see how many faults there really are with Linux.
Next you'll be saying firefox is a better browser than IE because it
is more secure, but as with the rest of your posts that'll be wrong
to because there really are vulnerabilities in that to. If you can
provide proof that Linux or Macs are any more secure than Windows
please bring your proof to the table and I'm sure we'll all bow
before your extensive knowledge.
If you can't provide the proof, then f**k Off back to crayons and
colouring books and stop posting the bull that you do. If you really
hate Microsoft and it's products stay off the sites.
Windows is less secure just because it is installed on 95% of all PCs.
That means that all a malware writer has to do is target a vulnerability
in Windows and it can't help but hit thousands upon thousands of
computers at a minimum.
The biggest security hole in Windows isn't the number of vulernabilities
in the code, but the sheer numbers of PC installed with Windows.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
"hard" consumer goods, on the other hand, are expected to
operated /as advertised/ for the life of the product and then
some. When they don't, the manufacturer often pays literally
with its economic life - they go out-of-business or at least
suffer devastating losses for their investors. They either
learn to build cars that work - including the computers that
run the entire car, even the radios and power windows - or the
customer will simply go down the street to a competitor for
their next "upgrade".
I can tell that you either don't understand the difference between the
computers in a industrial appliance and those in your personal computer,
or that you have no industrial experience at all with computers.
Industrial computers, more like embedded systems, don't have to work
with anywhere near as many components as do personal computers.
Car computers don't have to work with anything like Open Office, Word,
Excel, Page Maker, Photoshop, etc....
Car computers don't have to work with PCI cards, AGP Cards, different
vendors chip-sets, video drivers, etc...
All of the computers in a car or industrial controller are dedicated
appliances that use a specific set of parts/code to perform specific and
limited functions that don't come anywhere near those of the personal
computer scope.
Next time you think about it - think about the car vendor building a
single car control computer that works with all cars, even other vendors
cars, also works with the latest video cards so that you can self-
upgrade your GPS display, so that you can upgrade the memory in it, so
that you can connect the trailer to it and get load-balancing, so that
you can connect your kids DVD player to it, etc... Now do you get the
idea of why car computers are more reliable - they don't do anywhere
near as much and don't work with anywhere near as much.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.