Re: Bad sectors... how bad?

Pdigmking wrote:
David Maynard <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:11pfa10evglfn14@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



Hate to tell you this but what you call 'defective' is simply life in
the computer O.S. world, or any software for that matter. Go ahead and
install Linux, if you like, and then check for the gazillion security updates/patches/fixes for it as well.



Dude, linux is free, if MS want's to start giving away their OS's I'll gladly stop complaining.

That Linux distributions are 'free' (except for the ones you have to buy) is beside the point that all O.S.'s are, as you put it, 'defective'.

Besides, you can't seriously be suggesting that Linux and Mac Os's are experiencing anywhere near the security problems that MS does. Macs have always been way more stable.

'Experiencing' more? Depends on how one defines 'experiencing'. Per line of code? Per 'feature'? Per size of installed base?

The fact of the matter is there's almost infinitely more people trying to attack MS systems than anything else for the simple fact there's order's of magnitude more of them. Or, put in simple terms, if you were a bank robber would you rob the bank with 10 bucks in it or the one with a million?


You're complaining about 'reality' and there is no law that can make
people omniscient nor infallible. Software of any significant
complexity contains bugs and software written to fix bugs will contain
bugs. And it will always be that way was long as there are human
beings involved.



I'm not asking for perfection, I'm just asking for a price that reflects actual quality of the product. 

Frankly, you have no way of making such a determination.

And don't talk to me about complexity, they choose to build that complexity into the product, it's not required or necessary.

That's your opinion. Why do you suppose they 'build that complexity'? Got nothing better to do than throw their money away working on it?

You used to be able to go into your ten line auto exec batch command and fix boot problems in two minutes.

By all means, go back to DOS then. No one is forcing you to use all that 'complexity'.

MS just keeps adding bells and whistles, and every bell and whistle they add is another potential problem.

That's true with anything. My father refused to buy cars with electric windows because that was "just another thing to go wrong." My mother likes cars with electric windows and is willing to put up with the potential problem of having them repaired some day.

Again, if you don't like the 'bells and whistles' then run Win95, or DOS, or a stripped, lean and mean, Linux distro.

They choose to integrate Explorer to a rediculous extent, and Outlook etc. Obviously the Browser didn't need to be integrated into the OS because other browsers work just fine without such integration. On and on I could go.



Simple to solve all by your own little lonesome: don't buy upgrade
CDs.


Pay twice as much for the exact same disk.. yeah.

The 'disk' is irrelevant. It's the license you're buying and if you want a "full" license then buy a full license.


I think the only difference between the $200 XP disk and the $100 upgrade is that the upgrade looks for previous installs. 

Yep. They give you an break on a new O.S. if you've previously bought
one. Nice of them, don't you think?


Nope, I do not think it's nice of them. Look, I'm using their operating system either way and they profit form that.

They could offer one license, the 200 dollar one and to hell with your 'upgrade'.

It's got nothing to do with nice.

Of course not. They want people to continue using WIndows so they offer a discount for 'repeat' users. Same kind of thing that insurance companies do by giving folks who get both home and car insurance from the same company, a discount when you have both with them

They keep producing crappy OS's with security bugs, which in turn have to be replaced with the next generation crappy OS. This is their marketing strategy, not mine. 

Then don't buy it.

Frankly, you simply don't understand the basic point that all software is 'defective'.

Basically you're gaming the system by perpetually buying 'upgrade' CDs
and then complaining they don't make it even easier for you to avoid
buying the O.S.


I'm not gaming anything, I'm buying legitimate products that MS chooses to sell.

Yes you are. You're gaming, apparently for 10 years, their offer for an upgrade license and then bitching that it isn't a full license.

No MS OS should cost more than $100 from now on. 

Well, while we're going to dictate prices why not declare that no car
shall cost more than 1,000 dollars and TV sets shall be 20 bucks?


Dude, the only reason MS can charge these prices for a messed up OS is that they have a monopoly that they established illegally.

Dude, they couldn't have established what you call a 'monopoly' if no one bought it.


... you can order a SP2 CD for free, plus shipping and handling.


every six months.


Dude it's the same disk they released a year ago, you still have to go online to fully update all the patches.

Dude, same thing with Linux. And it's been the same way with all O.S.s ever since the first one came out, except you used to not be able to get fixes so easily.


So when a vulnerability is found you want to remain vulnerable for 6 months, eh?


No, you are vulnerable forever and always with MS products.

You're vulnerable forever with any O.S.. They're all 'defective'. All software is 'defective'.

With the exception of your arbitrary '6 months' time table they
already do essentially that with the service pack releases.


Again, the SP's are not released every six months, hence the SP "2" instead of SP4 or 5.

Maybe you have a reading problem because I specifically said "With the exception of your arbitrary '6 months' time table." There is no need to repeat it.

The fact of the matter is that no one is going to adhere to your arbitrary time table so you might as well learn how to deal with it.

No one with a dial up should have to sit around for six hours with a vulnerable OS waiting for all the patches to download and
install on your brand new $100 operating system! The background
option is fine for weekly maintaince, but after six months, your
usually looking multiple and large patches and program updates.


Again, at this point, when you get SP2, you are already one year behind in patches and upgrades. You have to go online to the last years worth of patches, if you have a dial up connection your looking at hours and hours of downloads. Remember, you don't leave dial ups connected all the time unless you have a second line.

I've given you a number of ways to simplify your 'upgrade' installs and all you want to do is bitch so at this point the only thing to say is "tough."


That's what I say!

Paul. 



.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: [SLE] Suse Linux information required - New user
    ... Pick the patches you want to install from the list shown ... UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: D3 Linux on RHES 4
    ... Just install the D3 patches you can find ... But with the 3 first patches you solve the problem you have ... Did you load the correct drivers for the controller (linux dd at ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: Installing Linux on Windows dual boot machine
    ... >> I hate to ask you for more, but how should I partition the drive beyond XP ... >On a modern BIOS it doesn't matter, but on old systems it helps to have it ... >I think you could fit linux into the space you have though, ... >install one of kde and gnome, and leave out anything you don't need. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: [SLE] Suse Linux information required - New user
    ... > I have taken the responsibility of 2 Suse Linux machines. ... then proceed and select the specific patches you want. ... you install a kernel patch). ...
    (SuSE)
  • RE: [SLE] Suse Linux information required - New user
    ... Welcome to Linux - and especially SuSe! ... Pick the patches you want to install from the list shown ... How I can get and install the patches(any utlities like up2date etc. ...
    (SuSE)
Loading