MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?

[kurttrail]

D'oh! I just noticed that this thread spreads across WAY too many
groups.. When did it become necessary to cross post to discuss
something?!

When the subject affects more that one group. Why are all newsreaders set
up to allow cross-posting? Because there is nothing intinsically wrong with
cross-posting, that's why.

So instead of bitchin' about something that is perfectly acceptable, why
don't you try and answer the questions I asked you.

"Are you suggesting that we should just grudgingly accept the 95% final
solution as our lot, and do nothing? What would be your constructive idea
to get us out of the One PC OS target-basket?"

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

 

[kurttrail]

Everyone always brings up MaBell when this subject rolls around about
Microsoft. The problem I see is that the comparison, while holding
some validity, falls short in many ways. Essentially - service vs
product monopoly. The idea is the same, but there are some subtle
differences when you think on it that doesn't guarantee changes if
just a break-up occurs.

Well, I could go back to Standard Oil! I agree that there is no exact
comparison with either, but the general principal remains valid. Breakup of
the monopoly was necessary for the good of society as a whole.

As for going open-source.. the idea sounds pleasing at first, except
when you consider that it probably wouldn't go anywhere for decades
and then the fear would be too much diversity.

I'd guess somewhere under a decade to develop a stable competitive market.

If I change jobs
and/or move to another state, will I be using "Kurttrail's Office
Suite" on "Megalard's Doors" OS where I was used to working on
"Smiley's Productivity Set" on "Big Tex's" OS? Simpler yet - can
Kurttrail's Office Suite read my Smiley's Productivity Set
spreadsheet, modify it and send it back to me in a format I can edit
again?

OK, I need to clarify this misunderstanding. I only meant that Windows, for
the most part, would go open source. I was being vague with you, because I
thought you were being like the other guys, just more subtle, so I trying to
smoke you out. Sorry, those other guys were just trying to defend MS at any
cost, and that cost was proving my point for me, with their own examples.

OK. So only Windows goes Open Source, what happens with the rest of MS?
Business Apps and services would be the main part of MS that would survive,
but with the condition that their file formats were non-proprietary, and
it's present file formats would be open to all. Office really isn't all
that much of a monopoly on it's own, and without proprietary file formats &
the Windows OS to back it up, so Star Office, Perfect Office, & Open Office
will have the opportunity to play in the office apps market on a fair
playing field, all playing under the same rules. Windows Media Player,
Messenger, MovieMaker, and the rest of the MS-bundle middleware except IE
would be the moved to the new Office Systems Corp, [As a condition of the
breakup Microsoft name would be prohibited from being used ever again. So
let it be written, so let it be done!] along with MS's Business Services
division. While Office Systems would still be the dominate player for
years, their market share would diminish with time.

Now we get to MSN and the rest of the MS's net holdings, and we sell it off
to the highest bidder. [Google ends up buying it, forcing the AOL/Yahoo
merger.] The XBox & MS's gaming software division are made into the XBox
Games Corp. [And buys out Nintendo.] Ok, so the break up of MS creates
other mega-companies, nobodies perfect, and at least there will still be
competition in those markets, and during the decade or so it takes for the
dust to settle other players might join in on those markets.

I know - that's a bit extreme, but it is not (other than the names)
completely impossible to imagine. Right now Office on the MAC
sometimes has trouble with Office on the PC documents.. And Open
Office doesn't read everything about Word or WordPerfect documents
flawlessly. If you open the field too much without standards already
in place (there isn't any now.. And there likely wouldn't be until
after this became an actual problem) - you may be asking for trouble.
That's just an opinion and one possibility - so it's not necessarily
what I *believe* would happen - but a possibility.

As long as you understand that I just talking in hypotheticals too. Believe
me, the consequences of the breakup of MS would definitely not be all that
smooth. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I think before we go screaming "Open Source" and "Break Up
Microsoft", we should consider forcing them to follow some standards
that we come out with.

Three years ago, I'd be with you on that. But the security situation has
heated up to a point that it is totally foolhardy to continue down this same
path, where there is really only one target to hit. The bigger & better
guns are coming, and MS target is just too big to miss.

http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf

One reason they have a large market share is
because it's easy to use and most people will act like electricity at
all times.. "Take the shortest path to ground." The right attitude?
Maybe not - but I could never, in good conscience, say that the way
everything (software/market share) is today is just Microsoft's fault
- it's also people in general and their innate laziness or, rather
than calling the whole human race lazy - how about "lack of
interest". Your common computer user wants to sit down and use their
computer to surf the web, get their email, pay some bills - and then
go back to TV/sports/music/cooking/knitting/whatever their real
interest is. So - they are not willing or just don't see the point
in learning enough to use something other than "point and click and
you have 5 ways to do almost every task."

So, hey, I do not totally disagree with your convictions. I think
you are on one end of a large spectrum and there will be, naturally,
another side of the story. I lie somewhere in the middle - as most
"computer people" do. I can use just about any OS/application you
throw at me - whether I do or not has a lot to do with my desire in
that particular app. If Microsoft broke up, if Windows went open
source, if Lindows started becoming the OS of choice - I would adapt
and move on. I support my customers/family/friends with the
knowledge I have and taking their needs into consideration - and with
all of that in mind - Windows is still on top for the end-user OS in
my mind. It has the most apps/drivers/hardware configuration
possibilities of any OS with the least amount of TRUE effort on the
end-users part. This appeals to the "non-interested, gimme my Final
Fantasy and the rest of the computer can rot" persona as well as the
"less casual and intense cannot live without my email, spreadsheet,
gaming system with the water cooling and remote control" individual.

I agree.

Preach on - I will listen - and you've at least - if nothing else -
made me consider things I might not have before.

Well, I have quite finished the MS Break-up story, have I? That's right
what really happens to Windows once it is Open Source. SCO immediately puts
out XPSP2 under the name of SCOdows, and is immediately sued by LindowsOS
for infringing on their trademark. In 2007, SCO releases SCOhorn, without
the SCOFS. In 2008, SCO goes bankrupt as SCOhorn is a total disaster,
because of disgruntled former MS employees sabotage, and IBM buys SCO, just
for spite.

Let's get back to just after the breakup. RedHat & Novell compete to see
who can get Windows APIs ported in their version of Linux first, but is
beaten to the punch by Xandros, in the first quarter of 2004. Symantec puts
out their version, which they call Wintec, based on 2K but with V2i
security, making it the most bomb proof Win-Clone OS, because on any
catastrophic OS failure, on reboot, the last known working OS setup would be
reloaded in minutes, without any user or tech intervention. Symantec stock
soars on the strength of its VL sales, and OEM licensing deal with Dell.
Sun releases JavaXP, and it does well for a time, especially of home users,
until the Linux boys port the WinAPIs into Linux . . . .

Though I quite aware that none of this is really gonna happen this year or
probably anytime soon, I do believe that some breakup of MS is inevitable
based on their past actions, those since the Anti-Trust settlement, and
because MS's OS is gonna get hit so bad one day, and probably sooner than
later, that are gov'ts will be forced to act. And while the breakup of MS
may well narrow competition in its non-OS markets in the short term, the
Open Sourcing of Windows and its APIs could well become a truly competitive
market in 5 years time.

But - perhaps you
should cross-post less. *grin*

I can't even remember the last time I cross-posted to multiple groups, and
this thread is relevant to all the groups I choose, so in this case I am not
gonna feel the least bit guilty adding back all the groups you cut from your
reply. ;-)

Thanks for being a mensch!

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

 

[kurttrail]

Responses inline..



I cannot find any flaw in the generalized logic here. I would have
to even say I agree. Perhaps this particular monopoly has outgrown
any of the examples discussed so far - at least in terms of
impact/spread. The influence of MS does extend beyond any example I
can think of, including those given so far.




Although I can see it happening within a decade, I'm not going to
change my original answer here. It's likely it would take a decade
or more, but we are talking true hypotheticals here - Let's just say
I agree it WOULD stabalize at some point - it would not be quick.

Totally agree.

If I change jobs
and/or move to another state, will I be using "Kurttrail's Office
Suite" on "Megalard's Doors" OS where I was used to working on
"Smiley's Productivity Set" on "Big Tex's" OS? Simpler yet - can
Kurttrail's Office Suite read my Smiley's Productivity Set
spreadsheet, modify it and send it back to me in a format I can edit
again?

OK, I need to clarify this misunderstanding. I only meant that
Windows, for the most part, would go open source. I was being vague
with you, because I thought you were being like the other guys, just
more subtle, so I trying to smoke you out. Sorry, those other guys
were just trying to defend MS at any cost, and that cost was proving
my point for me, with their own examples.

OK. So only Windows goes Open Source, what happens with the rest of
MS? Business Apps and services would be the main part of MS that
would survive, but with the condition that their file formats were
non-proprietary, and it's present file formats would be open to all.
Office really isn't all that much of a monopoly on it's own, and
without proprietary file formats & the Windows OS to back it up, so
Star Office, Perfect Office, & Open Office will have the opportunity
to play in the office apps market on a fair playing field, all
playing under the same rules. Windows Media Player, Messenger,
MovieMaker, and the rest of the MS-bundle middleware except IE would
be the moved to the new Office Systems Corp, [As a condition of the
breakup Microsoft name would be prohibited from being used ever
again. So let it be written, so let it be done!] along with MS's
Business Services division. While Office Systems would still be the
dominate player for years, their market share would diminish with
time.

Now we get to MSN and the rest of the MS's net holdings, and we sell
it off to the highest bidder. [Google ends up buying it, forcing the
AOL/Yahoo merger.] The XBox & MS's gaming software division are made
into the XBox Games Corp. [And buys out Nintendo.] Ok, so the break
up of MS creates other mega-companies, nobodies perfect, and at least
there will still be competition in those markets, and during the
decade or so it takes for the dust to settle other players might join
in on those markets.

Ah - now see this makes things more interesting for me. Not only
does JUST making Windows open source make more sense (*to me) but it
actually would make the playing field more even in a quicker fashion.
It does add some possibility that one of the other guys (*nix/novell)
adds what little they need to have full use of the current office
suites and quickly takes the ball and runs for a while (they become
the "big-boy OS on the block") - but I think that would fade over
time.

As long as you understand that I just talking in hypotheticals too.
Believe me, the consequences of the breakup of MS would definitely
not be all that smooth. You can't make an omelet without breaking a
few eggs.

I can agree on that.

Three years ago, I'd be with you on that. But the security situation
has heated up to a point that it is totally foolhardy to continue
down this same path, where there is really only one target to hit.
The bigger & better guns are coming, and MS target is just too big to
miss.

http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf

Very nice reading.. In fact - in many ways it makes the points you
have presented very nearly for you. I will only add here that if
anyone reading this thread does not have Acrobat Reader (which is
weird - but possible) but can see HTML - may read the PDF converted
to HTML here:

http://www.macleans.net/MRHS59/cyberinsecurity.html

*Advice to the masses that may read this:*
Even if you believe that some of the ideas here(in this thread) are a
bit radical, the document above (I bet there are more like it out
there) does make good reading and thought provoking material. Some
may argue that fact with me, but I think you cannot truly make a
decision until you see all sides of something - radical or not. Some
of the best results I have ever gotten out of any project started
with someone saying something completely off-the-wall and a group
"whittling it down" to the core. If you don't have the same
feelings/experiences - throw them out into the fray here - I, for
one, am willing to see more viewpoints.

I agree.

There's one point I cannot disagree with. grin

Well, I have quite finished the MS Break-up story, have I? That's
right what really happens to Windows once it is Open Source. SCO
immediately puts out XPSP2 under the name of SCOdows, and is
immediately sued by LindowsOS for infringing on their trademark. In
2007, SCO releases SCOhorn, without the SCOFS. In 2008, SCO goes
bankrupt as SCOhorn is a total disaster, because of disgruntled
former MS employees sabotage, and IBM buys SCO, just for spite.

Let's get back to just after the breakup. RedHat & Novell compete to
see who can get Windows APIs ported in their version of Linux first,
but is beaten to the punch by Xandros, in the first quarter of 2004.
Symantec puts out their version, which they call Wintec, based on 2K
but with V2i security, making it the most bomb proof Win-Clone OS,
because on any catastrophic OS failure, on reboot, the last known
working OS setup would be reloaded in minutes, without any user or
tech intervention. Symantec stock soars on the strength of its VL
sales, and OEM licensing deal with Dell. Sun releases JavaXP, and it
does well for a time, especially of home users, until the Linux boys
port the WinAPIs into Linux . . . .

Though I quite aware that none of this is really gonna happen this
year or probably anytime soon, I do believe that some breakup of MS
is inevitable based on their past actions, those since the Anti-Trust
settlement, and because MS's OS is gonna get hit so bad one day, and
probably sooner than later, that are gov'ts will be forced to act.
And while the breakup of MS may well narrow competition in its non-OS
markets in the short term, the Open Sourcing of Windows and its APIs
could well become a truly competitive market in 5 years time.

Now that is a well thought out theoretical world. I can see all of
that as distinct possibilities after a MS breakup - if one were to
occur. Truly, it proves the point that anything - at least more than
now - would be possible to occur in the OS market.

The real "time for change" factor would be the people. I go back to
my earlier story enclosing the idea that "people act like
electricity". How many times a day do I already deal with "Why did
we have to change - things were great the way they were?!" - and just
shake my head? (Let's just say "too much" and leave it at that!)
!

The same attitude would be taken by the majority of end-users of the
product. The only big advantage I see (going along the theories laid
out in this thgread about a breakup) is that there are still a lot of
people using Windows 98 and BEFORE that have not made the XP switch..
But as time passes, more and more people switch and as they get over
their initial "This is different, this sucks, I used to click here
and this did that, but now it's different" - hate of change - they
are likely to stick with that until forced to change.

Most of those people still using 9x/ME just haven't bought a new
computer since XP was released. What "forces" most people to upgrade is
buying a new OEM computer.

Here's a new theoretical for you (based on all - including the new
part directly above).. With the MS OS going "open source", would
that slow hardware advancement and/or allow those who have changed
recently and gotten comfortable with the latest OS to be even more
lethargic because now - with competition - coding gets better and
better and so it runs on less powerful hardware and because they
don't see anything "better" out there yet and their stuff still
functions - it gives them longer to NOT CHANGE - thus extending the
turmoil further into the future than it would be if people were more
willing to change. (Sorry - run on sentence - hope it makes sense.)
Essentially, I see the possibility that it will be the end-user that
extends the life of the MS name - not any doing of the corporations.

In effect, that situation is kinda happening now, in the corporate
world, where many IT departments haven't adopted Windows XP and/or Sever
2003 & Office XP and/or Office 2003. The expense and hassle of
upgrading out weighs any of the benifits of using the newest software.

No doubt the name of Microsoft would live long after its hypothethical
demise.

Which brought up another thought. What happens to those(end-users)
that do stay and (albeit an imperfect method, it is a good idea in
concept) depend on the WindowsUpdate site to help them be more secure
- who gets that and the responsibility that goes with it to maintain
the support for the OS that is out there for its conceivable life?

Oh, I didn't mention that I didn't mention that Bill goes back to his
garage. [Joking.] Good point. Hadn't considered it actually, but
there could be an interim period after the break up where the Office
Systems Corp. would develop patches & host WinUpdate, 5 to 7 years.

Although I agree with the idea that the thread would be relevant (at
least a good read) to several of the groups - including some you do
not include - I stick to my "drilled in" netiquette and post on only
one of them. What you do, that is entirely up to you.

That would be the Post-AOL version of USENET netiquette. But I would
agree that excessive chronic cross-posting is annoying, but it's not
like I do it every day, or even every month.

hah - No problem. Thank you for the compliment.

A discussion isn't a true discussion without opposing sides - or at
least different points-of-view. Thank you for taking the time to
respond to me in terms (true hypothetical situations) that make the
points not only clearer to me, but perhaps anyone else reading this
thread. It's always easy to throw out an argument - backing it up is
the part most people dread.

I would like to add that the reason I did not respond faster was
work/life related. I may take a while to respond sometimes, but if
the topic is decent - I'll get to it.

Well it took me a day to realize that you had cut out all the groups
except this one, as I've been keeping up with it through xp.general, you
sly dog you! This has definitely been a refreshing change for me from
the conversations I'm used to having! Thanks again.

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

 

[kurttrail]

kurttrail wrote:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5149066.html

More & more, people are wising up that MS is the problem, not a part of
the solution.

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

 

[kurttrail]

Robert Moir wrote:

If I thought they were waiting to include it in a roll-up fix then I
would/will agree with you. I've not seen anything pointing to that
myself, I'm assuming that fixing this is more trouble than it
appeared at first and they've had to go back to it a couple of times.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-004.asp

Well they waited to fix it to included in a IE cumulative patch! You
guys should really learn to listen to me!

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

 

[H Leboeuf]

Scrolling issues also confirmed to be fixed by this previous post.

From: "The PocketTV Team" <>
Subject: KB832894 patch fixes IE6 double-scroll bug
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:49:04 -0800
Organization: PocketTV - http://www.pockettv.com

FYI:

MS just fixed the double-scroll bug in their latest IE6 patch, released
today (KB832894).

see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/Bulletin/MS04-004.asp

This bug fix is not documented in the patch information, but this latest
patch
silently fixes the double-scroll bug introduced in the Q824145/K824145
"update".

 

[kurttrail]

Scrolling issues also confirmed to be fixed by this previous post.

From: "The PocketTV Team" <>
Subject: KB832894 patch fixes IE6 double-scroll bug
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:49:04 -0800
Organization: PocketTV - http://www.pockettv.com

FYI:

MS just fixed the double-scroll bug in their latest IE6 patch,
released today (KB832894).

see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/Bulletin/MS04-004.asp

This bug fix is not documented in the patch information, but this
latest patch
silently fixes the double-scroll bug introduced in the Q824145/K824145
"update".

<shaking head>

And they didn't document it. I guess the extra paragraph would have cut
into their bottom line!

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

 

[Jim Carlock]

Microsoft doesn't make only one OS.

WinXP has a different oleaut32.dll than Win2k than Win9x than
DOS. Point in case, Microsoft has gone the route of selling 20
operating systems all different in many ways, all similar in many
ways. A global attack on Windows machines won't affect every
Microsoft OS and probably won't even touch DOS.

Being that DOS IS a variation of Unix whats the difference? That
DOS uses a backslash and Unix uses a forward slash?

I'm just being stupid by posting to this message, but I think I have
a somewhat unobtrusive point to present.

--
Jim Carlock
http://www.microcosmotalk.com/
Post replies to the newsgroup.

Kurt;
Stay with your facts.

I did, notice that I was quoting myself.

I never even suggested "one big target of an OS" is the way to go.

You were disputing my arguement that MS's monopoy OS is what is the biggest
security hole for the general public by blaming the general public.

Those are your words and ideas.

Which you were trying to dispute by blaming the victims, rather than the
delivery system of being locked into one big fat target of a Desktop OS.

You seem to need to falsely put statements to others in order to
support your ideas.

No, I trying to actually get you to confront my ideas, instead of doing the
side-step shuffle to protect your Masters.

To bad you can not support your point on its own merit.

I already have, it's you that have not support any contrary point the
dimishes my opinion in the slightest bit.

Furthermore you start to name calling.

What else could you be called when you only answer that most inconsequential
part of my post, and leave the meat of it untouched? That's exactly the
tactics of a troll.

Name calling is strong evidence that you lack the ability to support
your own point of view.

My point has been proved, and only the MicroDeafDumb&Blind can't see it.
MS's desktop OS monopoly is the biggest security risk for the general public
today, because that one giant-assed target can't help from getting hit.

It's a hell of a lot easier to hit one bird with one stone, than two birds
with one stone. I have common sense on my side, you have only your
unwavering devotion to MS to back you up.

Thank you!

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

 

[Tim Slattery]

Microsoft doesn't make only one OS.

WinXP has a different oleaut32.dll than Win2k than Win9x than
DOS. Point in case, Microsoft has gone the route of selling 20
operating systems all different in many ways, all similar in many
ways. A global attack on Windows machines won't affect every
Microsoft OS and probably won't even touch DOS.

MS currently sells XP Home, XP Pro and Server 2003. I'm not sure
whether they are currently selling Win2000 (but I don't think so).
That's far fewer than 20 operating systems. A global attack on any MS
system will affect *many, many* computers. How many has Blaster hit?
No, it won't affect DOS, but how many computers use DOS anymore?

Being that DOS IS a variation of Unix whats the difference? That
DOS uses a backslash and Unix uses a forward slash?

DOS is in some ways a pale imitation of Unix. But DOS cannot be said
to be a variation of Unix, there are HUGE differences. Unix was built
to be a multi-user OS to be run on quite large machines. DOS was built
to run on tiny computers that would have all they could do to handle a
single user. They have very little in common.

 

[Alun Jones [MS MVP]]

MS currently sells XP Home, XP Pro and Server 2003. I'm not sure
whether they are currently selling Win2000 (but I don't think so).
That's far fewer than 20 operating systems. A global attack on any MS
system will affect *many, many* computers. How many has Blaster hit?
No, it won't affect DOS, but how many computers use DOS anymore?

And yet, and yet, and yet... How big of an effect has Blaster had on the
world? Sure it's caused some significant expenditure on cleanup, but for
the most part, trains have continued to run, airplanes are still flying,
life-support monitors are still running, but Jim down the road can't get
Solitaire to work, because his machine's too busy sending worm-seed through
his ADSL line.

A focussed, terrorist attack on Windows would need to be orders of magnitude
more successful in order to merit anything more than "oh, great, another
dateless zit-pocked teenager has found out how to run a root kit".

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]

 

[Sandi - Microsoft MVP]

A focussed, terrorist attack on Windows would need to be orders of
magnitude
more successful in order to merit anything more than "oh, great, another
dateless zit-pocked teenager has found out how to run a root kit".

<LOL> I love this; can I quote you? <G>

--
Hyperlinks are used to ensure advice remains current
Do NOT send me an email. I will NOT see it (thank the spammers and viruses)
_______________________________________
Sandi - Microsoft MVP since 1999 (IE/OE)
http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer

 

[Alun Jones [MS MVP]]

<LOL> I love this; can I quote you? <G>

Please do. Quite frankly, I'm more bored by the tedium of the "wave of
worms" than frightened by the threat. There's nothing interesting,
technically speaking, about any of the new worms. It's just antisocial
tosspots who have nothing better to do than try to spray paint their names
on walls around the world - except their mums won't let them buy spray paint
for fear that they'll sniff it and kill off their one remaining brain cell.
So they do the next best thing - send out a bunch of email versions of a
Turing test, to see whether anyone's having a "stupid moment" that renders
them incapable of "running it to see what it does".

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]

 

[kurttrail]

Microsoft doesn't make only one OS.

WinXP has a different oleaut32.dll than Win2k than Win9x than
DOS. Point in case, Microsoft has gone the route of selling 20
operating systems all different in many ways, all similar in many
ways. A global attack on Windows machines won't affect every
Microsoft OS and probably won't even touch DOS.

Since more than half the machines out already aren't running w9x, the
one different file won't be mattering much.

Being that DOS IS a variation of Unix whats the difference? That
DOS uses a backslash and Unix uses a forward slash?

I'm just being stupid by posting to this message, but I think I have
a somewhat unobtrusive point to present.

--
Jim Carlock
http://www.microcosmotalk.com/
Post replies to the newsgroup.


message

I did, notice that I was quoting myself.


You were disputing my arguement that MS's monopoy OS is what is the
biggest security hole for the general public by blaming the general
public.


Which you were trying to dispute by blaming the victims, rather than
the delivery system of being locked into one big fat target of a
Desktop OS.


No, I trying to actually get you to confront my ideas, instead of
doing the side-step shuffle to protect your Masters.


I already have, it's you that have not support any contrary point the
dimishes my opinion in the slightest bit.


What else could you be called when you only answer that most
inconsequential part of my post, and leave the meat of it untouched?
That's exactly the tactics of a troll.


My point has been proved, and only the MicroDeafDumb&Blind can't see
it. MS's desktop OS monopoly is the biggest security risk for the
general public today, because that one giant-assed target can't help
from getting hit.

It's a hell of a lot easier to hit one bird with one stone, than two
birds with one stone. I have common sense on my side, you have only
your unwavering devotion to MS to back you up.

Thank you!

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

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

 

[kurttrail]

Can we cut out the crossposts?

Yes, but they can be added right back. There is nothing intriscally
wrong with cross-posting.

BTW, I'd put money down you wouldn't find oleaut32.dll in DOS.... DOS
has no DLLs, for starters. It doesn't support object linking and
embedding (OLE,) and it's not 32 bit...

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

 

[kurttrail]

And yet, and yet, and yet... How big of an effect has Blaster had on
the
world? Sure it's caused some significant expenditure on cleanup, but
for
the most part, trains have continued to run, airplanes are still
flying,
life-support monitors are still running, but Jim down the road can't
get
Solitaire to work, because his machine's too busy sending worm-seed
through
his ADSL line.

A focussed, terrorist attack on Windows would need to be orders of
magnitude
more successful in order to merit anything more than "oh, great,
another
dateless zit-pocked teenager has found out how to run a root kit".

Alun.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a zero-day bug
sometime soon. That day will be a horrible mess, the day that patch &
computer nasty is released in the same day.

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

 

[kurttrail]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a zero-day bug
sometime soon. That day will be a horrible mess, the day that patch &
computer nasty is released in the same day.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5180482.html

2 days between patch release and the nasties release. It was a lucky thing
that it wasn't a MS hole. If you haven't noticed, things are speeding up
and a Zero-day bug is just a few years down the bend, if we're lucky. The
mono-culture of the Microsoft desktop is just too big a target to be missed,
eventually someone is gonna hit the bulls-eye. So we, as a society that
security-conscious at present, can do one of two things, find ways to break
up the mono-culture to distribute the threat amongst may targets, or bunker
up at the MicroAlamo, and wait to be overrun.

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

 

[Sandi - Microsoft MVP]

2 days between patch release and the nasties release. It was a lucky
thing that it wasn't a MS hole.

http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm005-mc/

'GreyMagic started work on this issue with Microsoft on 11-Mar-2004. They
have quickly confirmed our findings and were able to produce a fix less than
two days later. As a result, Hotmail is no longer vulnerable to this method
of exploitation.
All attempts to contact Yahoo unfortunately failed. Mail was sent to
security and secure at yahoo.com and at yahoo-inc.com, no replies were
received to date. '

--
Hyperlinks are used to ensure advice remains current
Do NOT send me an email. I will NOT see it (thank the spammers and viruses)
_______________________________________
Sandi - Microsoft MVP since 1999 (IE/OE)
http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer

 

[kurttrail]

http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm005-mc/

'GreyMagic started work on this issue with Microsoft on 11-Mar-2004.
They have quickly confirmed our findings and were able to produce a
fix less than two days later. As a result, Hotmail is no longer
vulnerable to this method of exploitation.
All attempts to contact Yahoo unfortunately failed. Mail was sent to
security and secure at yahoo.com and at yahoo-inc.com, no replies were
received to date. '

And your point is? What does that have similar to a what a Zero-Day bug
would do explointing a flaw in MS OSs, where most people wouldn't be aware a
flaw, a patch, and a bug already existed. MS got Hotmail protected in two
days. Congratulations are in order, but some day soon, a Zero-Day bug is
inevitable, and if the target is MS's OSs, and we haven't attempted to break
up the mono-culture of the MS desktop, the consequences will be global in
its impact. A wise society doesn't put all its eggs in one basket, because
you risk breaking all those eggs with one careless step.

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

 

[Alun Jones [MS MVP]]

2 days between patch release and the nasties release. It was a lucky thing
that it wasn't a MS hole. If you haven't noticed, things are speeding up
and a Zero-day bug is just a few years down the bend, if we're lucky. The
mono-culture of the Microsoft desktop is just too big a target to be missed,
eventually someone is gonna hit the bulls-eye. So we, as a society that
security-conscious at present, can do one of two things, find ways to break
up the mono-culture to distribute the threat amongst may targets, or bunker
up at the MicroAlamo, and wait to be overrun.

"How shall we f- off, oh master?" - Monty Python's Life of Brian.

You know that if you were to persuade the world to drop the monoculture and
disperse, they would ask you _which_ solution to disperse to, and would ask
you to direct them to one. They'd get peeved if you gave them a choice.

"Yes, we are all individuals." - Crowd, Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Monoculture is a fact, and always will be. Poor Microsoft, they're stuck
with being the monoculture of choice today. It used to be IBM. Who knows -
maybe a few years down the road, it'll be someone else.

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]

 

[CS]

"How shall we f- off, oh master?" - Monty Python's Life of Brian.

You know that if you were to persuade the world to drop the monoculture and
disperse, they would ask you _which_ solution to disperse to, and would ask
you to direct them to one. They'd get peeved if you gave them a choice.

"Yes, we are all individuals." - Crowd, Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Monoculture is a fact, and always will be. Poor Microsoft, they're stuck
with being the monoculture of choice today. It used to be IBM. Who knows -
maybe a few years down the road, it'll be someone else.

We can only hope and wish........