Linux and Antivirus software

[muzzy]

A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

While this is fun and can be seen true for w9x, it has never held true for the NT series. NT architecture can support multiple hardware platforms, and there have been versions for alpha, etc. These were discontinued, apparently due to business reasons. The design isn't based on DOS in any way. I suppose the 2bit company that can't stand 1bit competition could still be seen true, but that quote has gotten all its juice milked from it long time ago now.

[MrX]

XP still needs to be activated, so what's the problem?

really? than what do cracks do

Mr X

[muzzy]

really? than what do cracks do

Pirated copies are already widely available, and it's trivial to get the installation media for windows XP. The issue of bypassing activation is independent from availability of installation media. Allowing third party distribution of untrusted custom install medias wouldn't affect the piracy issue in any way.

Also, microsoft doesn't care if you pirate the software. The activation is primarily there to prevent resellers from installing pirated copies of windows. These are the real problem to microsoft, because selling pirate copies allows for more profits, and thus makes competition tough for legit stores. Legit stores aren't going to be happy if they have to pay for something their competitors aren't paying for, and left uncontroller, could lead to stores beginning shipping with free (as in beer) operating systems.

[Calum]

oddly enough, if you read through the last couple of muzzy's posts, it's a pretty scathing and damning report of microsoft all in all, from their attitude to competition, through the importance they give to their users, to their marketing tactics. the only bit that i can take issue with is this:

Well, there's no point comparing default windows installations to default linux installations. You can preconfigure your distro any damn way you like, so that'd be same as comparing unconfigured windows with preconfigured linux. Now that wouldn't be fair either.

which kind of reads like that mathematical proof showing that 1+1=1 in a sort of circular logical way.

[Lord C]

A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

While this is fun and can be seen true for w9x, it has never held true for the NT series. NT architecture can support multiple hardware platforms, and there have been versions for alpha, etc. These were discontinued, apparently due to business reasons. The design isn't based on DOS in any way. I suppose the 2bit company that can't stand 1bit competition could still be seen true, but that quote has gotten all its juice milked from it long time ago now.

I didn't quote this in a post, so why are you replying to it.
It is my sig.
It will stay my sig.
Deal with it.

[greatscot]

suffice it to say that none of this happens with a linux system, because outlook isn't available for it, but more importantly because a user only has access to their own $HOME (this is called "My Documents" in mswindows) so if they try and run an executable file, firstly they know they are doing it, and secondly they can't change any system files, because linux's filesystems fully support permissioning (unlike windows's filesystems)

FUD FUD FUD! NTFS supports ACLs, it's just the default windows configuration that's to blame. It can be configured to be pretty good, but most users aren't aware of this. Also, many apps expect the permissions to be fucked up, and won't work if they aren't...

I recall there was also a case with some mail app on linux that would run executable by merely doubleclicking the attachment. I definitely remember there was a big fuzz about it once. Luckily people knew what a bad idea it was since outlook had demonstrated it earlier.

This is one benefit of having a specified package format, where a package to be installed is run by a seperate program, unlike under windows, where the package itself is runnable, and is not visibly installed by an installer program, and so there are no commands which can be used to determine whether the install will mess up your PC or not.

Ever heard of MSI? It's the microsoft's installer system, and it comes with a happy happy package system. Many developers just don't use it, although they damn well should. If microsoft allowed for third party distributions of windows, I'm sure someone would set up a system similar to apt for downloading and verifying of windows packages.

What comes to messing the PC, most users don't have the ability to determine what's safe and what's not, and frankly most of them aren't interested in learning the necessary skills for that. Apps can still screw user's own stuff, even if the rest of the system stays protected. Don't you guys do anything with your computers or why aren't your own files the most valuable part of your personal systems?

muzzy, you crack me up. I read your posts when I need a laugh, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about

[muzzy]

muzzy, you crack me up. I read your posts when I need a laugh, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about

If you want to correct something I've said please do so. That "you have no idea" attitude kind of implies you aren't interested in discussing the subject, yet have a need to ridicule them. You know, I'd like it if you told me why I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. And please, keep the discussion at least somewhat objective.