- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Both sides play dirty! Typical Linux FUD Campaign towards Microsoft.
|
|
|
Comments (32)
What a load of shite
Hi tracyanne,
I don't want to start an argument here, but the --Why go buy a pirated copy of Windows, which as the author says is likely full of viruses -- is very in-accurate.
I live in Thailand, and 99% of windowsXP here is pirated. ( so are all other programs )
I can assure/guarantee you that they are all virus free.
Those guys are not amateurs and they are not stupid.
Making pirated CDs is their lifehood. If they mess up, nobody will buy them. It's business, and they take it serious, including the 7 day ( exchange) guarantee.
FYI, I am a linux user for 5 years now, but, an ex-windows user.
So, I know.
Please take this post in a friendly manner. Thanks.
Quoting:. Please take this post in a friendly manner. Thanks.
No worries. I suspect you just defudded some other fud.
nikkels, that has to be the funniest comment I've ever read- "get genuine pirated Windows! It's safer!" What an ad campaign that would make :)
tuxchick,
Thanks, but it was not my intention to be funny. What I stated was true. Most, but not all, pirated CDs have been scanned for every possible virus at the time of press. Since I come in regular contact with these people ( as they operate in the open, and NOT from some hidden obscure places as many believe ) , I have asked them many questions. Trust me on this. They are ( mostly ) virus free. They are NOT ( as many believe ) cripled in any way. They DO give you an instantly replacement if you complain about the quality. No arguments. As for Microsoft activation plan, no problems here. Updates available on a weekly base.
Are you surprised that in the East, they don't see the need for going Linux ? Microsoft is much cheaper here than Linux. So, please next time Microsoft talks about TCO, think about this post- :-) :-) :-)
OK, thats enough of this, before I get arrested by Microsoft's secret brigade.
Thanks, but it was not my intention to be funny. What I stated was true. Most, but not all, pirated CDs have been scanned for every possible virus at the time of press. Since I come in regular contact with these people ( as they operate in the open, and NOT from some hidden obscure places as many believe ) , I have asked them many questions. Trust me on this. They are ( mostly ) virus free. They are NOT ( as many believe ) cripled in any way. They DO give you an instantly replacement if you complain about the quality. No arguments. As for Microsoft activation plan, no problems here. Updates available on a weekly base.
Are you surprised that in the East, they don't see the need for going Linux ? Microsoft is much cheaper here than Linux. So, please next time Microsoft talks about TCO, think about this post- :-) :-) :-)
OK, thats enough of this, before I get arrested by Microsoft's secret brigade.
nikkels,
The reference to "the pirate bay" is a reference to a website you download torrents off. A lot of these OS and app ISOs are infected. Usually more so the crack than the s/w.
The reference to "the pirate bay" is a reference to a website you download torrents off. A lot of these OS and app ISOs are infected. Usually more so the crack than the s/w.
OK, thats enough of this, before I get arrested by Microsoft's secret brigade.
Too Late:
Good Evening Sir, Please step out of the Operating System. I want to see your License and EULA please...
h
Too Late:
Good Evening Sir, Please step out of the Operating System. I want to see your License and EULA please...
h
Yes Sir.
Would you like to see my Kubuntu licence, my PCLinuxOS licence or my Mandriva licence ?
Of course it hardly matters whether your windows install disk is infected or clean, because your installation will receive a warm welcome into the World Wide Botnet as soon as it is connected to the Internet.
"I have windows because I have to"
yup me too it is forced down my throat everyday when I don't even need it to do my job.
microsoft loves piracy and anything else they say about it is just a lie.
now when enough people pirate their stuff then they will raise a stink because then it is time to pay them and that is why they love piracy.
yup me too it is forced down my throat everyday when I don't even need it to do my job.
microsoft loves piracy and anything else they say about it is just a lie.
now when enough people pirate their stuff then they will raise a stink because then it is time to pay them and that is why they love piracy.
because your installation will receive a warm welcome into the World Wide Botnet as soon as it is connected to the Internet.
And thus was born The HeliOS Challenge.
http://www.lobby4linux.com/index.php?option=com_content&task...
Issued to Steve Ballmer directly btw, Certified mail, return receipt requested.
And thus was born The HeliOS Challenge.
http://www.lobby4linux.com/index.php?option=com_content&task...
Issued to Steve Ballmer directly btw, Certified mail, return receipt requested.
Great threat, new words are invented here, like defudding, and Genuine Pirated Windows.
On the other hand, I don't hope all Pirate-Bay images contain spy/crap/mall/MoreSh1t™-ware. If that would be true, someone I installed Windows XP for has a problem right now... I never trusted the word Start in the Start-bar being replaced by "Atjih" anyway.
Well, then there's bad news for ya: He can't type you a letter back in mSword, because he took the HeliOS challenge (and lost...)
On the other hand, I don't hope all Pirate-Bay images contain spy/crap/mall/MoreSh1t™-ware. If that would be true, someone I installed Windows XP for has a problem right now... I never trusted the word Start in the Start-bar being replaced by "Atjih" anyway.
Quoting:Issued to Steve Ballmer directly
Well, then there's bad news for ya: He can't type you a letter back in mSword, because he took the HeliOS challenge (and lost...)
> Genuine Pirated Windows.
Leading to the great Disney sequel:
Windows of the Caribbean - Blue Screen of Death
Leading to the great Disney sequel:
Windows of the Caribbean - Blue Screen of Death
I was thinking more along the lines of a WWII movie
Enemy of the Gates
Enemy of the Gates
Thank you Az...
One down 29, 999, 999 to go
One down 29, 999, 999 to go
>Enemy of the Gates
Or, perhaps,
Blowhard
The story of a courageous Everyman programmer who goes into work one day to discover that all of the computer users on his network have been taken hostage by a ranting bald terrorist who threatens to convert them to Vista one by one until his demands are met. Also known as Bad Breath of a Salesman.
Or, perhaps,
Blowhard
The story of a courageous Everyman programmer who goes into work one day to discover that all of the computer users on his network have been taken hostage by a ranting bald terrorist who threatens to convert them to Vista one by one until his demands are met. Also known as Bad Breath of a Salesman.
Or perhaps:
Secret Windows
In which Johny Depp, after a long time, finally finds a PC standing behind a closet in a window in the wall, and guess what, that PC runs Vista and is spying him!
Secret Windows
In which Johny Depp, after a long time, finally finds a PC standing behind a closet in a window in the wall, and guess what, that PC runs Vista and is spying him!
"The Microsoft Delusion: The Virus of Faith"
Where Richard Dawkins takes aim at those who refuse to honestly examine their OS, take statements about security and interoperability for the Truth even whev faced with pervasive evidence to the contrary, and relates how defense of "moderate" Windows believers shields the raging abusers from scrutiny.
Where Richard Dawkins takes aim at those who refuse to honestly examine their OS, take statements about security and interoperability for the Truth even whev faced with pervasive evidence to the contrary, and relates how defense of "moderate" Windows believers shields the raging abusers from scrutiny.
Let no FUD go uncommented!
"""
Microsoft and shell companies like SCO have done more than their share of damage, but we are talking about net users here, not corporations.
I only see Linux fans bashing Microsoft, never the other way around… Though it could just be a result of the sites I visit. """
The market speaks... they must be wrong!
I only see Linux fans bashing Microsoft, never the other way around… Though it could just be a result of the sites I visit. """
The market speaks... they must be wrong!
Marketing works on those who don't know the truth.
Quoting:I only see Linux fans bashing Microsoft, never the other way around…
Sad, but not surprising, to see Microsoft has no fans. This must be the reason they pay their astroturfers.
Quoting:I only see Linux fans bashing Microsoft, never the other way around… Though it could just be a result of the sites I visit.
Yes, it could. Never heard of Usenet, obviously. He may know it as "google groups."
Interoperability
Microsoft entered most of these recent deals touting the virtues of increased interoperability. Where are the results? A few things have been done by their partner corporations but I cannot point to a single accomplishment from MS. This hardly shows a concern for the mixed source environment they speak so glowingly about.
MS speaks of a new attitude towards open source. It does not exist. It is the same old attitude with only a slight change in tactics.
MS speaks of a new attitude towards open source. It does not exist. It is the same old attitude with only a slight change in tactics.
The F/OSS and IETF "standards" are published for all to see any time they want to.
If Microsoft wanted to be interoperable, they could do so in a New York minute. It's all there, ready for them to use, at any time.
The one single reason that Microsoft isn't 100% "interoperable" is because they do not _want_ to be. If they are not interoperable _right_now_, it is because they do not want to be.
If Microsoft wanted to be interoperable, they could do so in a New York minute. It's all there, ready for them to use, at any time.
The one single reason that Microsoft isn't 100% "interoperable" is because they do not _want_ to be. If they are not interoperable _right_now_, it is because they do not want to be.
Quoting:If they are not interoperable _right_now_, it is because they do not want to be.
... And anyone who doesn't already know this *cough* Linspire *cough* has no understanding of MS' business model. It does not interoperate. It supplants.
Well, what can you expect from your competitor/opponent? ;-)
Indeed, MS doesn't want to be interoperable. They even pay hundreds millions of Euros of fines to the EU for not having to be (than how can you claim a new attitude to open source?). After SUN started asking for the SMB protocol in the NT era (mid 90's), and anno 2007 the (MS flavour) SMB protocol stil isn't open with a license suitable to all open source and free software-developers.
If that ain't prove...
hkwint - How does SMB not being open equate to Samba being able to use it?
That question is best asked to the Samba developers. Anyway, here is how it went (my version of it):
Reverse engineering and implementing the reverse engineered material in a new program all by the same team is forbidden. Therefore, one Samba team reverse-engineers it, writes documentation, and publishes that documentation. This is legally possible since otherwise it almost wouldn't be possible to research software.
Reverse engineering in this case, requires 'eavesdropping' of binary commands sent over a network between a Microsoft SMB-server and a Microsoft SMB-client. Automized Reverse assambling (done by a piece of software called a de-assembler) can't be used as far as I know, because it's not a program being reverse engineered, but network-data. So, they have to resort to the hex editor to find out what's happening. Sure a laborious task, which you will know if you ever worked with hex-code (I did, but for a very different reason and task). See it as a closed machine making ballpoints and pencils: On one end, raw material which can be seen, goes in, on the other end, pencils or ballpoints which also can be seen comes out. Reverse assembling means you have to guess which button is pressed to cause a pencil to be created instead of a ballpoint, by means of measuring signals over the wires, and you also would like to know how the machine works.
The second Samba team uses the documentation to program Samba. However, using Samba is still patent-encumbered; since Samba (probable) uses patented Microsoft Corp. technologies.
Because Microsoft doesn't want to give its SMB implementation away, even if it costs them millions, they change their SMB implementation every time, and say this are 'improvements'. They did this since they 'cribbed'the SMB protocol from IBM. They also came with CIFS, meant to be the successor of the SMB protocol. This means, the whole reverse engineering of the Samba team starts over again about every quarter. It should be noted, Microsoft is aware of all of this happening.
While this all happens, people use Samba, and that's one of the reasons Microsoft is using the patent threatening: Samba users owe to Microsoft. However, since Microsoft is working together with Novell, Xandros and Linspire, you won't be sued for SMB/CIFS-patent infringement if you buy from them. In return for Microsoft being able to say Novell admits amongst other technologies, SMB is patent encumbered, Microsoft enables enterprise-SuSE to better work with (amongst other technologies) the SMB protocol, which is the 'interoperability part' of the deal. Of course, Novell denies it admitted SMB et. all. are patent encumbered, but fact is enterprise SuSE probably has a better imlpmentation of Microsofts proprietary (extended) SMB protocol. That is the reason the Samba team was one of the most vocal opponents of the Microsoft/Novell deal.
Since Sun asked the European Government for SMB to become an open protocol (starting in '93 I believe) because that way they could make Sun-software interoperate with Windows NT, it took over 13 years for Microsoft, and several fines of hundreds of millions of Euros, to publish it. However, the licenses disable use of these protocols for free software, since sub-licensing is forbidden. Since with free software you can't control who receives a copy of Samba, Microsofts SMB protocol still can't be used in Samba, as far as I know. Still, they say OOXML is meant because 'Microsoft aims at interoperability with other platforms'.
Reverse engineering and implementing the reverse engineered material in a new program all by the same team is forbidden. Therefore, one Samba team reverse-engineers it, writes documentation, and publishes that documentation. This is legally possible since otherwise it almost wouldn't be possible to research software.
Reverse engineering in this case, requires 'eavesdropping' of binary commands sent over a network between a Microsoft SMB-server and a Microsoft SMB-client. Automized Reverse assambling (done by a piece of software called a de-assembler) can't be used as far as I know, because it's not a program being reverse engineered, but network-data. So, they have to resort to the hex editor to find out what's happening. Sure a laborious task, which you will know if you ever worked with hex-code (I did, but for a very different reason and task). See it as a closed machine making ballpoints and pencils: On one end, raw material which can be seen, goes in, on the other end, pencils or ballpoints which also can be seen comes out. Reverse assembling means you have to guess which button is pressed to cause a pencil to be created instead of a ballpoint, by means of measuring signals over the wires, and you also would like to know how the machine works.
The second Samba team uses the documentation to program Samba. However, using Samba is still patent-encumbered; since Samba (probable) uses patented Microsoft Corp. technologies.
Because Microsoft doesn't want to give its SMB implementation away, even if it costs them millions, they change their SMB implementation every time, and say this are 'improvements'. They did this since they 'cribbed'the SMB protocol from IBM. They also came with CIFS, meant to be the successor of the SMB protocol. This means, the whole reverse engineering of the Samba team starts over again about every quarter. It should be noted, Microsoft is aware of all of this happening.
While this all happens, people use Samba, and that's one of the reasons Microsoft is using the patent threatening: Samba users owe to Microsoft. However, since Microsoft is working together with Novell, Xandros and Linspire, you won't be sued for SMB/CIFS-patent infringement if you buy from them. In return for Microsoft being able to say Novell admits amongst other technologies, SMB is patent encumbered, Microsoft enables enterprise-SuSE to better work with (amongst other technologies) the SMB protocol, which is the 'interoperability part' of the deal. Of course, Novell denies it admitted SMB et. all. are patent encumbered, but fact is enterprise SuSE probably has a better imlpmentation of Microsofts proprietary (extended) SMB protocol. That is the reason the Samba team was one of the most vocal opponents of the Microsoft/Novell deal.
Since Sun asked the European Government for SMB to become an open protocol (starting in '93 I believe) because that way they could make Sun-software interoperate with Windows NT, it took over 13 years for Microsoft, and several fines of hundreds of millions of Euros, to publish it. However, the licenses disable use of these protocols for free software, since sub-licensing is forbidden. Since with free software you can't control who receives a copy of Samba, Microsofts SMB protocol still can't be used in Samba, as far as I know. Still, they say OOXML is meant because 'Microsoft aims at interoperability with other platforms'.
Nice explanation Hans, but one small point of comment:
It's not forbidden at all. It's just more difficult from a legal point of view. When reverse engineering and reimplementing, you have to have some way of proving that you didn't use any of the decompiled/disassembled copyrighted material in your program. Having one team doing the reverse engineering and another team implementing makes this easy: None of the people programming ever get near the reverse engineered and copyrighted stuff. They only see the public documentation/specs. It's possible to do this with just one team but you had better keep a very good (software) audit trail to show that none of the reverse engineered and copyrighted material ends up in your new application, or you're asking for a copyright lawsuit.
Quoting:Reverse engineering and implementing the reverse engineered material in a new program all by the same team is forbidden.
It's not forbidden at all. It's just more difficult from a legal point of view. When reverse engineering and reimplementing, you have to have some way of proving that you didn't use any of the decompiled/disassembled copyrighted material in your program. Having one team doing the reverse engineering and another team implementing makes this easy: None of the people programming ever get near the reverse engineered and copyrighted stuff. They only see the public documentation/specs. It's possible to do this with just one team but you had better keep a very good (software) audit trail to show that none of the reverse engineered and copyrighted material ends up in your new application, or you're asking for a copyright lawsuit.
Lxers frame the interoperability question in a very funny way.
The issue is not whether Microsoft cares in any fundamental way about interoperability. Their position, I think, is what it always has been: We are willing to iinteroperate to the extent, and only to the extent, that it makes us more money and lets us improve our market control.
Internet Explorer can read HTML and do javascript. In the old days, Microsoft Word could import a number of "foreign" formats.
If Microsoft does not control a market (as in Quicken v. Money), Microsoft is willing to let others interoperate with it in order to gain control. It does not want to interoperate with others.
In the current landscape, the reality of Linux means that Microsoft must interoperate more than it would like. Deals like the Novell deal helps it there. The Novell deal lets Micrsoft say -- Hey! We work with Linux. You've just got to avoid those hippie Linuxes that don't play by the rule of business. It also has Novell reaching over to interoperate with Microsoft using Microsoft protocols. Microsoft drives, others go along.
For Novell, this makes sense. It is the reality that most of their market faces. For companies that are "just" Linux companies, I don't much see the attraction.
The issue is not whether Microsoft cares in any fundamental way about interoperability. Their position, I think, is what it always has been: We are willing to iinteroperate to the extent, and only to the extent, that it makes us more money and lets us improve our market control.
Internet Explorer can read HTML and do javascript. In the old days, Microsoft Word could import a number of "foreign" formats.
If Microsoft does not control a market (as in Quicken v. Money), Microsoft is willing to let others interoperate with it in order to gain control. It does not want to interoperate with others.
In the current landscape, the reality of Linux means that Microsoft must interoperate more than it would like. Deals like the Novell deal helps it there. The Novell deal lets Micrsoft say -- Hey! We work with Linux. You've just got to avoid those hippie Linuxes that don't play by the rule of business. It also has Novell reaching over to interoperate with Microsoft using Microsoft protocols. Microsoft drives, others go along.
For Novell, this makes sense. It is the reality that most of their market faces. For companies that are "just" Linux companies, I don't much see the attraction.
> For companies that are "just" Linux companies, I don't much see the attraction.
That's what makes this issue so interesting to me. I cannot imagine any motivation that would be worth the strings and encumbrances which accompany any Microsoft "sharing".
Rooting out those motivations is a chance to learn something new, as well as be entertained the same way people view horror movies: morbid curiosity.
In my imagination, the benefits of being able to move independently of MS seem large.
That's what makes this issue so interesting to me. I cannot imagine any motivation that would be worth the strings and encumbrances which accompany any Microsoft "sharing".
Rooting out those motivations is a chance to learn something new, as well as be entertained the same way people view horror movies: morbid curiosity.
In my imagination, the benefits of being able to move independently of MS seem large.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Why go buy a pirated copy of Windows, which as the author says is likely full of viruses, when you can buy a legal copy of windows and catch the viruses in a moment of inattention anyway.
The point is you are just plain silly to buy something that's even more broken than the original.
I have windows because I have to, and in every case I use a legal copy.