Microsoft have lost their minds

I know what will really get rid of piracy: TCPA! :D

*insert Linux ftw zealot comment*

Piezo said:

I know what will really get rid of piracy: TCPA! :D

Before that it'd get rid of Windows. Maybe that's what the computer industry really needs: a strong motivation for all the cheapskates to switch to something else! :D

deathz0r said:

*insert Linux ftw zealot comment*

*insert echo*

HobbsTiger1 said:

Volume license isnt done based on a set number of computers, or if it is, I have keys that are for quite a lot of computers. The way I understand it (and have experienced with all the volume license keys I currently hold), the volume license is for however many computers that the company chooses to install.

And Microsoft has a list of some sort of invalid of counterfit keys that it updates on a semi-regular basis. Far from perfect.

When you purchase a microsoft volume license key for windows, you indicate for how many machines, and technically that is all you're allowed to use it for. There is no hard check on it, it's just what they say. Go into the licensing manager and see for yourself. It's mentioned in their terms of service as well.

And @ Csonicgo, in a capitalist society, a business being "too poor" to afford whatever doesn't give them a right to steal or use illegal software, it simply means they need to find alternatives. If the school board is not willing to recognize legal issues then they need to figure out a different solution to their problem. If it is not in your place to offer such solutions then you have little to worry about, but if you are and you can't then they should question your employment. I'm not defending their actions, but your arguments are thin and not helping your case.

you fucking geeks.

niguel said:
you fucking geeks.

What are you referring to? If you feel inclined to repeat this kind of behavior often enough, I can always move you to the Losers forum, where you can freely make such posts daily.

dude, i bought XP Pro and I think it's messed up how you don't even OWN what you bought! The license key actually expires...and I have to call and ask for a confirmation number just to reinstall.

But you know, I'm really not going to fall for that Linux BS either. What I mean by that is the whole "community" thing. I hate how corporations, no matter how open source and friendly they may be, no matter how small and big they may be use these little slogans that make you feel like you're part of a damn family or some shit. Dude, I really don't give a rat's ass about belonging to a happy Linux community that will help solve all your little problems. Linux fanboys talk about how if you use Linux you feel that you're part of a commnity. Please.

Honestly, I like Linux, but the thing that I hate the most is the tree structure that it uses to organize files in the HD.

Skeletor said:

Honestly, I like Linux, but the thing that I hate the most is the tree structure that it uses to organize files in the HD.

What is this then? A rock?

Skeletor said:

But you know, I'm really not going to fall for that Linux BS either. What I mean by that is the whole "community" thing. I hate how corporations, no matter how open source and friendly they may be, no matter how small and big they may be use these little slogans that make you feel like you're part of a damn family or some shit. Dude, I really don't give a rat's ass about belonging to a happy Linux community that will help solve all your little problems. Linux fanboys talk about how if you use Linux you feel that you're part of a commnity. Please.

Most linux distros aren't put out by corporations, and I don't use linux primarily because of its community. I use it because it's free, most of the programs for it are free, I can change pretty much every aspect of it if I want, and it is much more secure than Windows. I also find it fun and challenging to have to compile stuff and hunt through the internet to solve problems (This is where the community comes in handy). At the same time, I can just open up synaptic or use apt-get if I feel like being lazy or if I don't need the latest version of a program, and it will do everything for me.

Skeletor said:
dude, i bought XP Pro and I think it's messed up how you don't even OWN what you bought! The license key actually expires...and I have to call and ask for a confirmation number just to reinstall.

Actually that makes sense in a way, as far as propietary software goes, in regarding the software more as a service than a product.

But you know, I'm really not going to fall for that Linux BS either. What I mean by that is the whole "community" thing. I hate how corporations, no matter how open source and friendly they may be, no matter how small and big they may be use these little slogans that make you feel like you're part of a damn family or some shit. Dude, I really don't give a rat's ass about belonging to a happy Linux community that will help solve all your little problems. Linux fanboys talk about how if you use Linux you feel that you're part of a commnity. Please.

That sounds pretty paranoid and superficial. The whole (open source) thing works because it relies on an open "community" that contributes to it directly; well duh it's not like you're lving next door or are close blood relatives; it's an online community, not an urban neighborhood.

While Linux is a viable solution, it has a long way to come before it's as user-friendly or user intuitive.

While all of you fellow geeks may get on your high horses about that comment and I myself found Linux not excessively hard to use, if I were in my Dad's shoes, I'd be exploding with frustration because it's just not as easy to jump into as Windows.

pilottobombadier said:

While Linux is a viable solution, it has a long way to come before it's as user-friendly or user intuitive.

As long as the average user has been formatted to Windows and it non-intuitive interface, OK Linux won’t be intuitive. Give Windows to a long time Mac user, he will be lost too.
Seriously, the Windows file hierarchy is NOT intuitive, it’s a total mess. Securizing and managing Windows just a little is NOT intuitive (I don’t need 20 protections for my Linux box before an internet connexion, and I don’t get infected without).
Windows has only the appearence of intuitiveness, but it’s not. Just ask people who have problems with their computer. They don’t even know what’s happening, for example when something pops up each boot. They don’t even know if they have been rootkitted, spybotted, keylogged, backdoored, adwared, trojanned… or if they have done something wrong or if Windows or the hardware begins to fail it. They don’t even know what I’m talking about.
Installing, managing and updating all the installed applications and librairies is a complete mess too. Every day I type “aptitude update” then “aptitude dist-upgrade” and bam, my system is updated, with it truckload of applications. This IS intuitive, and you can even do it by clicking on the nice synaptic window.

While all of you fellow geeks may get on your high horses about that comment and I myself found Linux not excessively hard to use, if I were in my Dad's shoes, I'd be exploding with frustration because it's just not as easy to jump into as Windows.

I gave my dad a Kaella (Knoppix in french), I told him to enter something and to clic somewhere (an icon on the background), and all is fine. The Kaella is not installed, just a live CD over Win95.

Strange that nearly everyone I know who is involved with maintaining Linux systems disagrees with that. It may be nice for experienced users like you but even if you got it to work for anyone with the average experience of a Windows user (i.e. they don't know much about the inner workings of computers) you get the same problems as with Windows. And if there was a larger user base you'd have the same malware problems. The only reason Windows is attacked so frequently is the large amount of installed systems, not the specific problems of it. I seriously doubt that Linux is as secure as you claim. There's just not enough motivation to find them.

pilottobombadier said:

While Linux is a viable solution, it has a long way to come before it's as user-friendly or user intuitive.

While all of you fellow geeks may get on your high horses about that comment and I myself found Linux not excessively hard to use, if I were in my Dad's shoes, I'd be exploding with frustration because it's just not as easy to jump into as Windows.

some guy I knew said:

All Linux needs are some superficial tweaks to take over the market. The basic functionality could be prettied up with a little focus group-ing and marketing. Of course, you could also stand another level of abstraction, to prevent the average user from making changes to the system. You need to throw some wizards in there too, because some of these people can't install a driver to save their lives.

I said:

Linux made more attractive, foolproof and automated would be... Windows.

Graf Zahl said:

It may be nice for experienced users like you but even if you got it to work for anyone with the average experience of a Windows user (i.e. they don't know much about the inner workings of computers) you get the same problems as with Windows.

ActiveX in IE anyone? Hiding known extensions anyone?
It’s the opposite: it’s because it’s very hard to understand a thing in Windows that it’s so hard to protect. And no, you don’t have the same problems. In six years, I never had a single malware in my machine, and I’m no security guru. I only recently installed some anti-ssh intrusion system, and learned a bit about firewalls and rootkit hunters.

And if there was a larger user base you'd have the same malware problems.

No. Try to execute something in a Linux or Unix box from the internet, just through the browser. Which browser? Konqueror, Galeon, Mozilla, Firefox, Links, Dillo? And try to open a backdoor, with or without the browser.
Yes, there are some viruses and rootkits, and no system is 100% secure, but Unix’s diversity protects it against such malware. It’s the same thing when a peasant grows 10 sorts of vegetables. Every year, one of them can be eaten (moistures, bugs, whatever…), but the other 9 are in his stomach. If he grows only one spieces, he is sure to eat nothing one year. Diversity is the best protection against (0\/\/b0`/5.

The only reason Windows is attacked so frequently is the large amount of installed systems, not the specific problems of it.

Yes, this helps but it’s not the only reason. Others are:
* the faulty default configuration
* the uniformity of the bugs and faults
* the uniformity of the software
* the lack of a serious users and rights policy

I seriously doubt that Linux is as secure as you claim.

It’s not only Linux but Unix, and open source software. For example, take a look at the top 100 uptimes, Unix is first, then sometimes Linux, and rarely Windows. Unix is used from a long time in universities, it’s not because of some Linux-hype (I’m very glad that mine uses FreeBSD because I can fish:/ with Konqueror from their machines to mine).

There's just not enough motivation to find them.

Of course!
A Windows pirate needs just to download ready-made scripts.
A Linux pirate needs an account on someonre else’s machine or a specific bug (this version of this application, using this version of this library or this kernel). Good luck, these bugs may be patched for years.

Bucket said:
Linux made more attractive, foolproof and automated would be... Windows.

More so if that guy said it like that. And now I know why you knew him... his stupidity must have prompted you to crack his skull and hide him somewhere!

You're arguing for diversity which is the bane of widespread piracy, and I can't argue with that. If everyone uses a different browser and kernel configuration, sure-- no script kiddie is getting into your machine without knowing your particular setup beforehand. On the other end of the spectrum, everyone might as well use the same admin password.

An internet browser can insulate an ActiveX module to hinder access to system functions, but you have to realize that MS's deep integration of IE into the platform is not because it just happened that way and they're too lazy to change it. As HILARIOUS as it is to entertain the idea, there are no primates working at MS. They are, in fact, following a business/software model.

More so if that guy said it like that. And now I know why you knew him... his stupidity must have prompted you to crack his skull and hide him somewhere!

Well, those weren't his exact words, but you know how those OSS hippies are.

ducon said:

ActiveX in IE anyone? Hiding known extensions anyone?
It’s the opposite: it’s because it’s very hard to understand a thing in Windows that it’s so hard to protect. And no, you don’t have the same problems. In six years, I never had a single malware in my machine, and I’m no security guru. I only recently installed some anti-ssh intrusion system, and learned a bit about firewalls and rootkit hunters.

I haven't had a single case of malware either - despite using Windows. You can argue as much as you like, the fact remains that Linux is mostly used by more experienced users. If the general public used it you can be absolutely certain that they will do the things that make their systems vulnerable. Most computers aren't attacked because their owners use Windows. They are attacked because their users are stupid. Case in point: Sasser. The vulnerability this worm exploited was fixed weeks before it was unleashed - but tell me why it still was able to do the damage it did?

ducon said:

Of course!
A Windows pirate needs just to download ready-made scripts.
A Linux pirate needs an account on someonre else’s machine or a specific bug (this version of this application, using this version of this library or this kernel). Good luck, these bugs may be patched for years.

Don't tell me that those who want to won't be able to break into some moron's system. You will always find a computer not protected enough to achieve that.

ducon said:

Give Windows to a long time Mac user, he will be lost too.
Seriously, the Windows file hierarchy is NOT intuitive, it’s a total mess.

I needed to install firmware for my ADSL modem so I can use my internet connection. I still haven't installed with because I don't know where the bloody hell to put the files. In Windows, I would know instantly to put them into System32.

TheDarkArchon said:
In Windows, I would know instantly to put them into System32.

Unless you're new to Windows that doesn't show it's intuitive, unless its "intuitive" nature refers to the fact that people are more used to Windows (because they've been using it for years.) I could argue I find Windows XP somewhat unintuitive because I generally use Windows 98, but I'm simply a bit less familiar where all the Windows XP settings and programs are (though it does suck if one doesn't disable a ton of "let me help you because you're an idiot" features that slow one down.)

In any case, Windows does try to simplify things when Linux tries to leave more factors under your control. That naturally makes Linux more complex to use, or at least set up, but also potentially much more manageable.

Graf Zahl said:

I haven't had a single case of malware either - despite using Windows.

Because you are an experienced Windows user. The Windows machines at work I manage are also not malwared, even if I refused the XPSP2.

Case in point: Sasser. The vulnerability this worm exploited was fixed weeks before it was unleashed - but tell me why it still was able to do the damage it did?

I installed Debian testing in a friend’s machine. He’s a Linux n00b and a computer n00b too (not a newbie, but a n00b, in french we say “neuneu”), even if he tried Mandrake before. I do the upgrades approximately each week. Guess what? His machine is clean. When he used Mandrake 10.1 until last month, his machine was NOT updated. Guess what? His Mandrake was clean too (but buggy).

Graf Zahl said:

They are attacked because their users are stupid.

I think ignorant or negligent would be a better word. It's not much different than maintaining your car, though if you don't maintain your car it's not a chance of going boom, it will go boom.

ducon said:

I installed Debian testing in a friend’s machine. He’s a Linux n00b and a computer n00b too (not a newbie, but a n00b, in french we say “neuneu”), even if he tried Mandrake before. I do the upgrades approximately each week. Guess what? His machine is clean. When he used Mandrake 10.1 until last month, his machine was NOT updated. Guess what? His Mandrake was clean too (but buggy).

Yes, because the market share of Linux is so small that noone is developing malware for it. If suddenly Linux were to explode to being on a majority of personal computers, malware writers would redirect their attentions and I'm sure tons of crap would start popping up on Linux machines.

ducon said:

As long as the average user has been formatted to Windows and it non-intuitive interface, OK Linux won’t be intuitive. Give Windows to a long time Mac user, he will be lost too.
Seriously, the Windows file hierarchy is NOT intuitive, it’s a total mess. Securizing and managing Windows just a little is NOT intuitive (I don’t need 20 protections for my Linux box before an internet connexion, and I don’t get infected without).

I don't need 20 protections, either. And I don't get infected without them. Either. Jumping from DOS and Windows 3.11 (which I fucking LOATHED - Windows 3.XX, I mean), I found Windows 95 very, very easy to get into. Sorry man, you lose.

Going from Windows to Linux at work as a little experiment (we were using Lindows)...that was just brutal. The file manager and the way it worked was more frustrating than when I first putzed around with Symbian S60 for my Nokia smartphone. And I'm still learning how that OS works, and it's being constantly updated (so much so that I need to send my phone in before the warranty is up for a final upgrade).

Also, you also knew what version to get. There are a million different versions of Linux because it's an open-source OS. To match the software with the person, you still have to know what you're looking for. So there the Linux users are, right back at square one with their own argument. The trial and error required with that OS to FIND something user friendly, and the time required to install, uninstall and reinstall ad nauseum is totally unrealistic and unfair to expect from your average computer user.

And I say this as a technician, not just as someone with a bias against Linux. I have no MSCSE's, I don't have Gate's money in my back pocket, but I certainly think of my customers first. Linux is STILL not a reasonable solution for the average user who needs to get from point A to point B with as little frustration as possible. Again, unless you know EXACTLY what you're looking for, and for whom, it's no good.

I personally am not going to go on a wild goosechase for this. And I won't send my customers on one either, especially when they have their own licenses.

pilottobombadier said:

I don't need 20 protections, either. And I don't get infected without them. Either.

20 was a joke number, I know that it’s near 3.

Jumping from DOS and Windows 3.11 (which I fucking LOATHED - Windows 3.XX, I mean), I found Windows 95 very, very easy to get into. Sorry man, you lose.

You found that 95 was easy because you were already used to Windows and because you were already unn00bed. I still find that Windows is a hard OS, whatever it seems to be.

Going from Windows to Linux at work as a little experiment (we were using Lindows)...that was just brutal.

Going from Linux to Windows is brutal too:
* “Grr, how can I easily upgrade the entire set of applications and librairies?”
* “How can I know what Photoshop (damn, €1000) installed in my box?”
* “Grr, What’s that mess with A:, D: and C:?”
* “Grr, why can the average user delete important files in C:\windows\ and even C:\boot.ini?”
* “What the HELL is that register?”
* “Grr, where is /etc/?”
* “What, I need 4 anti-malwares, and I need to pay?”
* “Grr, where is the multi-desktop?”
* “Aaaaargh, is THAT a terminal emulator and a shell?”

Also, you also knew what version to get. There are a million different versions of Linux because it's an open-source OS. To match the software with the person, you still have to know what you're looking for. So there the Linux users are, right back at square one with their own argument.

At least you can find what you want, and even make waht you want. With Windows, Microsoft has made the choice for you, as if you were not enough intelligent to know what you want. All you can chose is SP2 or SP1. Bah. The world of non-Windows OS is very alive. People want diversity and OSs that fit their needs.

The trial and error required with that OS to FIND something user friendly, and the time required to install, uninstall and reinstall ad nauseum is totally unrealistic and unfair to expect from your average computer user.

What are you trying to say? I installed my testing last year (when it was still Sarge), and upgraded it nearly each day. I’m not installing a distribution a day. Nobody is doing that.
A Linux newbie first asks a Linux forum or a friend and gets advises here. He does not need to try the thousand differents distributions, generally Mandriva or (K)Ubuntu are enough for a good start.
I repeat: I installed Mandrake 10.1 for a friend last summer, he was happy but wanted something a bit more stable. I installed Debian testing and I think he won’t change.

Again, unless you know EXACTLY what you're looking for, and for whom, it's no good.

The problem with Windows, is that you don’t know what it is doing.

pilottobombadier said:

(we were using Lindows)

Lindows is the worst distribution I have ever tried. No wonder you have a bad impression of linux.

Dr. Zin said:
Yes, because the market share of Linux is so small that noone is developing malware for it. If suddenly Linux were to explode to being on a majority of personal computers, malware writers would redirect their attentions and I'm sure tons of crap would start popping up on Linux machines.

Same with Windows 98... if you know how to use it and you updated it (you need to do it like only once ever), there's no need for a firewall or anti-virus software (the only thing that could happen id that a rogue hacker could get in, but that's extremely rare, compared to malware attacks, although you still need something like Spybot for IE).

There is also an additional (double) incentive for hacking Windows and exploiting it; it's made for profit by a company with a monopoly-like hegemony, and it's annally closed.

Dr. Zin said:

Yes, because the market share of Linux is so small that noone is developing malware for it. If suddenly Linux were to explode to being on a majority of personal computers, malware writers would redirect their attentions and I'm sure tons of crap would start popping up on Linux machines.

I have to agree with this statement: Security through obscurity doesn't work because those determined enough to find a way to cause havok will regardless.

TheDarkArchon said:
I have to agree with this statement: Security through obscurity doesn't work because those determined enough to find a way to cause havok will regardless.

This is quite pointless point, though; if a Linux kernel were more widespread more security-related testing would go with its development, so issues that might not have been considered in a context of less usage would be dealt with more thoroughly. And as far as obscurity goes, there's nothing more obscure than a program with a closed source, anyway.