Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Adam Albright wrote:

 

>

>

> Lets look at the flip side. I BOUGHT my computer. It belongs to ME.

 

Yeah, but most of the software doesn't...you idiot!

> Microsoft has no business snooping around on my computer for any

> reason or installing it's crap without telling me or deciding when it

> should phone home to report it checked up on me.

 

You agreed to let them do that didn't you? Or did you steal the

software, huh?

 

Most laughable of all

> the idiots at Microsoft have absolutely no legal basis to mark

> anybody's copy of Vista as counterfeit, yet they did that to who knows

> how many people recently due to sheer negligence and gross stupidity

> on their part.

 

Yeah, you tell'em!

 

Duh!

 

Duh, duh!

>

> Still thought you should be reminded what your supporting.

 

What we all are using you moron.

They support me!

Frank

Mrs. Alias wrote:

> The Erwin Moller Syndrome is a term used when a person has certain

> limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,

> taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will

> cause a poster to learn and develop more slowly than a typical poster.

> People with Erwin Moller Syndrome may take longer to learn

> to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or

> eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school, and posting to

> Microsoft newsgroups. They will learn, but it will take them longer. There

> may be some things they cannot learn. They keep trying.

>

> Just FYI.

>

 

Thanks for your not-so-original evasion.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, why troll around?

 

Dive into the arguments I used, or if you must troll: try something new

and original. This <insert name>Syndrome thing is really boring and old,

allthough I must admit I laughed about it the first time I saw it (15

years ago).

 

Erwin Moller

Re: Eriwin's problem

 

Mrs. Alias wrote:

> The Erwin Moller Syndrome is a term used when a person has certain

> limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,

> taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will

> cause a poster to learn and develop more slowly than a typical poster.

> People with Erwin Moller Syndrome may take longer to learn

> to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or

> eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school, and posting to

> Microsoft newsgroups. They will learn, but it will take them longer. There

> may be some things they cannot learn. They keep trying.

>

> Just FYI.

 

 

Didn't you post this same great original stale joke allready??

Stop wasting bandwidth and get a job or something.

You are behaving like a six year old who just lost his chocolatebar.

 

Erwin Moller

Bill Yanaire wrote:

> "Erwin Moller"

> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

> message news:46e994e5$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>> Bruce Chambers wrote:

>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Alias, what's to stop any Linux distro from doing the same thing?

>>>>

>>>

>>> Actually, Ubuntu's ability and practice of doing just that are one of

>>> the "advantages" Alias hypocritically boasts about in his many pro-Ubuntu

>>> proselytizing posts.

>>>

>>>

>> Michael and Bruce, you don't see what the problem is.

>> The problem with M$ is simply they are installing stuff on your computer

>> and you have no CLUE what it is or what is does.

>

> And you have no clue how Microsoft operates. Just another fanboy.

>> If you REALLY wanted to know you should try to reverse engineer the

>> binaries, which are probably hopelessly obfuscated.

>

> Oh yea, people are really going to take the time and reverse engineer

> hundreds of DLL's and executables to see what is going on. Get a life.

 

Bill, if you cannot even follow an argument, don't try to give a 'smart'

response.

 

My point was excactly that you cannot reverse engineer what M$ delivers

to you computer, so it is hard to know WHAT it is.

 

I am really surprised you retire in six years.

You must be one of the slowest people around.

Neat trick they learned you to operate a computer.

 

>> With Ubuntu you can ALWAYS look at the sourcecode, written in clear C most

>> of the time.

>

> You probably would do something like that as you have no life.

 

No life?

Well some people like to develop on packages or the kernel or whatever.

That is how GNU and Linux came around in the first place: computer

enthousiasts.

 

But I think this is beyound your grasp, and won't fit in your definition

of 'a life'.

 

>> The bottomline is you can control WHAT is going on in the new software. In

>> windows you can never.

>>

>> That is a very big diff.

>>

>> Regards,

>> Erwin

> By the way, you still are a douche bag. Try being civil or is that out of

> your scope?

 

Dear Bill, I merely copy your lack of style.

How can you call me a douce bag and ask me to be civil in the next sentence?

 

Your 'logic' keeps eluding me.

 

But lets face it: I don't think we are enjoying ourselfs having this

'conversation', do we?

 

So you go back please to do what you are best at: trolling around.

Then I will go back coding some usefull application today.

OK?

 

Erwin MOller

Michael Solomon wrote:

>

>

> "Erwin Moller"

> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

> message news:46e994e5$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>> Bruce Chambers wrote:

>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Alias, what's to stop any Linux distro from doing the same thing?

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Actually, Ubuntu's ability and practice of doing just that are

>>> one of the "advantages" Alias hypocritically boasts about in his many

>>> pro-Ubuntu proselytizing posts.

>>>

>>>

>>

>> Michael and Bruce, you don't see what the problem is.

>> The problem with M$ is simply they are installing stuff on your

>> computer and you have no CLUE what it is or what is does.

>>

>> If you REALLY wanted to know you should try to reverse engineer the

>> binaries, which are probably hopelessly obfuscated.

>>

>> With Ubuntu you can ALWAYS look at the sourcecode, written in clear C

>> most of the time.

>>

>> The bottomline is you can control WHAT is going on in the new

>> software. In windows you can never.

>>

>> That is a very big diff.

>>

>> Regards,

>> Erwin

> I understand perfectly, Erwin, and I don't like it.

>

> My point is, the same thing can happen with Linux,

>

> Reverse engineer the source code?

 

 

No of course not.

No need to reverse engineer source code: It is right in your face.

I was talking about M$ binaries that are distributed: If you want to

understand what they do you'll have to reverse engineer/decompile/etc.

 

Since Ubuntu is totally open, you have access to the source code.

 

If you don't trust it can of course compile it and compare it to

precompiled files by Ubuntu. You will find out they are the same.

 

 

I assume from that you are implying

> that anyone using a Linux distro has the ability to do that. I haven't

> conducted a poll or tested the majority of users but I seriously doubt

> the average computer user has that ability.

 

This is NOT about the avarage Joe.

Avarage Joe don't even know what compiling is, or source code.

 

Point is that those people who CAN judge it (= read source code and

compile the stuff) can check what is in the code.

If they is spyware hidden in it, it will be big news all over the net in

a day or 2.

 

With the obfuscated M$ binaries, you will never ever have a clue what it

does.

 

 

And, all things being

> equal, the example states this is being done without the knowledge of

> the user, hence, they wouldn't even know when it happens so even if they

> had the ability to reverse engineer the code they wouldn't do it because

> the code was changed without their knowledge. If the same happened on a

> Linux distro, they wouldn't know either.

 

 

Yes, you would know quickly enough.

Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring alarmbells

is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every GNU/Linux distro

for that matter).

 

This is a HUGE difference.

 

 

Regards,

Erwin Moller

Leythos wrote:

> In article <46e994e5$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,

> Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com says...

>> The problem with M$ is simply they are installing stuff on your computer

>> and you have no CLUE what it is or what is does.

>

> And the same is true for any OS for most users. Alias has no idea what

> actually installed on his computer, not even a real clue. Sure, he knows

> the names (if he takes time to read) of the packages and apps, but he

> doesn't have a clue as to what they really do on the computer.

>

> Now, you can claim that O/S is reviewed by thousands, that the community

> would not stand for xyz, but the fact is that exploits in many

> Unix/Linux apps exist - just a google search will show this.

>

> Don't claim that windows is somehow screwing you, you don't have a clue

> what is running on your linux box.

>

 

Leythos,

 

I have been using different distros for over 8 years now, and I admit

that I have NEVER SEEN 99% or more of the source code.

So of course you are right there.

 

I seriously doubt there is anybody on this planet that studied ALL the

sourcecode used to compile Ubuntu for example.

It is simply not possible for a human to oversee it all AND have a

detailed knowledge of each module/package.

 

The bottomline (for me) is the fact that there are ALWAYS people around

that do study some parts.

So trying to slip in some backdoor will come to light sooner or later.

 

About the argument that bugs/vunerabilities are easily found when seeing

the sourcecode: True.

And that is excactly the reason why GNU/LINUX is hefty superior to M$

product when it comes to stability and security.

Simply because everybody can study the code and fix it, or tell people

who can fix it about the bugs.

 

So this openness is (and have been for many years) increasing the

quality of the code.

 

And yes, i love Richard Stallman too. :-)

 

Regards,

Erwin Moller

Re: Your Problem

 

Mrs. Alias wrote:

> The Erwin Moller Syndrome is a term used when a person has certain

> limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,

> taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will

> cause a poster to learn and develop more slowly than a typical poster.

> People with Erwin Moller Syndrome may take longer to learn

> to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or

> eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school, and posting to

> Microsoft newsgroups. They will learn, but it will take them longer. There

> may be some things they cannot learn. They keep trying.

>

> Just FYI.

>

 

 

Again the same posting?

 

Are you being paid per word by M$?

 

Erwin Moller

Slobber Mouth *Albright* wrote:

> NoStop wrote:

>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>> news:XxhGi.168371$rX4.130486@pd7urf2no...

>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> A little scary that MicroSquish is updating files without our express

>>>>> permission. I don't think they are spying on us and if they are so

>>>>> what? Are they going to see a bunch posts to the vista.general

>>>>> group and

>>>>> get a laugh out of the content?

>>>>>

>>>> Why shouldn't they do it? After all, Windoze is their operating system

>>>> and they are simply leasing it to you. They own it, you don't. You have

>>>> only purchased the license. hehehe. They aren't changing the license

>>>> behind your

>>>> back, but then again, maybe their EULA allows them to make changes

>>>> to the

>>>> license at any time? It'll be interesting to see what changes did

>>>> happen

>>>> with those files. I'm sure someone is going to decompile them and find

>>>> out. :-)

>>>>

>>>> Cheers.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

>>>>

>>>> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

>>>>

>>>> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

>>>> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

>>>>

>>>>

>>> If you're an IT department with your code locked down for compatibility

>>> and stability reasons and you are responsible for multiple desktops,

>>> this

>>> kind of story has to make you shudder just a bit.

>>>

>> I would certainly think so!

>>

>> Cheers.

>>

>

> <Hey Nostop, about your Google crap, M$ is walking down Linux, and M$

> has been doing so for a few months and will over take Linux. <g>>

>

> <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html>

>

>

 

In case you don't know: netcraft is OWNED by M$.

Reliable source of information you got...

 

Erwin Moller

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>>

>> I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>> paid for.

>>

>

> Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software, you've

> only leased the option to use it.

 

So says Redmond. I don't agree. I paid for it and it's in my house and

therefore it's mine to do with what I choose.

> And one other thing, you "own" that POS toy os ubuntu you're so

> fanatical about.

>

>>> It isn't being done surreptitiously...but you can't get that fact

>>> thru your thick head can you?

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> It is, Frank. Read the article if your attention span can handle it.

>

> I take it you either didn't read the article or else you didn't

> comprehend what you read.

> It seems that you're starting to get dumber as time goes on? Are you on

> some kind of medication or what?

> Frank

 

Replying to content with an unfounded insult is smart? I know you think

so but it's one of the most amateurish forms of debate.

 

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ea3dfb$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Yes, you would know quickly enough.

> Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring alarmbells

> is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every GNU/Linux distro for

> that matter).

>

> This is a HUGE difference.

 

The past says that is just not true.

If it were true there would be no bugs, and they have existed and still

exist in open source code.

If all those people can't spot the bugs why would you expect them to spot

any other code?

What you say is a nice idea but just doesn't work.

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Erwin Moller"

> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

> message news:46ea3dfb$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>

>> Yes, you would know quickly enough.

>> Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring

>> alarmbells is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every

>> GNU/Linux distro for that matter).

>>

>> This is a HUGE difference.

>

> The past says that is just not true.

 

???

> If it were true there would be no bugs, and they have existed and still

> exist in open source code.

 

How do you conclude that there are NO bugs if a few people look at the

open source code?

I am not claiming GNU/Linux contains no bugs. Of course it does!

 

I am only saying that the nature of the process (of open sourcecode )

makes it almost impossible to put in stealthy/spylike stuff.

Sooner or later somebody will discover this.

In many cases: sooner.

 

> If all those people can't spot the bugs why would you expect them to

> spot any other code?

> What you say is a nice idea but just doesn't work.

 

Just doesn't work?

GNU/Linux doesn't work?

well.....

I don't see how you come to this conclusion.

 

A few of the finest peices of software were developed in this way.

To name a few: Apache, linux-kernels, Gimp.

 

Microsoft, of course, has many good programmers on their payroll, but

they are only checked/controlled by other Microsoft programmers.

With Free Software, everybody in the world who cares checks the

sourcecode. You cannot compete against that when it comes to quality.

 

Regards,

Erwin Moller

* Erwin Moller:

> Slobber Mouth *Albright* wrote:

>> NoStop wrote:

>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>

>>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:XxhGi.168371$rX4.130486@pd7urf2no...

>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> A little scary that MicroSquish is updating files without our express

>>>>>> permission. I don't think they are spying on us and if they are so

>>>>>> what? Are they going to see a bunch posts to the vista.general

>>>>>> group and

>>>>>> get a laugh out of the content?

>>>>>>

>>>>> Why shouldn't they do it? After all, Windoze is their operating system

>>>>> and they are simply leasing it to you. They own it, you don't. You have

>>>>> only purchased the license. hehehe. They aren't changing the license

>>>>> behind your

>>>>> back, but then again, maybe their EULA allows them to make changes

>>>>> to the

>>>>> license at any time? It'll be interesting to see what changes did

>>>>> happen

>>>>> with those files. I'm sure someone is going to decompile them and find

>>>>> out. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

>>>>>

>>>>> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

>>>>>

>>>>> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

>>>>> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> If you're an IT department with your code locked down for compatibility

>>>> and stability reasons and you are responsible for multiple desktops,

>>>> this

>>>> kind of story has to make you shudder just a bit.

>>>>

>>> I would certainly think so!

>>>

>>> Cheers.

>>>

>> <Hey Nostop, about your Google crap, M$ is walking down Linux, and M$

>> has been doing so for a few months and will over take Linux. <g>>

>>

>> <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html>

>

> In case you don't know: netcraft is OWNED by M$.

> Reliable source of information you got...

 

No, Netcraft is not owned by Microsoft.

Netcraft isn't based in the US, either.

However, some in the Linux community think they are

or would like to believe they are because they don't

like Netcraft's statistical conclusions. Some question

their methodology.

 

http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000271

 

 

-Michael

MICHAEL wrote:

> * Erwin Moller:

>> Slobber Mouth *Albright* wrote:

>>> NoStop wrote:

>>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:XxhGi.168371$rX4.130486@pd7urf2no...

>>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> A little scary that MicroSquish is updating files without our express

>>>>>>> permission. I don't think they are spying on us and if they are so

>>>>>>> what? Are they going to see a bunch posts to the vista.general

>>>>>>> group and

>>>>>>> get a laugh out of the content?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why shouldn't they do it? After all, Windoze is their operating system

>>>>>> and they are simply leasing it to you. They own it, you don't. You have

>>>>>> only purchased the license. hehehe. They aren't changing the license

>>>>>> behind your

>>>>>> back, but then again, maybe their EULA allows them to make changes

>>>>>> to the

>>>>>> license at any time? It'll be interesting to see what changes did

>>>>>> happen

>>>>>> with those files. I'm sure someone is going to decompile them and find

>>>>>> out. :-)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

>>>>>> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>> If you're an IT department with your code locked down for compatibility

>>>>> and stability reasons and you are responsible for multiple desktops,

>>>>> this

>>>>> kind of story has to make you shudder just a bit.

>>>>>

>>>> I would certainly think so!

>>>>

>>>> Cheers.

>>>>

>>> <Hey Nostop, about your Google crap, M$ is walking down Linux, and M$

>>> has been doing so for a few months and will over take Linux. <g>>

>>>

>>> <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html>

>

>> In case you don't know: netcraft is OWNED by M$.

>> Reliable source of information you got...

>

> No, Netcraft is not owned by Microsoft.

> Netcraft isn't based in the US, either.

> However, some in the Linux community think they are

> or would like to believe they are because they don't

> like Netcraft's statistical conclusions. Some question

> their methodology.

>

> http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000271

>

>

> -Michael

 

Hi Michael,

 

Yes, I know that article. My statement that Netcraft is owned by M$ was

over the top/false, I know, but something is very smelly about the

Netcraft stats.

 

Considering Microsofts long list of manipulations of statistics, the

Netcrafts statistics really starts to smell.

 

What is most suspicious (to me) is the fact that Security Space has

completely different result, and their method of indexing makes sense.

Counting only sites that have at least one link from another well-known

site, thus excluding stupid (Google)farm sites.

 

Well, you read the article (and comments) yourself I guess. :)

 

Anyway, as an oldfart webdeveloper I found that Apache is vastly

superior to IIS(6/7), both in performance and stability. Not to mention

security. -)

 

Regards,

Erwin Moller

* Erwin Moller:

> MICHAEL wrote:

>> * Erwin Moller:

>>> Slobber Mouth *Albright* wrote:

>>>> NoStop wrote:

>>>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:XxhGi.168371$rX4.130486@pd7urf2no...

>>>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> A little scary that MicroSquish is updating files without our express

>>>>>>>> permission. I don't think they are spying on us and if they are so

>>>>>>>> what? Are they going to see a bunch posts to the vista.general

>>>>>>>> group and

>>>>>>>> get a laugh out of the content?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why shouldn't they do it? After all, Windoze is their operating system

>>>>>>> and they are simply leasing it to you. They own it, you don't. You have

>>>>>>> only purchased the license. hehehe. They aren't changing the license

>>>>>>> behind your

>>>>>>> back, but then again, maybe their EULA allows them to make changes

>>>>>>> to the

>>>>>>> license at any time? It'll be interesting to see what changes did

>>>>>>> happen

>>>>>>> with those files. I'm sure someone is going to decompile them and find

>>>>>>> out. :-)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

>>>>>>> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you're an IT department with your code locked down for compatibility

>>>>>> and stability reasons and you are responsible for multiple desktops,

>>>>>> this

>>>>>> kind of story has to make you shudder just a bit.

>>>>>>

>>>>> I would certainly think so!

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>

>>>> <Hey Nostop, about your Google crap, M$ is walking down Linux, and M$

>>>> has been doing so for a few months and will over take Linux. <g>>

>>>>

>>>> <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html>

>>> In case you don't know: netcraft is OWNED by M$.

>>> Reliable source of information you got...

>> No, Netcraft is not owned by Microsoft.

>> Netcraft isn't based in the US, either.

>> However, some in the Linux community think they are

>> or would like to believe they are because they don't

>> like Netcraft's statistical conclusions. Some question

>> their methodology.

>>

>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000271

>>

>>

>> -Michael

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> Yes, I know that article. My statement that Netcraft is owned by M$ was

> over the top/false, I know, but something is very smelly about the

> Netcraft stats.

 

There does seem to be quite a difference between Netcraft

and Security Space.

> Considering Microsofts long list of manipulations of statistics, the

> Netcrafts statistics really starts to smell.

 

While I would not put anything past Microsoft, I'm not sure

what Netcraft would have to gain and/or has received from

Microsoft.

> What is most suspicious (to me) is the fact that Security Space has

> completely different result, and their method of indexing makes sense.

> Counting only sites that have at least one link from another well-known

> site, thus excluding stupid (Google)farm sites.

>

> Well, you read the article (and comments) yourself I guess. :)

 

I did, hard for me to come to any solid conclusion.

> Anyway, as an oldfart webdeveloper I found that Apache is vastly

> superior to IIS(6/7), both in performance and stability. Not to mention

> security. -)

 

That's what I've always heard, and you may be right.

Although, I do know a couple of guys who use Windows

Server 2003 and absolutely think it's great.

 

 

Take care,

 

Michael

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:14:57 +0200, Alias wrote:

> You can bet your sweet a$$ they do:

>

> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9036058&intsrc=hm_list

 

It might be your computer, but it's not your OS - if you run MS - read the

EULA!

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:49:05 -0600, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:14:57 +0200, Alias wrote:

>

>> You can bet your sweet a$$ they do:

>>

>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9036058&intsrc=hm_list

>

>It might be your computer, but it's not your OS - if you run MS - read the

>EULA!

 

More mind numbing stupidity from a typical fanboy. How sad.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

"Adam Albright" wrote news:ousje35clvokf8vkdv8rehfddjttrp5v9k@4ax.com...

> Frank wrote:

>>Alias wrote:

>>> I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>>> paid for.

>>

>>Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software, you've

>>only leased the option to use it.

>

> Lets look at the flip side. I BOUGHT my computer. It belongs to ME.

> Microsoft has no business snooping around on my computer for any

> reason or installing it's crap without telling me or deciding when it

> should phone home to report it checked up on me. Most laughable of all

> the idiots at Microsoft have absolutely no legal basis to mark

> anybody's copy of Vista as counterfeit, yet they did that to who knows

> how many people recently due to sheer negligence and gross stupidity

> on their part. Duh!

>

> Still thought you should be reminded what your supporting.

>

 

A- you bought the computer and leased the software, right?

B- you're still whining about WGA on your leased OS, right?

C- you're aware that Vista auto-updates by default, right?

D- you're aware that AV programs auto-update, right?

E- your whining in here isn't getting you anywhere, right?

 

Ok, so why don't you pay a lawyer to sue Microsoft, and go buy a full page

ad in every major newspaper, in every major city, in all 50 states,

explaining to everyone exactly what is wrong with the way Microsoft does

business, so you can actually educate the consumers before they spend

anymore money on Windows. Duh! As long as you just moan and groan in here

then nothing will ever be done about it. -)

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:02:36 -0400, <here@home.again> wrote:

>"Adam Albright" wrote news:ousje35clvokf8vkdv8rehfddjttrp5v9k@4ax.com...

>> Frank wrote:

>>>Alias wrote:

>>>> I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>>>> paid for.

>>>

>>>Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software, you've

>>>only leased the option to use it.

>>

>> Lets look at the flip side. I BOUGHT my computer. It belongs to ME.

>> Microsoft has no business snooping around on my computer for any

>> reason or installing it's crap without telling me or deciding when it

>> should phone home to report it checked up on me. Most laughable of all

>> the idiots at Microsoft have absolutely no legal basis to mark

>> anybody's copy of Vista as counterfeit, yet they did that to who knows

>> how many people recently due to sheer negligence and gross stupidity

>> on their part. Duh!

>>

>> Still thought you should be reminded what your supporting.

>>

>

>A- you bought the computer and leased the software, right?

>B- you're still whining about WGA on your leased OS, right?

>C- you're aware that Vista auto-updates by default, right?

>D- you're aware that AV programs auto-update, right?

>E- your whining in here isn't getting you anywhere, right?

 

I'm aware a lot of moronic dimwits post here and blindly defend

Microsoft no matter what. You're just one of many.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>>> paid for.

>>>

>>

>> Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software, you've

>> only leased the option to use it.

>

>

> So says Redmond.

 

Not really. I guess you're not aware of the fact that Redmond is a city

in Washington State, in the USA. Redmond has nothing to do with your

software. Microsoft, in their EULA, state that you've paid for the right

to use their software. You don't own it, period...like it or not.

 

I don't agree.

 

You don't agree with something that is factually correct and legally stated?

You do have problems don't you..."fringe" thinking maybe?

 

 

I paid for it and it's in my house and

> therefore it's mine to do with what I choose.

 

Oh really? That's a very telling, childish statement.

>

>> And one other thing, you "own" that POS toy os ubuntu you're so

>> fanatical about.

>>

>>>> It isn't being done surreptitiously...but you can't get that fact

>>>> thru your thick head can you?

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> It is, Frank. Read the article if your attention span can handle it.

>>

>>

>> I take it you either didn't read the article or else you didn't

>> comprehend what you read.

>> It seems that you're starting to get dumber as time goes on? Are you

>> on some kind of medication or what?

>> Frank

>

>

> Replying to content with an unfounded insult is smart?

 

Ut,ut,ut...don't try and dodge the content by changing the subject.

 

I know you think so but it's one of the most amateurish forms of debate.

 

Don't make me laugh! Who said we were having a "debate", huh? You reply

with childish bs arrogant answers and then have the audacity to say your

a real "debtor'!

That's a joke right?

Wake up pal...you're wrong and you're having a really difficult time

accepting or admitting it.

Frank

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ea87ee$0$230$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Erwin Moller"

>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

>> message news:46ea3dfb$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>

>>> Yes, you would know quickly enough.

>>> Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring alarmbells

>>> is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every GNU/Linux distro

>>> for that matter).

>>>

>>> This is a HUGE difference.

>>

>> The past says that is just not true.

>

> ???

>

>> If it were true there would be no bugs, and they have existed and still

>> exist in open source code.

>

> How do you conclude that there are NO bugs if a few people look at the

> open source code?

> I am not claiming GNU/Linux contains no bugs. Of course it does!

>

> I am only saying that the nature of the process (of open sourcecode )

> makes it almost impossible to put in stealthy/spylike stuff.

> Sooner or later somebody will discover this.

> In many cases: sooner.

 

Just as they found the bugs that are still there?

What you say doesn't fit with real life.

If these people really can exaimin the code and understand it they would

also find the bugs.. as you know they don't find the bugs so why do you have

so much faith in them finding a few lines of malicious code?

>

>

>> If all those people can't spot the bugs why would you expect them to spot

>> any other code?

>> What you say is a nice idea but just doesn't work.

>

> Just doesn't work?

> GNU/Linux doesn't work?

> well.....

> I don't see how you come to this conclusion.

 

I have explained it as simple as I know how above.

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ea3dfb$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Erwin Moller"

>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

>> message news:46e994e5$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>> Bruce Chambers wrote:

>>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>> Alias, what's to stop any Linux distro from doing the same thing?

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Actually, Ubuntu's ability and practice of doing just that are one

>>>> of the "advantages" Alias hypocritically boasts about in his many

>>>> pro-Ubuntu proselytizing posts.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Michael and Bruce, you don't see what the problem is.

>>> The problem with M$ is simply they are installing stuff on your computer

>>> and you have no CLUE what it is or what is does.

>>>

>>> If you REALLY wanted to know you should try to reverse engineer the

>>> binaries, which are probably hopelessly obfuscated.

>>>

>>> With Ubuntu you can ALWAYS look at the sourcecode, written in clear C

>>> most of the time.

>>>

>>> The bottomline is you can control WHAT is going on in the new software.

>>> In windows you can never.

>>>

>>> That is a very big diff.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> Erwin

>> I understand perfectly, Erwin, and I don't like it.

>>

>> My point is, the same thing can happen with Linux,

>>

>> Reverse engineer the source code?

>

>

> No of course not.

> No need to reverse engineer source code: It is right in your face.

> I was talking about M$ binaries that are distributed: If you want to

> understand what they do you'll have to reverse engineer/decompile/etc.

>

> Since Ubuntu is totally open, you have access to the source code.

>

> If you don't trust it can of course compile it and compare it to

> precompiled files by Ubuntu. You will find out they are the same.

>

>

> I assume from that you are implying

>> that anyone using a Linux distro has the ability to do that. I haven't

>> conducted a poll or tested the majority of users but I seriously doubt

>> the average computer user has that ability.

>

> This is NOT about the avarage Joe.

> Avarage Joe don't even know what compiling is, or source code.

>

> Point is that those people who CAN judge it (= read source code and

> compile the stuff) can check what is in the code.

> If they is spyware hidden in it, it will be big news all over the net in a

> day or 2.

>

> With the obfuscated M$ binaries, you will never ever have a clue what it

> does.

>

>

> And, all things being

>> equal, the example states this is being done without the knowledge of the

>> user, hence, they wouldn't even know when it happens so even if they had

>> the ability to reverse engineer the code they wouldn't do it because the

>> code was changed without their knowledge. If the same happened on a

>> Linux distro, they wouldn't know either.

>

>

> Yes, you would know quickly enough.

> Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring alarmbells

> is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every GNU/Linux distro for

> that matter).

>

> This is a HUGE difference.

>

>

> Regards,

> Erwin Moller

You've moved far afield from the original premise and it it was to that I

was addressing my comments.

 

"Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?" You've said nothing thus far

that tells us that Linux is any different or that it can't be done with

Linux. You mention a lot of things that could indeed be safeguards but even

pointing to the few who have the ability to view code and understand it, the

post was addressed to everybody and the subject impacts everyone, not just

some small cadre of coders. Further, the fact they are not specifically

employed to do this, they do it as a hobby, in their spare time, I consider

that as big or a bigger drawback than Microsoft coders checking on Microsoft

coders."

 

Of course, Microsoft coders checking on Microsoft coders are not going to do

anything about the situation mentioned in the OP. However, there's no

guarantee the cadre of Linux volunteers will find, notice or otherwise be

aware of the same exploit if used on a Linux setup.

 

--

Michael Solomon

Backup is a PC user's best friend

DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ea9023$0$244$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> MICHAEL wrote:

>> * Erwin Moller:

>>> Slobber Mouth *Albright* wrote:

>>>> NoStop wrote:

>>>>> Michael Solomon wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:XxhGi.168371$rX4.130486@pd7urf2no...

>>>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> A little scary that MicroSquish is updating files without our

>>>>>>>> express

>>>>>>>> permission. I don't think they are spying on us and if they are so

>>>>>>>> what? Are they going to see a bunch posts to the vista.general

>>>>>>>> group and

>>>>>>>> get a laugh out of the content?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why shouldn't they do it? After all, Windoze is their operating

>>>>>>> system

>>>>>>> and they are simply leasing it to you. They own it, you don't. You

>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>> only purchased the license. hehehe. They aren't changing the license

>>>>>>> behind your

>>>>>>> back, but then again, maybe their EULA allows them to make changes

>>>>>>> to the

>>>>>>> license at any time? It'll be interesting to see what changes did

>>>>>>> happen

>>>>>>> with those files. I'm sure someone is going to decompile them and

>>>>>>> find

>>>>>>> out. :-)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:

>>>>>>> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you're an IT department with your code locked down for

>>>>>> compatibility

>>>>>> and stability reasons and you are responsible for multiple desktops,

>>>>>> this

>>>>>> kind of story has to make you shudder just a bit.

>>>>>>

>>>>> I would certainly think so!

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>

>>>> <Hey Nostop, about your Google crap, M$ is walking down Linux, and M$

>>>> has been doing so for a few months and will over take Linux. <g>>

>>>>

>>>> <http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html>

>>

>>> In case you don't know: netcraft is OWNED by M$.

>>> Reliable source of information you got...

>>

>> No, Netcraft is not owned by Microsoft.

>> Netcraft isn't based in the US, either.

>> However, some in the Linux community think they are

>> or would like to believe they are because they don't

>> like Netcraft's statistical conclusions. Some question

>> their methodology.

>>

>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000271

>>

>>

>> -Michael

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> Yes, I know that article. My statement that Netcraft is owned by M$ was

> over the top/false, I know, but something is very smelly about the

> Netcraft stats.

>

> Considering Microsofts long list of manipulations of statistics, the

> Netcrafts statistics really starts to smell.

>

> What is most suspicious (to me) is the fact that Security Space has

> completely different result, and their method of indexing makes sense.

> Counting only sites that have at least one link from another well-known

> site, thus excluding stupid (Google)farm sites.

 

Why exclude them?

Are they running servers or not?

If they are they count and excluding them is just plain smelly.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

"Adam Albright" in news:q6ele3tagdnvdin745n5qcd9gh45ugqa6u@4ax.com...

> I'm aware a lot of moronic dimwits post here and blindly defend

> Microsoft no matter what. You're just one of many.

>

 

 

No, I'm just a crusty old office worker tired of you blow hard blustering

about it instead of actually doing something about it. I'm in here to see if

there are any neat tweaks I missed for Vista, not argue whether or not Vista

is right for anyone else.

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

Adam Albright wrote:

>

>

> I'm aware a lot of moronic dimwits post here and blindly defend

> Microsoft no matter what. You're just one of many.

>

 

You're always using the above statement whenever anyone states a truth

concerning MS.

The truth need not be defended. It is it's own defense.

What MS did is legally ok according to the EULA we all agreed to if

you're using MS software.

How they did it is where some have a bone to pick, so-to-speak.

So the updater got updated even though some had updates turned off. Well

you can really start to parse words on this one! Is the updater part of

the updates? Does or has, the updater ever asked to be allowed to update

itself? Don't think I've ever personally seen the updater ask permission

to update itself. That would seem to me to self-defeating wouldn't it?

Should a user have to right to reject the updater from being updated?

I don't know...but I do see some are having a very difficult time in

accepting the fact that all IP software has some kind of a use/non-use

EULA that never pleases everyone.

Frank

Re: Does Redmond Control Your Computer Remotely?

 

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fcdlk7$kq7$1@aioe.org...

> Frank wrote:

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> I don't agree with the EULA, even if I hit F8 to install something I

>>> paid for.

>>>

>>

>> Then don't use the software. BTW, you don't "own" the software, you've

>> only leased the option to use it.

>

> So says Redmond. I don't agree. I paid for it and it's in my house and

> therefore it's mine to do with what I choose.

>

>> >

>

> --

> Alias

> To email me, remove shoes

Alias, it's not just Redmond. Most commercial software companies view their

product as licensed to the public but owned by them, the corporate entity,

IP owner, etc.

 

--

Michael Solomon

Backup is a PC user's best friend

DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/