All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

H

(1/4) > >>

greatscot:
H

Calum:
well, i look forward to a certain poster's inevitable reply to the effect of: "why are you only concerned with microsoft's dodgy practices and not those of the linux vendors?" (i'm not allowed to mention names, or it might be construed as insulting somebody)

in any case, here's what i have to offer, though it may not be entirely of use to you:

http://www.polytheism.org.uk/openopen/files/

there you will find a lot of articles about linux and open source software, and so on, this probably doesn't interest you, but what might interest you is the directory full of end user licence agreements. it includes the windows media player 9 licence, the microsoft xp licences, and the licences from recent versions of MSN messenger and microsoft office.

Some of these licences are quite hard to get hold of, so i am led to believe, which is why i keep them handy in this directory in case i want them..

I think the EULAs stand on their own as examples of the outrageous things microsoft requires their users to agree to in order to use the software that they pay for.

also: http://web.archive.org/web/20031210234328/www.belg88.com/faqman/

that's the old MES FAQ, now down, but it lives on on the wayback machine's servers, you might find one or two interesting articles on there.

good luck etc.

MrX:
i wonder what muzzy is going to say. he certainly has a fruitful knowledge about all microsofts mal-practices and wrong doings.

Mr X :beos:  :beos:

Kintaro:

--- Quote from: greatscot ---Hi all,
 I am currently writing a webpage for the purpose of spreading information about the M$ Windows OS. I need information and proof (such as articles, data, etc.) that M$ Windows is insecure, unstable and that the Microsoft Corporation lies, steals and cons people.

This "proof" should be in the form of websites or articles that contain information that can be proven - simply stating that "Windows sucks" isn't going to be enough. Items related to how Microsoft has broken the law or contributed to FUD would be good also. I have a long list of people who have told me that they will switch to another OS if I can provide such proof.

So, I look forward to your posts and I thank you in advance :)
--- End quote ---


I have for you the following evidence...

muzzy:
Does modifying kernel to not kill misbehaving stupid office95 count? I hear the leaked w2k sources reveal a piece of code, where the kernel should kill a process because it did something invalid regarding memory management. However, the comments state that since office95 does it too it cant be done. A workaround in kernel level to support old applications.

Or how about SHIM? Microsoft's userland patcher, which gives processes different set of winapi call implementations if they need them to work. Some apps depended on undocumented, implementation specific or totally wrong behaviour of old winapi implementations. The apps wouldn't work if it wasn't for the application compatibility patching engine. you can google about it, "shim" should be good keyword.

These acts are done in name of backwards compatibility, yet you could say they're quite unfair. I don't really mind the userland patcher, but I wish the jerks would have their priorities different way around. Properly working kernel should be more important than supporting applications that are written wrong. However, it's obviously a marketing decision, and unfortunately it's a good marketing decision too. :(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page