Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jan 2006 18:33 UTC
Windows Microsoft will omit anti-virus protection in Vista, the next version of Windows, which it plans to ship late this year. As with previous versions of Windows dating back to Windows 2000 at least, Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Jim Allchin, co-president of Microsoft's platform products and services division, told reseller magazine CRN that safety and security, improved user experience, and mobility features will be key additions in Vista. But there will be no anti-virus software, the Windows development supremo said during a questions and answers session with CRN. For unspecified business (not technical) reasons, Microsoft will sell anti-virus protection to consumers through its OneCare online backup and security service.
Order by: Score:
Can anyone say "Anti-trust"?
by rapont on Mon 30th Jan 2006 18:44 UTC
rapont
Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course they can't bundle free anti-virus software, it would be a repeat of the Browser wars and the Multimedia wars.

Symantec and McAfee are close MS partners, and work in a multi-billion dollar industry (Windows Security) - you can't just destroy that by bundling anti-virus software with the Operating System! What next? bundling a firewall? ....whooops.

Seriously though, if you want "safety and security" it's much better to go Linux than MS - even the Vista Beta 1 had a major security flaw!

Reply Score: 5

RE: Can anyone say "Anti-trust"?
by helf on Mon 30th Jan 2006 18:55 UTC in reply to "Can anyone say "Anti-trust"?"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

well, what did you expect from a BETA?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Can anyone say "Anti-trust"?
by rapont on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Can anyone say "Anti-trust"?"
rapont Member since:
2005-07-06

er... something that may be *more* secure than Windows 2000/XP - or is that too much to hope for?

Isn't it ironic that Jim Allchin is touting security as a great feature of Vista and it has a proven security hole before it is even released?

Are you trying to say that all of those issues will be sorted out by the time it's Released To Manufacturing?... ya, right!

Reply Score: 5

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

no, I'm just saying it's a beta. You will find security holes in unreleased betas for ANYTHING. And of course Vista is going to have holes. every version of windows has ;)

And compared to older versions of windows, Vista WILL have better security... Even if it's not up to par with its Unix brethren.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Can anyone say "Anti-trust"?
by chrish on Tue 31st Jan 2006 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Can anyone say "Anti-trust"?"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

Does Vista have any new features left in it, other than the UI change?

- chrish

Reply Score: 1

AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

- Brand new networking stack that is 100% IPv6 internally
- New ACPI subsystem including a hybrid STR/STD support, faster suspend/resume, and a more robust mechanism for dealing with bad drivers
- New audio subsystem with per-application mixing
- UAP support (not running as admin all the time) with automatic privelage elevation (with user approval) for installers and other programs that need admin access
- Major memory manager tweaks
- Kernel tweaks to improve streaming performance
- New programming framework (WinFX) based on .NET 2.0, WPF, and a host of other new technologies
- 3D accelerated UI / window manager
- New Media Center and Tablet PC features
- Fast User Switching on AD Domains
- Integrated AntiSpyware
- Integrated indexing / search (ala Spotlight) including extensive metadata and tagging support
- New Windows Media Player
- New version of IE with CSS fixes, phishing filter, tabbed browsing, native XMLHTTP, freform resize (ala Opera), and many security enhancements
- Support for auxiliry LCD displays (windows SideShow)
- New, faster install system (no more text-mode 'copying files')
- New Windows Installer version
- New printing system / PDF alternative (Metro)

Anything worth upgrading for?

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Nope. Stick to linux or XP.

Reply Score: 1

That'll be interesting...
by smitty_one_each on Mon 30th Jan 2006 18:48 UTC
smitty_one_each
Member since:
2005-07-07

For unspecified business (not technical) reasons, Microsoft will sell anti-virus protection to consumers through its OneCare online backup and security service.

Seems like we're close to admitting selling a potentially flawed product here, along with some additional insurance, for just a few quid more.

One hopes that the "unspecified business (not technical) reasons" are as aromatic to the rest of the market as they are to this reader.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That'll be interesting...
by gubol123 on Tue 31st Jan 2006 02:37 UTC in reply to "That'll be interesting..."
gubol123 Member since:
2005-09-12

And how is that different from selling support for Linux.. Remember a whole industry is built around Support for Linux/OSS products. how do you expect to make money unless you have some short coming in the Linux. So do you mean to say Linux and other OSS products are potentially flawed products...

Reply Score: 2

Of course they won't include it
by DittoBox on Mon 30th Jan 2006 18:52 UTC
DittoBox
Member since:
2005-07-08

Of course they won't include it. Instead of working on creating a more secure OS like they should have, they're marginally improving it and selling AV "protection" back to you.

It's applied extortion.

They sell you the house without a lock on the backdoor, then for a fee they'll sell you the lock. Of course you'll have to pay for someone to do maintenance (updates!) on this lock as it's quite easy to pick.

That's really not the best way to put it though I suppose, because if you know enough and are careful enough there's no need to install AV. I still run with avast but it's not once told me about a virus, and my system runs great. As a matter of fact the last time I ever had a virus coming at my PC (via email) it was a good 3-4 years ago.

To me spyware (which onecare appears to deal with) is a more prevalent issue than virus'. But spyware is much easier to keep at bay than almost any virus. For the most part consumer education is what will help, not some piece of software. Software may fix the problems and sometimes keep it away, but teaching someone not to download Kazaa or the like is even better.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Of course they won't include it
by Tom K on Mon 30th Jan 2006 21:07 UTC in reply to "Of course they won't include it"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Here's a clue: They have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't want another browser/media player war on their hands. If they include AV, it's because they're trying to put McAfee/Symantec out of business, not because, say ... they want to protect the customer!

Microsoft has to live its life according to a double-standard. It's okay for everyone else to bundle a media player/browser/av in their OS, but not for Microsoft -- because that's unfair.

Reply Score: 1

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Well, I always expect Beta software to continue anti-trust violations found in previous products. What I don't understand is why they left it out of the upcoming CTP since Allchin specifically says that it wasn't for a "technical" reason. It's too soon for a feature freeze that drops illegally bundled contributions isn't it?

(o:

Reply Score: 1

gubol123 Member since:
2005-09-12

Yeah i agree with you. But that's the deal. When you are a proven monopoly, you do all the accomodation. But it is still unfair when one has to constantly worry about adding new features to their own product

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"It's okay for everyone else to bundle a media player/browser/av in their OS, but not for Microsoft -- because that's unfair."

You really do have some sort of cognitive disorder here, don't you?

Microsoft's browser and Microsoft's media player ARE bundled with their OS - in fact Microsoft make these virtually inseparable from the OS. Microsoft does this so all users of the Microsoft OS are forced to have the Microsoft DRM that is part of the browser, the media player and the IM application.

{Edit: In the case of FOSS, there is no part of the system which is inseperable. Even the Linux kernel itself is replaceable - one can use any of the BSDs or Open Solaris or even GNU Hurd instead - and still use the "Linux" applications and desktop}.

With Microsoft's antivirus - which is a REQUIRED part of the OS in order to make it even minimally secure - Microsoft don't bundle it - instead they make users pay a subscription.

Microsoft would be doing the right thing by users if (1) they made the core OS more secure in the first place, (2) included things like firewalls and even antivirus if they need to to try to assist where the OS security is fundamentally and irrepairably borked, and (3) unbundled their DRM and their security holes such as IE, Media Player and their IM which are the main points of entry for malware in the first place.

What do Microsoft actually do? In all cases, that which is **EXACTLY** the opposite of the best interests of the end users.

Edited 2006-01-31 09:57

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

>>Wrong. Media Player is easy to get rid of completely. Internet Explorer is a bit more difficult, but it is still possible with a utility and a few clicks. Neither will render Windows unusable. <<

Only partly correct. Microsoft screamed blue murder when the EU made them take out media player. Microsoft's own claim was that it is an inseparable part of the OS. Of course it isn't really, and Microsoft eventually complied - but we both know Microsoft lied through their teeth about this. Perhaps I should say Microsoft like to pretend this is an inseparable part of the OS (of course they lie, but that is a totally different point now isn't it).

The utility to remove IE is provided by a separate vendor. As far as Microsoft is concerned, Microsoft say IE is inseparable, and Microsoft themselves provide absolutely no way to remove IE.

>>Obviously AV is not a "REQUIRED" part of the OS.<<

Yes, it is. There are 0 day critical exploits for Windows, and also unpatched vulnerabilities, and there are myriad black hats and literally thousands of live threats out there. By being very careful it is possible to avoid having your Windows system compromised, but you absolutely have to know what you are doing and this is WAAAAY beyond an average Windows user in charge of their own system and exposing it to the internet.

For 99.99% of Windows users - their systems WILL get compromised, and they WILL require an antivirus.

>>Done. SP2 improved security dramatically. Vista will do so even more. All signs and information point to security in Vista being much improved. <<

All of this you state above is correct. None of it means Windows is actually secure. WMF vulnerability showed us this very clearly indeed. Windows embeds execute instructions within file formats, and Windows happily executes things that no local user has authorised to execute. Backwards compatibility for binaries that expect the win32 API from days circa Win95 alone means that Windows can never be secure and retain that backwards compatibility.

>>I'll ignore the last part of that, because you simply are not a security analyst, so your word is worth squat. <<

Don't take my word for it. Try googling for +windows +security +warning. 13,000,000 hits. 13 MILLION HITS!!

>>No one forces anyone to use IE and WMP. If you use Firefox and VLC, IE/WMP are not touched, and do not pose a risk.<<

This is not true. Normal users cannot "uninstall" IE, ActiveX, Messenger and WMP. They remain on the system and are used by external actors even if the local user never invokes them. Similar story for Windows Update and remote "help" or whatever it is called. Normal users can't get rid of them nor can they close the security risks they represent.

>> I'd like to know where you get your sensational information from -- a Linux fanboi forum perhaps? <<

13 MILLION HITS, remember?

"In all cases, Microsoft do that which is **EXACTLY** the opposite of the best interests of the end users."

OK, I'll correct. "In all cases mentioned within the post, Microsoft do that which is **EXACTLY** the opposite of the best interests of the end users."

>>In all cases, Linux developers do *EXACTLY* the opposite of the best interests of the end users.<<

Now that is truly retarded. Linux developers **ARE** Linux end users. Are you saying they shoot themsleves in the foot, and show the whole world exactly how they go about it?

Pfft. In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny - "What a maroon!".

Edited 2006-01-31 10:57

Reply Score: 3

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Only partly correct. Microsoft screamed blue murder when the EU made them take out media player. Microsoft's own claim was that it is an inseparable part of the OS. Of course it isn't really, and Microsoft eventually complied - but we both know Microsoft lied through their teeth about this. Perhaps I should say Microsoft like to pretend this is an inseparable part of the OS (of course they lie, but that is a totally different point now isn't it).

Microsoft never claimed WMP was an inseperable part of the OS. Their argument was that removing WMP (just as removing IE) would cause many ISV products to not function correctly because developers depended on it as a default applications platform. In-box applications like Windows Movie Maker would also not function for the same reason. Just as with IE, their argument wasn't about the code being unremovable, it was about loss of functionality in dependant applications, especially from a large market of ISVs.

Why do people always feel the need to "put words in MS' mouth" instead of sticking to facts?

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Because it's easier, n4cer. :-)

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

"The utility to remove IE is provided by a separate vendor. As far as Microsoft is concerned, Microsoft say IE is inseparable, and Microsoft themselves provide absolutely no way to remove IE."

Here, I'll explain it for you. You CAN remove the IE components, and still use Windows. HOWEVER, some parts of windows WILL break. For example, you will be unable to use the Help & Support, since it uses the IE rendering engine. This is why Microsoft will NOT support any official tool to remove IE, as it will break something else in the OS. Not to mention some third party vendors RELY on the IE rendering component (shdocvw.dll) being there, so they HAVE to keep it there for legacy purposes anyway.

"Don't take my word for it. Try googling for +windows +security +warning. 13,000,000 hits. 13 MILLION HITS!!"

+Linux +security +warning gets 11,400,00 hits. So, I guess linux is only ~10-15% more secure ;)

Edited 2006-01-31 16:49

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"+Linux +security +warning gets 11,400,00 hits. So, I guess linux is only ~10-15% more secure ;) "

That's a fair cop! ;)

OK, so how about this then:

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,900 for "Windows security warning". (0.22 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 102 for "Linux security warning". (0.56 seconds)

That makes Windows over 120 times less secure than Linux. ;)

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

"windows is insecure" vs "linux is insecure" is 560 to 712!

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

> Only partly correct. Microsoft screamed blue murder when the EU made them take out media player ...

Debunked by someone else.

> Yes, it is. There are 0 day critical exploits for Windows, and also unpatched vulnerabilities, and there are myriad black hats and literally thousands of live threats out there. By being very careful it is possible to avoid having your Windows system compromised, but you absolutely have to know what you are doing and this is WAAAAY beyond an average Windows user in charge of their own system and exposing it to the internet.

Broadband router - $30 OR Built-in firewall - $0
Firefox - $0
Thunderbird - $0
Benefit? Priceless.

So for a total of $30 (or $0), 99% of Windows users can defend themselves against 90% of the threats out there -- and without this secret knowledge that is "WAAAAY beyond" the average Windows user.

>All of this you state above is correct. None of it means Windows is actually secure.

I'll let the engineers and security analysts be the judge of that. Linux kiddies said the same thing about IIS 6 ... yet since its release, it has had two minor non-critical vulnerabilities, both patched.

> WMF vulnerability showed us this very clearly indeed. Windows embeds execute instructions within file formats

If you got your information from Steve Gibson, I'd double-check that. There's been some debate about the topic. :-) As for the existence of the WMF vulnerability ... I guess F/OSS software is perfect in that regard eh. LibPNG -- Need I say more?

> Windows happily executes things that no local user has authorised to execute

Prove it. Show me something. Show me a vulnerability report that still applies. Show me an IE script that does it. Show me *anything* to back up that statement that isn't some obscure vulnerability from 2004 that has long since been patched.

> Backwards compatibility for binaries that expect the win32 API from days circa Win95 alone means that Windows can never be secure and retain that backwards compatibility

So you're saying that some old software out there requires the presence of some of these vulnerabilities in the compatibility code to *operate*? Get a clue. Since that is not the case, it is just as possible to fix vulnerabilities in that aging code and still retain 100% compliance with what it was supposed to do in 1995.

> Don't take my word for it. Try googling for +windows +security +warning. 13,000,000 hits. 13 MILLION HITS!!

Yeah, Google is a very accurate tool for measuring the quality of computer code. Google is a trained and highly-renowned security analyst. If this is the best you can do, then you are weak. A child poster has already pointed out the fault in this argument.

> This is not true. Normal users cannot "uninstall" IE, ActiveX, Messenger and WMP. They remain on the system and are used by external actors even if the local user never invokes them. Similar story for Windows Update and remote "help" or whatever it is called. Normal users can't get rid of them nor can they close the security risks they represent.

Messenger and WMP can be uninstalled with *ease* -- that's one thing. The second thing is that if you already have something on your computer that is maliciously invoking some IE/WMP capability, but did not use that capability to get there in the first place, then your problems lie elsewhere (most likely with the user). Please tell me how I am at risk by having IE/WMP on my system if I never personally touch them. Back it up. Show me some evidence, rather than just your ramblings.

That is all. You have nothing substantial or worthy to say.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"Prove it. Show me something. Show me a vulnerability report that still applies. Show me an IE script that does it. Show me *anything* to back up that statement that isn't some obscure vulnerability from 2004 that has long since been patched."

Just the recent WMF vulnerability alone will do this. Not all Windows is XP or Win 2000.

Operating Systems % Total OS
Windows NT 0.92% Vulnerable
Windows 95 0.56% Vulnerable Of all Windows
Windows 98 9.65% Vulnerable Vulnerable 14.70%
Windows ME 2.05% Vulnerable
Windows 2000 14.49% Patch Patch 85.30%
Windows XP 62.01% Patch

All Windows 89.68%

Therefore, about 15% of Windows Systems in current use are vulnerable for just that one exploit.

Then, shall we consider the number of the 85% of Windows systems for which a patch is available but on which the patch has not been installed? Let's be generous and say on 20% of Windows Systems fro which a patch is available the patch has not been installed. That makes and additional 17% of Windows systems - or 32% in all.

So that proof makes perhaps one third of all the operating Windows computers out there - vulnerable to black hats executing whatever by remote - and I didn't even have to try hard.

"Please tell me how I am at risk by having IE/WMP on my system if I never personally touch them. Back it up."

Strawman.

I did not say that your personal system was vulnerable. But it is absolutely trivial to show that AT LEAST a third of the Windows Systems IN USE, ON THE INTERNET (original figure are percentage of page hits) are vulnerable.

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Null point -- there is a patch. There is only so much that Microsoft can do, and they've done it. It is now up to the users to get the patch, or at least click "Okay, Install" when Automatic Updates asks them.

Here's your argument:

You: Windows is insecure, just look at the patches Microsoft has to put out.
Me: Every OS suffers from vulnerabilities. The serious ones have been patched on Windows.
You: Yeah, but it's still insecure! Look at all the unpatched systems!

You can come up with defenses like that endlessly. :-) The truth of the matter is that any WMF-exploitable system out there *right now* is so only due to user/sys-admin insecurity.

Reply Score: 1

Heh heh...
by Tuishimi on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:01 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...next announcement will be "Microsoft will not include a GUI with their OS, however if you want one you can purchase it separately. NOTE: Only the MS GUI will work with the OS!"

Sorry. ;) I couldn't resist. Maybe instead of supplying their own virus protection they should review their code base for potential openings/leaks/whatever and fix those. Then perhaps they can address kernel/file system code to perhaps, somehow, speed up the process of file retrieval to make file scanning more efficient.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Heh heh...
by ApproachingZero on Tue 31st Jan 2006 02:46 UTC in reply to "Heh heh..."
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

..next announcement will be "Microsoft will not include a GUI with their OS, however if you want one you can purchase it separately. NOTE: Only the MS GUI will work with the OS!"

You're closer to the truth than you know, in light of Microsoft's recently-announced "pay-per-unlocked-feature" strategy they'll be debuting in Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Heh heh...
by proforma on Tue 31st Jan 2006 05:39 UTC in reply to "Heh heh..."
proforma Member since:
2005-08-27

Could you all be a little more informed please?

The posts above are produced by the mental midgets of the Internet. This is what happens when anyone can access the Internet.

The pay per unlocked is great! Basically you just buy the windows you want and if you want to upgrade you pay and you enter in a serial number and pop the DVD in and get your extra features. Instead of going to the store and buying another copy of windows to upgrade you buy a license and insert a DVD.

Microsoft is improving their leaks and code base problems and they are improving the file system.

Maybe instead of posting an informed post you might want to READ a little. I mean it couldn't hurt.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Heh heh...
by Tuishimi on Tue 31st Jan 2006 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Heh heh..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

No. It means you pay MORE overall. Now, perhaps if it was like the linspire model (I think it is Linspire) that allows you to pay a moderate subscription fee to allow applications to be installed at any time over the period of the subscription... THAT would be a great idea.

Go wallow in your own self-prescribed genius.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Heh heh...
by proforma on Tue 31st Jan 2006 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh heh..."
proforma Member since:
2005-08-27

>No. It means you pay MORE overall. Now, perhaps if
>it was like the linspire model (I think it is >Linspire) that allows you to pay a moderate >subscription fee to allow applications to be >installed at any time over the period of the >subscription... THAT would be a great idea.

Show me how it would cost more? Unless the raise the prices I don't see how it would cost more at all.

There is no subscription fee, you do like you do now, you pay for the version of windows you want.

If I want to buy Windows XP professional, I have to go out to the store and buy it or get an OEM version (I still pay for it the OEM way as well).

Windows XP Professional costs $200 US dollars the last time I looked.

You get things you do not get with Windows XP Home Edition. Such as being able to terminal Service into your computer.

What is different about shipping everything on one DVD and allowing you to make the CHOICE (there is that word again) to buy which version of Windows you want.

If you want everything you might want to pay for Windows Utlimate. That is your choice.

It just saves you time, gas of having to drive to a compusa, sales tax and/or shipping to get it.

For an administrator it's a dream.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Heh heh...
by Tuishimi on Tue 31st Jan 2006 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Heh heh..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I cannot show you that until Microsoft releases it, and you KNOW that. You also know that Microsoft, Apple and any large company seeking profit are going to do what is in their best intrest.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Heh heh...
by sappyvcv on Tue 31st Jan 2006 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Heh heh..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Then why make claims in the first place? Microsoft has a history of NOT raising the price of Windows. Why think any differently now?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Heh heh...
by Tuishimi on Tue 31st Jan 2006 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Heh heh..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Alright... want to make an online wager? Let's see how this pans out...

I bet (you can contact me for the low stakes amount) that when this is done and Vista is released in 2010, that Microsoft will charge more if you buy per component than for the whole, unconstrained OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Heh heh...
by sappyvcv on Tue 31st Jan 2006 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Heh heh..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not what I said. As far as I'm aware, you can't get the components seperately, and upgrading from one tier to another is just the difference in cost.

Vista professional should be the same price as XP Professional, I would be willing to bet on that.

"Ultimate" edition will be more than XP Pro is right now, because it will includes SERVICES and extra utilities that most people won't need (like tools for Gaming)

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Heh heh...
by n4cer on Tue 31st Jan 2006 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Heh heh..."
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

I bet (you can contact me for the low stakes amount) that when this is done and Vista is released in 2010, that Microsoft will charge more if you buy per component than for the whole, unconstrained OS.

You've already lost the bet since your release date is 4 years off. "Vienna" would be the more likely OS released in 2010 (if not before).

More non-facts polluting the web.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Heh heh...
by hal2k1 on Tue 31st Jan 2006 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Heh heh..."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"No. It means you pay MORE overall. Now, perhaps if it was like the linspire model (I think it is Linspire) that allows you to pay a moderate subscription fee to allow applications to be installed at any time over the period of the subscription... THAT would be a great idea. "

OTOH, if it is like the PCLinuxOS model (or the OpenSuSe model, or the Debian model, or many, many others) you get the ease of a GUI installer (similar to Linspire's Click'n'run, and via which the exact same software applications can be installed) without any subscription fee at all.

http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/QuickStartSynaptic

No fee at all. No need to subscribe to anything. Now THAT is an even GREATER idea.

Edited 2006-01-31 09:30

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Heh heh...
by Tuishimi on Tue 31st Jan 2006 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Heh heh..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree. ;) But I do not think Microsoft would ever go for that. Or Apple.

Reply Score: 1

What if...
by ApproachingZero on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:05 UTC
ApproachingZero
Member since:
2005-11-10

What if Microsoft made Vista require a password to install software, ditched the registry, got rid of ActiveX, put the OS on a separate partition from the users' files, and changed their "let's make every program and file format capable of running embedded scripts" design philosophy and actually made their OS secure? Would Symantec and Trend and McAfee sue them for screwing up their business model?

Reply Score: 5

RE: What if...
by DittoBox on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "What if..."
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

Good point, however if any judge would actually side with the AV companies...well, I'd lose any vestige of faith I had left in the system.

If Microsoft did that it would be good for the consumer, which I would think would get them major kudos from a number of sources, if McAfee, Trend or Symantec tried to go against something to obviously good it would only serve to make them look like fools.

Especially if they tried to sue. So even if they did win, life wouldn't work out very well for them afterwards, considering that: A) their reason for existing is as good as dead, and B) their customers would be happy to dump them.

Most Average Joes (and indeed Joettes) don't consider AV to be their friends, in fact they often consider it to be a necessary evil. Most people would be happy to ditch it, though not many know that it's MS' fault that they have to deal with it.

MS may push onecare as soon as you install Vista but names like McAfee and Symantec/Norton don't just dry up overnight, they've got mindshare (I hate that word) if nothing else, and mindshare isn't easy to change.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What if...
by rapont on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:23 UTC in reply to "What if..."
rapont Member since:
2005-07-06

<i/>What if Microsoft made Vista require a password to install software, ditched the registry, got rid of ActiveX, put the OS on a separate partition from the users' files, and changed their "let's make every program and file format capable of running embedded scripts" design philosophy and actually made their OS secure? Would Symantec and Trend and McAfee sue them for screwing up their business model?[/i]

probably...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What if...
by FreakyT on Mon 30th Jan 2006 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: What if..."
FreakyT Member since:
2005-07-17

I know you're being sarcastic, but Vista will (supposedly) require a password to install most software. Also, the registry is a fairly useful component that certain (Linux, maybe?) other operating systems need equivalents to. (Unless, of course, you enjoy having multiple "default" browsers.)

Putting the OS on a separate partition wouldn't really accomplish anything, either, considering that you would need to be able to write to the OS partition for installations of certain programs, which would result in (a) wasted space on the drive, as free space would have to be left in the OS partition in order to accommodate for this, and (b) no real security advantage, as once you'd entered the password a malicious installer would have access to the OS anyway, regardless of where it was.

You do have a valid point about the "embedded script" point, though...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What if...
by AmigaRobbo on Mon 30th Jan 2006 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What if..."
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

"Also, the registry is a fairly useful component that certain (Linux, maybe?) other operating systems need equivalents to. (Unless, of course, you enjoy having multiple "default" browsers.)"

I really don't think Linux NEEDS the Registry, well not in Microsoft model anyway.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: What if...
by makc on Tue 31st Jan 2006 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What if..."
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

This is true for Windows aswell. The registry is a nice idea, but too much similar to the dll hell.
I think program settings should be kept with the program itself, not within the system. OSX way, actually.
And how many users would be happy to know that "one file/dir, one program". Copy elsewhere and it runs =)
Humbe opinion from a win32 dev.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What if you are doing testing?
by glarepate on Mon 30th Jan 2006 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What if..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

(Unless, of course, you enjoy having multiple "default" browsers.)

Maybe to see how a prospective future default browser works with some programs for testing purposes rather than having to switch system-wide defaults every time I wanted to go back to my normal default browser.

It's kind of nice to check out how Mozilla or Opera works with GAIM, for instance, as opposed to having it call Konqueror when I already know what Konq. will do in a certain situation.

"It's all about offering the user choice."

Reply Score: 1

FreakyT Member since:
2005-07-17

"Maybe to see how a prospective future default browser works with some programs for testing purposes rather than having to switch system-wide defaults every time I wanted to go back to my normal default browser."

I would say that, generally speaking, simply running a browser without making the default would be adequate for testing. In situations where it isn't, Windows and Mac OS both make it fairly easy to switch back and forth. (Or course, Windows didn't until Microsoft was forced to add the option, but I digress)

At any rate, excuse my bitterness toward Linux in terms of its system-wide settings. (or lack thereof) I've been setting up my own Linux workstation for the past few days, and it amazes me as to how seemingly simple tasks can be made so unnecessarily complicated. For example, I had to change multiple configurations and alter symlinks just to upgrade Firefox.

Reply Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"At any rate, excuse my bitterness toward Linux in terms of its system-wide settings. (or lack thereof) I've been setting up my own Linux workstation for the past few days, and it amazes me as to how seemingly simple tasks can be made so unnecessarily complicated. For example, I had to change multiple configurations and alter symlinks just to upgrade Firefox."

Interesting that you have to go through that. It is not complicated, and those steps are not necessary on say the Suse or Mandriva distros. For what you are doing it sounds like you may want one of those. I do not know what distro you are using, but those steps should not be necessary, and it is not normal to have to do that.

Reply Score: 1

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

I would say that, generally speaking, simply running a browser without making the default would be adequate for testing.

I know I can start up a browser. That has nothing to do with which browser is the default. Starting up a browser doesn't tell me how well it works when I click on a link in GAIM or in my e-mail program. That kind of testing is what I had in mind. That is what multiple default browsers is about for me.

For example, I had to change multiple configurations and alter symlinks just to upgrade Firefox.

That's not a "Linux" feature. No good distro should be that hard to use. Time to switch I'd say. That is a problem that doesn't exist in Slackware or any of the RPM based distros like SuSE or RedHat. It may be that the distro you are using has other features that make it worth that kind of pain but it seems unlikely at best. (o:

Reply Score: 1

Anyone remember MSAV?
by Ronald Vos on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:50 UTC
Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft Anti-virus. Bundled with MS-DOS 6.2

And funny thing was, that after a while of 'updates' TBAV and McAfee lost the ability to remove the FORM virus from my bootsector (they were unable to remove any kind of virus the average user could get infected with after a while), and when I recontracted the FORM virus I'd have to reach back to MSAV to make my bootsector clean again.

Reply Score: 1

How much is running Vista is going to cost?
by Steff on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:50 UTC
Steff
Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course, I am shooting in the dark at this stage. But a back-of-the-envelope calculation is starting to look worrying.

Let me explain new (multiply by 1.5 to get the EUR figure and by 2 for USD):
1. The software. Windows XP Home costs around 60 GBP. Let's say that this is going to be the cost of an "upgrade edition", too (perhaps optimistic given the amount of work that went into it).
2. Hardware upgrade. A new stick of memory or a new video card are probably needed if the average user wants to be able to enjoy all the bells and whistles: let's say 30 GBP.
3. Some people are happy with a concoction of free alternative, but some other people will look at OneCare: 20 GBP per year (this is optimistic, as it is lower that antivirus products). Given that they promise antivirus, and a lot of other security services, I guess most average users will feel compelled to sign up.
4. Digitally signed software. The 300 GBP that Microsoft (or rather Verisign) is going to extort to software producers is going to be passed on to customers, right? And a lot of freeware programs are just not going to run. Possibly they will disappear, as independent developers that make usefule and free apps will not want to shell out the money (e.g. Rootkit Revealer).
5. DRM and other stuff might cause your DVD recorder or your monitor to malfunction or to have crippled functionality.

So, Vista is going to cost 110 GBP upfront, and 20 GBP per year. This is a lot of money! And the software available is going to become more expensive and less diverse.

Most of my friends are happy to run XP because they did not pay for it (it came preinstalled in their PC) and have relatively good security for free using third-party freeware software (firewall and antivirus). They love the ease of use and multitude of freeware programs available.

If I pointed them to Linspire or Mandriva, they would say "I would end up spending more, as I would have to spend the 25GPB per year for CNR or Mandriva Club." And they are right, of course.

In conclusion, I feel that the value proposition of Microsoft is going to get much, much less interesting.

It will be an interesting year of Linux and BSD, I would think.

Steff

Reply Score: 5

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

>> Most of my friends are happy to run XP because they did not pay for it (it came preinstalled in their PC) and have relatively good security for free using third-party freeware software (firewall and antivirus). They love the ease of use and multitude of freeware programs available.

If I pointed them to Linspire or Mandriva, they would say "I would end up spending more, as I would have to spend the 25GPB per year for CNR or Mandriva Club." And they are right, of course. <<

Err, of course, no they are not right.

You are not their friend if you deceive them in this manner, and leave them with this totally flase impression.

If you were really their friend you would instead point them to the best Linux distribution for newbies with the most "ease of use and with a multitude of freeware programs available".

http://www.pclinuxos.com/
http://www.pclinuxos.com/whatis.html
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/HomePage
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/Applications
http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html

All (OS plus all applications) for the cost of one LiveCD (which you can download for free if you have the bandwidth).

Edited 2006-01-31 08:47

Reply Score: 1

doesn't matter to me
by Resolution on Mon 30th Jan 2006 19:52 UTC
Resolution
Member since:
2005-11-14

I wouldn't trust their antivirus anyway. Does anyone remember the Claria incident where Microsoft downgraded numerous spyware in their MS Antispyware product to "Ignore"?

Vista started out looking like it would be a pretty decent Windows OS, but now it looks like it will be a rush release, and it is never a good thing when Microsoft has to rush to get something done.

Reply Score: 1

RE: doesn't matter to me
by CPUGuy on Mon 30th Jan 2006 20:59 UTC in reply to "doesn't matter to me"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Reason being that Claria is not malicious.
Also, you can always click the drop box and hit remove. No big deal.

Reply Score: 3

jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

Most of my friends are happy to run XP because they did not pay for it (it came preinstalled in their PC)

Then they have already paid for it. It's a common mistake people still do, to think it's free just because it came bundled with the computer.

Reply Score: 4

ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

UNfortunately for Joe Sixpack, "Out of sight, out of mind" completely applies in this situation.

My grandfather balked at me paying for my copy of mandrake 7 or 8 back in the day for a computer I was building when I could "Buy a computer and get windows free"

So many people just don't know...And many will gladly pony up the money to 'protect' their computer, not realizing how computers/OS's work and not realizing that viruses/spyware should NOT be as rampant as they are.

It's only extortion to them if they understand what's going on...good luck trying to explain it to them. The best we can do is provide alternatives and try to make such alternatives as attractive as possible.

Reply Score: 2

Security is an Option
by hraq on Mon 30th Jan 2006 20:41 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft shows us again that security is an option not a major feature in their OSs. Anyway their antivirus is not gonna be that great one compared to the ones available in the market (Norton, McAffe,...). And besides, I believe we do not need an antivirus software once we have well written OS; didn't they say vista selling point will be its security features rather than any thing else?!

Reply Score: 1

Take off your foil hats, please.
by Pseudo Cyborg on Mon 30th Jan 2006 21:04 UTC
Pseudo Cyborg
Member since:
2005-07-09

"Of course they can't bundle free anti-virus software, it would be a repeat of the Browser wars and the Multimedia wars."

Rapont hit the nail on the head with that sentence. That is _the_ only reason they won't bundle it at no-cost. I dislike the stability and security of the OS as much as the next person, but there's no hidden agenda here.

Reply Score: 1

Knuckles
Member since:
2005-06-29

The problem with microsoft isn't that it bundles software with your computer, it's that they tie the software to windows. When I install my favorite linux distro, sure I get kde or gnome or something like that, and a browser, and etc. But the thing is I can remove them if I want. I may loose function x or y, but thats MY CHOICE on MY PC.

Now microsoft PURPOSEDLY makes it extra HARD to remove something as simple as that crap 'windows messenger', windows media player and some other things. Yes you can delete the shortcuts but why is it still there? If I do not, and will not ever want to use them? And if I want them, I i'll always have microsoft's website, windows update, or the original install cd's. They even use dirty tricks, like auto-opening windows messager with outlook express and not allowing you to close it while oe is still open.

The problem is not bundling the software. Is forcing the user to use it, or else jump thru enough hoops that a normal user just won't do it (and even more adept users cannot).

Reply Score: 1

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

The problem is not bundling the software. Is forcing the user to use it, or else jump thru enough hoops that a normal user just won't do it (and even more adept users cannot).

How am I forced to use Windows Media Player?
How am I forced to use IE?
How am I forced to use Notepad?

Just install other apps (ie. WinAmp, Firefox, TextPad, etc) and that's it.

Reply Score: 2

Knuckles Member since:
2005-06-29

You are forced because, for example, there are microsoft apps that don't respect your default browser, and others.

You are forced to use windows messenger because it always opens up even if you use and have msn messenger, and opens up with outlook.

The problem with this would be exactly that. If microsoft bundled an anti-virus, you probably could not even disable it completely, nor remove it and stop it from running.

Reply Score: 2

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

You are forced to use windows messenger because it always opens up even if you use and have msn messenger, and opens up with outlook.

If Windows Messenger opens even though you are using MSN Messenger it's likely that you have it set to start whenever Windows does. Go into it's options dialog and clear the checkboxes pertaining to that and you won't see it again. You can also go into Add/Remove Programs | Windows Components, and uncheck it to remove UI references to it.

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

What apps open IE even if I set Firefox as default browser?

Windows Messenger didn't start when I run Outlook. I just checked.

Reply Score: 1

schiznik Member since:
2005-10-15

It starts messenger if you have a hotmail account set up in outlook.

And iirc, the last time i signed into msn/windows messenger it used IE for the links to hotmail instead of the default browser

Reply Score: 1

Nalle Member since:
2005-07-06

If you have problems with Windows Messenger, just remove it! Don't know how? I'll tell you:

Open a CLI (Command line interface) like the Windows Command prompt.

In there write the following and press [Enter]:

RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%infmsmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove

You might need to reboot.

Nalle Berg
./nalle.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%infmsmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove "

Thanks for that. Joe users are really going to go for that I can tell.

As for myself, I strictly do not allow any machine under my control both "run windows" and "be connected on the internet" at the same time. My hardware router/firewall has an IP range which blocks all of the IP addresses I have configured for the machines when they run Windows.

Perfect solution. For my Windows machines, there is no Internet. If I want something from the Internet, I boot to Linux, download and save it, then I re-boot Windows. I am very, very careful whenever I do this, and I scan the file first before I do anything else.

This is the ONLY way on a Windows system I can actually ensure that I "don't use it" and that no external actor can use it either.

Edited 2006-01-31 11:54

Reply Score: 1

XemonerdX Member since:
2005-07-03

Open a CLI (Command line interface) like the Windows Command prompt.

In there write the following and press [Enter]:

RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%infmsmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove


I agree, far easier and more intuitive than using a package manager... And such common knowledge too...

Reply Score: 2

Richard James Member since:
2005-07-07

How am I forced to use IE?

Just install other apps (ie. WinAmp, Firefox, TextPad, etc) and that's it.


On a multi user system XP can have only one default browser so if you install firefox and everyone else uses IE then you are faced with a hard choice. Either force the other users to use firefox everytime they click on a link or everytime you click on a link it will open up IE not firefox. I mean links outside the browser such as in email, not exactly an endearing way to be multi-user.

Reply Score: 1

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

So, you CAN force everyone to use Firefox and not IE.

What are you complaining about then?

Reply Score: 1

Messenger
by FrankNBeans on Mon 30th Jan 2006 23:34 UTC
FrankNBeans
Member since:
2006-01-30

Which MS apps don't respect your default browser? Perhaps if apps do force IE to open is because they require something that other browsers won't have, like ActiveX.

You can disable messenger from starting up in the Outlook Express options. There is nothing hidden or difficult about it, no more than any other option in OE.

There is nothing in Windows that I can't disable as easily as something in another OS. It might require some forum searching, command line, and text file editing, but hey, that's how my Linux install is as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Messenger
by AmigaRobbo on Tue 31st Jan 2006 08:58 UTC in reply to "Messenger"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

The orginal poster point was not that it's hard to hide or not use the Microsoft application, it's hard to remove it from the PC totally.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Messenger
by sappyvcv on Tue 31st Jan 2006 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Messenger"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

What's the big deal? Why are people so anal about having it "removed totally." There are a lot of things in Windows I don't use, but I don't care if they are there so long as I don't have to see it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Messenger
by hal2k1 on Wed 1st Feb 2006 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Messenger"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"What's the big deal? Why are people so anal about having it "removed totally." There are a lot of things in Windows I don't use, but I don't care if they are there so long as I don't have to see it."

Because, if it is on your system, it can be used remotely to compromise your system, even if you never use it yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Messenger
by sappyvcv on Wed 1st Feb 2006 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Messenger"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

That goes for any component of any OS.

Reply Score: 1

Of course AV will appear in windows Vista...
by Sphinx on Tue 31st Jan 2006 00:32 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Whenever they're ready to crush the life out of their close business partners killing the anti virus market just like disk compression, browser etc. etc. Same old story since the 80's, why would AV be different?

Reply Score: 2

Anti-Virus Business Plan
by Shaman on Tue 31st Jan 2006 02:46 UTC
Shaman
Member since:
2005-11-15

I just can't grok this whole concept... the vendor sells you a flawed product and then sells you a box of bandaids that you use up and have to buy more of on a regular basis as all the gaping programming wounds in the product become obvious. It's like selling somebody a pool guaranteed to spring leaks contantly and handing them a box of patches that they have to apply in order to use the product at all... and expecting them to consider it all a normal part of the everyday product cycle. Next, tires that won't hold air and books without all the pages!

If nobody files a class-action suit against Microsoft over this "business plan," I will be shocked beyond words.

All the crap I've dumped on Sun in here in the last year and yet have a look at a business with just a scrap (and that's all I'll give them) of ethics - all their generic OS patches are free. Nevermind that there hasn't been a propogataing virus in the wild for *nix, ever.

Edited 2006-01-31 02:48

Reply Score: 1

RE: Heh heh...
by Shaman on Tue 31st Jan 2006 03:01 UTC
Shaman
Member since:
2005-11-15

>You're closer to the truth than you know, in light of
>Microsoft's recently-announced
>"pay-per-unlocked-feature" strategy they'll be debuting
>in Vista.

I've been wondering why MS finally gave in and developed a reasonable command line interface. A revelation!

Reply Score: 1

Corrected your post
by proforma on Tue 31st Jan 2006 06:06 UTC
proforma
Member since:
2005-08-27

>1. The software. Windows XP Home costs around 60
>GBP. Let's say that this is going to be the cost of
>an "upgrade edition", too (perhaps optimistic given
>the amount of work that went into it).

It costs $100 here in the states and I don't know if that will change or not we will have to see.

>2. Hardware upgrade. A new stick of memory or a new
>video card are probably needed if the average user
>wants to be able to enjoy all the bells and
>whistles: let's say 30 GBP.

You don't have to upgrade to run it, its your CHOICE. That is a word that you should get used to.

Choice in this way does not really mean that you have to pay to upgrade your hardware. If you can run XP, you can run Vista. Now if you want to play the latest games and you have a Geforce 3, then you have a choice to play on a PC or a console or not at all. Again it's your choice. You are not forced into making this choice.


>3. Some people are happy with a concoction of free
>alternative, but some other people will look at
>OneCare: 20 GBP per year (this is optimistic, as it
>is lower that antivirus products). Given that they
>promise antivirus, and a lot of other security
>services, I guess most average users will feel
>compelled to sign up.

Again, there are free virus scanners on the Internet and it's your choice if you want to download them or not. You do not have to pay anything to Microsoft for this feature, it's your choice and you are not obligated to do so.

If you run windows XP, you have a choice of going out and buying a Virus scanner or you can download a free one, there is no difference for Vista.

>4. Digitally signed software. The 300 GBP that
>Microsoft (or rather Verisign) is going to extort to >software producers is going to be passed on to
>customers, right? And a lot of freeware programs are >just not going to run. Possibly they will disappear, >as independent developers that make usefule and free >apps will not want to shell out the money (e.g.
>Rootkit Revealer).

This is for kernel mode apps only. Do you know how many kernel apps are around? Not many. Microsoft has taken most of their code out of kernel mode and offer only bare minimum code. Audio,video, and network drivers are no longer in Kernel mode. They just have small hooks in kernel mode.

You should not have any software that is written by anyone in Kernel mode. This is yet another protection for the Operating System, you can still code like you have coded before, it just prevents companies from sneaking crap into the kernel and making your computer unstable. This is a good thing.

You don't want people messing with the kernel or you might as well not even have an OS.

>5. DRM and other stuff might cause your DVD recorder >or your monitor to malfunction or to have crippled
>functionality.

You will still be able to do what you do now on Vista. Most of the good stuff out there doesn't even use .wmv files and that is the only things that are going to have issues with Hidef content. Most people use .divx or .ratDVD or something else.

YOu will be able to record DVD's just like you do now. No difference. You can still use Nero and all that good stuff.

Can you rip a CD using the Windows Media player and play it on any computer? No, but who uses that to rip music anyway. Get my drift?

The points that you posted for the most part is just FUD that makes people misinformed and you wonder why there is so much hate for Microsoft. You guys are not helping set the record strait so people become more misinformed.

Edited 2006-01-31 06:26

Reply Score: 1

This is the way of Software
by proforma on Tue 31st Jan 2006 06:38 UTC
proforma
Member since:
2005-08-27

>just can't grok this whole concept... the vendor
>sells you a flawed product and then sells you a box
>of bandaids that you use up and have to buy more of
>on a regular basis as all the gaping programming
>wounds in the product become obvious. It's like
>selling somebody a pool guaranteed to spring leaks
>contantly and handing them a box of patches that
>they have to apply in order to use the product at
>all... and expecting them to consider it all a
>normal part of the everyday product cycle. Next,
>tires that won't hold air and books without all the
>pages!


I take it that you don't write software for a living.

Red Hat as well as the linux distros as well as all flavors of Unix, Windows and Mac and software in general is what you describe above.

Software requires bandaids and patches, that is the way of the beast. Software can not be compared to many other industries because it is different.

Microsoft is basically taking the Anti-virus program and selling it. You will still get your OS patches for free like you do now.

This board seems to be just trolls now and just people being anal and 99 percent of the time they don't create software and have no ideas of the complexity of things such as Operating Systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: What if you are doing testing?
by jaboua on Tue 31st Jan 2006 08:13 UTC
jaboua
Member since:
2005-09-08

That happens on the mentioned distros yes.

That problem occurs if you upgrade one package, like firefox, which depends on a newer library. It happened to me when I used fedora core 1 and installed packages for fedora core 3. In order to make it work, you can either
1) upgrade the library
2) symlink the old library to the name of the new

It can also happen if you install a package for let's say SuSE on Mandriva, and they use different names/paths/versions of shared libraries.

If you use a frontend to the package managers like "urpmi" on mandriva, "you" on suse, "apt" on RPM-based and DEB-based systems or compile the packages yourself, this shouldn't happen. I reccomend you to try one of those automated package managers (myself I like "pacman", but it doesn't work with RPM or DEB)

When I was on fedora, these problems stopped when I started installing packages for my version of fedora or, if packages weren't available, make my own RPM's with checkinstall.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

>>When I was on fedora, these problems stopped when I started installing packages for my version of fedora or, if packages weren't available, make my own RPM's with checkinstall.<<

If people just stick to the package manager, then all of the Linux GPL applications install easily with a common GUI installer and absolutely no need to worry about dependencies or symlinks or anything like it.

As a bonus, you are guaranteed to remain free of any malware at all if you stick to just installing via the package manager.

http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/QuickStartSynaptic
http://www.pclinuxos.com/nospyware.html
http://www.pclinuxos.com/noadware.html
http://www.pclinuxos.com/novirus.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: What if you are doing testing?
by jaboua on Tue 31st Jan 2006 10:17 UTC
jaboua
Member since:
2005-09-08

That again depends on the package manager... On distro's like slackware that's left to the user to decide.

What I meant is that binary packages made for other distros are linked to their shared libraries. If installed on a different distro (or a different version of the distro), the library may have a different name (like libblahblah.so.3 -> libblahblah.so.4) and the binary won't find the shared library. Then you will have to symlink the binary for it to work, and since the library may have changed a lot this won't always work either. The same probably happens in windows if a DLL which an app needs is removed and replaced with a new DLL with a different name. But as I said, and as I think you were saying, if you stick to packages compiled for your distro (which you can get from some packagemanagers like pacman, dedicated websites like rpm.pbone.net (use "advanced search") and packagemanager frontends [apt/synaptic, you, urpmi...]) this won't happen.

Reply Score: 1

Don't put crap software in your kernel
by proforma on Tue 31st Jan 2006 10:19 UTC
proforma
Member since:
2005-08-27

>Microsoft's browser and Microsoft's media player ARE >bundled with their OS - in fact Microsoft make these >virtually inseparable from the OS. Microsoft does
>this so all users of the Microsoft OS are forced to
>have the Microsoft DRM that is part of the browser,
>the media player and the IM application.

I know it's hard for you to understand, but even if you don't like those bundled programs you don't have to use it. Also Vista is supposed to be even more modular in it's structure so if you don't want them you don't have to install them.

I work for a company that uses DRM and I have never seen DRM in MSN nor have I seen it in IE. Windows Media player is what can use DRM to play movies or music, but you still can play unprotected media as well.

The point you are trying to make is simply moot. Sorry, but you really have no case here.


>{Edit: In the case of FOSS, there is no part of the
>system which is inseperable. Even the Linux kernel
>itself is replaceable - one can use any of the BSDs
>or Open Solaris or even GNU Hurd instead - and still >use the "Linux" applications and desktop}.

yeah, which is basically useless on Windows. Who in the hell want's to program anything in the Kernel. It's bad programming practice.

I don't care about the linux kernel, the more crap they put in there means more to debug and more reasons for the OS to crash (yes on any OS). You are just asking for trouble.

The Microkernel is the best way to go to get most of the crap out of the kernel and put in user space.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"I know it's hard for you to understand, but even if you don't like those bundled programs you don't have to use it. Also Vista is supposed to be even more modular in it's structure so if you don't want them you don't have to install them. "

External black hats can use vulnerabilities to allow "arbitrary code execution". That means that the black hats can run ANYTHING on a Windows sysem that they know is there - without any end user intervention.

On Windows, there is no such thing as "you don't have to use it". If it is there, external actors can use it. End users, owners of the machine - can't get rid of these security holes just waiting to be used by external actors. Microsft DESIGNED it that way.

I know it is hard for you to understand, but I'll try to keep it simple for you. The combination of "critical exploit", "arbitrary code execution" and "cannot remove IE" (all of which we recently saw with the WMF exploit) add up to a fundamental security problem and I'm sorry but "you don't have to use it" simply doesn't mean squat.

"The point you are trying to make is simply moot. Sorry, but you really have no case here. "

It is not moot. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management - except that they are not talking about MY rights. They are talking about the rights of American megacorps. I'm not even an American. Therefore they are not putting any of that rubbish about their rights on MY machine. If that means no Windows - then so be it.

"The Microkernel is the best way to go to get most of the crap out of the kernel and put in user space."

OK, so use GNU Hurd which is based on the mach microkernel. Beauty of that is you don't have to give away YOUR rights to any American megacorps.

Reply Score: 4

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"Also Vista is supposed to be even more modular in it's structure so if you don't want them you don't have to install them."

Windows Vista apparently comes "with the lot". The different "modular bits" are apparently all there on all installations, and the only difference is that you have to pay Microsoft extra $$$ just to get the extra bits (which are already there) to work for you. They will probably work anayway for some external black hat guru who knows how to get it to run.

"Arbitrary code execution", remember?

Reply Score: 1

I don't care about what you compile.
by proforma on Tue 31st Jan 2006 10:32 UTC
proforma
Member since:
2005-08-27

My problem with these kids on here is that they think they are cool because they can run an OS that is based off a 30 year old OS.

Wow, cool so you can compile your own kernel with a make file. Guess what? I don't give a crap.

They just discovered the sky is blue and it's Microsof's fault because they like how green gives them a feeling of goodness again I don't care.

I don't have a problem with linux or unix as much as I have a problem with their misinformed FUD laiden fans and for what? I mean linux was good when windows 98 was around and it was providing some guidance for Microsoft but I don't see just compiling as moving forward and progressing, it takes a lot more than that and tutorials to make a difference.

So what you can have 12 different incompatible GUI's. I will take programs like Utorrent over that any day.

Being flexible in that way doesn't offer a lot when not many people is doing anything with it or being anywhere near productive.

Telling me that you love it that you can compile your own kernel and make it your own is about as useless as being proud of a hello world application on windows, it's totally useless. Why would anyone want to go backwards and introduce more code into the kernel to break things even more and make compatibility worse and end up to be a nightmare for coding and stability.

Thanks but no thanks. Micro-Kernels are better than the linux kernel for a lot of reasons.

Window's Kernel isn't a Micro-kernel either but they are heading in that direction and that is better for everyone.

Reply Score: 0

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"I don't have a problem with linux or unix as much as I have a problem with their misinformed FUD laiden fans and for what? I mean linux was good when windows 98 was around and it was providing some guidance for Microsoft but I don't see just compiling as moving forward and progressing, it takes a lot more than that and tutorials to make a difference."

FUD, FUD, FUD.

You can use a Linux system and customise it and install and uninstall stuff to your hearts content and NEVER have to compile squat.

http://www.pclinuxonline.com/wiki/QuickStartSynaptic

Reply Score: 2

hal2k1
Member since:
2005-11-11

My daughter likes to use the MSN messenger stuff. She has a large list of "buddies" that she chats to on-line.

Anyway, one of the on-line friends was chatting with her (I think he was trying to impress her as being a Wiz), and he said "I can open your CD drive from here". He tried it - it didn't work. He asked her:

"are u running Linux?"

"yes"

"drat!"

Gaim (or Kopete) under Linux works just fine as an IM client for MSN Messenger - except that remote external actors cannot open your CD drive or do anything else on your local machine other than cause messages to be displayed.

Reply Score: 2

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

...
Gaim (or Kopete) under Linux works just fine as an IM client for MSN Messenger - except that remote external actors cannot open your CD drive or do anything else on your local machine other than cause messages to be displayed.


He wouldn't be able to open the CD drive on a Windows box unless he first got your daughter to run some code. In a normal setup, this would never work.

Edited 2006-01-31 13:15

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"He wouldn't be able to open the CD drive on a Windows box unless he first got your daughter to run some code. In a normal setup, this would never work. "

He was able to open the CD drive of all people on Windows Systems (running Messenger) without first getting them to run any (other) code.

He was not able to do this to my daughter as she was running gaim under Linux rather than Messenger under Windows.

Reply Score: 1

A tad paranoid
by polaris20 on Tue 31st Jan 2006 14:18 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

As for myself, I strictly do not allow any machine under my control both "run windows" and "be connected on the internet" at the same time. My hardware router/firewall has an IP range which blocks all of the IP addresses I have configured for the machines when they run Windows.

Perfect solution. For my Windows machines, there is no Internet. If I want something from the Internet, I boot to Linux, download and save it, then I re-boot Windows. I am very, very careful whenever I do this, and I scan the file first before I do anything else.

This is the ONLY way on a Windows system I can actually ensure that I "don't use it" and that no external actor can use it either.


Do you wear a tinfoil hat too?

Reply Score: 0

It doesn't really matter....
by 1c3d0g on Tue 31st Jan 2006 14:22 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

...'cause ClamWin can take care of the job. Open Source to the rescue! ;-)

http://www.clamwin.com/

Reply Score: 1