It was on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:17:19 +0100, that Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ William Poaster ] on Tuesday 25 July 2006 23:37 \__
>
>> It was on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:07:08 +0100, that Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Stuart Krivis <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> On 25 Jul 2006 08:54:44 -0700, "nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>>>><nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A lot will be riding on whether security is improved in Vista. I don't
>>>>>know what the outcome will be, I assume some basic competence in fixing
>>>>>some security problems, but when the article says things like:
>>>>>
>>>>>Quote:
>>>>>------------
>>>>>"The triviality of this privilege escalation...foreshadows the grave
>>>>>difficulty that the Windows Vista security model will have enforcing
>>>>>the separation between low and medium integrity level under the same
>>>>>user account," Conover wrote.
>>>>>------------
>>>>>End quote
>>>>>
>>>>>it makes me think that there will be plenty of security problems in
>>>>>Vista, too. If so, it won't be good for Vista adoption---security will
>>>>>be one of the main draws.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, it will be just like all MS products where they promise a lot and
>>>> never deliver. So they'll tell people the security is just peachy now,
>>>> and Windows is sold by pre-loads anyway, so the average user will just
>>>> get stuck with it.
>>>>
>>>> One improvement you can almost count on though is that product
>>>> actviation, WGA, and DRM will be even more restrictive and intrusive.
>>>>
>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You know, I don't think this is going to fly any more. I think that XP
>>> was Microsoft's last chance to get it /wrong/, Vista really needed to be
>>> right, but the public at large probably do not comprehend what an
>>> enormous task it would be to fix Windows. I'd rather pilot the Titanic,
>>> I think...
>>
>> Talking about fixing windows, I just came across this! <grin>
>> http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060725
>
> *LOL* I saw that too. I began syndicating these cartoons
> last month. Have a load of /this/:
>
> http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060720
>
> Change "monitor resolution" to "Microsoft Windows" or
> "Internet Explorer". Then, have a look at the controversy
> that surrounds Microsoft's new site design. Microsoft have
> recently dragged partners (e.g. MTV/Urge) into that same
> train. Make it hard for users to use alternatives and maybe
> they will give up.
>
> This reminds me of my attempt to convert a friend to Firefox
> some time ago. I left him there working happily with Firefox
> (Brushed themed) and later he returned and said that some
> CNN feature did not work. "It's better to have half a loaf
> then no loaf at all", he told me and then returned to using
> Internet Explorer. Microsoft plays a dangerous games as it
> patronises Web standards and spreads its own 'cancer',
> deliberately.
It certainly does, Roy. Pity they couldn't be sued for it.
And mentioning suing, I caught this in El Reg about BOFH:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/21/bofh_2006_episode_24/
--
98% of linux problems *windows* users whine about,
emanate from somewhere between the chair and the PC.
Either the person cannot read, doesn't understand
what they read, or they can't be bothered.
|
|
