Re: Xnews and NZB files

sittingduck <spam.no.sitting-duck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns96E4D52A66CE4duckrulestheuniverse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> Xnews_Fan wrote:
>
>> Why not just upgrade to XP?
>>
>> Well, having spent HOURS helping friends pull spyware off their
>> XP systems, and trying to get things like simple video capture
>> to work for them, I was left with the strong impression that XP
>> is a total POS (Piece of S%#t).
>>
>
> Your elaborate arguments (convincing yourself maybe?) ignore the fact
> that beneath all the crap that Microsoft puts in XP, it IS a superior
> operating system compared to 98.
> It's not that difficult to streamline XP and remove most of the happy
> horse*** that most people neither need nor want.
> Sure, you might be a bit safer using outdated software, but with a bit
> of common sense, most security threats are only threats to those that
> are clueless.
>


My, didn't we hit a raw nerve?

Your comments about ...

> ... beneath all the crap that Microsoft puts in XP, it IS a superior
> operating system compared to 98.
>
Sound like EXACTLY the kind of 'happy talk' that someone would use
to convince themselves of something that did not appear to be the
case based on the evidence.

Sure, it looks like CRAP,
sure, it acts like CRAP,
but BENEATH all that ...

Yes I know XP is built on a updated NT kernal, and that puts it a full
two or three generations ahead of Win98.

That's why it's so sad that it's still a total PIECE OF S%#T

Hardly a week goes by that you don't hear of a new security hole
in XP, so you will excuse me if I remain unimpressed.

I would be the first one to admit that, if tweaked, XP can
provide a theoretical improvement in security, but, blaming
the users for not being able to figure out how to configure
XP 'properly' is just a copout.

That just means that MICROSOFT IS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT for not
providing users with the simple tools and information that they
would need to configure the OS properly to be able to take
advantage of all that security.

Instead, Windows XP has added a bunch of silly user interface
gimmicks like the 'sniffy dog' search, while it continues to be
pretty sad when it comes to the areas of security and stability.

As it ships, XP is insecure enough to let any piece of crap
application install spyware (but don't worry, it's secure
enough to keep you from getting in there and fixing it!!!)

I found that out after fighting with XP for HOURS trying
to remove an exceptionally nasty piece of spyware.

The issue that was making this spyware so difficult to
remove was that XP was diligently 'protecting' it,
so you could not just go in and delete the files.

Also, just to make it interesting, there were a set
of three files which could interact to 'reload' each
other (each time with a different random name).

The spyware removers, get around this by setting up a
program to run at startup and HOPEFULLY delete all the
offending files before they are loaded by the operating
system and locked.

Unfortunately, none of the THREE commercial spyware removal
programs I tried were up to date enough to find and delete
all of the files at once, so they just kept recreating
each other and coming back.

Heh, no prob, I'll just boot as SU to a 'DOS' window and
nuke all three nasties at the same time, right?

Wrong!

I was finally able to get XP to boot to a 'DOS' window,
and figured I had it licked, only to find that the stupid
XP kernel was STILL THERE keeping me from deleting the
files that were causing the problem.

(A problem I would NOT have in my 'inferior' Win98 system)

Hey Jocko, I don't know YOUR definition of a 'Super-User'
but in a 'NIX based O.S. (Unix, Linux, OS-10, Free BSD),
when I'm the 'super-user', there's Me, then there's GOD . . .

But XP cleverly protects you from yourself, even as the
Super-User, by preventing you from deleting those highly
useful spyware files.

I don't need this P.O.S. XP operating system (that was TOO
POORLY DESIGNED to keep itself from becoming infected with
this garbage), GETTING IN MY WAY WHILE I'M FIXING IT.

I guess if you're a virus writer or spyware author, XP is
your dream system (unfortunately for the rest of us that
have to deal with this crap, it's not so hot).

This says everything that needs to be said about the
Windowz approach to security. ANY piece-of-crap program
that wants to run and INFECT your system finds it all too
easy to do so, but when the USER (even when logged in as
the 'super-user') is trying to FIX the problem, we presume
that he or she is an IDIOT that must be prevented from
making trouble, and protected from themselves.

How many times have you seen a stupid message like:
"The BEST driver for your hardware is ALREADY INSTALLED"
(when you know this is NOT the case and the 'best' driver
windows is talking about IS CRASHING YOUR SYSTEM).

This kind of stupidity was already a big enough pain in
the ass in windowz98, and XP is much much worse.

So, it's not that I am rationalizing myself into continuing
to use an 'inferior' OS, I ACTUALLY PREFER 98.

Yes, Win98 has fewer features, that's fine with me, fewer things
for Microsoft to SCREW UP.

I have figured out how to make Win98 work reasonably well, and I
don't feel like having to deal with the whole mess again with XP,
unless it's a BIG improvement, and that's just NOT THE CASE.

> with a bit of common sense, most security threats are only
> threats to those that are clueless.

I guess that's true enough.

With a good firewall, the Firefox Browser, a little 'common sense'
(and a second system which I use to run suspect software), I have
not had a single spyware issue or virus in three years on my main
PC running Windows 98.

Which is one hell of a lot better record than most of my friends
who bought PC's equipped with XP have been able to manage.

Yes you can work around the security holes in XP, but I can also do
this for Win98 (so why would I upgrade? To get the 'sniffy dog'?)

Even on the 'beater' system I use to test new software, things rarely
go wronge and when something does get hosed (usually because of one
of Billy's 'helpful' updates), at least the damn Win98 OS doesn't try
to fight with me too much when I am trying to fix it (and if worse
comes to worse, and I DO have to reload the operating system, I don't
have to kiss Bill Gate's Ass and ask "Mother, may I" to Microsoft first)

So even though Windows is a fragile OS, I have figured out how
to keep Win98 from getting broken too often, and in the rare case
that it does get borked, I can fix it much more quickly than XP.

Still, with all the [mostly sleazy] ways that Microsoft tries
to create pressure to upgrade to XP, why hold off, when I'll
just have to knuckle under eventually?

Well, as I stated, I can pretty much already do everything on my
PC that I care about doing for now, and I figure that if I can just
do it a LITTLE BIT LONGER (a year or two at the most), then perhaps
Linux will mature out of it's GEEK-ware phase and hit the desktop as
hard as it's already hitting the server market.

Then I hopefully won't need to deal with another FLAKY, UNSTABLE,
and INSECURE, Microsoft operating system EVER AGAIN.

If I don't seem to be cutting Microsoft much slack,
I guess I have a few raw nerves myself, after waiting
for YEARS for Microsoft to straighten out their act
and fix the HUGE security holes in Windows.

First I thought Win95 was going to at least lock the
OS files and protect them, (which Win3.1 did not do),
but of course that didn't happen.

Then I thought Win98 would be the fix, but even after
Unix OS's showed you didn't have to let every Tom,
*** and Harry have access to the system files, Billy's
crew at Microsoft still just didn't have a clue.

Then it was Windows-ME, (still TOTALLY F%#ki@g clueless)
and finally NT and Win2k before the Wizards of Microsoft
suddenly get religion and 'innovate' some file security.
(Though I'm sure it will turn out, in the Microsoft history
of the universe, that they INVENTED the idea in the first
place and everyone else stole it from them)

So you can imagine my unrestrained joy at seeing XP let
a bunch of CRAP 'spyware' applications LOAD BY DEFAULT,
on a friends system when he committed the unpardonable
sin of clicking the wrong web link, then having XP
prevent me, while logged in as the 'super-user', from
even being able to delete the offending files!!!

So after all these years of waiting this is what we
get, an OS that allows system files to be accessed by
mal-ware BY DEFAULT, but locks them from being fixed
by the Super-User! THAT'S JUST GREAT! MORONS!!!

These clowns STILL DON'T HAVE A CLUE, and after more
than a decade of waiting for them to 'figure it out'
it's getting a little old having people tell me how
great Microsoft is just because they can now [usually]
tie their own shoes without tripping because they are
tied to each other, and because they no longer drool
[much] in public, when it comes to security.

So far the desktop market has been a little slow warming up to
Linux for workstations, but after recognizing the 'superior OS'
qualities of XP that you mentioned, the commercial market is
FLOCKING to Linux in droves for server applications.

My friend had a neat web link where you could watch Microsoft's
share of the server market DROPPING in real-time.

(I guess the combination of MUCH MORE STABLE, MUCH MORE SECURE
and FREE is a little hard to beat).

So I'll just continue to 'slog along' with Win98 for now, until
something REALLY BETTER comes along, and if that something is
Linux or some other NON-Microsoft solution, so much the better
(I won't miss the headaches)

Xnews Fan

P.S.

Sorry for the off-topic rant, but thanks for the
chance to blow off some steam, and leave no doubt
why, after years as a loyal Microsoft user, I
WON'T be giving them any more of my business
anytime real soon.


P.S.S

Ok, here's something on-topic that's related :)

Thank you Luu, for keeping Xnews Win98 compatible
all these years, and I hope you can continue
to keep it that way, it still matters to a
few of us die hards!!!

Also, does anyone know how well Xnews runs under
The 'WinE' Windowz Emulator in Linux???

Xnews Fan



.