Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>> "PeterKöhlmann" . wrote in message
>> news:fjrt2r$g5a$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ian Thompson-Bell" <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:fjrj0t$1rq1$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>> You can disassemble it if you want.. its been done before.
>>>>>> That doesn't require the source and is probably the only way to be
>>>>>> sure of what something does.
>>>>>> The snag is some things are very difficult to understand when they are
>>>>>> disassembled so it doesn't get done often, especially if the "source"
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its just another argument against the open source cures everything
>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>> There is no such argument. There is an argument that says open source
>>>>> is better than closed source.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are good reasons to support open source.. being secure and bug
>>>>>> free are not amongst them.
>>>>> No complex software is totally secure and bug free. The question is the
>>>>> degree to which it is so, and the speed with which bugs/holes are
>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Experience shows that despite the source being available for everyone
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> examine open source stuff still ships with bugs and security holes.
>>>>> You miss the point Dennis. Open source never has claimed to be bug and
>>>>> hole free.
>>>> I know open source hasn't, however there are a lot of Linux users that
>>>> do claim that.
>>> Then it should be a piece of cake for you to prove that.
>> Prove what?
>
> "I know open source hasn't, however there are a lot of Linux users that
> do claim that"
>
> *Your* claim. Now provide proof for it
>
>> You have claimed Linux to be secure in the past
>
> Would you be so kind as to provide "proof" for that claim also
> Msg-ID will do just fine
>
>> so that is enough proof on its own.
>
> It is. When you will provide Msg-ID for that claim of *yours*
>
>
>>> Come on, cretinous liar, provide the Msg-IDs.
>> Even you should be able to remember what you said.. if not learn Google.
>
>
> Ah Yes. You claim something imbecile (as you are a Vista luser)
> So to prove you wrong people should do google-searches?
>
> Why not instead *you* provide google-searches which prove you right?
> Just because it is impossible you think that you should be proven wrong on
> every small thing?
>
>
>>>> I know open source hasn't, however there are a lot of Linux users that
>>>> do claim th
>>> You might ask Hadron Quark to give you a hand
>>>
>>>> Some of them are here and will be along with the insults soon.
>>> Certainly. *After* you prove your lies, imbecile Vista luser
>> See I was right, as proved by you.
>
> Yes. I did ask you to provide any shred of proof for your imbecile stance.
>
Peter,
I think it is time to admit that newer Linux versions are acceptable
enough to the general public to be a real challenge to Microsoft - for
"Many" users something like Ubuntu will do "Most" of what they want or
need at less cost, and just as reliably. Windows beats the hell out of
it for games, that's because the authors don't yet write for Linux, but
demand can change that almost overnight. It's kinda pointless arguing
against the "Linux is worthless" crowd because they simply have their
heads in a dark place and in the end will do more harm to Microsoft than
anyone else.
Example, I have a few old W98 boxes that are officially trashed but
which come in useful for small offices where folks occasionally place
web based orders etc. No way is it worth paying for software, the
original disks are long gone, I cannot purchase XP and company policy
prohibits use of 98 for security reasons. I "Could" install pirate
copies of XP which really would not "Hurt" Microsoft - we are never
going to buy it anyway and so on - but of course I will not do that,
instead they run Debian with the standard Gnome desktop because the
hardware just about copes with it. None, (and I mean none) of the folks
who use them have ever complained, they have never hit problems using
them and so we have a bit more convenience at zero cost. In fact the
only question anyone has asked is "What did it cost" - well, nothing.
Sure, this has nothing to do with Vista, but in fact it does have
something of relevance for Microsoft and all their future operating
systems, they are no longer indispensable. There is no objectionable
WGA/WPA to bother about, the machines sit quietly in a corner doing
their jobs and the users are happy. Nobody misses the games, we are at
work after all, so where newer Windows versions are causing machines to
become obsolete, Linux is recycling them. I have to say recycling them
with no hassle and zero cost. The problem I see this creating for
Microsoft is that more and more people are learning that there are
perfectly viable alternatives, and no matter how much preaching is done
about Windows / Vista or whatever these people will recognize it for
what it is, call it the fanboy syndrome if you like.
I'm sure that some will see my comments as somehow disloyal to
Microsoft, it's not that at all, we have a responsibility to Microsoft's
customers to keep things honest. My choice in the above example was to
throw away perfectly usable hardware, steal Windows or go the honest
route and use open source. The problem for Microsoft is would they
"Really" prefer to see XP on every desktop in our small company or are
they happy to see something else. In reality we run a W2003 server so
the RDP client, when it is used "Looks like" Windows anyway, but I
wonder how many more small time business users like me are doing the
same, by choice I'd have stuck with XP because all our people know it,
but I had no choice and found that changing to Linux has created zero
problems, If I hadn't been forced I would probably never have known or
cared that ordinary users would accept it so easily.
So I think Microsoft's appearance of being a bit "Heavy Handed" over
piracy issues and so on is kinda "Justified" but nevertheless a bit
dangerous for them also. I also think the changes to methodology in
Vista have imposed a learning curve at least as steep as changing to
Ubuntu, Debian is maybe a bit less "Friendly" but hey, it was me who had
to set that up so no users were bothered either way.
Personally I think competition is good, and I am pleased to see open
source doing well and I would like to see Microsoft doing well, and both
teams doing so honestly. I don't care if Apple and Microsoft want to
play dirty against each other, that's business, but I don't like to see
FUD, lies and garbage thrown around just because there's a bit of
genuine competition
I do think Microsoft need to think carefully
about these issues, very carefully, because if change does come it may
do so like an avalanche, with not much provocation and an lot of
inertia. Sorry is anyone doesn't like my opinion, and I may be judging
things wrong, but at this point in time that's how I see things.