OT - possibly avoiding this BS in the future

Microsoft is not the problem. MS is being attacked because it is the
biggest boy on the block.

I don't know that I really agree with that.

MSFT's technology really is insecure, from the ground up. They have
inherent base flaws in their design that there are no easy fixes.
They also really rush new code out and force feed it to customers
regardless of quality so as to kill off competing high-tech start-ups
and that's a big part of the issue as well.

Linux is the future, it will take many years but gains market share
every year. It has highest market share growth of anything
competitive, and best of all, it's free!

I used to be an all-microsoft guy all-the-time, but now I use MSFT 50%
and Linux 50% daily. My trend is reduction of use of Microsoft. They
have some things that are better than Linux, but decreasingly so and
when compared to cost and security it's an easier choice.

Linux's (UNIX) security model does vastly exceeds Microsoft's. While
there are still issues as you point out, it is not so much cut and
dry. The Linux model really is better. Microsoft built Windows and
added security to it after, Linux worked in reverse, it started with
strong / government class security and built everything on top of
that.

For instance, as a core requirement in the Linux kernel users can't
really do anything to the system. They can't delete configuration
files, they are pretty much absolutely locked into their own little
world... at the kernel level.

SO when open a virus on a Linux box that is bad, it bounces around and
can't get out of the user's "box" to hurt the system.

On Windows that's not true.

Even with low-level access on a Windows box you can cheat and do lots
and lots of bad things.

Critical Popperian wrote:
Microsoft is not the problem. MS is being attacked because it is the
biggest boy on the block.


I don't know that I really agree with that.

MSFT's technology really is insecure, from the ground up. They have

I agree. Microsoft has known about viruses for a long time and has done
nothing about it. Asking everyone to keep their machine updated is like
asking everyone to use a more efficient car to conserve fuel; some will
and some won't. With respect to not keeping Windows updated, everyone
pays. But there are solutions out there. Unix has a layered security
model and Java has an even nicer one. You can say run this program but
don't let it write any files or send any mail. This type of thing would
solve most of the security problems that windows runs up against. It
wouldn't help with a bug in the RPC protocol (blaster, I think) but it
would remove the current problem. And with all of the money MS makes
you'd think they could come up with something to mitigate other problems.

So, microsoft might not be the problem but they're not implementing any
of a number of known solutions. And since they're the biggest guy on the
block they can afford to be more responsible.

I started out on Unix (worked at Bell Labs in the late 70's - early 80's)
and I to this day think it was/is the most elegant system out there. I can
do file processing things with ease on Unix (Linux terminal) that are
burdensome on any other system. When I first came to SUNY I had a NeXT
machine - it was at least a decade ahead of windows at the time and had
things that even today are lacking in Windows. The problem is that
currently Linux while much nicer than it was just a couple of years ago, is
not really a "KMart" product that any user can open up and use. As I said
I'm experienced with Unix, I am the system administrator in our lab and I
beat my head against the wall with Linux. Plus the open software that made
Unix so wonderful has turned Linux into a nightmare. There is so much crap
on it that it just overwhelms.

The reason I defend Windows is that it made computers something everyone and
anyone could use. The MAC was really nice but few people could afford them.
Windows certainly has many flaws but it survives and flourishes in the
business because of what I consider flaws (taking other's developed ideas
and incorporating them as their own, ME, all the ones you mentioned, etc.)
.... NeXT no longer exists.

Most software used to come out as beta versions that would get tested and
then marketed. My guess is that the profit margin is just too small to
afford that anymore.

D Kat


"Critical Popperian" wrote in message
om...
Microsoft is not the problem. MS is being attacked because it is the
biggest boy on the block.

I don't know that I really agree with that.

MSFT's technology really is insecure, from the ground up. They have
inherent base flaws in their design that there are no easy fixes.
They also really rush new code out and force feed it to customers
regardless of quality so as to kill off competing high-tech start-ups
and that's a big part of the issue as well.

Linux is the future, it will take many years but gains market share
every year. It has highest market share growth of anything
competitive, and best of all, it's free!

I used to be an all-microsoft guy all-the-time, but now I use MSFT 50%
and Linux 50% daily. My trend is reduction of use of Microsoft. They
have some things that are better than Linux, but decreasingly so and
when compared to cost and security it's an easier choice.

Linux's (UNIX) security model does vastly exceeds Microsoft's. While
there are still issues as you point out, it is not so much cut and
dry. The Linux model really is better. Microsoft built Windows and
added security to it after, Linux worked in reverse, it started with
strong / government class security and built everything on top of
that.

For instance, as a core requirement in the Linux kernel users can't
really do anything to the system. They can't delete configuration
files, they are pretty much absolutely locked into their own little
world... at the kernel level.

SO when open a virus on a Linux box that is bad, it bounces around and
can't get out of the user's "box" to hurt the system.

On Windows that's not true.

Even with low-level access on a Windows box you can cheat and do lots
and lots of bad things.

D Kat wrote:

The reason I defend Windows is that it made computers something everyone and
anyone could use.

Well, almost everyone and anyone. What they really did was make computers
cheap. I have always held the belief that a computer should be simple and
intuitive. Windows is neither. Watch a non-serious computer user try to set
up a windows network sometime. Or someone who just wants to write a letter
with Microsoft Word.

The MAC was really nice but few people could afford them.
Yes. They were more money, but the level of elegance and usability was way
higher. When windows first came out I was writing software for both
Macintosh and DOS platforms. We nearly killed ourselves laughing over the
"new" windows system. To this day I can put a floppy disk in a wintel box
and the computer is still unaware it was loaded; I can get a directory of
it, eject it, put in a different floppy and the computer has no idea.

Windows certainly has many flaws but it survives and flourishes in the
business because of what I consider flaws (taking other's developed ideas
and incorporating them as their own, ME, all the ones you mentioned, etc.)

I think it flourishes because it has momentum. Microsoft essentially got
lucky when IBM said, "hey, we'll use this little DOS thingy you guys wrote
to be the operating system for these computers that we wish would just go
away." I don't think MS has had a truly innovative day in their history, as
you say they pretty much steal or buy what other people develop.

Oh well.

Joe



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I sure hope the disguise works...... this is getting ridiculous.
"Gale Pearce" wrote in message
...
Can anyone tell me where I have to go to disguise my email addy in
this
newsgroup from the spam bots in the future in case this is where
they got
it? I use OE & IE
Thanks - Gale :~)

Hi Gale,

I'm new to this group as I only dug my pond about 5 weeks ago, I'll
post some pictures when I get the time. My pond is about 10'x12' and
about 3' deep, it's fed by a waterfall and 35' stream. I've added some
plants and 7 golden rudd (from my brothers pond) and then 6 green
tench about a week later. Since I added the green tench I've only been
able to see 6 of the golden rudd! It only took a heron 4 weeks to find
the pond. It's basically a wild life pond and we've also been visited
by a fox and got the normal insect and bird life.

I've had the normal problems with green water, but it's not been that
bad and it cleared fairly quickly to crystal clear. Then I had to do
some more work which stirred the muck up that turned the water green,
but it's slowly clearing .

That the introduction over with regard to your original post you might
want to read the following links:

Munging and spam resources:
http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html
http://webreference.com/outlook/column30/page2.html
http://www.forumscentral.com/email/spam.htm

Regards

nemo

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:00:33 -0400, "Gale Pearce"
wrote:

Can anyone tell me where I have to go to disguise my email addy in this
newsgroup from the spam bots in the future in case this is where they got
it? I use OE & IE
Thanks - Gale :~)

While reading this, I started to wonder if OE has an email filtering device.
I can't seem to find it if it does. Can someone point me in the direction?

Thanks,

Bob


--

Check out my pond webpage:
Http://trains99.tripod.com

Click on the My Pond Link under Places to Go

"Bob in PA" wrote in message
...
While reading this, I started to wonder if OE has an email filtering
device.
I can't seem to find it if it does. Can someone point me in the
direction?

Yes. Click Tools/Message Rules/ Mail tab/ New button.

The following was also recently posted by MS MVP Ron Martell:

"Here is my OE message rule.

It has been 100% effective for the past 2 days:

Where the message body contains 'This is the qmail program'
or 'Undelivered message to'
or 'I'm sorry to have to inform you that I wasn't able to deliver your
message'
or 'I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message'
or 'Undeliverable mail to'
or 'all known security vulnerabilities'
or 'Undelivered mail to' or 'Undeliverable message to'
or 'I'm sorry I wasn't able to deliver your message'
or 'Undeliverable to'
or 'I'm afraid the message returned below'
or 'Undelivered to'
or 'An e-mail delivered to you contained a virus'
Delete it
and Stop processing more rules

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"cat daddy" wrote in message
...

"Bob in PA" wrote in message
...
While reading this, I started to wonder if OE has an email filtering
device.
I can't seem to find it if it does. Can someone point me in the
direction?

Yes. Click Tools/Message Rules/ Mail tab/ New button.

Ah, thank you.

Bob