All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure

<< < (15/36) > >>

Calum:

--- Quote from: muzzy ---This is such a big point that I'll address it in a separate message. You were making assumptions about what I was saying, making up connections between things merely because of words used.
--- End quote ---
the *only* input people get from you here is the words you use. stick by the words you use, or everything you say is a farce.
--- Quote ---For example, I said I hated XP and you tried to hit me with what I had earlier said, that most windows haters don't understands how windows works. These two are unrelated, there's no deduction that makes your logic possible.
--- End quote ---
they are related in a simple and clear way: they are both about windows, and they both state who hates microsoft windows. if you don't make sense, please do not blame that on me, just try to make more sense in future, or nobody's going to be able to understand you.


--- Quote ---For another example of your incorrect use of logic
--- End quote ---
my "incorrect use of logic"? who made you my judge and executioner? after repeatedly misusing the english language, i find this a bit rich on the nose coming from you.
--- Quote ---and quick stabs,
--- End quote ---
do you object to the quickness? i really still do not understand why you have a problem with short replies to comments. nevertheless, perhaps i can soften the blow by padding this response out a bit. there we go, that's two completely unecessary sentences slapped onto the end already! any better?
--- Quote ---I was asking why do you think a fraud has happened when it could be explained by incompetence. You replied, asking why I claim incompetence when I say windows is well designed. Again, these two are completely unrelated things,
--- End quote ---
no they are not. one is where you state that windows is well designed, the other is where you say it was designed by incompetents. this is clear, simple and precise.  
--- Quote ---and you have introduced unstated assumptions about how incompetence works.
--- End quote ---
you have a habit of introducing unstated assumptions yourself, which is why your words are often (apparently) taken by their real meanings and not by the meaning you imagine them to have when you type them.
--- Quote ---I was trying to say that it could've really been just an accident, due to quickly running the thing on some system and making a video of it, and people performing the video making didn't know it was supposed to be a virgin system or whatever. Such mistakes happen, and they're not due to malice.
--- End quote ---
neither is incompetence. thanks for explaining yourself, but you now seem to be saying i suggested malicious behaviour when all i did was question your seemingly out-of-place cries of incompetence.
--- Quote ---They have nothing to do with implementation of the system, as should be bloody obvious.
--- End quote ---
ok, but you seem to want people to be a lot more restrained linguistically than you would like to be able to be yourself. I wasn't actually criticising what you said, mainly because i hadn't ascertained what it actually was yet that you were saying. sorry, sometimes i need things to be made pretty clear to me. it helps to avoid misunderstandings.


--- Quote ---I chose not to reply to the specific punches because your logic was completely off,
--- End quote ---
you just responded, though to what i have no idea.
--- Quote ---to an extent which made me believe you're just purposedly trying to find something to throw at me. I understand that communication tends to always fail, and things are left misunderstood, but I don't think you're so stupid to make such logic mistakes if you'd stop to think about what you're saying. Now you're calling it bullshit, so I have very little choices left.
--- End quote ---
you just called me stupid, i think. you are saying (correct me if i am wrong) that either i am trying to get you angry or else i am stupid. please clarify, and then i would thank you to keep such opinions to yourself in future, unless you care to take the time to address the specific issues, which you seem to think are beneath you.
--- Quote ---I'd rather leave your hastily made comments alone, as I don't think there's much point in attacking them. Definitely the details of expression have nothing to do with the subject.
--- End quote ---
to the contrary, if you express yourself with inaccurate words, you are simply introducing rubbish into the discussion, you even criticise me for making hasty remarks just now, which is in fact more or less what i was commenting about you earlier, something which you continue to deny is an important factor.

muzzy:
And then, to reply to the rest of the things...

My hate towards XP is because of the even more braindead configuration than w2k. In w2k3, the default configuration is a lot better, although it needs some work as well. The operating system internals behind XP are fine, however it's loaded with so much cruft that it takes hours and then hours to setup. For a home desktop setup, I find this unacceptable. Then again, I should just quit whining and make my own install CD with registry patches and so on to do the main work for me. However, I'd rather stay away since w2k does everything I need and most of the things I want. XP sure has some lovely kernel changes, such as ability to detach debugger once you have attached it, as under w2k you can't detach without killing the process. Overall, the fact that XP is targeted strongly towards home users is probably what makes it so crappy by default. I just don't belong to the target audience of that specific version.

Regarding source availability and binaries, obviously having the sources allow the software to be studied in a lot easier fashion, and by many more people especially if it's written in some mainstream language. I already stated that my point was that having sources and being allowed to make changes were two independent things. I'm not saying that it's just as easy to work on binary than it is on source, I'm saying that source availability isn't a factor to being allowed to modify and analyze software. For a concrete example, consider any leaked sources of your preference. Half-Life 2 or Windows 2000/NT4 sources for example. They're out there for public to download, yet this doesn't give you any rights.

You might think this isn't exactly on the topic here, since you're probably talking only about the open source development model. Right, it's just a one variable in the whole thing. In the open source model rights are typically granted for modification and somewhat free use. However, the proprietary development models aren't equivalent to the one variable simplification either. Companies have QA departments, they do testing with paid testers and write unit tests and other stuff. Some open source projects have great testing processes implemented, but then the quality isn't because of open source but because of the development process itself. In my opinion, open source doesn't lead to better quality by itself, it requires a lot more than that.

Again, there's just too much stuff in your posts to reply to. If you think I haven't answered to something you consider important, point it out. I'm not intentionally skipping any "difficult questions", I'm just trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio from drifting into madness, with varying success :)

Calum:
ok, thanks for answering, this is a good answer at this juncture because it makes me feel like you're not just in it for a shit slinging match.

again, if somebody else has other questions, go for it. i'll ask questions again as and when new issues are raised (or old ones resurrected perhaps!

muzzy:
Fine, we seem to be having some communication problems here.

If my words are misunderstood, you still say I should stick to my words? Do you mean I should stick to the meaning you understood, or to what I was saying in the first place? It would make more sense to stick for the latter.

Regarding the trust to linux releases, if the kernel version number says "this is stable" and then it isn't, you obviously can't trust it. You said they can't be expected to be bugfree, I agree. But I'd like to know some effort has been made to guarantee that what is called "stable" is actually tested, just like it used to be. It's just like it is with random numbers, it doesn't matter one bit what you have if you don't know it came from a good source.

Regarding your logic in the XP hater thing, here's how it goes. "Most windows haters don't know how it works" is same as: For all windows haters, most don't understand how it works. Now, based on this statement, you cannot make any assumptions about any single windows hater, it's about statistics. Need an example? Let's say "most flying animals are birds", and "bat is a flying animal". Irregardless of correctness of these assumptions, you cannot use them to conclude that bat is a bird. This is because "most" is not same as "all".

Also on topic of quick stabs, you again get stuck on the words. Perhaps these posts have become too long to be used for a meaningful conversation. I don't object to short responses, I object to responses on single words alone that miss the meaning of them. I stated your logic was incorrect and gave examples of why I thought so. If you didn't understand what I was saying, you could've asked for a clarification. I tried to say something, you know.

I have to admit that as someone into mathematics and programming, I see things and language in a slightly different way than most people seem to see them. I don't think this needs to be a problem, though, as long as you understand that I'm here to talk about THINGS, not about WORDS. Please try to understand what I'm saying, and tell me when you think I don't understand what you're saying. It serves no good to engage in a verbal swordfight for the sake of arguing alone.

muzzy:
Heh, I wrote that before I read your response above. Writing takes a horribly long time x_x

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page