Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: lame bitching about xpsp2
From: "joe" <mvp () joeware net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:09:03 -0400
South California's, University of Michigan's and others, which just shows that Windows isn't really written purely by M$... Of course, most, if not all, or even more, are still in Windows 2003.
I didn't say that they didn't use BSD pieces, I said that he wasn't as accurate as he likes to think for the statement where he was naming specific tools and pieces. Use of BSD pieces doesn't mean that it was used in its entirety or even a lot, just that it was used in some manner, it could possibly be limited to #define statements in a header file. If that is done they still have to acknowledge the source. It can even be to acknowledge IP. I've looked at most of the components the poster spoke of, not the release notes, I am familiar with what companies and orgs the pieces came from. I know I didn't even start to imply that MS had written all of Windows from scratch. Actually I think that is one of the issues in that many pieces they didn't completely write gets thrown together with other pieces they did write. However if you can buy a tcp/ip stack or a zip implementation or a SQL Server or metadirectory for less than it takes to build it and grow the experience in-house, it makes business sense to do so. Microsoft is a business. Once you realize that, you understand idealism and religion have no place here.
Sure, they invest in companies writing software, but only cause it doesn't compete in thier main market.
To this all I can say is duh? How often do you see Ford giving money to GM, Hershey giving it to Morley, Goodyear giving it to BF Goodrich. Companies INVEST money in other companies, they DONATE money to charities. If two companies in the same market get together on a project they do it for mutual benefit and then have to duck as the government comes after them. Microsoft invested a great deal of money into ActiveState to push development of perl for the Win32 platform, do you feel they are out to make perl a Microsoft product? Even though many of us have asked for perl built-in they won't do it even though they have invested millions in it.
But there aren't that many companies that do that.
But there are, that is the point. There would be more companies doing so if there was a market and a profit to be had in this space. i.e. If everyone hated MS and Windows as much as you would like to think, other options would be used. This isn't electricity where you get it through one company or can't get it at all. This isn't oil where you only have one company processing it. You don't have no choice but to use a computer loaded with MS Software.
So most people end up buying MS software even if they don't want it.
Those people are flipping idiots. If they did that I could be how they would be so mad. Easier to blame someone else than themselves for being a moron.
And have you tried getting the refund for the cra^H^H^Hunwanted software?
No, because I don't buy things I don't want. Buying something you don't want and then whining for a refund is a bit silly don't you think?
Incorrect. Under UK law a company has a monopoly once: Market share is over 25% High Barriers to entry Abnormal Profits Can exercise control over price or output
I see, so Microsoft is exercising control over the price and output of other Operating Systems? How much did they make you pay for your last copy of Linux or BSD or ? Define what abnormal profits are? Because one company only makes 1% on their gross does that mean anyone making 10% on their gross is close to be called a monopoly?
Ah, a traditional arguement. The users are stuipid, except I know some users who as far, far more intelligent than you or I.
If they are far more intelligent than I on Windows then they are outside the scope of this discussion because I am betting they patch and otherwise secure their machines just fine. So to try and bring this back in once again, what are your specific gripes about XP SP2? Did it work for you when you loaded or not? Do you even have a Windows machine to load it on to have an opinion? joe -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of ktabic Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 11:35 AM To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] lame bitching about xpsp2 On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 19:13 -0400, joe wrote: _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2, (continued)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Dark Avenger (Aug 13)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 devis (Aug 13)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 16)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 devis (Aug 16)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Joshua Levitsky (Aug 16)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 16)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 ktabic (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Steffen Schumacher (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Tremaine (Aug 17)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 17)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 17)
- RE: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 18)
- [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 18)
- RE: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 joe (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Barry Fitzgerald (Aug 18)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 devis (Aug 13)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Invicticide X (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Invicticide X (Aug 18)
- Re: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 KF_lists (Aug 18)
- Re: lame bitching about xpsp2 Dark Avenger (Aug 13)