ARE YOU HAVING THE RPC/REMOTE PROCEDURE CALL ERROR?

[kurttrail]

Well if the 32-bit 64-bit confuses him just tell him to use the 32-bit
patch - he ain't running the 64-bit version. And if he's still
stumped after you tell him which one, offer him 50 bucks for his new
computer - tell him it's a great deal - he will believe you and he
will go for it. Or if he's really acts that dumb hand him a Linux
distro and send him to C.O.L.A. Unfortunately he will probably run
everything as root and will open anything sent to him in email so
we've gone full circle.

I prefer P.E.P.S.I.!

How To Fix The Cryptographic Service Error
Are YOU getting the following error when you try to install Windows XP
Service Pack 1?

"Service Pack 1 Setup Error:

Setup could not verify the integrity of the file Update.inf. Make sure
the Cryptographic service is running on this computer"

Or

YOU are trying to install the Windows XP security patch 823980 - in
response to the msblast.exe worm and you are getting a similar error
message.

(NB - When you use the Windows Update Web site to install updates, you
may receive a 643 error message... if this is the case please go
straight to the end of this article!)

Why is this Cryptographic Error happening?

This issue occurs for one of TWO reasons:

REASON ONE:
The Cryptographic Services that should be running on your computer is
for some reason set to Disabled for Startup type

REASON TWO:
There is log file or database corruption in the
%Systemroot%\System32\Catroot2 folder
If this makes as much sense to you as Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law
of Gravitation - Don't' PANIC

You do NOT need to understand what is happening, just follow these
remedies:

Follow this if - You are trying to install Windows XP Service Pack 1

The first thing is to be aware of is that Microsoft themselves are aware
of this issue and have released a fix to the database corruption
issue... But more of that in a moment...
First we must just check the Cryptographic Services is actually running
on your machine.

To do this:

Start the Administrative Tools utility in Control Panel.
Double-click Services.
Right-click Cryptographic Services, and then click Properties.
Click Automatic for Startup type, and then click Start.
You can now try to reinstall Windows XP Service Pack 1

If it FAILS again...

Click Start menu, and then click the Run icon.
In the small box that Opens, type the three letters: cmd then click
the OK button.
In the command prompt window that just opened (a black background and
white text), type the following commands, pressing the ENTER key on your
keyboard after each line:

net stop cryptsvc
ren %systemroot%\system32\catroot2 oldcatroot2
net start cryptsvc

Now type exit to close the command prompt window, and then try to
install Windows XP Service Pack 1 again. It should now work... You may
in some rare instances have to reboot your machine again first, so give
this a try if it fails again...

As I said earlier Microsoft are aware of this corruption issue and have
made a an update available that can correct this issue. To obtain it
visit the Windows Update site and download Q817287: Critical Update
(Catalogue Database Corruption in Microsoft Windows), this should
correct the corruption problem!

Follow this if - You are trying to install Windows XP Security Patch
823980
I have been surprised at the amount of emails I have received this
week... Many of you who have been hit by the msblast.exe worm have
subsequently had an error message regarding the cryptographic service,
when you try to apply the Microsoft patch 823980
First we must just check the Cryptographic Services is actually running
on your machine.

To do this:

Start the Administrative Tools utility in Control Panel.
Double-click Services.
Right-click Cryptographic Services, and then click Properties.
Click Automatic for Startup type, and then click Start.
You can now try to reinstall security patch 823980

If it FAILS again...

Click Start menu, and then click the Run icon.
In the small box that Opens, type the three letters: cmd then click
the OK button.
In the command prompt window that just opened (a black background and
white text), type the following commands, pressing the ENTER key on your
keyboard after each line:

net stop cryptsvc
ren %systemroot%\system32\catroot2 oldcatroot2
net start cryptsvc

Now type exit to close the command prompt window, and then try to
security patch 823980. It should now work... You may in some rare
instances have to reboot your machine again first, so give this a try if
it fails again...

FAILED again? Well seems to be happening to a few of you... so lets
re-register some DLL files. sounds like fun, eh?

Click Start menu, and then click the Run icon.
In the small box that Opens, type the three letters: cmd then click
the OK button.
In the command prompt window that just opened (a black background and
white text), type the following commands, pressing the ENTER key on your
keyboard after each line:

net start cryptsvc
regsvr32 softpub.dll
regsvr32 wintrust.dll
regsvr32 initpki.dll
regsvr32 dssenh.dll
regsvr32 rsaenh.dll
regsvr32 gpkcsp.dll
regsvr32 sccbase.dll
regsvr32 slbcsp.dll
regsvr32 cryptdlg.dll

Now type the word: exit and the window will close. Now Reboot and try
and reply the Microsoft Patch again...

NB - If you just can not face typing all that in the command line,
simply download this batch file and run it on your machine... It will do
it for YOU!

To stop future cryptographic service corruption issues, make sure you
have installed Windows XP Service Pack 1. Then install the specific
patch for this issue: 817287: Critical Update (Catalogue Database
Corruption in Microsoft Windows)... (please note you MUST have Windows
XP SP1 installed!)

ERROR 643
When you use the Windows Update Web site to install updates, you may
receive a 643 error message.

If this is the case then we need to delete the database catalogue and
let Windows XP rebuild it automatically:

Click Start menu, and then click the Run icon.
In the small box that Opens, type the three letters: cmd then click
the OK button.

In the command prompt window that just opened (a black background and
white text), type the following command, pressing the ENTER key on your
keyboard afterwards:

del /q "%SystemRoot%\System32\Catroot2\Edb.log

Now type exit to close the command prompt window, and then try to
install the patch again... This is also worth doing if you find your
Windows Media Player is slow to
respond... -http://www.updatexp.com/cryptographic-service.html

Most of the average computer users I know can't even organize their
start menus, let alone follow all this goobley-gook just in install an
effin' patch.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Stephen]

It's the ol' welcome to computers kind of thing. IMO, for the most part,
Windows Update has made it very easy to install patches. Sure, sometimes you
have to get down and dirty with your computer regardless of platform or OS
... but that's computers for you. I went through the ropes trying to patch a
Red Hat install .. it got so complicated I decide to start from scratch.
Windows patching never ever got so near to byzantine as my Red Hat
experience with its kernels, exclusions, and fonts and configs and public
keys and stalled buggy downloader and buggy package installer - a ruddy
nightmare - so if Joe is using Windows he's got it easy ...

.... Or just pay someone to do it for Joe. I'm sure there are plenty of tech
shops that could patch Joe's computer. If he can't find anyone send him to
me - I will do it - as long as it's Windows and not Linux.

Stephen

--

Drop 123 to email me.


| Stephen wrote:
|
| > Well if the 32-bit 64-bit confuses him just tell him to use the 32-bit
| > patch - he ain't running the 64-bit version. And if he's still
| > stumped after you tell him which one, offer him 50 bucks for his new
| > computer - tell him it's a great deal - he will believe you and he
| > will go for it. Or if he's really acts that dumb hand him a Linux
| > distro and send him to C.O.L.A. Unfortunately he will probably run
| > everything as root and will open anything sent to him in email so
| > we've gone full circle.
|
| I prefer P.E.P.S.I.!
|
| How To Fix The Cryptographic Service Error
| Are YOU getting the following error when you try to install Windows XP
| Service Pack 1?
|
| "Service Pack 1 Setup Error:
|
| Setup could not verify the integrity of the file Update.inf. Make sure
| the Cryptographic service is running on this computer"
|
| Or
|
| YOU are trying to install the Windows XP security patch 823980 - in
| response to the msblast.exe worm and you are getting a similar error
| message.
|
| (NB - When you use the Windows Update Web site to install updates, you
| may receive a 643 error message... if this is the case please go
| straight to the end of this article!)
|
| Why is this Cryptographic Error happening?
|
| This issue occurs for one of TWO reasons:
|
| REASON ONE:
| The Cryptographic Services that should be running on your computer is
| for some reason set to Disabled for Startup type
|
| REASON TWO:
| There is log file or database corruption in the
| %Systemroot%\System32\Catroot2 folder
| If this makes as much sense to you as Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law
| of Gravitation - Don't' PANIC
| < edit >
| Most of the average computer users I know can't even organize their
| start menus, let alone follow all this goobley-gook just in install an
| effin' patch.
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt

 

[kurttrail]

It's the ol' welcome to computers kind of thing. IMO, for the most
part, Windows Update has made it very easy to install patches. Sure,
sometimes you have to get down and dirty with your computer
regardless of platform or OS .. but that's computers for you. I went
through the ropes trying to patch a Red Hat install .. it got so
complicated I decide to start from scratch. Windows patching never
ever got so near to byzantine as my Red Hat experience with its
kernels, exclusions, and fonts and configs and public keys and
stalled buggy downloader and buggy package installer - a ruddy
nightmare - so if Joe is using Windows he's got it easy ...

... Or just pay someone to do it for Joe. I'm sure there are plenty
of tech shops that could patch Joe's computer. If he can't find
anyone send him to me - I will do it - as long as it's Windows and
not Linux.

Then MS shouldn't market the "ease of use" of their software. Instead
of trying to promote their oxymoron of "Trustyworty Computing," why
don't they try telling the truth? Computing is not safe, and MS takes
no responsiblity for what can happen to your computing experience,
because of a defect in their product, but wants to keep prices
artifically high, and licensing terms restrictive, and continues to add
technologies to limit individual consumer's choice. Because their is no
real choice for the average consumer, and MS can feed any fiction it
likes!

Keep on marketing each new OS as the most stable ever! As compared to
the previous bug-fill crap, that is!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Joh N.]

Stephen, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

Poor Joe should immediately download and install the patch for this worm -
reboot - then download the rest of the patches. It may take a while
depending on the connection. I used to download Netscape
Navigator/Communicator with one of those modems and that was 13MB at the
time. It took twenty minutes or so depending on the day .. so it means he
should go out and get a coffee from the local donut shop and take a stroll.
After an hour or two it's done. If done overnight, he won't even notice the
time. But either way he should do it and either way it is no big deal.

Stephen

Riiiiight. Unfortunately, Joe has no clue about the worm, anti-virus apps,
firewalling, or even that he should go to windows update at all! He's staring
at this monitor, trying to figure out what all this new computer does. Finally,
he gets around to trying out the internet. *WHAM!*...Joe's hit with the worm.
Now, not only is Joe worried that this high dollar machine may be broken
already, but he's scared of what this 'happening' is doing to his new machine
and how much it's going to cost him to get it fixed.
If you'd pull your head out long enough to get some fresh air and clear your
brain, you'd remember to quit talking as though everyone who owns a computer
doesn't sit down at their first one with all the knowledge *you* have. Just
because it's "no big deal" to *you*, doesn't mean jack shit to Joe, *HE'S* the
one it's happening to, not you.

Joh N.

 

[Joh N.]

Stephen, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

Well if the 32-bit 64-bit confuses him just tell him to use the 32-bit
patch - he ain't running the 64-bit version. And if he's still stumped after
you tell him which one, offer him 50 bucks for his new computer - tell him
it's a great deal - he will believe you and he will go for it. Or if he's
really acts that dumb hand him a Linux distro and send him to C.O.L.A.
Unfortunately he will probably run everything as root and will open anything
sent to him in email so we've gone full circle.

Stephen

You need to seriously step back and look at your replies. You're beginning to
show signs of being a relative to Will Denny, who's not just the dimmest candle
in the chandelier, but is having a hard time just staying lit.

Joh N.

 

[Joh N.]

Stephen, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

It's the ol' welcome to computers kind of thing. IMO, for the most part,
Windows Update has made it very easy to install patches. Sure, sometimes you
have to get down and dirty with your computer regardless of platform or OS
.. but that's computers for you. I went through the ropes trying to patch a
Red Hat install .. it got so complicated I decide to start from scratch.
Windows patching never ever got so near to byzantine as my Red Hat
experience with its kernels, exclusions, and fonts and configs and public
keys and stalled buggy downloader and buggy package installer - a ruddy
nightmare - so if Joe is using Windows he's got it easy ...

... Or just pay someone to do it for Joe. I'm sure there are plenty of tech
shops that could patch Joe's computer. If he can't find anyone send him to
me - I will do it - as long as it's Windows and not Linux.

WHOOSH! Don't bother looking...the point went by so fast you'll never see it.

Joh N.

 

[Stephen]

Hm hm, take the Linux agenda to C.O.L.A.

In fact, Windows does make computing easier. Even their Update is usually
easier than any other company's update. Windows is great partly because it
enables so much flexibility. Unfortunately, evil mindedness has spoiled some
of it - for some reason some guys think it is OK to be destructive to
other's property. In the mean time, it is quite clear Microsoft goes to
great lengths making their software more secure.

One of my machines caught one bit of malware once .. and that was because I
deliberately ignored patching and went out surfing. But if I had patched
then it wouldn't have happened. It was my fault, not Microsoft's. It was as
stupid as if I had run unknown software as root on a UNIX system. I got what
I deserved.

Microsoft has never claimed their systems are Fort Knox safe. It's called
the "Trustworthy Computing Initiative". In other words they are making an
effort towards safer computing. I have no problem with that.

Windows is all about choice. The API enables you to write all manner of
software to run on it. Windows works on the hardware from all manner of
vendors. When you go to 'create' a PC of your own you can choose and choose
and choose to your heart's content. There's literally tens of thousands of
software programs you can choose to install and run and if you don't like
any of those there are well published APIs with which you can use to write
your own. You can also use standard computer languages such as C/C++ to
create and run anything you want. Windows is all about choice.

I like Microsoft Windows. If you don't, your time and effort might be better
spent elsewhere. A company like Microsoft is made up of thousands of
people - it will not be perfect - and I can't account for any perceived sins
past, present or future - however, IMO, what Microsoft does these days is
good honest business selling software that works well. There's not much I
can say to you or do for you if you don't think that about them. The
American justice system has already called them to account for perceived
past sins. I encourage them to be honest in their business. And there's not
much I can say to you or do for you if you do not believe in the freedom to
do business.

Stephen

--

Drop 123 to email me.


| Stephen wrote:
|
| > It's the ol' welcome to computers kind of thing. IMO, for the most
| > part, Windows Update has made it very easy to install patches. Sure,
| > sometimes you have to get down and dirty with your computer
| > regardless of platform or OS .. but that's computers for you. I went
| > through the ropes trying to patch a Red Hat install .. it got so
| > complicated I decide to start from scratch. Windows patching never
| > ever got so near to byzantine as my Red Hat experience with its
| > kernels, exclusions, and fonts and configs and public keys and
| > stalled buggy downloader and buggy package installer - a ruddy
| > nightmare - so if Joe is using Windows he's got it easy ...
| >
| > ... Or just pay someone to do it for Joe. I'm sure there are plenty
| > of tech shops that could patch Joe's computer. If he can't find
| > anyone send him to me - I will do it - as long as it's Windows and
| > not Linux.
|
| Then MS shouldn't market the "ease of use" of their software. Instead
| of trying to promote their oxymoron of "Trustyworty Computing," why
| don't they try telling the truth? Computing is not safe, and MS takes
| no responsiblity for what can happen to your computing experience,
| because of a defect in their product, but wants to keep prices
| artifically high, and licensing terms restrictive, and continues to add
| technologies to limit individual consumer's choice. Because their is no
| real choice for the average consumer, and MS can feed any fiction it
| likes!
|
| Keep on marketing each new OS as the most stable ever! As compared to
| the previous bug-fill crap, that is!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.kurttrail.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

 

[Plasma]

S_O_R_R_Y for talking way back there!

But if you have been to the website you will notice that Microsoft is not at
all explicit about the correct download; when you consider that most people
are aware of only a few specs when they buy their computer, such as SIZE,
SPEED & SCREEN SIZE let alone what a BIT is??? and DO I have 32 of em' or 64
of the little suckers!

Absolutely Microsoft does seem to get it right 99% of the time (all updates
have gone smoothly for me and I have had no crashes since birth.

However, when you think about the recent ASP.NET that came as a usual
download and when you rebooted you suddenly found you had a new user onboard
without even a slight intention to mention from Microsofton that this was
about to happen, resulting in a lot of users deleting the NEW USER thinking
it was an invasion of some type!

I mean it's one thing to be proud of Bill's achievements, shame you can't
say the same about his ability to communicate this to others!

After all what is the internet for, if not communication???

So techies stop complaining about how many hours you spend helping people
and get to the ROOT cause!

P.S. Check out the Windows UPDATE page, it has a new body of text and guess
what, it gets to the root cause!

Love
Plasma

 

[kurttrail]

Hm hm, take the Linux agenda to C.O.L.A.

It's a consumer agenda, not that of corporate apologists.

In fact, Windows does make computing easier.

Oh yeah, then why didn't MS include a script to do fix the crypographic
service, so that the patch can be installed, instead of letting people
find their own fix, just so that they can keep patched?

Even their Update is
usually easier than any other company's update.

So many people had problems with the WU install of SP1, that they gave
up with doing updates. Look at all the people that had problems
installing the RPC patch. And 911493 was also a big pain for many
users. Relying on MS patches is a bit foolhardy. Better to suggest
that people learn to protect their computer by not relying on MS, but by
other means, like firewalls and AV. MS's bandaid approach to security
is totally reactionary, and not a proactive means of protecting one's
computer.

Windows is great
partly because it enables so much flexibility.

Windows is adaquate, hardly great, as it was a flaw in it's flexibilty
that allowed all this RPC nonsense to be exploited in the first place.

Unfortunately, evil
mindedness has spoiled some of it - for some reason some guys think
it is OK to be destructive to other's property.

They aren't the only ones to blame! Many people thought they had the
patch installed, only to find out that it only looked that way.

In the mean time, it
is quite clear Microsoft goes to great lengths making their software
more secure.

Yeah, even their first "Trustworthy Computing Initiative" OS had the RPC
error! LOL! More like they gave their programmers a month off to goof
off, instead of looking at the DCOM module over again before just
shoving it into Windows Server 2003!

One of my machines caught one bit of malware once .. and that was
because I deliberately ignored patching and went out surfing.

What aren't you smart enough to turn on the firewall? Oh, unless that
malware tricked you into installing it in the first place! Aren't you
just the kettle calling the pot black!

But if
I had patched then it wouldn't have happened. It was my fault, not
Microsoft's.

Patches are bandaids. You need to put a condom on your computer.

It was as stupid as if I had run unknown software as
root on a UNIX system. I got what I deserved.

Microsoft has never claimed their systems are Fort Knox safe. It's
called the "Trustworthy Computing Initiative". In other words they
are making an effort towards safer computing. I have no problem with
that.

Windows is all about choice.

LOL! Not for consumers! PA & DRM technologies don't do anything for
consumers choice, and certaining doesn't make computing any easier.

The API enables you to write all manner
of software to run on it. Windows works on the hardware from all
manner of vendors. When you go to 'create' a PC of your own you can
choose and choose and choose to your heart's content.

As long as you get MS's permission.

There's
literally tens of thousands of software programs you can choose to
install and run and if you don't like any of those there are well
published APIs with which you can use to write your own. You can also
use standard computer languages such as C/C++ to create and run
anything you want. Windows is all about choice.

Not for consumers, just for the corporate copyright crowd.

I like Microsoft Windows.

Goody for you!

If you don't, your time and effort might be
better spent elsewhere.

I'll be the judge of that.

A company like Microsoft is made up of
thousands of
people - it will not be perfect - and I can't account for any
perceived sins past, present or future - however, IMO, what Microsoft
does these days is good honest business selling software that works
well.

Honest?! Honest companies are convicted monopolists, patent infringers,
and make settlements with the gov't for accounting irregularities, and
for overcharging consumers?! Honest like George W. Bush was about the
imminent threat of Iraqi WMDs!

There's not much I can say to you or do for you if you don't
think that about them.

You could try brainwashing me, or lobotomizing me, and I doubt you could
ever convince me that MS motivations are generated out of anything but
greed. Remember capitalist theory?

The American justice system has already called
them to account for perceived past sins.

And there are more cases that have yet to be tried.

I encourage them to be
honest in their business. And there's not much I can say to you or do
for you if you do not believe in the freedom to do business.

No company is free to do whatever it wants. Businesses have no
unalienable rights. Take your business over consumer agenda to the GOP!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Duncan McNutt .[BSDM]]

Im planning on threatening to switch from Linux to Windows to see if I can
get a discount on Linux.

 

[kurttrail]

Im planning on threatening to switch from Linux to Windows to see if
I can get a discount on Linux.

Yeah, get SCO to pay you!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Stephen]

Getting nasty are we? So sorry profit is a dirty word for you. Earning must
be another word you don't like. People have the right to consume but not the
right to do business? Just what are they going to consume if business stops?
Who do you think makes your shoes, the pencil who scratch with or your
keyboard? People doing business. Who puts food on the grocery stores shelves
... people doing business. Who grows the potatoes? People doing business. I
can't help it if you have an anti-business attitude. Maybe you might be
happy in Cuba. Business isn't much allowed. On the other hand there's lots
of communist education available. And you don't mind doing without, right?

Stephen

--

Drop 123 to email me.


| Stephen wrote:
|
| > Hm hm, take the Linux agenda to C.O.L.A.
|
| It's a consumer agenda, not that of corporate apologists.
|
| > In fact, Windows does make computing easier.
|
| Oh yeah, then why didn't MS include a script to do fix the crypographic
| service, so that the patch can be installed, instead of letting people
| find their own fix, just so that they can keep patched?
|
| >Even their Update is
| > usually easier than any other company's update.
|
| So many people had problems with the WU install of SP1, that they gave
| up with doing updates. Look at all the people that had problems
| installing the RPC patch. And 911493 was also a big pain for many
| users. Relying on MS patches is a bit foolhardy. Better to suggest
| that people learn to protect their computer by not relying on MS, but by
| other means, like firewalls and AV. MS's bandaid approach to security
| is totally reactionary, and not a proactive means of protecting one's
| computer.
|
| > Windows is great
| > partly because it enables so much flexibility.
|
| Windows is adaquate, hardly great, as it was a flaw in it's flexibilty
| that allowed all this RPC nonsense to be exploited in the first place.
|
| > Unfortunately, evil
| > mindedness has spoiled some of it - for some reason some guys think
| > it is OK to be destructive to other's property.
|
| They aren't the only ones to blame! Many people thought they had the
| patch installed, only to find out that it only looked that way.
|
| > In the mean time, it
| > is quite clear Microsoft goes to great lengths making their software
| > more secure.
|
| Yeah, even their first "Trustworthy Computing Initiative" OS had the RPC
| error! LOL! More like they gave their programmers a month off to goof
| off, instead of looking at the DCOM module over again before just
| shoving it into Windows Server 2003!
|
| > One of my machines caught one bit of malware once .. and that was
| > because I deliberately ignored patching and went out surfing.
|
| What aren't you smart enough to turn on the firewall? Oh, unless that
| malware tricked you into installing it in the first place! Aren't you
| just the kettle calling the pot black!
|
| > But if
| > I had patched then it wouldn't have happened. It was my fault, not
| > Microsoft's.
|
| Patches are bandaids. You need to put a condom on your computer.
|
| > It was as stupid as if I had run unknown software as
| > root on a UNIX system. I got what I deserved.
| >
| > Microsoft has never claimed their systems are Fort Knox safe. It's
| > called the "Trustworthy Computing Initiative". In other words they
| > are making an effort towards safer computing. I have no problem with
| > that.
| >
| > Windows is all about choice.
|
| LOL! Not for consumers! PA & DRM technologies don't do anything for
| consumers choice, and certaining doesn't make computing any easier.
|
| > The API enables you to write all manner
| > of software to run on it. Windows works on the hardware from all
| > manner of vendors. When you go to 'create' a PC of your own you can
| > choose and choose and choose to your heart's content.
|
| As long as you get MS's permission.
|
| >There's
| > literally tens of thousands of software programs you can choose to
| > install and run and if you don't like any of those there are well
| > published APIs with which you can use to write your own. You can also
| > use standard computer languages such as C/C++ to create and run
| > anything you want. Windows is all about choice.
|
| Not for consumers, just for the corporate copyright crowd.
|
| > I like Microsoft Windows.
|
| Goody for you!
|
| > If you don't, your time and effort might be
| > better spent elsewhere.
|
| I'll be the judge of that.
|
| > A company like Microsoft is made up of
| > thousands of
| > people - it will not be perfect - and I can't account for any
| > perceived sins past, present or future - however, IMO, what Microsoft
| > does these days is good honest business selling software that works
| > well.
|
| Honest?! Honest companies are convicted monopolists, patent infringers,
| and make settlements with the gov't for accounting irregularities, and
| for overcharging consumers?! Honest like George W. Bush was about the
| imminent threat of Iraqi WMDs!
|
| > There's not much I can say to you or do for you if you don't
| > think that about them.
|
| You could try brainwashing me, or lobotomizing me, and I doubt you could
| ever convince me that MS motivations are generated out of anything but
| greed. Remember capitalist theory?
|
| > The American justice system has already called
| > them to account for perceived past sins.
|
| And there are more cases that have yet to be tried.
|
| > I encourage them to be
| > honest in their business. And there's not much I can say to you or do
| > for you if you do not believe in the freedom to do business.
|
| No company is free to do whatever it wants. Businesses have no
| unalienable rights. Take your business over consumer agenda to the GOP!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.kurttrail.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

 

[kurttrail]

Getting nasty are we?

Aren't you smart enough to proactively protect your own property,
instead of only relying on MS's reactionary Band-Aid's? Nothing nasty
in my pointing out to you your own hypocrisy. Or don't you remember,
"If a person presumes to run a computer and connect it to the Internet
they have to keep an eye out for it so to speak." MicroPatches don't
protect your computer, just plugs up already existing holes. If you're
really concerned that people take personal responsibility for their own
computers, then telling them to rely on MicroPatches, is as effective as
a sugar pill is in preventing disease.

So sorry profit is a dirty word for you.

Did I really say that? Putting words in my mouth now, are we?

Earning must be another word you don't like.

Did I say that either?

People have the right to
consume but not the right to do business?

Businesses are non-corporeal commercial entities created by humans.
Humans have unalienable rights, not business entities.

Just what are they going to consume if business stops?

Who said anything about stopping businesses? Is the sky falling too,
chicken little?

Who do you think makes your shoes, the
pencil who scratch with or your keyboard? People doing business. Who
puts food on the grocery stores shelves .. people doing business. Who
grows the potatoes? People doing business. I can't help it if you
have an anti-business attitude.

Because I understand the motivation behind capitalism. Why does the
gov't regulate our economy, for the benefit of corporate entities, or
for the benefit of the individual human beings that make up our society?

Maybe you might be happy in Cuba. Business isn't much allowed.
On the other hand there's lots of communist education available.

Why? I'm not bashing capitalism, per se, I using capitalist theory to
show that businesses don't act out of the kindness of their hearts.
It's your touchy-feely notion of businesses motivated by altruism that
is out of the norm of capitalism. Maybe you'd be happier in Cuba, or
China, as you definitely don't understand capitalistic theory.

And you don't mind doing without, right?

Wrong! Because I do mind doing without the ultimate aim of copyright,
in this free capitalist society!

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote:

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

MS has $49 billion in cash reserves as of July 2003. In spite of fact
that almost all of their non-software businesses are losing money. On
top of all the legal settlements for Anti-trust abuse, patent
infringement, accounting irregularities, and for overcharging consumers.
Not to mention all the losses due to the organized crime software piracy
rings operating in many Asian countries that have weak or nearly
non-existent copyright laws and/or enforcement. Can anyone one argue,
with a straight face, that MS hasn't gotten a "fair return" for the
creative labor of it's employees?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

We're just gonna talk about everything, aren't we? The posting
certainly runs a gambit. I admit I needlessly mentioned Cuba, but did
you really have to bring in China?

Since you only seem to object to my addition of China as an example of
another communist country one could move to, in addition to Cuba, and
paid absolutely no attention to my response to your opinion of the
personal responsibility of computer users, and that of your own, I'd say
this is all over. Try again when you don't look like such a hypocrite
espousing your own opinion!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Joh N.]

Stephen, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

You're not really adding anything expect insult. Maybe *you* should have a
look at what *you* are doing.

It's easy to sit back and criticize. You guys are going on about Windows
updating. Yet when one looks at the alternatives, such as RedHat's update
process, one realizes that Windows is doing a comparatively good job and
Microsoft is making decent progress.

Hell yes it's easy to sit back and criticize, because it's something so damn
*worthy* of the criticism.
As for RedHats update process, I have no clue, since I've never used RH...I
use SuSE, and its update process is far easier and better than M$'s. Besides
that, after as much time as M$ has been around, they're just now finally
'starting' to make decent progress!? If it takes them this long to even begin
to do things right, it sure makes me even happier that I switched over 3 years
ago! LOL!

Joh N.

 

[Stephen]

It was over several threads ago when I realized I was chatting up
someoneacting as a C.O.L.A. troll.

Stephen

--

Drop 123 to email me.


| Stephen wrote:
|
| > We're just gonna talk about everything, aren't we? The posting
| > certainly runs a gambit. I admit I needlessly mentioned Cuba, but did
| > you really have to bring in China?
|
|
| Since you only seem to object to my addition of China as an example of
| another communist country one could move to, in addition to Cuba, and
| paid absolutely no attention to my response to your opinion of the
| personal responsibility of computer users, and that of your own, I'd say
| this is all over. Try again when you don't look like such a hypocrite
| espousing your own opinion!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.kurttrail.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

 

[kurttrail]

It was over several threads ago when I realized I was chatting up
someoneacting as a C.O.L.A. troll.

Anything to divert attention from your obvious lack of knowledge about
safe computing! Please try again!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Stephen]

LOL

You do funny parodies. Keep turning out the fiction.

Stephen

--

Drop 123 to email me.


| Stephen wrote:
|
| > It was over several threads ago when I realized I was chatting up
| > someoneacting as a C.O.L.A. troll.
|
| Anything to divert attention from your obvious lack of knowledge about
| safe computing! Please try again!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.kurttrail.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

 

[kurttrail]

LOL

You do funny parodies. Keep turning out the fiction.

Keep taking those MicroPlacebos!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[tk]

Stephen, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,

Hell yes it's easy to sit back and criticize, because it's something so damn
*worthy* of the criticism.
As for RedHats update process, I have no clue, since I've never used RH...I
use SuSE, and its update process is far easier and better than M$'s. Besides
that, after as much time as M$ has been around, they're just now finally
'starting' to make decent progress!? If it takes them this long to even begin
to do things right, it sure makes me even happier that I switched over 3 years
ago! LOL!

Why do hang out here then?
MS wannabe!!