Z
zarathustra2k1
Al Klein said:
"almost weekly basis"?
*cough* complete bollocks *cough*
You're not even _near_ the mark...
Also, XP is _significantly_ the most solid, secure & user-friendly
desktop OS M$ has _ever_ released...
Linux is ok, since its free, but how about a OS that saves you money?
"almost weekly basis"?
*cough* complete bollocks *cough*
You're not even _near_ the mark...
Also, XP is _significantly_ the most solid, secure & user-friendly
desktop OS M$ has _ever_ released...
Z
zarathustra
Dave Keays said:
Imitation is _still_ the sincerest form of flattery...
G
Gordon
zarathustra said:
About which MS should know.........
Z
zarathustra
chrisv said:
Yeah, 'cos reverse-engineering documentation specifications must be
'real' hard. Poor, _poor_ OpenOffice.Org. Evil, _evil_
Microsoft.com...
One word: DeCSS.
Don't forget your tinfoil beanie.
K
KHaled
(e-mail address removed) wrote in
are all based on an operating system developed at Digital
Eguipment Corp. ( dont remember how many years ago..) called
WinNT. XP when released was full of amazing holes, and until
SP2 I know that many would not touch it. Even with SP2 I am
personally more inclined to go with a disrto such as
Linspire. or Adamantix, which give a great deal of
functionality without the risks..
Have a look at http://www.winehq.com/ (also started at DEC..)
--
KHaled
e-mail: khaledihREMOVEUPPERCASELETTERS at gmail dot com
(correcting antispam crap..)
please start your subject line with the string "==NG=="
Thus spaketh Zarathustra.. But the fact is, XP and the like
are all based on an operating system developed at Digital
Eguipment Corp. ( dont remember how many years ago..) called
WinNT. XP when released was full of amazing holes, and until
SP2 I know that many would not touch it. Even with SP2 I am
personally more inclined to go with a disrto such as
Linspire. or Adamantix, which give a great deal of
functionality without the risks..
Have a look at http://www.winehq.com/ (also started at DEC..)
--
KHaled
e-mail: khaledihREMOVEUPPERCASELETTERS at gmail dot com
(correcting antispam crap..)
please start your subject line with the string "==NG=="
D
dogsBollix
imitation ?
hmmm let's have a look at the record
word perfect
lotus 123
norton defrag
dr gem ?
compression software (can't remember the name)
cmos anybody ?
insert your favourite cloned app here ....
dB
G
Gordon
dogsBollix said:
You missed PCTools.....
?
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lin=F8nut?=
After takin' a swig o' grog, zarathustra belched out this bit o' wisdom:
Don't be stupid. For one thing, CSS is an extremely simple encryption
scheme. Being able to break CSS doesn't imply being able to break other
schemes.
For another thing, MS Office apparently simply dumps a lot of stuff from
RAM into the document. You want to try to reverse engineer a large
number of C structures from binary data? Be my guest.
Finally, MS Office also includes active code to support some of its
features, and this code requires certain Windows DLLs to be present.
<farting sound>
Thus spake zarathustra!
Don't be stupid. For one thing, CSS is an extremely simple encryption
scheme. Being able to break CSS doesn't imply being able to break other
schemes.
For another thing, MS Office apparently simply dumps a lot of stuff from
RAM into the document. You want to try to reverse engineer a large
number of C structures from binary data? Be my guest.
Finally, MS Office also includes active code to support some of its
features, and this code requires certain Windows DLLs to be present.
<farting sound>
Thus spake zarathustra!
D
Daniel Mandic
to prevent any misunderstandings
I did not try to say NetBSD is weaker than AmigaOS2 or 3.x, but I came
myself to the conclusion that the regularity proofs the fact.
I mean AmigaOS 3.1 for example, is faster than the AMIGA-Unix NetBSD,
maybe not so capable in Networking but better integrated to the
Hardware. That UNIX is a great OS knows everyone having some sense
about computing!
The same goes to IBM-PC compatible hardware, MS is the fastest
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
--
Although, MS had not an efective OS... even AmigaOS2.04 was better at
that time, though it was slow. 3.1 is much faster and even better 95.
All a matter of price.. ;-(
I did not try to say NetBSD is weaker than AmigaOS2 or 3.x, but I came
myself to the conclusion that the regularity proofs the fact.
I mean AmigaOS 3.1 for example, is faster than the AMIGA-Unix NetBSD,
maybe not so capable in Networking but better integrated to the
Hardware. That UNIX is a great OS knows everyone having some sense
about computing!
The same goes to IBM-PC compatible hardware, MS is the fastest
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
Daniel said:
--
Although, MS had not an efective OS... even AmigaOS2.04 was better at
that time, though it was slow. 3.1 is much faster and even better 95.
All a matter of price
.. ;-(
M
Mark Carter
Daniel said:I mean AmigaOS 3.1 for example, is faster than the AMIGA-Unix NetBSD,
maybe not so capable in Networking but better integrated to the
Hardware. That UNIX is a great OS knows everyone having some sense
about computing!
The same goes to IBM-PC compatible hardware, MS is the fastest
You may be interested in AROS, a free implemtation of Amiga OS:
http://www.aros.org/
They used to use an old AFFS file system, which was decidely slow and
wonky. They are bringing in SFS, a vastly faster file system (and
hopefully more reliable, too). I think that the guys there are putting
together a *really* fast OS.
It's fair to say that AROS has "some rough edges" - but I'm very
impressed by what they have achieved. It's even got a commercial
application ported for it (Hollywood).
Z
zarathustra
KHaled said:
Yes, and? This refutes my statement how?
Let's face it - most of the so-called risks are rendered toothless by
nothing so exotic as simple common sense. Lusers who operate without a
decent firewall/AV give the rest of us tinu Windows-ers the bad name.
I challenge you to find a sploit you can execute on my XP box.
Yeah, Wine's cool. Don't get me wrong - I _like_ Linux. I also like
Solaris, HPUX, BSD, et al. OS X Tiger is a joy to behold. AmigaOS gave
me a semi-on, etc., etc. I like OSes generally - I'm a geek, ffs! I'm
simply not fond of people babbling over subjects they know little or
less about. Check the Windows Update history and you'll discover that
the statement "Microsoft issues updates on an almost weekly basis" is
uninformed gobshite from some biased cluebie who wants to come off all
'cool' to his 'alternate-OS' buddies. S'all. =]
Z
zarathustra
Gordon said:
For sure. But let's not get sidetracked by some misguided sense of
loyalty to Linus. "Dave" said, and I quote: "Win^H^H^H - actually, no,
I won't duplicate it, 'cos it's right there - look up...
Reread what he wrote - and my response - and then explain how your
point renders mine incorrect. Tell me, who _hasn't_ copied some
elements of a prior OS? We tinw could go back to the PARC days and
further and claim that _everyone's_ a goddamn plagiarist, but where
would that get us tinu? The fact is that one chooses the OS one feels
most comfortable with - and then tweaks it like a favourite nipple.
What is the point in dissing the most successful operating system
_ever_ produced - even _if_ yours is 'better, ner-ner'?
D
Daniel Mandic
Mark said:
Hi Mark!
Your link sounds round
. Thanks.Well, NT exchanged my Computer-OS. Multitasking is (other) and more
reliable (the machine farted down sometimes while heavy download and
listening mods and such). Maybe AROS points more to the
Network-AMIGA... though it´s free and a good alternative for People,
not having the OS3.1 package. (I bought the 40.63 and 40.68, 2000 and
4000)
Today I go with Kickstart 1.2/1.3 'switching-board' (SCSI-Controller
with FastRAM Option [8MB] GVP2008) and the 1MB Fat-AGNUS (resoldered
0.5Chip/0.5Slow-RAM A2000). OS3.1 can do much more, but is too cool
Full Compatible. Only Fast-RAM can make troubles (hmmm, I could make a
multi-switch on the case outside, to switch between 0 and 8MB FastRAM
in 2MB steps). The Fat-AGNUS is good compatible to the older
512k-AGNUS. I remember even the 2MB/8MB Big-AGNUS could play any older
games.
Kind Regards,
Daniel Mandic
M
Mitch
Rick said:
That would be so you can avoid using Windows.
There may be users out there who want to keep using MS Office even
though they want to get away from MS Windows.
M
Mitch
zarathustra said:
It's not about how difficult the task is, it's about having to do it,
make changes every time the principle changes the specs, retain useful
formatting, discard useless or proprietary features, and make sure the
saved data is clean and plain and simple enough for writing into a new
file.
Microsoft has a LOT of features, even just in it's word processor, that
can put junk in a file. Embedded fonts, images, markup for post-it
tags, font colors, proprietary indenting, proprietary paragraph and
margin notes, user info, path info for dictionaries and grammar, user
info (!) dates, program settings, group editing markup, and document
settings and viewing options.
Microsoft Word may have a use for those bits; other programs have to
work to accommodate them. How hard do you imagine Microsoft would work
to accommodate the intregity of someone else's files?
M
Mitch
zarathustra said:
How about the WMF issue?
How long were you vulnerable to that?
How can you be sure you aren't still vulnerable to something like that?
You didn't know for years...
What about every virus that isn't yet in the definitions of your AV
tool? Not opening attachments may not be enough, especially when you do
open Web sites.
I'm not really trying to challenge you, but to point out that Windows
has always had problems in abundance, and solutions come after the
problem is known. It's just plain foolish to believe you are safe.
M
Mitch
zarathustra said:
Except that they might not be doing it because that is good design, but
because it makes it easier for MS users to change over.
Or it is easier than developing your own way of doing things and
testing them.
Or it reduces support calls.
Or Microsoft used the same common source for some parts development.
Or someone previously criticized them for doing things differently.
Or they are just taking a well-travelled path.
Lots of possibilities; can't just assume one, nor is there reason to
think there is only one reason.
Z
Zitty
Mitch said:
And what makes you think there aren't similar hidden issues hidden away
within Linux? The old "it's open source so anyone can look at the code and
review it" argument fell apart when this very same vulnerablility was
discovered in Wine... and guess what - nobody noticed dispite it being there
in the source code for all to see.
And its even more fooling to *assume* that just because your running Linux
your immune from such problems.
Z
zarathustra
Mitch said:
Wasn't _affected_ for years, either.
....then colour me foolish. My IP's in the headers (currently) - on you
go. As for something I might do to _myself_, well, the only viruses
I've ever been infected with were ones I had _deliberately_ decided to
open, for, shall we tinw say, educational purposes. I know - I'm being
slightly facetious here, but the truth is that 'Safe Hex' will
_always_ be of paramount importance - whatever your OS.
A
Al Klein
I'm basing it on how often my automatic updater runs. You'd prefer
that I say "daily"?
A Bowery bum finds a $100 bill. It's _significantly_ the most money
he's ever found in a single bill. That doesn't make it a lot of
money.