re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs
Monday, October 19, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
sekirt wrote:
|Linux[...]OEMs[...]have discontinued putting Linux on new computers?
|
That is due to more of M$'s illegal anti-trust activities WRT vendors
and to regulators still asleeping at the switch.
Obama? Pffft. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
|switching to Linux won't make IE6 work there either.
|
There is ZERO reason to ever use M$'s lousy online apps online.
I firewalled off IE in 2002.
I hasn't been on the 'Net since then. Never missed it.
...and Mozilla's stuff and Opera's stuff work the same on all platforms.
OTOH, newer pages (e.g. using HTML5) will look like crap with IE6
(and IE7 and IE8).
Their lack of standards-compliance is just pitiful (Acid3).
...and for those masochistic enough to use it,
IE works just fine under WINE, in turn under Linux
(mostly for checking the compliant Web pages you build yourself
against IE's lousy standards-compliance).
...and you can have SEVERAL versions of IE installed on a Linux box;
try THAT with your *real* Windoze box.
The bulk of Windoze-compatible apps also work just fine under WINE.
...and you don't get infections when running WINE.
The *real* M$ environment is inferior to WINE in almost every way.
||"Should you continue to use a 10 year old OS
||[...]should you give money for the replacement?"
||
|I have never been a believer in "You get what you paid for,"
|
Put 'er there, brother. {Extends hand}
To quote a Usenet poster whom I thought was particularly insightful:
"Mostly you get a lost less".
|(unless it somehow helps my argument - lol)
|
8-)
||...then there's the "won't work on my old hardware" thing
||with newer M$ stuff.
||
|Other than financial reasons, why would you want to?
|
My parents grew up in The Great Depression.
Their constant thrift rubbed off on me even more than on my siblings.
I can't stand waste and I get maximum service out of EVERYTHING.
...then again, maybe my "needs" aren't as demanding as others.
||advising others [to use IE]
||without full instructions how to harden it is derelict.
||
|I feel [the] default for IE is too hardened.
|
Again, like M$ users everywhere,
you mistake difficulty for good security
and bad security for ease of use.
Firefox and Opera are secure out of the box and are easy to use.
IE just sucks--even after spending much effort on it.
It shouldn't be that hard to use software
--and ending up with something that is still inferior is just lame.
|It should install in a reasonable manner,
|allowing one to either heighten or lessen security.
|Security should not be the determining factor.
|
Again, in your warped M$ world you don't understand what security is.
Security is what is built into the software--it's at the CORE.
If you have to paste on crap to cover for flaws, THAT is NOT security.
Linux doesn't need any of those stupid band-aids.
Linux **installs** in a secure state.
|I'd never do email if it was strictly webmail or if it was text only.
|
You and I are worlds apart on that one.
I believe in using the proper protocols for things.
Using a wrench for a hammer makes you look dumb.
...and we can't blame M$ for that one;
it was actually Netscape that extended email beyond plain-text.
||(Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections).
||
|You wouldn't be able to say that if Linux had,
|say, 50% or more of the market.
|
Well, now you went and poked the bear.
Only fools rely on Security Through Obscurity.
That has never been a valid security model and Unix has always known that.
The markets where Open Source Software already dominates are:
1) The Apache Web server
The competition is M$'s Internet Information Server.
Despite IIS being in the minority WRT installations,
IIS has orders of magnitude more security breaches than Apache.
2) The BIND Domain Name Server
The competition is Microsoft's DNS server.
Again, M$'s product has FAR more security breaches than BIND.
3) The Sendmail Email Server
Again, Microsoft Exchange Server's security is abysmal by comparison.
Your FUD is weak and is easily dispelled.
The problem with M$ software
is that it is poorly designed and poorly crafted.
That phrase again is "Defective By Design".
Again, Unix-like OSes have a security model that goes back to 1969.
It worked then and it still works.
M$ ignored the lessons of history and have repeatedly produced crap.
...and if there *were* ANY Linux infections/botnets,
don't you think M$ would be on TV and in the magazines
with sponsored "news" items pointing out the failures of their competition?
Hasn't happened. The reason is NOT because of fewer users
--it is because *n?x has superior OS design.
In fact, there have been scores of Linux exploits written;
what there hasn't been is mass infections of the Linux ecosystem.
|There is far more freeware for MS than Linux and Mac combined!
|
...and you and I both know that the bulk of that is redundant junk.[1]
The stuff in Free(dom) Software repositories is also vetted
--for quality and for malware-freeness.
WRT infections, how anyone trusts the multitude of sources
of freeware for Windoze any more, I can't imagine.
Very much like Russian Roulette.
[1] ...and the software development model for the new millennium
uses cross-platform development tools;
porting the app to a different ecosystem
simply requires recompiling on the new platform.
My friend, the Java developer,
tells me that he got tired of being crapped on
when it came to licensing for M$'s proprietary tools anyway.
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | | | | | | | | | |  | re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs (gewg_: Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 12:02 pm) |
| |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
