All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows Sucks
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: muzzy ---I've never ran anti-virus on my system, and I don't use a firewall. Plus, I use IE for web browsing. So, I've configured stuff a little, but how come I've never gotten any of these viruses you speak of?
I have no idea what you guys are doing to break your systems, other than intentionally installing malware (or being tricked by exes that have folder icons or other silly stuff). I installed my current w2k installation in 2000, and it's still working. Nearly five year old installation, and stuff still works great. I can only conclude that either you guys have bad hardware, or the difference is in the user.
--- End quote ---
The difference is you disable scripting, but I would rather have benefit of being able to enjoy the web to the full.
--- Quote from: muzzy ---Oh, and regarding third party software. I suspect you guys mainly use non-GNU software too. Your web browser, your mail client, your chat clients, text editors, etc... They're all from outside of the GNU project, third party software.
--- End quote ---
I think you've mis-unsterstood me. For a start I mainly use GNU software the only non-GNU thing on my system is Winwows and anti-virus. I don't have a problem with using closed source sofwtware per-say I've used Opera before. I was saying that Microsoft should provide and operating system that doesn't require any 3rd party software (meaning extra software that you have to buy) to make it secure.
muzzy:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I think you've mis-unsterstood me. For a start I mainly use GNU software the only non-GNU thing on my system is Winwows and anti-virus. I don't have a problem with using closed source sofwtware per-say I've used Opera before. I was saying that Microsoft should provide and operating system that doesn't require any 3rd party software (meaning extra software that you have to buy) to make it secure.
--- End quote ---
I think you've misunderstood me too. When I say GNU software, I mean the GNU project which includes the GNU system tools and compiler suite and such. This doesn't include GPL'd software, it's not GNU software. A lot of the stuff on GNU/Linux systems is non-GNU software on top of the GNU system. I count that as "third party".
Now, there's a lot of good freeware software out there, but you have to download it all. That's a hassle. If Microsoft allowed third parties to create Windows distributions in the same fashion that linux distributions exist, there would be a lot less hassle. Right now, Microsoft is having a copyright enforced monopoly to its own product, and I can't say it's a good thing for anyone else.
Aloone_Jonez:
Ok, I'll explain my point again as you've missed it completely.
You obviosly don't understand the whole party thing, confusing I must admit. :confused:
To me a 3rd party sortware is any software you have to have from a 3rd party other than the supplier of the operating system, thus:
I'm the 1st party.
Microsoft is the 2nd party.
The 3rd would be Symatic, McAfee the licence is unimportant, it could even be freeware like the AVG anti-virus software I use.
My point is you should be able to run a secure Microsoft OS without having to install any 3rd party software. I should be able to browse the Internet with scripting enabled without having to rely on any other software apart from Windows it's self to keep my computer secure. 3rd party software should be non-essential for the running of the system.
Calum:
what you both mean or don't mean is irrelevant.
actually, you do mean the same thing, but you have both got different ideas of who the second party is. to muzzy, it is the organisation responsible for creatingthe system (microsoft, Gnu's Not Unix, apple, Be corp et cetera) and to Jones, it is the organisation responsible for *distributing* the software (Red Hat, microsoft, debian, apple et cetera)
both are reasonable but instead of telling each other you don't understand each other, just decide whether or not you can agree on a definition, and if not, come to some sort of compromise (because if you don't agree on who the second party is, then it is very likely you aren't even disagreeing with each other).
unless of course you're just enjoying the disagreement, in which case, carry on!
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Calum ---what you both mean or don't mean is irrelevant.
--- End quote ---
What I mean is plain and simple, if you want to run Microsoft Windows then you shouldn't need anything other than Microsoft Windows to have a secure system.
--- Quote from: Calum ---actually, you do mean the same thing, but you have both got different ideas of who the second party is. to muzzy, it is the organisation responsible for creatingthe system (microsoft, Gnu's Not Unix, apple, Be corp et cetera) and to Jones, it is the organisation responsible for *distributing* the software (Red Hat, microsoft, debian, apple et cetera)
--- End quote ---
Yes that's what I mean by the 2nd party, I didn't mention Redhat Linux or Mac OS because I was reffering to Windows so I only mentioned Microsoft as they party responsible for supplying the operating system I use.
--- Quote from: Calum ---both are reasonable but instead of telling each other you don't understand each other, just decide whether or not you can agree on a definition, and if not, come to some sort of compromise (because if you don't agree on who the second party is, then it is very likely you aren't even disagreeing with each other).
--- End quote ---
I certain that I'm correct on my definitions of the phrases 1st, 2nd & 3rd party.
--- Quote from: Calum ---unless of course you're just enjoying the disagreement, in which case, carry on!
--- End quote ---
Don't worry I'm enjoying it. :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version