OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[Matt]

China has done a complete 180 on Linux and gone back to Windows.

I wasn't able to find anything about that. Please post a link. Here
are some articles from this year that don't mention any such turn.

BEIJING and BEAVERTON, Ore. - January 10, 2005 - The Open Source
Development Labs (OSDL), a global consortium dedicated to accelerating
the adoption of Linux® in the enterprise, today announced that Red Flag
Software Company, Ltd., the leading developer of Linux software in
China, has joined OSDL and will participate in the lab's Desktop Linux
(DTL), Carrier Grade Linux (CGL), and Data Center Linux (DCL) working
groups.
http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2005/2005_01_10_beaverton.html


Linux sales in China last year expanded 20 percent year-on-year to
US$9.3 million, International Data Corp. (IDC) said in a report Friday.
http://www.linuxlookup.com/modules....=article&sid=3257&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39191343,00.htm


Linux in the Red
Friday, 11 February 2005
Linux is quickly becoming a familiar sight on desktops across China,
where many influences have led the government to strongly push Linux as
its preferred operating system. As the country experiences the longest
economic boom in its five thousand year history, its technology sector
is heeding the government’s call for Chinese-developed software on
Chinese flavors of Linux.
While Microsoft is far from finished in China, it faces an uphill battle
with a determined government that’s doing its best to promote Linux as a
domestic alternative to Windows. Despite its best efforts, Microsoft is
quickly becoming unpopular within China, as it resorts to legal action
to combat piracy. It has received hostile responses from the local media
when suing Chinese companies over the sale of pirated software.
http://www.linux-mag.com/content/view/41/112/

 

[David Maynard]

... the difference being that MS didn't have the guts or vision to build
it until they saw that somebody else was making money on the idea.

I guess that would go doubly so for Linux then, eh? They cloned an entire O.S.

It's true in any field that people build on what went before.

 

[David Maynard]

I expect that if Linux is a bottleneck in virus transmission, it isn't
because the cross-platform approach hasn't been tried---it is because it
isn't practical and basically isn't doable. Do you disagree that those
targeting MS systems would be happy to break through Linux firewalls and
servers so as to spread their MS infections better? Ah, maybe the virus
writers are all anti-MS Linux partisans who don't want to make Linux
look bad even though it would help them make MS look bad.

You just keep on making wild unsupported assumptions one after the other
with no end in sight.

No one said Linux was a 'bottleneck' to anything, virus or not.

As for the rest, it's been gone over ad nausium and if you haven't grasped
it by now it's not worth wasting the typing to go over it again.

 

[David Maynard]

Not really.

In your opinion.

You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.

I'm thinking of what Mxsmanic said.

He's being rather subtle

Doonesbury includes some comedy based on ideas like that. A
Chinese dictator was so disabled that no one could understand what
he was saying. His aid was running the country.

about it but the point he's making is that computers can be used
for lots of things and not all of them are simple text nor
things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.

My reply was based on what Mxsmanic said.

Now we will argue what you want to argue. At least while there is
any point to it.

For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs
packet size:

echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
-persist Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that
command but those skilled in the art are and it doesn't lend
itself to verbalization very well

Speech recognition doesn't mean that characters have to be
enunciated one at a time.

(unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue of
typing it to begin with in order to read it back),

Typing it to begin with in order to read it back?

and a lot of complex math doesn't. Neither do compiler command
lines.

I do not know what you're trying to say.

That's obvious. Might have helped if you'd have tried reading it instead of
looking to find line by line 'retorts', but no matter.

Even in human to human interaction it's often better to write things out,
or put it on the blackboard, rather that verbalization because some things
just don't work as well in pure speech form. But I don't want to interfere
with your illusions about your speech recognition toy so that's the end of
my efforts in this regard.

That isn't necessary for verbal control.

No one said it was but since you didn't bother with reading comprehension
you wouldn't notice.

Speech control does not
necessarily mean the computer has to understand like a human
understands. The objective is to do what you could do by hand, and
there are many ways to efficiently enable that. A noticeable
difference is like not having to enter keystrokes on a command
line, even though the computer might receive the input as if you
did.

What experience do you have with speech recognition?

About 30 years worth, off and on, as part of my work in artificial
intelligence.

What
experience do have with entering/processing/outputting ordinary
keystrokes?

Oh, none at all. My machines read my mind.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:


John Doe writes:


Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner or
later it will be usable by most people.


Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain
problems, not all.



It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer. Highly
likely it will be the way most computers and computer-based machines
will be operated in the future.


I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.



That is very unusual.


Not really.

In your opinion.

You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.

I'm thinking of what Mxsmanic said.

He's being rather subtle

Doonesbury includes some comedy based on ideas like that. A
Chinese dictator was so disabled that no one could understand what
he was saying. His aid was running the country.

about it but the point he's making is that computers can be used
for lots of things and not all of them are simple text nor
things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.

My reply was based on what Mxsmanic said.
Now we will argue what you want to argue. At least while there is
any point to it.

For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs packet
size:
echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
-persist Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that
command but those skilled in the art are and it doesn't lend
itself to verbalization very well

Speech recognition doesn't mean that characters have to be
enunciated one at a time.

(unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue of
typing it to begin with in order to read it back),

Typing it to begin with in order to read it back?

and a lot of complex math doesn't. Neither do compiler command
lines.

I do not know what you're trying to say.

That's obvious. Might have helped if you'd have tried reading it instead
of looking to find line by line 'retorts', but no matter.

Even in human to human interaction it's often better to write things
out, or put it on the blackboard, rather that verbalization because some
things just don't work as well in pure speech form. But I don't want to
interfere with your illusions about your speech recognition toy so
that's the end of my efforts in this regard.

That isn't necessary for verbal control.

No one said it was but since you didn't bother with reading
comprehension you wouldn't notice.

Speech control does not necessarily mean the computer has to
understand like a human understands. The objective is to do what you
could do by hand, and there are many ways to efficiently enable that.
A noticeable difference is like not having to enter keystrokes on a
command line, even though the computer might receive the input as if
you did.
What experience do you have with speech recognition?

About 30 years worth, off and on, as part of my work in artificial
intelligence.

Typo. That should be 20.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:
John Doe writes:
Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner
or later it will be usable by most people.

Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain
problems, not all.


It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer.
Highly likely it will be the way most computers and
computer-based machines will be operated in the future.



I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.


That is very unusual.

Not really.

In your opinion.

You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.

I'm thinking of what Mxsmanic said.

He's being rather subtle

Doonesbury includes some comedy based on ideas like that. A
Chinese dictator was so disabled that no one could understand
what he was saying. His aid was running the country.

about it but the point he's making is that computers can be
used for lots of things and not all of them are simple text nor
things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.

My reply was based on what Mxsmanic said.

Now we will argue what you want to argue. At least while there
is any point to it.

For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs
packet size:

echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
-persist Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that
command but those skilled in the art are and it doesn't lend
itself to verbalization very well

Speech recognition doesn't mean that characters have to be
enunciated one at a time.

(unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue
of typing it to begin with in order to read it back),

Typing it to begin with in order to read it back?

and a lot of complex math doesn't. Neither do compiler command
lines.

I do not know what you're trying to say.

That's obvious. Might have helped if you'd have tried reading it
instead of looking to find line by line 'retorts', but no
matter.

I thought imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.

Your reply to my four word sentence was a very long story.

Even in human to human interaction it's often better to write
things out, or put it on the blackboard, rather that
verbalization because some things just don't work as well in
pure speech form.

Of course there might be exceptions.

But I don't want to interfere
with your illusions about your speech recognition toy so that's
the end of my efforts in this regard.

Mine aren't illusions, but I know exactly how you feel.

No one said it was but since you didn't bother with reading
comprehension you wouldn't notice.

My reading comprehension tells me that your application of logic to
this subject leads you to the wrong conclusions.

About 30 years worth, off and on, as part of my work in
artificial intelligence.

Did you have anything to do with IBM's ViaVoice? It's like a
massive bowl of spaghetti.

Have you ever had anything published? Of course I don't mean
simply writing on a web page. Is there any evidence of your
marvelous work anywhere on the Internet you could provide a link
to? Have you written any books? You act like an authority on
everything computer, software and hardware.

Oh, none at all. My machines read my mind.





Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com! newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!
newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!
be1.texas.rr.com!news-wrt-01.tampabay.rr.com!hwmnpeer01.phx!hwmedia!
newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!sjc-
c01.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-
post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <nospam private.net>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: OEM vs Retail XP Pro
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:51:48 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <1171qjldtrj0f27 corp.supernews.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)

Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <645fc$426d587e$4275e3c2
[email protected]> <[email protected]> <9a70$426ea5a7
[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard wrote:

< snipped about 120 lines of text >

Typo. That should be 20.

You just quoted 135 lines of text to make a one-word correction.

 

[Ruel Smith]

Such as what?

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/38026.htm

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

John Doe, <[email protected]>, the thievish, phocine vegan, and drain
maker, gnarred:

You just quoted 135 lines of text to make a one-word correction.

You ****ing well whine too much, you ****ing ****.

 

[Conor]

... the difference being that MS didn't have the guts or vision to build
it until they saw that somebody else was making money on the idea.

Meanwhile as Linux suddenly developed a very Windows 95 looking
desktop...

 

[Conor]

Thanks for the link. I think I remember reading about that when it came
out. Maybe I forgot about it because that bug wasn't much of a problem
to people?

It is enough of a problem that Java updated 1.42 and also Firefox was
updated to 1.03.

 

[Conor]

Do you have any citations for that?

Maybe that idea is based on Microsoft reducing the price of its
software in Malaysia?

Was in The Register.

 

[Conor]

I wasn't able to find anything about that. Please post a link. Here
are some articles from this year that don't mention any such turn.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/beijing_backs_bill/

Beijing council has made a substantial purchase of Microsoft software,
despite deciding late last year that it would buy products from local
developers.

The original £3.5m contract with Microsoft was so heavily criticised
that the council cancelled it. New procurement rules were drawn up to
encourage government bodies to buy locally produced software. Domestic
software was defined as anything which was at least 50 per cent
developed in China. Government departments would need special
permission to purchase non-domestic software.

But the council has reversed this policy and bought Office and Windows
products

 

[Conor]

Do you have any citations for that?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/beijing_backs_bill/

 

[Harlo Peterson]

What advantages have you obtained in exchange for your efforts to make
things work with only user privileges?

In general I feel safer running as a non-privileged user. I don't run as a
power user as I feel to much of the system is unprotected.

I believe that it would be impossible for a worm to modify my system such
that it would last past a reboot and in general that system files and other
users' files are protected from modification by malicious or buggy programs.
Most of the buffer overun style virus infection vectors will probably still
work until I can upgrade to hardware that supports the ancient concepts of I
and D protected memory spaces.

 

[Harlo Peterson]

Well, I don't know how you set your system up but I have no problems
running full NAV virus scans as a user.

My problem was mostly with automatically running system scans. Looks like
latest version of NAV has fixed this.

I couldn't say for sure about Quicken as I don't use it but from what I've
seen on other systems it doesn't look to me like it properly supports
Windows 2000/XP security.

It doesn't and Intuit does not seem to care or think this is a problem as
most of their target users run as admistrator and won't see this as a
problem and demand a fix. The small number of users, like me, who care are
too few to motivate Intuit to fix this.

That, btw, is one of the things the MS XP program 'certification' is
about: making sure applications use the security features properly, like
placing user data in accessible folders in the Documents and Settings area
under their user name. If they do then security is essentially 'automatic'
because they've developed a consistent schema for implementing it.

Most programs work fine if installed as an administrator and run as a user.
It is just that some don't and most home users will find life a lot easier
on WXP if they run as an administrator.

You'd probably have no problem using it as a power user, though, as power
users have write privileges to the Program Files area.

I don't want and shouldn't need write access to the program files area. Yes,
power user works, but I don't want that level of access to what should be
read only files. I am trying to protect against buggy or malicious programs.
It is another layer of protection to back up careful selection of which
programs I run. I don't want my computer to become a spam generating zombie.

 

[Mxsmanic]

In general I feel safer running as a non-privileged user. I don't run as a
power user as I feel to much of the system is unprotected.

I can understand that; but I was curious as to whether you've ever
actually been saved from grief by running as a normal user.

I believe that it would be impossible for a worm to modify my system such
that it would last past a reboot and in general that system files and other
users' files are protected from modification by malicious or buggy programs.
Most of the buffer overun style virus infection vectors will probably still
work until I can upgrade to hardware that supports the ancient concepts of I
and D protected memory spaces.

In many systems, there are things accessible to all users that can
compromise security. For example, UNIX puts world read permission on
everything by default, which I've always found a bit strange. More
secure systems usually do the opposite.

 

[Mxsmanic]

That's true and relevant if you assume the user is trying to ruin the
computer. It's not clear that you are grasping the concept that admin
priveleges permit people to ruin their computers accidentally.

Unfortunately, so do user privileges, on most desktop systems.

Try telling that to a home user who just lost everything from their hard
drive.

A surprisingly large number of home users don't care, as they don't have
that much of importance on their computers, anyway. They have a bit of
e-mail, which they often don't consider very significant, and they surf
the Web and write a few letters now and then.

At the other extreme, some home users with very important data take
backups, and are thus only inconvenienced by a drive failure.

 

[Mxsmanic]

It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer. Highly
likely it will be the way most computers and computer-based
machines will be operated in the future.

I'm not so sure, as it's extremely inefficient for certain purposes.

That's true even of GUIs, actually.

That is very unusual.

You can dictate C code faster and more accurately than you can type it?

 

[Mxsmanic]

You just quoted 135 lines of text to make a one-word correction.

It's hard to select and cut text with voice recognition.