"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:15205962.btVYEd99t0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Monday 14 August 2006 16:02 \__
"Ray Ingles" <sorceror@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnee10pq.cmb.sorceror@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2006-08-14, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| The People's Daily said a government department estimated 75% of
computers
| in China were the target of viruses between May 2005 to May 2006.
Nice to see some real-world figures. Windows advocates would like you
to
believe that only an ignorant/lazy minority suffers from computer
viruses.
With WGA blocking off security patches for the pirates, they're going
to have to move elsewhere
My understanding was that security patches are NOT blocked off by
WGA['s
detection of a non-authentic copy of Windows].
http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/faq.aspx#Question5Label
<quote>
Q: Do security updates require validation?
A: Security updates are not part of WGA or OGA. You can install security
updates using the Windows Automatic Updates feature or download them from
the Download Center.
</quote>
I believe initially (a long time ago, 2 years?) Microsoft had
considered
only providing security updates to non-pirated copies of Windows, but
they
were criticized for this; by not providing security updates, "innocent
bystanders" are victimized via spam sent by a larger number of zombie
machines. So Microsoft "did the right thing" and gave security updates to
everyone; even the pirates.
1. Doing the right thing = releasing software which does not contain back
doors that are concealed in binary blobs.
You can do "the right thing" one day, and "the wrong thing" the next.
I'm not a saint, and I didn't claim Microsoft was either. I was just saying
that in that one specific decision, Microsoft agreed with the security
analysis that releasing security patches to pirates was for the greater good
of the Internet, and they did actually follow through and release security
updates to those pirates.
2. Earlier today:
,----[ Quote ]
| The firm is also all set to build major components of its Windows
| Vista operating system and a few updates to Internet Explorer
| merely available to customers running genuine Microsoft software.
`----
http://www.spywarehunter.org/entry/microsoft-to-augment-wga-with-more-features
So WGA becomes mandatory. They start gentle and find acceptance through
persistence and complacency. Submit to the "advantage" or be pwned.
My reading of the blog says that WGA is mandatory to get new *features*,
but not new security updates. They're saying Windows Media Player 11 and
Internet Explorer 7 will require WGA. WMP11 is not a security update, IMHO.
Red light are lit when your resemble that of a Microsoft solicitor. Have
you
become an apologist as well?
Given that the definition of an apologist is
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=apologist
<quote>
one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
</quote>
Then yes, I am a Microsoft apologist when I think Microsoft is being
unfairly attacked. If someone says "WGA blocks security updates" and I
believe that that is a factually untrue statement, then I will speak up. And
if that leads to me being labeled an "apologist", then so be it. I'm just as
equally a "Linux apologist", "Mac apologist", "communism apologist", or
"[any other concept] apologist". I do not like falsehoods being spread. I
will defend any concept which is being untruthfully slandered against.
- Oliver
|
|
