Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: rkmaster26 on 27 September 2003, 01:24
-
You folks really like to bash Microsoft and hate them so much, but I bet none of you can even give a reasonable answer as to why. It's as if it's the cool thing on the block these days to hate Microsoft, even if you are not educated on the topic and don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
First of all, please don't say that Microsoft is a greedy company. They are not greedy at all. Microsoft does not cook the books and lie about their profits like Enron, Worldcom, and the others. Microsoft is honest. They make huge loads of money each year, and they are honest about it to the government. Because of their honesty about how much they make, they end up helping the middle and lower classes by carrying a heavier tax burden. Also, Microsoft gives tons of money to charit like education and fighting aids.
Microsoft also spends billions of dollars on research, which leads to the development of superb technologies. After spending tons of money to reseacrch digital media, Microsoft introduced the fantastic Windows Media Format, which can produce excellent quality at very low bitrates. Currently, Microsoft is spending lots of money on researching digital rights management. Microsoft hopes to create a technology which will be great for both consumers and businesses and will put an end to internet crime and piracy problems.
So don't say that Microsoft is greedy. IT IS NOT!
Microsoft also helps consumers by ensuring competition with other similar businesses, and as we all know competition leads to good quality products. For example, back in the mid 80s and 90s, operating systems were horrible. That is why computers were only used then by professionals. But Microsoft took all that trash away by making the Windows operating system, which was very easy to use and very attractive to consumers. Other businesses could not produce such good products so they eventually faded away. Now we have a first class operating system, and every family has at least one computer in their home with an operating system capable of doing anything!
The same thing was also done with Microsoft Office - an excellent software package for anyone to do any kind of work.
Also, everyone who works at Microsoft loves their job. That creates a great working environment, which leads to great, creative and innovational products!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Microsoft Corporation:
You folks really like to bash Microsoft and hate them so much, but I bet none of you can even give a reasonable answer as to why.
you would lose your money in a second and if you had spent any time at all reading these forums you would not make such a silly claim, especially as the lead in to your supposedly sensible statement.
quote:
It's as if it's the cool thing on the block these days to hate Microsoft, even if you are not educated on the topic and don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
this may be true, and that's no bad thing in my opinion, however i agree with you that an informed opinion is the best and sometimes an uninformed opinion is worse than no opinion at all.
quote:
First of all, please don't say that Microsoft is a greedy company.
oh here we go. Well why shouldn't i say that? they are a greedy company! all companies are greedy, or they would fail and go bust. This is fact. Anyone who has even a miniscule grasp of capitalism knows this. So microsoft are greedy.
However the main thing i want to say here is that you have attempted to misdirect the discussion here by stating that this topic will be about microsoft's greed. This topic will not be about greed, it will be about why people dislike microsoft.
quote:
They are not greedy at all.
bollocks, see above.
quote:
Microsoft does not cook the books and lie about their profits like Enron, Worldcom, and the others.
prove it. not that i am saying they do, i can't prove it, i don'tcare enough to try, but can you prove microsoft do not do this? why don't they? with big corporations, the law means "don't get caught". Anyone with a brain knows that corporations only stay legal to the extent that they feel they have to or face the long arm of the law. Why do you believe microsoft are the only exception? quote:
Microsoft is honest.
i won't comment too much on this. This statement is simply an idiotic falsehood. Someone who will blandly state that a huge company is honest fails on many levels to understand what a corporation is, what it does and how it came to be. Before you sputter with righteous and indignant rage, do your reading. study microsoft's history. They have screwed over literally every other computer company within arm's reach to get where they are. they screwed over seattle computing, digital equipment, apple, adobe, netscape, ibm and intel and many others. This is not my prejudiced mind making this up. as it happens i have just finished reading about the history of the PC for university and it mainly reads like a who's who of who microsoft have screwed over.
However i want to make one thing clear. so far we have not really touched why i dislike microsoft. All i have been doing is responding to your, quite frankly, ill founded comments in order to get your misdirection about honesty out of the way. Simply put: corporations are almost never honest. No corporation is always honest. No corporation is even mainly honest. Most things corporations do are not honest or dishonest, they simply are. People dealing with corporations expect dishonesty anyway. It would almost be dishonest not to give them what they expect.
quote:
They make huge loads of money each year, and they are honest about it to the government. Because of their honesty about how much they make, they end up helping the middle and lower classes by carrying a heavier tax burden.
this is a fair, if minor point, however you fail to point out that actually everyone else pays their taxes too, to the extent that the law can force them to anyway. microsoft are not doing anything altruistic by paying their taxes. they are simply staying out of jail. your argument about helping the lower classes is a little more tenuous since microsoft's aggressive tactics in the retail market (forcing retailers not to stock competing products) creates a large amount of unemployment and puts a lot of small companies and shops out of business (or cuts them out of the market) at ground level since only larger retailers can afford to abide by microsoft's restrictive retail agreements. Of course the customer wants microsoft products so the retailer must agree to whatever microsoft wants them to sign, or go out of business.
How willing you are to take this on board will depend on your view of how capitalism works however i know several people who have worked with computers for almost as long as microsoft have been around, who say that the jobs microsoft have destroyed outnumbers the jobs that their effect has created. quote:
Also, Microsoft gives tons of money to charit like education and fighting aids.
uh huh. did you fall for this? i can't talk to someone who will swallow that crap.
bill gates gives a smaller percentage of his income to charity than i do and i say linux is better than microsoft. So because my contribution is greater by percentage than bill gates', will you now change your mind and use linux instead of windows?
no.
and the reason is this: you didn't see me on television and also you can't bring yourself to believe that my paltry contribution is the same as gates' because his contribution adds up to more money.
Well excuse me but what gates gives to charity is nothing to him. Nothing except good publicity that is. Seriously. How much advertising could his donations to charity buy? not much, that's what, but he gives it to charity instead and guess what? he gets on TV for free and people like you fall for the generous gates story and no doubt will continue to fall for it till long after he has stopped giving to anybody. Oh yes, you'll still be forking out for the forced upgardes and endless service packs when gates has long been dead and buried in his solid gold coffin.
quote:
Microsoft also spends billions of dollars on research, which leads to the development of superb technologies.
hold on. superb?
again, do your reading. do you know what a computer virus is? Nearly ALL common operating systems are now virtually immune to computer viruses. Almost EVERY SINGLE popular system is virtually immune to viruses and worms. Their filesystems and system components are almost completely safe from attacks of all kinds. Do you understand that? there is only one exception. ALL operating systems from microsoft have NO protection against viruses. their filesystems do not support permissioning. Their system files can be changed by normal users. By default you do not need to enter a password to log in! you can view and alter other users' files! The mandatory components (such as IE and WMP) actually provide extra backdoors into the system which can be exploited by attackers! Even leaving aside the fact that their software is closed source, which means that potential bugs and holes cannot be found and reported (or fixed) by the users, their systems are still embarrasingly insecure. This is simply the tip of the iceberg. Microsoft's history of rubbish to mediocre software goes right back to their crippled version of BASIC for the Altair. Almost every single computer drawback since the seventies can be related to microsoft in some way. This is not, in common parlance, "superb".
quote:
After spending tons of money to reseacrch digital media, Microsoft introduced the fantastic Windows Media Format, which can produce excellent quality at very low bitrates.
and which is closed so that nobody can make programs which encode or decode it unless they use the microsoft codec (and agree to microsoft's licence). also, we find out now that the only program which is allowed to play these files has the most restrictive end user licence agreement i have ever seen. see here for more details (http://belg88.com/faqman/index.php?op=view&t=75). I do not think that simply to watch a video or listen to music i should have to agree that microsoft can legally access my hard drive at any time, or that they can retroactively change the terms of the agreement at any time and i will still be bound to it.
Given your track record as regards reading up on your subject beforehand, i assume you are the sort of person who does not read these agreements before pushing "ok", or as it's known nowadays "i submit, master". I suggest you read them from now on. go on. It might help you later on in court.
As an aside, the ogg vorbis format actually has a sound quality/bitrate ratio which is superior to windows media audio (and is much superior to mp3), and what's more the ogg vorbis format is a completely open standard (and as a result is being taken up faster than WMA is). I don't know if there's an equivalent video thing, i expect DivX to be it, although it's not entirely open.
quote:
Currently, Microsoft is spending lots of money on researching digital rights management. Microsoft hopes to create a technology which will be great for both consumers and businesses and will put an end to internet crime and piracy problems.
just like the FBI are devoted to making everything peachy keen so all humans everywhere can enjoy mom's apple pie with a pearly white grin on their faces you mean? you have missed out so many facts in your broad statement that i am at a loss for how to respond.
tell you what, you explain in depth why you think digital rights management will be "great for both consumers and businesses" and also (and preferably seperately) why you think it will "put an end to internet crime", also i think that "piracy problems" is a separate third issue that i would like you to address in specific too. You cannot make such a sweeping stament including what are nothing more than buzzwords when used in this context without some (preferably a reasonable deal) of evidence to support yourself. let's hear why you think microsoft's crippleware is good and then we will talk about it, okay?
quote:
So don't say that Microsoft is greedy.
didn't we cover this already? oh yes we did. and we decided thatyou are simply trying to put words into people'smouths as a form of indirection in order to make them angry instead of actually answering your question about why people dislike microsoft. quote:
IT IS NOT!
you're not really getting the hang of this, providing evidence does not just mean repeating yourself and saying "yes it is" and "no it's not" all the time.
quote:
Microsoft also helps consumers by ensuring competition with other similar businesses, and as we all know competition leads to good quality products.
competition does, in a capitalist environment, drive products to better heights. You have, as many capitalists do, missed out two more important stages though. You are dwelling on the first stage here, which isa situation of healthy competition. two or more companies compete, they do this by trying to make a better product than each other at lower prices. microsoft never really did this because their tactic has always been to try to get as large a piece of the market before anybody else can compete. This is not just my opinion, it is fact. bill gates used to publicly state his intention to create a monopoly using the concept of the "de facto standard" (it means saturating the market with a closed format before any other organisation or officiating body can come up with a real standard) until about 1982 when his lawyers advised him to use more politically correct language. the sentiment and direction of microsoft of course remains the same.
anyway, back to the second stage. once the two companies have decided its too much work trying to beat the other guy (and some also ran startup companies have bit the dust in the meantime), they will call an uneasy truce. perhaps they split the market ("you do systems, i'll do applications", or
"you do software, i'll do hardware", whatever), they divide the turf in some way anyway, microsoft have done this most famously with apple computer and with IBM, but also they have done this with many other companies. With all of these companies, including apple and IBM, microsoft have broken their word. You can say all you like about how IBM and Apple and so on are not squeaky clean either but that's not the issue here. the issue is microsoft, and the facts are that with *every* truce arrangement microsoft has entered into, they have broken it. And importantly, they broke it first. Microsoft has never been screwed over by somebody else and retaliated, microsoft always casts the first stone, because at the end of the day, microsoft know how to do business better than most other computer companies, even IBM, which is in many ways still stuck in the past.
Where were we? oh yes, the third stage. When one company has finally backstabbed and tripped up all its competitors, of course they have an incredibly priveleged position in the market, and with a couple of decades of basically creating the market for themselves, a sensible company knows how to maintain this privileged position. This is not a monopoly. I cannot describe microsoft as a monopoly. Some people might, and in fact the US legal system would, but actually microsoft have left just enough of the various parts of the computer industry to other companies for it not to qualify as a monopoly. The reason they have done it this way is of course that monopolies get shafted by the law (like IBM did in the fifties). However this is not a nice healthy situation of competition like we described in stage one, because the one company in the privileged position commands the whole industry! all other companies are simply begging for table scraps while the big company does exactly what it wants. In my opinion this is worse than a monopoly because it not only stifles development (because it is in the interests of the controlling company to maintain the status quo), but it is an entirely legal situation, and so it can continue to stifle development indefinitely. This is the opposite of the healthy competition that you naively imagine still exists even after the computer industry has matured several times.
quote:
For example, back in the mid 80s and 90s, operating systems were horrible. That is why computers were only used then by professionals.
actually it was because they cost a lot, but carry on... quote:
But Microsoft took all that trash away by making the Windows operating system, which was very easy to use and very attractive to consumers.
no it was ecause it was the same as apple's macintosh interface (this was the ruling of the court case at the time), but it was cheaper, and after microsoft bought the rights to copy apple macintosh's interface until the end of time (now that was a clause apple's lawyers should have done something about!), microsoft's windows interface was attractive to consumers only because it gave them the apple mac interface (or damn near it) at a fraction of the price, especially since they could run windows on their cheap existing DOS machines (you had to spend a few thousand bucks to get an apple mac though). EVEN taking all this into consideration, ms windows still flopped for several years before it actually caught on. windows 1.0 was utter rubbish, as was windows 2.0. windows 3.0 was severely hindered in the market by competing (and superior) products, but due to IBM dealing harshly with the competition, microsoft simply needed to beat IBM's effort, which they finally did with windows 3.1 and its variants. IBM's OS/2 was still technically superior but it was badly implemented (rushed) and more expensive and anyway IBM were worried about losing their hardware side to Compaq at the time and microsoft overtook them with ease. That's why windows was attractive to consumers, not because of ease of use.
All of what i just said is historical fact. You can verify it simply by doing the reading first. I suggest that you do that next time.
quote:
Other businesses could not produce such good products so they eventually faded away.
dealt with this, see above. quote:
Now we have a first class operating system,
we have several. my favourite is known as "linux".
quote:
and every family has at least one computer in their home with an operating system capable of doing anything!
no, the majority of human families still don't have a computer (not that it has anything to do with microsoft whether they do or not) and also most operating systems can do considerably less than "anything". However ms windows can certainly do a lot less things than most other desktop operating systems out there, which tend to come equipped with all sorts of utilities and programs that have been honed by the *ix and net community for years or decades.
quote:
The same thing was also done with Microsoft Office - an excellent software package for anyone to do any kind of work.
but it's expensive, has an incredibly restrictive licence agreement, and it is not even compatible with some documents made using different versions of the *same* *program*, also newer versions do odd things like dialing the internet to send information even when you are not doing anything net related. Add to this the fact that personal metadata (your name, address, contents ofyour other files etc) is added to microsoft office documents secretly without your consent (leading to this sort of thing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3154479.stm) (how embarrassing for the UK government! oddly they now publish their documents as PDFs...) and the whole thing seems like a total failure from a consumer's point of view.
Personally i prefer openoffice.org - it can handle all microsoft office files (more or less), as well as those from almost all other office programs, including abiword, sunoffice, wordperfect and so on and so on. It's also totally free and is, to my knowledge, the only free program that can create PDF files. Also, since openoffice is open source it gets developed a lot faster than microsoft office and is more stable (less prone to crashes and exploits etc, we all know how irritating those pesky things are, eh?
quote:
Also, everyone who works at Microsoft loves their job.
everyone. uh huh. i think we have departed a little from what most people like to term "reality" now. quote:
That creates a great working environment, which leads to great, creative and innovational products!
that ending was as weak as your beginning and i won't rise to it.
frankly your position disappoints me. Do your reading and try to respond without anger and we'll see how we get on.
Now i have dealt with your post, other posters may feel free to continue by responding to the actual question:
Why exactly do you dislike microsoft?
[ September 26, 2003: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
WHY I DISLIKE M$
By Purevil.
1) Crappy product forced on the world.
2) totally unstable
3) Virus prone
4) unsecure system
I can go on if you like but I think that you won't be checking this thread anyways
Admin one question why is this trol still able to post he/ she does not try to argue his point just spams us and leaves the thread
-
I hate the way they do business
but I have been pretty lucky so far in avoiding windows so I can't say much about their software
-
I suggest binning. This guy's posts are worthless and are just trolling for responses.
-
First of all Microshit Corparation, my grammer isn't perfect so the way whatever i am going to say, you problably thinking hey this fucking dude can't write for shit or "maybe you should come back with better grammer skills and than you reply" . so if you could understand this
fuck,you,asshole,shove ,microsoft, up your ass,
than you could understand my writing.
i am not falling for your shit, with this post all you trying to do is piss us off so we could reply with reason why microsoft sucks so you could type with a respond like this,
"none of you have proven to me why microsoft suck"
so the way you good feel good the you think you made us look like dicks. people in this forum have reasons why they hate microshit, none of us would be here just for the fuckin fun of it.
so what you can do is , take your post and microsoft and your username and your way of think
E.X. "i am the man, i am going to make this haters in this forum look like morons, because none of them have good reason why should they hate microsoft", shove it up your ass.
and fuck you in advance just in case i can't reply
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: mc0282 ]
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: mc0282 ]
-
quote:
M. O'Brien: I suggest binning. This guy's posts are worthless and are just trolling for responses.
The thread made by IPv4 number 205.184.171.12 has been moved to the Dead Thread Zone.
-
i'm sorry, but i am moving this out of the bin to the lounge.
many valid points are raised and binning this is getting too close to censorship in my opinion. if somebody bins it again, i won't complain, but to be honest i don't think it should be binned because it has content and is not simply a waste of space (like so many other threads on this board are).
-
Calum
We dont need to bin, we need to ban this user, as everyone can see this is a Anti-Microsoft website and it should stay this way. Yes, some people do say good points about M$ but they dont go around 'trolling' and putting up everything wheter its crap or a point... this is very anoying and a waste of space. :rolleyes:
-
Calum is right. Microsoft is a company(corporation). All companies are driven to make as $$$ as possible. With that said, all companies are greedy. There is nothing wrong with that though because in this society it takes money to live. The more money you have, the better lifestyle you are able to live in. Just like when a person goes to work they are there to make a living. The more money you make, the happier you are. In a sense, that technically makes almost everybody in this world greedy(if you weren't greedy you wouldn't care how much money you make).
In a perfect world there would be no such thing as money. We would do things to benefit others in the name of contributing to humanity. If there was no such thing as money there would be no such thing as greed driven crime(people wouldn't rob banks, rob cashiers in a gas station, hurt or kill another human for his/her money on the streets, etc.). That would eliminate over 85% of the crime in the world(the sex related and violence crimes would still exist).
This world is not a utopia though. This world revolves on who has the most money has the nicest things. If you have no money we don't care if you stay on the streets and starve to death. It is a fucked up society driven by greed. That is all there is to say about the world.
Calum, you are wrong. Windows does have a filesystem that offers some protection. With NTFS you can encrypt your data with a password and nobody can access it unless they are logged in as you. When someone isn't logged into the account for the encrypted files not even a virus can modif the files you have protected.
Microsoft should offer a lower level of file security so Viruses can't modify OS files no matter who is logged in. No OS is entirely virus proof. A Virus is a program that runs like a normal program. Anybody can make a virus that will delete stuff on the given OS. Sure, critical system files for Linux may be safe(unless you are logged in as Root) but what about your personal files? A Linux virus can destroy any non-system file(including your personal stuff) as easily as one can in Windows.
A virus made for Linux could strap itself to the bootloader and do it's damage to the actual Linux system on the next boot after the virus was executed though. When Linux is booting up it is doing so as root(that is the only way it can initialize everything at bootup). It remains root until you actually get into the OS. Once the OS is started that is when root is logged out and you log in. So what protects Linux from viruses that initialize upon bootup? Nothing of course.
The reason why you don't see many Linux virues is because Linux still isn't used by enough people to warrant a virus writer to even waste his/her time with. When a person writes a virus they are naturally going to target the most used system because that will yield the most damage path.
More people got infected with Blaster than there are people who use Linux+MacOS+Unix+BSD combined. That there is more than enough to backup the fact that targeting Windows is going to wreak the most havoc.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
The reason why you don't see many Linux virues is because Linux still isn't used by enough people to warrant a virus writer to even waste his/her time with. When a person writes a virus they are naturally going to target the most used system because that will yield the most damage path.
More people got infected with Blaster than there are people who use Linux+MacOS+Unix+BSD combined. That there is more than enough to backup the fact that targeting Windows is going to wreak the most havoc.
While it is true that one could make a virus that straps to the bootloader, the virus would have to be executed to wind up in the bootloader, and this could not be done under a UNIX system unless the user is in root mode.
Even then, those kind of viruses are much harder to write, and much more rare than normal viruses, whether for Windows or UNIX. So if UNIX came to be more popular on the desktop, its number of viruses would still be limited to bootloader viruses, and writing such viruses would require Assembly skills, which is quite out of the range of knowledge of average script kiddies.
Since it's so easy to write viruses for Windows, with all its security holes and integrated junk like Visual Basic or Outlook that run binaries without the knowledge of the user, writing viruses is accessible to more people. On UNIX, on the other hand, virus writers have to take strict permissions into account, and writing viruses is much harder, since applications are seperated from the system.
To remedy your fallacious assumption that UNIX is not popular, I will remind you that UNIX systems and clones take about 60% of the server market, if I am not mistaken, and have been on the market for more than 30 years. Still, you can count the number of viruses developped during the whole time period on the fingers of your hand. Mac OS classic had about the same market share as Linux today, and yet there are more viruses for Mac OS classic (about a hundred) than UNIX. Even Mac OS classic has a smaller number of viruses per capita than Windows.
Here are a few statistics: 25,000,000 people divided by 100 Mac viruses gives you 1 virus per 250,000 on the Mac, compared to 500,000,000 Windows users divided by 10,000 viruses (an very generous estimate), equals 1 virus per 50,000 people. So, the pre-Mac OS 9 systems had five times less viruses than Windows.
Now, imagine how minute the number of viruses for UNIX (about 3 or 4) per number of user (about the same today as Mac OS Classic users).
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
No, actually Windows Server 2003 holds a little over 50% of the server market nowadays. Windows Server 2003 has been a huge success for Microsoft.
Unix has lost alot of ground to Windows Server 2003. Unix is even losing alot of ground to Linux in the server market nowadays as well.
You are right about writing viruses that strap to a bootloader being more difficult to write. That can be considered a bad thing though because if Linux ever became the dominant OS and virus writers were targeting Linux the virii would be far worse and more sophisicated because the people writing the virii would be more skilled and more sophisicated as well.
A bootloader virus is actually capable of writing to and damaging the BIOS of your motherboard(it can access the BIOS just like a flash utility). That means that the more sophisicated viri writers could literally destroy systems. That would be far worse than having to re-install an OS.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
No, actually Windows Server 2003 holds a little over 50% of the server market nowadays. Windows Server 2003 has been a huge success for Microsoft.
Unix has lost alot of ground to Windows Server 2003. Unix is even losing alot of ground to Linux in the server market nowadays as well.
I lumped Linux and UNIX together un my last post, since they are similar. But you just brought the point that a spread of a UNIX virus would not run on all versions of UNIX, making it even harder to spread UNIX viruses. For example, a Solaris virus would require a recompile if it were to run on a FreeBSD box if Solaris compatibility mode is not enabled.
And though Unices may have lost server market share to Windows 2003 server, it does not change the fact that UNIX had fewer viruses than Windows even when it did have more market share than Windows.
quote:
You are right about writing viruses that strap to a bootloader being more difficult to write. That can be considered a bad thing though because if Linux ever became the dominant OS and virus writers were targeting Linux the virii would be far worse and more sophisicated because the people writing the virii would be more skilled and more sophisicated as well.
A bootloader virus is actually capable of writing to and damaging the BIOS of your motherboard(it can access the BIOS just like a flash utility). That means that the more sophisicated viri writers could literally destroy systems. That would be far worse than having to re-install an OS.
But you would still have to execute the virus first, which, as I explained, can only be done in root mode.
Also, only the most stubborn and experienced virus writers who actually have a purpose in doing so would keep writing viruses for such a challenging system as UNIX. The script kiddies won't even bother, and might start doing something useful, being deprived of their fun. Don't forget that people write viruses not to damage systems, but because they have too much time on their hands, and writing viruses is easy. There won't be any more professional virus writers than there are now; they just keep on writing bootloader viruses, whether for Windows or Linux.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Microsoft Corporation:
[QB]First of all, please don't say that Microsoft is a greedy company. They are not greedy at all.[QB]
Not greedy? Not greedy? Have you forgotten about the breaching of the anti-trust laws? Or did you conveniently forget about that?
It was a well written defensive for Microsoft, but you are too bias -_-
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
I lumped Linux and UNIX together un my last post, since they are similar. But you just brought the point that a spread of a UNIX virus would not run on all versions of UNIX, making it even harder to spread UNIX viruses. For example, a Solaris virus would require a recompile if it were to run on a FreeBSD box if Solaris compatibility mode is not enabled.
And though Unices may have lost server market share to Windows 2003 server, it does not change the fact that UNIX had fewer viruses than Windows even when it did have more market share than Windows.
Virus writes don't usually target thier viruses to directly infect servers because most admins(especially the ones who run Unix) are not idiots. They know how to prevent being infected. Virus writers usually rely on the stupid consumers who don't know jack. The stupid consumers machines are generally used to spread the virus(and in some cases the machines are silently used to do mischeivious things like helping in DoS attacks).
You are right that you would have to execute the virus for it to strap to your boot-sector but think about it like this. If Linux became dominant the same idiots who open E-Mail attachments from unknown senders would be using Linux. The same idiots who will open any file he/she downloads from the net would be using Linux.
Those idiots would be using distros like Lindows that always have you logged in as Root so it is easier to install things. So the OS wouldn't really protect the idiots. Come to think of it, you don't have to be root to mess with a Linux bootloader(you can run a MBR cleaning utility under a user account and wipe out the bootloader in Linux) therefore anybody could launch an infected RPM and get their boot sector infected.
The bootloader is not a protected System file.
Non-idiots rarely ever catch a virus in Windows because they know better than to trust anything and they know how to properly secure their OS.
A Unix virus could actually be made to work with any OS based on Unix because despite the OS differences the Unix kernel shares the same basic commands. Realistically a virus made to attack the Unix kernel would be able to do so on any OS using the Unix kernel.
Linux and Unix are not alike. The Linux kernel is completely different than the Unix kernel. If Unix and Linux were basically the same thing there wouldn't be all of the shit from SCO because Linux contains some of their code. If Linux contained more of Unix code there would be more companies making claims to damage Linux. Linux has totally different code, therefore it is not Unix and it can't be accuratley called Unix.
A Linux virus wouldn't affect a Unix system, vice versa.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
Come to think of it...a sophisicated virus write could write a virus that would log a user off(as if they manually logged off) and log them in as root and do some nasty work right as root logs in. Remember, if Linux ever became dominante OEM's would not pre-install the OS with a root password(for distros that aren't always logged in as root) because a consumer wouldn't know the password. The OEM could pre-install the OS w/a root password and include the password in the documentation for the computer but most people don't read all of the documentation therefore that idea wouldn't work so their best bet would be not to ship a pre-installed Linux distro with a root password. You have to remember, most people are idiots when it comes to computers. Those idiots aren't even really capable of properly maintaning a simple Windows installation let alone a complex Linux installation.
Idiots are capable of being the downfall of security for any OS.
-
quote:
Originally posted by KiDwithIsSuEs 00:
Calum
We dont need to bin, we need to ban this user, as everyone can see this is a Anti-Microsoft website and it should stay this way. Yes, some people do say good points about M$ but they dont go around 'trolling' and putting up everything wheter its crap or a point... this is very anoying and a waste of space. :rolleyes:
this site is very much about free speech.
i agree we should dump useless posts and threads as soon as possible (like posts with WINDOWSROOLXORZ 500 times in them for instance) but a thread like this should not be censored. simply read the posts! most if not all have several interesting points to make.
if we ban and bin people simply for disagreeing with the fundamental concept of the site we'd spend five minutes where all of us who are left simply say "yep, i agree" and then we might as well all go home!
progress only comes through a lively interchange of ideas which can only come from a liberal attitude towards free speech.
on another note may i just mention a guy at my work and something he said last week...
bear in mind this guy runs an entire "technology" company in england, and not that small a one either. he was talking to a colleague (i overheard, as i sit close to them) about viruses. he was saying how his antivirus had picked up a virus on his home computer but couldn't remove it because it was infecting a protected system file (now that's fucked for a start! a virus can have access to your system files, but you yourself can't, even to get rid of the virus? yeah, what a great system that is!) anyway, he said he didn't really care if somebody was able to break into his computer because he had nothing secret on there anyway.
I didn't tell him that his computer could be used by the writer of such a "virus" (a worm actually), to participate in DoS attacks and get him in trouble when it's traced back to his IP address, nor did i say that he'd better have backups of all his files since an attacker could gain write (and destroy) access as well as read access.
this sort of thing though is more than most windows users can be bothered to think about, and that's why viruses are so prolific.
-
quote:
You are right that you would have to execute the virus for it to strap to your boot-sector but think about it like this. If Linux became dominant the same idiots who open E-Mail attachments from unknown senders would be using Linux. The same idiots who will open any file he/she downloads from the net would be using Linux.
Those idiots would be using distros like Lindows that always have you logged in as Root so it is easier to install things. So the OS wouldn't really protect the idiots.
Obviously, if a user does not use the protections at his disposal, then yes, he will be infected. Fortunately, most Linux distros give you a user account by default, and idiot users would probably be too ignorant to log in a root account.
But never mind Linux, look at Mac OS X, which is a far better option IMO. You are logged in Administrator mode by default, which is not root mode, and allows users to install programs easily (just slide them in /Applications folder). If an idiot does not create a user account, and gets infected, then only the applications get infected, not the whole system. And you can still run applications in user mode without installing them, by just sliding the folder in the home directory and executing the .app file. At any rate, neither admin nor users are allowed to overwrite the Mac MBR (if there is such a thing).
quote:
Come to think of it, you don't have to be root to mess with a Linux bootloader(you can run a MBR cleaning utility under a user account and wipe out the bootloader in Linux)
No. You have to be root to do that. Or under a user account they would ask you for a password.
quote:
therefore anybody could launch an infected RPM and get their boot sector infected.
You need to be root to do that. The reasons you mention are part of the reasons why Linux user dislike Lindows.
And I know that Linux is not UNIX. By the way, UNIX is too broad nowadays to be called an OS.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
Come to think of it...a sophisicated virus write could write a virus that would log a user off(as if they manually logged off) and log them in as root and do some nasty work right as root logs in. Remember, if Linux ever became dominante OEM's would not pre-install the OS with a root password(for distros that aren't always logged in as root) because a consumer wouldn't know the password. The OEM could pre-install the OS w/a root password and include the password in the documentation for the computer but most people don't read all of the documentation therefore that idea wouldn't work so their best bet would be not to ship a pre-installed Linux distro with a root password. You have to remember, most people are idiots when it comes to computers. Those idiots aren't even really capable of properly maintaning a simple Windows installation let alone a complex Linux installation.
Idiots are capable of being the downfall of security for any OS.
A virus could log a user off, but it could not type the password to log in root mode. Or else it would have to take advantage of a security bug which would be patched in a matter of days by the open source community.
And what you said about root password not being included in the computer completely demolishes all your past arguments about users running as root.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
this sort of thing though is more than most windows users can be bothered to think about, and that's why viruses are so prolific.
Thats right. Because the majority of people who use Windows don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to computers.
Now you have to ask yourself, do Linux gurus really want Linux to become dominant? If it ever did(which it isn't likely to) those same idiots would be buying computers with dummied down Linux installs that wouldn't offer the only security advantage that Linux has(root restriction) because the computers would be pre-loaded with distros like Lindows that always have you logged in as root and there would be no root password set for the boxes that use a distro with User/Root privalages. The loss of security, the fact that Linux is more difficult to use than Windows would be enough to make most people hate Linux(even though it is their fault that they don't know how to use it so they have to have a securityless version of it).
All of the people who would start to hate it would extensivley bash it and ruin the myth that Linux is more secure than Windows.
-
quote:
If it ever did(which it isn't likely to) those same idiots would be buying computers with dummied down Linux installs that wouldn't offer the only security advantage that Linux has(root restriction) because the computers would be pre-loaded with distros like Lindows that always have you logged in as root and there would be no root password set for the boxes that use a distro with User/Root privalages.
Well, I for one would much rather that the Mac OS take over the market than Linux. But in the case you mentioned, it is OSes like Lindows that we don't want to become mainstream, not Linux.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
A virus could log a user off, but it could not type the password to log in root mode. Or else it would have to take advantage of a security bug which would be patched in a matter of days by the open source community.
And what you said about root password not being included in the computer completely demolishes all your past arguments about users running as root.
What? That doesn't demolish anything because there are distros that do in fact run as root at all times(like Lindows). Distros like that are the ones that would most likely be pre-loaded on most OEM computers.
The OEM's who chose to install other distros(ones that don't always run as root) wouldn't set a root password due to the idiotic level of the people who would be buying the comps.
Still, the ones that always run as root would be the dominant distros simply because they are the easiest to install stuff on. Consumers want easy.
An advanced user would still install his own distro(one with root/user access) and would have a root password....but remember....90% of the people in this world are not advanced users.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Well, I for one would much rather that the Mac OS take over the market than Linux. But in the case you mentioned, it is OSes like Lindows that we don't want to become mainstream, not Linux.
Sadly, stuff like Lindows would be the dominator because of the lack of skill most consumers have.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
What? That doesn't demolish anything because there are distros that do in fact run as root at all times(like Lindows). Distros like that are the ones that would most likely be pre-loaded on most OEM computers.
The OEM's who chose to install other distros(ones that don't always run as root) wouldn't set a root password due to the idiotic level of the people who would be buying the comps.
Still, the ones that always run as root would be the dominant distros simply because they are the easiest to install stuff on. Consumers want easy.
An advanced user would still install his own distro(one with root/user access) and would have a root password....but remember....90% of the people in this world are not advanced users.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
That's why Mac OS X is a better choice for users than either Lindows or non-root Linux distros, for the reasons I already mentioned.
-
Microsoft is a bad company because they make a huge effort to keep us in software communism.
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
Microsoft is a bad company because they make a huge effort to keep us in software communism.
No, Linux is software communism. Microsoft are soviet communists.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
No, Linux is software communism. Microsoft are soviet communists.
Microsoft is Bush-like capitalism!
Communism is it's opposite.
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Microsoft is Bush-like capitalism!
Communism is it's opposite.
No. Bush-like capitalism is not capitalism; it is corporatism (read: fascism).
And Soviet communism is just as bad as Bush corporatism, except the opposite.
-
Damn Laukev7 you beet me to your last comment about Micrshit being communist. Microsoft Corporation you are a moron. I personally hate microsoft b/c they make horrible buggy software and restrict my rights as a user. The only thing i think Gates is good at is business. HE took his company from nothing to everything. That is what all companies try to do and there is nothing wrong with that. I at one time was promicrosoft. That was back when i only knew of Mac OS 6 or 7. I am not quite sure. Back then Apple did not have a nice pretty interface. I started learning about Linux about 2 years ago from somewhere. I dont even know where. Back then it was nothing that it is today. I had trouble with almost everything in it. It was around then that i also started to learn how Microsoft was evil and destroyed many other companies. Because of thei actions and their horribly made software I decided to stick to Linux. Since i started my knowledge and understanding of computers has grown outstandingly. Linux has grown and been inproved since then. I recently got to try OS X by apple and i now want a mac but i am a cheap AMDer so i cant afford one. Over all Calum has all ready disproven all the points in your post Microsoft Corporqation. So we have it that u are a Moron
-
okay, the wankers win.
silly me for thinking we could have a sensible discussion.
now i remember why i don't visit here that often anymore.
dickheads...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
okay, the wankers win.
silly me for thinking we could have a sensible discussion.
now i remember why i don't visit here that often anymore.
dickheads...
its fine, i'm here often enough... i'll take the time to delete any jackass posts so save the thread.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
That's why Mac OS X is a better choice for users than either Lindows or non-root Linux distros, for the reasons I already mentioned.
MacOSX would be the better choice if it ran on the hardware that everybody already owns(x86 boxes). IT isn't very feesible for everybody to have to throw out the computers that they already have to get a new, expensive machine because OEM's and software makers decided to sell and only make software for a different machine.
Since 97% of the computers used in the world are x86 the x86 architecture isn't going to die off anytime soon. With that said, a new, dominate OS would have to be able to run on the computers that almost everybody already owns and what almost everybody else buys.
Apple would probably see more profits in a year than they have ever seen in their lifetime if they would sell an x86 version of OSX.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
MacOSX would be the better choice if it ran on the hardware that everybody already owns(x86 boxes). IT isn't very feesible for everybody to have to throw out the computers that they already have to get a new, expensive machine because OEM's and software makers decided to sell and only make software for a different machine.
Since 97% of the computers used in the world are x86 the x86 architecture isn't going to die off anytime soon. With that said, a new, dominate OS would have to be able to run on the computers that almost everybody already owns and what almost everybody else buys.
Apple would probably see more profits in a year than they have ever seen in their lifetime if they would sell an x86 version of OSX.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
You can run Linux on every architecture.
PS: This "root-linux" doesn't exist. Any system based on the linux kernel can be configured as a multi-user system.
(http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
MacOSX would be the better choice if it ran on the hardware that everybody already owns(x86 boxes). IT isn't very feesible for everybody to have to throw out the computers that they already have to get a new, expensive machine because OEM's and software makers decided to sell and only make software for a different machine.
Since 97% of the computers used in the world are x86 the x86 architecture isn't going to die off anytime soon. With that said, a new, dominate OS would have to be able to run on the computers that almost everybody already owns and what almost everybody else buys.
Apple would probably see more profits in a year than they have ever seen in their lifetime if they would sell an x86 version of OSX.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
Not really. People would copy OS X, and Microsoft has a stranglehold on OEM's. So Apple would have a very hard time entering the x86 market. Not to mention convincing all the developpers to port all the 15 million applications.
Also, they would lose a lot of money on the hardware side, which make a huge part of their profits. They would need a big salespoint to replace OS X as a reason to buy their hardware. Come to think of it, the PPC platform may be a very interesting choice when all the others implement TCPA/NGSCB in the PC's.
You should know that the reason why their hardware is more expensive than PC's (not that much, though) is because it pays for many other expenses, like R&D (because they actually innovate, unlike most other OEM's), iApps, etc, not just hardware.
They are, however, trying to move away from hardware dependency, by selling iPods, iTMS, etc, as a Mac Expo presenter said. So we may see a decrease of prices in the long term.
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
You can run Linux on every architecture.
PS: This "root-linux" doesn't exist. Any system based on the linux kernel can be configured as a multi-user system.
(http://smile.gif)
No, Distros like Lindows seriously runs as root at all times for the sake of making it easier to use. The average-joe people who would ever use Linux would use a dummied down version of it like Lindows.
Taking away root restrictions robs Linux of any security advantage that Linux has to offer.
(EDIT) You are right about Apple would have a hard time making it in the x86 OS market because of the stronghold that MS holds on it right now. However, if Apple did manage to break that stronghold they would see some unbelievable profits.
Think of it like this, Billy-G earned most of his 40 Billion $$$ by selling software(mainly Windows and Office). If Billy can do it, so can the owner of Apple(I don't know who that is...I know it isn't Jobs though).
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
No, Distros like Lindows seriously runs as root at all times for the sake of making it easier to use. The average-joe people who would ever use Linux would use a dummied down version of it like Lindows.
Taking away root restrictions robs Linux of any security advantage that Linux has to offer.
(EDIT) You are right about Apple would have a hard time making it in the x86 OS market because of the stronghold that MS holds on it right now. However, if Apple did manage to break that stronghold they would see some unbelievable profits.
Think of it like this, Billy-G earned most of his 40 Billion $$$ by selling software(mainly Windows and Office). If Billy can do it, so can the owner of Apple(I don't know who that is...I know it isn't Jobs though).
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
You can configure Lindows as a multi-user system. You always can. Thats how the Linux kernel works.
(http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) ;)
-
Lindows is NOT a single user system. It is possible to configure a single-user UNIX system; in fact, you just need to type init 1 go enter single user mode. But in Lindows you just get a root account by default, and there is an option to make user accounts in the control panel.
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
You can configure Lindows as a multi-user system. You always can. Thats how the Linux kernel works.
(http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) ;)
Ok, fair enough. However, how many people who use Windows ever makes a non-admin account for themselves? Hardly none. That wouldn't change if people were using Lindows. They would make a user account for other people to use...when they use the computer themselves they would be using their Root/Admin account.
Why? Because as an admin you aren't restricted from doing anything to your OS and files. Honestly, alot of the average-joe users don't even know about user accounts in Windows XP. That is literally the truth.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
its fine, i'm here often enough... i'll take the time to delete any jackass posts so save the thread.
thank you! i should have done it myself actually, but for a moment i justthought people prefferred the jackassery!
anyway it's back on track and i have this to say:
hear hear! linux users are resting on their laurels too much trusting in linux' existing security. it is fine for linux' existing users but if linux' userbase expands, less well educated people (about *ix) will become the dominant userbase. Linux developers and vendors (yes, mandrake i'm talking to you!) should not allow linux systems to become as dumbed down and ultimately as insecure and bloated as windows.
apt-get is a good start, sensible permissioning and user accounts is another start. the foundations are all good unlike the winDOS garbage, but if it doesn't step up a gear soon then either the problem between the chair and the screen will lower linux almost to the security level of windows, or else linux will simplylevel out at a share of 4 or 5% of the total home PC userbase.
-
Going way back to about the 9th post on this thread, I saw a statement I really need to comment on:
quote:
The more money you make, the happier you are.
I can tell you from personal experience that this statement is not true. More money does not automatically equal happiness.
Case in point: A year and a half ago, I got a high-paying job. I was making well over what I needed to survive. In fact, during this time, I got a new computer and some music recording equipment. However, I just never had the time to enjoy the extra money I was making. Plus, I just did not enjoy the job at all. It was taking its mental toll on me. Around July, I received another job offer. I'm now a teacher assistant at a well-respected school district, and I'm so much happier. And I make significantly less money as a teacher assistant than I did at my previous job, but I enjoy being a teacher assistant much more. (in case you're wondering, I mostly help out the middle school choirs, and I play piano for rehearsals and concerts) I'm also a staff musician at a contemporary church, which I also enjoy.
Now, let's look at my sister, who has a much higher paying job than I do, yet she's always talking about how much she hates it, and she's constantly asked to work overtime, which means she never has time to enjoy the extra money she's making.
Anyway, my point is, money does not equal happiness. Even though I'm not financially rich (don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means poor, I make more than enough to live on), I feel much richer because I'm getting paid to do what I want to do with my life.
(And owning a computer that runs Linux is only a small part of that life. ;) )
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: emh ]
-
By the way, I was curious what Lindows people said about it running as root by default, and it actually does not run as root by default:
http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question9.htm (http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question9.htm)
quote:
We leave the option of running as root or not up to the computer owner. During the installation (or easily from the Settings menu after installation), LindowsOS makes it easy to maintain and add user accounts which do not run as root.
So basically, you can create user accounts at installation just like any other distro.
-
You didn't dislike making more money. You disliked what you had to do to get it.
You are right about not being happy with a job that you can't get into. However, not liking your job and not liking the money are 2 differnet things. I bet that at your current job that you seem to enjoy you are happy every time you get a raise. Right? The extra money helps you enjoy your outside life more on the same schedule that you are accustomed to. If you truely don't care about the money you would turn down a raise(nobody does that...LOL!!!). The higher income gives you more $$$ to do things like eat out at expensive restaraunts with your family, take your family to an expensive fun park/theme park, buy stuff to better your home and property, buy a better vehicle, buy really nice gifts for your wife/kids, etc.
Anyways, about Lindows. What do you think an OEM would do if they pre-installed Lindows on machines? They would pre-install it to run as root. Not everybody would know that they could change that(alot of people don't even know about user accounts in Windows XP for crying out loud).
As a matter of fact, some OEMs already pre-ship Lindows machines that run in Root by default(those $200 Lindows boxes@walmart made for the average joe consumer trying to save money).
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
Don't forget that the same Walmart you're talking about also sells computers with Mandrake Linux, which provides users by default.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
You didn't dislike making more money. You disliked what you had to do to get it.
You are right about not being happy with a job that you can't get into. However, not liking your job and not liking the money are 2 differnet things. I bet that at your current job that you seem to enjoy you are happy every time you get a raise. Right? The extra money helps you enjoy your outside life more on the same schedule that you are accustomed to. If you truely don't care about the money you would turn down a raise(nobody does that...LOL!!!). The higher income gives you more $$$ to do things like eat out at expensive restaraunts with your family, take your family to an expensive fun park/theme park, buy stuff to better your home and property, buy a better vehicle, buy really nice gifts for your wife/kids, etc.
Anyways, about Lindows. What do you think an OEM would do if they pre-installed Lindows on machines? They would pre-install it to run as root. Not everybody would know that they could change that(alot of people don't even know about user accounts in Windows XP for crying out loud).
As a matter of fact, some OEMs already pre-ship Lindows machines that run in Root by default(those $200 Lindows boxes@walmart made for the average joe consumer trying to save money).
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
But the point was that the more money you have the happier you are. He had more money back then and wasn't as happy as he is now with less money. so he was right in saying that the original post was incorrect.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
But the point was that the more money you have the happier you are. He had more money back then and wasn't as happy as he is now with less money. so he was right in saying that the original post was incorrect.
However, one could argue that given the same work conditions, one with a higher salary would be happier than the one with the lower salary.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
But the point was that the more money you have the happier you are. He had more money back then and wasn't as happy as he is now with less money. so he was right in saying that the original post was incorrect.
Well it is a given that if you dislike your job or the hours you have to work it will cause alot of stress in your life. Now here is a rethorical question. Ok, you want to be a school teacher and you have an employment opportunity at 2 different schools. Both offer you the same hours, you teach the same stuff but 1 school offers $5 an hour more(or $350 more a month for salary) starting out. Which school would you pick?
Most people would take the higher paying school.
Greed is in humans nature.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
Well it is a given that if you dislike your job or the hours you have to work it will cause alot of stress in your life. Now here is a rethorical question. Ok, you want to be a school teacher and you have an employment opportunity at 2 different schools. Both offer you the same hours, you teach the same stuff but 1 school offers $5 an hour more(or $350 more a month for salary) starting out. Which school would you pick?
Most people would take the higher paying school.
Greed is in humans nature.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
True, but at that point we are talking about ideals. Yes we are greedy, but greed is not necesseraly good.
It's a scotsman fallacy.
Granted, on one hand I can say, ya M$ is a great company in that their buisness is effective and their marketing is good. But just because they run a great buissness dosn't mean they have the best product.
Meh... we been over this one. Ya know what I mean ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
However, one could argue that given the same work conditions, one with a higher salary would be happier than the one with the lower salary.
Exactly.
-
Now, I didn't say I wouldn't be happier if I made more money, and I definitely wouldn't turn down a raise. If I had a similar job offer for more money, I would take it.
The point I was getting at was that you can't be happy on money alone. If making yourself rich involves working someplace that you dread going to every day, is the extra money worth it? If making yourself rich meant you had to work seven days a week because of the job or you had to work 16 hour days three or more times a week, (or both) would the extra money be worth it? (This type of scenario in the short term probably wouldn't be a big deal, however, if this happens regularly, or incredibly often, it takes a toll on your life)
If all the extra money meant that you had to work every weekend and/or work 16 hour days, then you wouldn't have the time to do all the extra things the extra money would allow you to do.
quote:
However, one could argue that given the same work conditions, one with a higher salary would be happier than the one with the lower salary.
You are absolutely correct. I would prefer a higher salary over a lower one. However, in my case, the work conditions weren't the same at all. My less-paying job is more desirable than the job I came from.
quote:
Well it is a given that if you dislike your job or the hours you have to work it will cause alot of stress in your life. Now here is a rethorical question. Ok, you want to be a school teacher and you have an employment opportunity at 2 different schools. Both offer you the same hours, you teach the same stuff but 1 school offers $5 an hour more(or $350 more a month for salary) starting out. Which school would you pick?
Most people would take the higher paying school.
Greed is in humans nature.
Picking the higher-paying school is not a sign of greed, it's a sign of intelligence. ;) Although the length of a commute should also be taken into account.
-
Oh DAYAMN!
1. Microsoft is greedy. They charge up to and beyond 200 dollars for what amounts to beta software. (How many patches were out on the release day of XP?)
2. If they do spend billions on research, then they're wasting their money. WM audio sucks compared to ogg/mp3. (Lower bitrate = less information to process = less defined sound.) DRM is nothing more than a way for them to gain control over our computers. If you want Billy-boy spying in on you while you do your finances, fine. Go for it. But bill can stay the f**k out of my box. Let me repeat that MY BOX!!! He didn't pay sh*t for it, so he should have no rights to control how it operates.
3. MICROSOFT IS GREEDY!!
4. Microsoft? Competition? I can't believe you used those in the same sentence. Remember BeOS? Yeah. Crushed by Microsoft's control over the bootloader. Competition my ass. First Class operating system...my ass. And you even try to say that every family has at least one computer in their home. That's funny, some homes don't even have running water, let alone electricity.
5. Office sucks. Period. It's overweight, too expensive and that DAMNED PAPER CLIP!
Verdict: You're misguided and delusional. Lay off the LSD and come back in a few days.
-
quote:
Why exactly do you dislike microsoft?
Here it goes:
Section 1
Microsoft tends to write crappy software.
It's sad to see that People accept rebooting 5 times a day. The cyle of: first, starting program and seeing it won't open/frozed up/ fucked some other way. Second, the user pressing control+alt+delete and sees that the program's not responding. third, nopw the entire system's frozen up and has gone to a blue screen of death. This is a good name for this prosess beacuase it leads to the death of the computer (not exactly but). now you have to reset.
So why dose this happen? Because windows is unstable. Unless you buy expencive hardware upgrads.
section 2
I'm not sure if this true, but I beleve Microsoft has brainwashed people to use crappy software. How else can they overlook the constent crashing?
section 3
O.K, I'm using windows by force, the computer I use is not mine, and the owner's been brainwashed.
Microsoft has this tracker that records info and sends it to microsoft. My evidence is: my firewall is going off with this Win32.exe.
Now Microsoft mqay say that iit's a worm, but it's not, if they admit it, they would lose there only source of income.
Now think: do you want youre private info shared by hackerse tha t mightn frame you? NO!
[ September 30, 2003: Message edited by: The all Canadian Lover ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by The all Canadian Lover:
Now Microsoft mqay say that iit's a worm, but it's not, if they admit it, they would lose there only source of income.
Um... That's kinda...
Oh geeze.