MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?

kurttrail wrote:

Robert Moir wrote:

kurttrail wrote:

And I'm not really anti-MS, I'm pro-consumer-choice, and MS just
happens to be the biggest obstacle in the way of Consumer Choice.

You know. You can go buy an Apple computer tomorrow running OS X.
I've got an iBook right here on the desk besides the computer I'm
using now and its very nice.

One thing though. It has these problems with buggy code that require
you to download periodic updates. There is this especially nasty one
with an exploit in how it handles DHCP.

Thank you for proving my point! What percentage of computer users
were under threat of this AppleOS DHCP exploit? 2 to 4%! Not 95%!
Now say there were 5 PCOS companies out there, and for the sake of
argument let's say that they share the PCOS market equally, what
percentage of users are potentially at risk by an exploit of any one
given companies OS? That's right! 20%. Not 95%. So which PCOS
market would be a safer for the general public, a market with one big
fat-assed OS, or one with multiple OS where the risks are spread out
over multiple targets?

http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-7349_3-...2510&tag=mymsn

95% or 20%? Wouldn't it better to distribute the risk of computer nasties
among multiple OS platforms, than just grudgingly accept the 95% final
solution as our lot?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the point
that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points given, but their
interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but certainly one seen in this
thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of view, do
those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push this suggestion
into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes to teaching the masses
how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have trouble
doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their OS - learning
something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest - to say the least -
is not there.

--
- Shenan -
--

Shenan Stanley wrote:

Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

--
- Shenan -


What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken up?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some unknown
form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow end their
"monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft have to be split up
that would somehow create more competition and/or less of a monopoly of some
division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -
--

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition and/or
less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

D'oh! I just noticed that this thread spreads across WAY too many groups..
When did it become necessary to cross post to discuss something?!

--
- Shenan -
--

Shenan Stanley wrote:

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition and/or
less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -

By making their OS Open Source, of course.

There would be no over-night way we can changed the One PC OS vulnerability,
but after fines and break up, the resulting broken up companies wouldn't
have the clout to dominate the market. It was done to MA Bell, it can be
done to MS. But of course it would take years to build a competive market.
I can go into much greater detail, but what is most important at the moment
is that people start to recognize that this One PC OS market is the biggest
whole in the general public's computer security, and blaming the MicroRape
victim won't solve a thing.

But what you should notice is that none of the guys argueing against me has
even bother to answer you, as they were really only to try to get me off my
topic, to protect their beloved MS. Are you suggesting that we should just
grudgingly accept the 95% final solution as our lot, and do nothing? What
would be your constructive idea to get us out of the One PC OS
target-basket? If the target stays the same, the schmucks that keep trying
to hit it, will only become better at hitting it, and hit it better and
bigger weapons. We can hide our heads in the sand, or we can start
pressuring our gov'ts to act in the bests interests of the public's welfare.
Microsoft has proven time and again they can't or won't act in our public
interest, it's time for our gov'ts to do something about it!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan;
You may be better off to drop it.
I did when he showed his true self with his name calling.

Kurt's goal is apparently to keep his name on the Microsoft page with
the longest thread.
Note #6 on this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...e/default.mspx
His excessive cross posting helps him further his goal.

He is also very free to suggest others make their own property "Open
Source".
Doubtful he set the proper example by giving all his services/property
away for free.
..
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown
form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow end their
"monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft have to be
split up
that would somehow create more competition and/or less of a monopoly
of some
division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

Shenan;
You may be better off to drop it.
I did when he showed his true self with his name calling.

Kurt's goal is apparently to keep his name on the Microsoft page with
the longest thread.
Note #6 on this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...e/default.mspx
His excessive cross posting helps him further his goal.

He is also very free to suggest others make their own property "Open
Source".
Doubtful he set the proper example by giving all his services/property
away for free.
.

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition
and/or less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

--
- Shenan -

No you ran away. And exactly what name did I call you?

"Stay on topic, answer the question, and stop playing your WinTroll games,
Juppy."

I used WinTroll to describe your games, not you, so you must have the
problem with "Juppy."

Time for "Juppy" to run away again!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

kurttrail wrote:

But what you should notice is that none of the guys argueing against
me has even bother to answer you, as they were really only to try to
get me off my topic, to protect their beloved MS.

Actually, I was in bed asleep and then at work all day. The world is a very
big place Kurt and not all of us live in the same timezone as you.

And I don't see the point of continuing a "discussion" with someone who has
such a narrow view of the world. Good day to you sir.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

Shenan;
You may be better off to drop it.
I did when he showed his true self with his name calling.

I already covered this.

Kurt's goal is apparently to keep his name on the Microsoft page with
the longest thread.
Note #6 on this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...e/default.mspx

When did MS add this feature? This is actually the first I've heard of it.
I must say I find it hysterical! I should have cross-posted this with
alt.os.windows-xp too. I would have been number one on the list!

His excessive cross posting helps him further his goal.

6 group isn't all that excessive, and I have valid reasons why I posted this
thread in each.


He is also very free to suggest others make their own property "Open
Source".

No, I was suggesting that our gov'ts do it for MS, in order to protect the
general public from the MicroTarget.

Doubtful he set the proper example by giving all his services/property
away for free.

First off, MS's software is neither a service or property, it is copyrighted
material.

And I do freely give of my copyrighted material. http://kurttrail.com &
http://microscum.com

More MicroTroll games, Juppy? I'm not afraid to sink down to you level, if
you're up for it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Robert Moir wrote:

kurttrail wrote:

But what you should notice is that none of the guys argueing against
me has even bother to answer you, as they were really only to try to
get me off my topic, to protect their beloved MS.

Actually, I was in bed asleep and then at work all day. The world is
a very big place Kurt and not all of us live in the same timezone as
you.

And I don't see the point of continuing a "discussion" with someone
who has such a narrow view of the world. Good day to you sir.

Robert - "It [the MacOS] has these problems with buggy code that require you
to
download periodic updates. There is this especially nasty one with an
exploit in how it handles DHCP."

Kurt - "Thank you for proving my point! What percentage of computer users
were
under threat of this AppleOS DHCP exploit? 2 to 4%! Not 95%! Now say
there were 5 PCOS companies out there, and for the sake of argument let's
say that they share the PCOS market equally, what percentage of users are
potentially at risk by an exploit of any one given companies OS? That's
right! 20%. Not 95%. So which PCOS market would be a safer for the
general public, a market with one big fat-assed OS, or one with multiple
OS[s]
where the risks are spread out over multiple targets?"

Couldn't find a way to answer that without admitting I'm right, huh?

I do believe you're the one with the narrow view. Good day to you too, sir!
vbg

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

In article , in the
microsoft.public.security news group, kurttrail
says...

"[T]he link is formatted


Please don't feed the trolls, if you do, they tend to hang around.


--
Paul Adare
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.
H. G. Wells, The Wife of Sir Isaac Harman

Paul Adare wrote:

In article , in the
microsoft.public.security news group, kurttrail
says...

"[T]he link is formatted


Please don't feed the trolls, if you do, they tend to hang around.


--
Paul Adare
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.
H. G. Wells, The Wife of Sir Isaac Harman

You do realize that this thread had just about run it's course, don't you?


And if I were really a troll, I'd get off on morons like you telling others
not to feed me. Parroting the "Don't feed the troll" line, is just more
troll food, and is just a unnecessary display of your moral indignation.
It's a pity that you aren't bright enough to figure that you're not only a
witless TrollFeeder, but you're also showing your jealousy with a halo.

Have A Nice Day! vbeg

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan Stanley wrote:

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up the
point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it comes
to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest -
to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition and/or
less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

D'oh! I just noticed that this thread spreads across WAY too many
groups.. When did it become necessary to cross post to discuss
something?!

When the subject affects more that one group. Why are all newsreaders set
up to allow cross-posting? Because there is nothing intinsically wrong with
cross-posting, that's why.

So instead of bitchin' about something that is perfectly acceptable, why
don't you try and answer the questions I asked you.

"Are you suggesting that we should just grudgingly accept the 95% final
solution as our lot, and do nothing? What would be your constructive idea
to get us out of the One PC OS target-basket?"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Although this discussion is a bit interesting, I have to bring up
the point that not many people are disagreeing on the actual points
given, but their interpretation of the points. A minor flaw, but
certainly one seen in this thread.

Also - I would like to point out that while the suggestion of
diversification could be considered valid in a security point of
view, do those suggesting it have any plan of action to help push
this suggestion into reality or are they "out of ideas" when it
comes to teaching the masses how to "think differently"? (*grin*)

The reason I bring that up is that the majority of users I know have
trouble doing the simplest of tasks on a computer - no matter their
OS - learning something "new" to them is a daunting task. Interest
- to say the least - is not there.

kurttrail wrote:
What? You want a detailed plan on how'd I think MS should be broken
up?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
That's up to you..

You seem to throw forth (a lot) that breaking Microsoft up (in some
unknown form) would make the world a more secure place and somehow
end their "monopoly" on the OS market.. Just how would Microsoft
have to be split up that would somehow create more competition and/or
less of a monopoly of some division of the broken up company?

kurttrail wrote:
By making their OS Open Source, of course.

There would be no over-night way we can changed the One PC OS
vulnerability, but after fines and break up, the resulting broken up
companies wouldn't have the clout to dominate the market. It was
done to MA Bell, it can be done to MS. But of course it would take
years to build a competive market. I can go into much greater detail,
but what is most important at the moment is that people start to
recognize that this One PC OS market is the biggest whole in the
general public's computer security, and blaming the MicroRape victim
won't solve a thing.

But what you should notice is that none of the guys argueing against
me has even bother to answer you, as they were really only to try to
get me off my topic, to protect their beloved MS. Are you suggesting
that we should just grudgingly accept the 95% final solution as our
lot, and do nothing? What would be your constructive idea to get us
out of the One PC OS target-basket? If the target stays the same,
the schmucks that keep trying to hit it, will only become better at
hitting it, and hit it better and bigger weapons. We can hide our
heads in the sand, or we can start pressuring our gov'ts to act in
the bests interests of the public's welfare. Microsoft has proven
time and again they can't or won't act in our public interest, it's
time for our gov'ts to do something about it!

Everyone always brings up MaBell when this subject rolls around about
Microsoft. The problem I see is that the comparison, while holding some
validity, falls short in many ways. Essentially - service vs product
monopoly. The idea is the same, but there are some subtle differences when
you think on it that doesn't guarantee changes if just a break-up occurs.

As for going open-source.. the idea sounds pleasing at first, except when
you consider that it probably wouldn't go anywhere for decades and then the
fear would be too much diversity. If I change jobs and/or move to another
state, will I be using "Kurttrail's Office Suite" on "Megalard's Doors" OS
where I was used to working on "Smiley's Productivity Set" on "Big Tex's"
OS? Simpler yet - can Kurttrail's Office Suite read my Smiley's
Productivity Set spreadsheet, modify it and send it back to me in a format I
can edit again?

I know - that's a bit extreme, but it is not (other than the names)
completely impossible to imagine. Right now Office on the MAC sometimes has
trouble with Office on the PC documents.. And Open Office doesn't read
everything about Word or WordPerfect documents flawlessly. If you open the
field too much without standards already in place (there isn't any now.. And
there likely wouldn't be until after this became an actual problem) - you
may be asking for trouble. That's just an opinion and one possibility - so
it's not necessarily what I *believe* would happen - but a possibility.

I think before we go screaming "Open Source" and "Break Up Microsoft", we
should consider forcing them to follow some standards that we come out with.
One reason they have a large market share is because it's easy to use and
most people will act like electricity at all times.. "Take the shortest path
to ground." The right attitude? Maybe not - but I could never, in good
conscience, say that the way everything (software/market share) is today is
just Microsoft's fault - it's also people in general and their innate
laziness or, rather than calling the whole human race lazy - how about "lack
of interest". Your common computer user wants to sit down and use their
computer to surf the web, get their email, pay some bills - and then go back
to TV/sports/music/cooking/knitting/whatever their real interest is. So -
they are not willing or just don't see the point in learning enough to use
something other than "point and click and you have 5 ways to do almost every
task."

So, hey, I do not totally disagree with your convictions. I think you are
on one end of a large spectrum and there will be, naturally, another side of
the story. I lie somewhere in the middle - as most "computer people" do. I
can use just about any OS/application you throw at me - whether I do or not
has a lot to do with my desire in that particular app. If Microsoft broke
up, if Windows went open source, if Lindows started becoming the OS of
choice - I would adapt and move on. I support my customers/family/friends
with the knowledge I have and taking their needs into consideration - and
with all of that in mind - Windows is still on top for the end-user OS in my
mind. It has the most apps/drivers/hardware configuration possibilities of
any OS with the least amount of TRUE effort on the end-users part. This
appeals to the "non-interested, gimme my Final Fantasy and the rest of the
computer can rot" persona as well as the "less casual and intense cannot
live without my email, spreadsheet, gaming system with the water cooling and
remote control" individual.

Preach on - I will listen - and you've at least - if nothing else - made me
consider things I might not have before. But - perhaps you should
cross-post less. *grin*

--
- Shenan -
--