__/ [ BearItAll ] on Thursday 30 March 2006 14:59 \__
> opity wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:40:49 +0100, Gordon wrote:
>>> Is Microsoft about to collapse?
>>> That's a pretty bold question when you ask it about a company with $56
>>> billion in cash, but just take a look at it from a business standpoint -
>>> fortunately we have a solid example for comparison (that's how Harvard
>>> Business School does this sort of thing.)
>> Very interesting read. Linux certainly is pushing Microsoft more and more.
>> One has to wonder how it took MS ages to develop e.g. IE7 when it's mostly
>> a copy of FF features which comes for free and for every platform.
Excuse me for 'hijacking' this message from opity, but you triggered some
mental trails of thoughts which ought to be unleashed as written words.
> A synic might say that MS appear to be making too public the problems with
> the current IE, seems out of character, until you remember that they have a
> new one coming along and what better way to get their users to install the
> new one than to push into their faces the problems with the old one.
> As for development cycles, I don't mind at all if major product updates are
> slow, goodness MS users haven't learnt how to use what they have had for
> years, what chance do they stand if given a new one.
> But in all the time waiting for the new version, here we are on the brink
> of release (this year I believe) and now MS start thinking about adding
> security. Don't wintrolls jump on me for that, I was one of those that
> received the email asking us to help them out. Sign up, join the
> discussions, submit coding ideas etc.
> I was going to help them too, I have done before and I quite enjoy being
> involved in this stuff, but I got as far as signing in then some part of
> that page wouldn't work in Opera, so I tried again in case it was a glitch,
> then I got a message saying I should use an IE browser.
> So I sat back, MS's inability to cope with other browsers gave me time to
> think more about what I was about to do. Of cause I could of asked Opera to
> pretend it's an IE5/6/54 what ever, but then I decided that the whole thing
> was just plain stupid.
User-agent forging opens the door to discrimination. Never accept this. In
fact, I identify myself on the Net with some odd strings, just for spite. I
want to know which sites are vain enough to make decisions that exclude
unknown browsers and practice browser racism.
> I am sick of the fight with MS, I hate the fact that MS Win is not what it
> could have been by now, a fully safe secure system. I hate the fact that
> emails are not what they were meant to be because people are so scared of
> virus's, virus's should never have been a problem, hacks might have been,
> but virus's should never have existed and MS are solely responsible for all
> that virus's have done, because they could have stopped it at the
> beginning. I hate that I can sit at my favourite computer (Suse on my
> desktop) browsing the Internet with my favourite browser (Opera), but I
> have to make allowances for MS, when it is in fact MS who are the foriegn
> party in Internet terms.
Some of the flamers in this groups would actually argue that Microsoft made
the Internet a reality; not Al Gore (sarcasm).
> Frankly though, they are enough good developers out there who don't mind
> what you use as a browser (wasn't that the way it was always meant to be on
> the Internet?), that when I get one that wont load properly or at all I
> just move on. But my point is that I shouldn't have to, the Internet is
> meant to be for everyone so the pages there are meant to be for everyone
> reguardless of the computer they are sat at and the browser they are using.
> I want computers that I can sit my nephew at and be certain that he isn't
> going to get any filth passed through to him either in email or through the
> I can do that on Linux, all emails passed through spamassassin, the child
> controls plus filters in Opera (also available in your Firefox's). I can
> protect my nephew on a Linux machine, but I can't protect him on MS Win,
> specially as MS themselves are responsible for the code that allows pop ups
> to bypass any blockers and filters the user might have from third party
> software. 'slip us a fiver guvner and we'll let you through'.
Windows has some filtering software too, but it is not free. Then one comes
to consider your next set of arguments, which attribute spam to compromised
> So I'm not helping MS, they are unsafe by design and dispite some good
> things coming from the MS camp, the bad things can't be allowed to
> continue. MS suckers will say that MS takes computing forward. I disagree,
> MS are holding computing back. Just think about one area of all this,
> emails, how many of you have roving users in your companies or a family
> member, they sit in a hotel somewhere and decide they want to send an
> email. They can't, by that I mean they can't send the email using the same
> settings that they have when sat in the safety of your own network, or the
> dial up or wireless. Because spam and virus's have meant that ISPs have to
> prevent smtp comms from 'just anywhere'.
In am not entirely sure that SMTP restrictions should have Windows blames.
Open gateways for despatch of mail could be hammered from any platform, even
using a script that is easy to compose GNU/Linux. Web-based mail is taking
over, so fewer people nowadays depend on desktop-side software.
Speaking of ads/pop-ups, expect more in Vista. Even the login manager will
> Of cause they are ways round it, the point though, is that it should never
> have been this way.
> Spam? In what way are MS the cause of spam? Linux had spam blocked very
> quickly once the spam had passed the point of simply being a joke. Our
> sendmails were fixed super fast once it was seen that it could be set as a
> spam relay. MS Could have done those too, it would be nice to say they were
> too busy fighting virus's, but we all know that MS hasn't fought a virus in
> it's life, third parties fight the virus's, MS just do the job of allowing
> them in so that the fight can happen.
80% of the world's spam is said to come from compromised Windows boxes. The
remainder is not sent using zombies, but is most probably coming from
Windows as well. Same arguments apply to DDOS attack, of which I am a
constant sufferer (most latterly last night, with almost half a gigabyte of
pages generated 'on the fly' in PHP).
> So all in all, if MS are on the slipper slope, thank god for that because
> at last we can all start heading towards a much safer cleaner computing
I have no doubt about that.
With friendly regards,
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:45pm up 22 days 5:30, 10 users, load average: 0.06, 0.47, 0.58
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine