Directly running a .zip, kinda

[Newby]

Except...windows..isn't targeted. You infect a home user you get nothing, a few pictures, some music, a program or two. Aside from that, nothing.

ROFL!

You also get a connection to add to your botnet mass. Oh my GOD, I can't believe you missed that. Look at bsd with his "million bot" botnet. Yeah, Windows isn't targeted my fucking ass. Have you seen the list of infected .edu/.gov drones he has?

[Sidoh]

Agreed, sorta sad they get them in the first place.

Yeah, but it happens.  Deal with it.

Well when I argue them, I'll assume that they've been effectively countered. Of course he proved me wrong so it was again open for discussion.

Well then I'll be the first to tell you: telling someone they're an idiot for saying something doesn't make a valid argument.

Last I checked Vista is Windows.

I meant to say Windows XP, sorry.

The first few I discussed IE security and such but had no real proof showing why Windows is a valid target for hackers. I still don't believe so.

You discussed the articles?  Nice. ^_~

Read the rest of them.

How am I making myself look like a fool exactly? As of yet there still isn't an argument I havn't countered and the only one even giving substatial argument is mc0.

Again: you're making invalid claims, thus making yourself look like a fool.

It shows how stupid your point was, else you wouldn't get it unless I laugh at it.

... You really make yourself look stupid, Warrior.  Sorry.

[ink]

BSD buy's his source's and bots 
But yeah, just proves the point more, there is an actual market for such a thing...

[Warrior]

Agreed, sorta sad they get them in the first place.

Yeah, but it happens.  Deal with it.

Well duh.

Well when I argue them, I'll assume that they've been effectively countered. Of course he proved me wrong so it was again open for discussion.

Well then I'll be the first to tell you: telling someone they're an idiot for saying something doesn't make a valid argument.

What? Seems to be what you've been doing in this argument and plenty of others, don't be a hypocrite.
You have made more personal attacks in your short time back from AFK than all of the clan members combined.

The first few I discussed IE security and such but had no real proof showing why Windows is a valid target for hackers. I still don't believe so.

You discussed the articles?  Nice. ^_~

Read the rest of them.

If you can't take the time to read them why should I? I can just as well drag random articles into a thread to make it look like I'm countering something good. Unlike you I actually read the sources I cite.

How am I making myself look like a fool exactly? As of yet there still isn't an argument I havn't countered and the only one even giving substatial argument is mc0.

Again: you're making invalid claims, thus making yourself look like a fool.

Which claims are invalid? All you seem to be doing is calling people names.
Is that really your biggest strength argument wise?

It shows how stupid your point was, else you wouldn't get it unless I laugh at it.

... You really make yourself look stupid, Warrior.  Sorry.

And again.

[deadly7]

Wow, I'd agree with iago 100% here.  It is a fucking retarded decision to have File extensions off.  Back about 6 years ago when I knew naught about computers compared to what I know now, I downloaded something from an e-mail or off of P2P or something.  It appeared to be a text file with bands, the name was "BANDS" and it had a notepad icon.  Now, since file extensions were turned off by Windows, I assumed it was a simple .txt file.  However, I double-click and "BAM" I'm fucked over and have to reformat.  Also, War, get over it: Windows is targetted more by hackers and virus writers because it's what the public uses and the public is stupid enough to click anything that someone sends them.

[Sidoh]

What? Seems to be what you've been doing in this argument and plenty of others, don't be a hypocrite.
You have made more personal attacks in your short time back from AFK than all of the clan members combined.

Every single argument you make consists of personal attacks.  Very few of the arguments I make have personal attacks.  The only time I intended to personally attack you is when you said you didn't think Windows was the main target of hackers.  That was to emphasize how irrational and uninformed your oppinion was.  Sorry if you were offended.

If you can't take the time to read them why should I? I can just as well drag random articles into a thread to make it look like I'm countering something good. Unlike you I actually read the sources I cite.

They're random relevant articles.  You asked for them, I didn't want to find them.  I found ones that seemed to be releveant to my points.  I blatantly pointed out that I did not read the articles.  I'm not claiming that they're infinitely valid sources.  I said they look like they relate to my points and that you should check them out.  Personally, I don't care if you don't read them.  If you don't want to, fine with me.  I'm not going to try to force you to read them if you don't want to.  I've already reiterated several times; I think they'll help prove my point if you read them.

Which claims are invalid? All you seem to be doing is calling people names.
Is that really your biggest strength argument wise?

The ones that imply Windows is not the main target for hackers.  The ones claiming that Microsoft documents most of their procedures.  Several things like that I believe to be invalid.  If they're not, prove it.

Warrior, every argument I've ever had with you consits of you making sarcastic and vindictive statements retorting mine.  My arguments (as you've probably learned) are generally based on logical analogies and similar situations.  If you'll re-read my argument, you'll probably notice this.

And again.

Read what I quoted.  You'll see the context you used is rather similar to mine.  Ironic?  I think so.

[Warrior]

I think MSDN is the best possible proof of how much Microsoft documents.

Examples:
FAT32
PnP COM
PnP ISA
PnP for Firmware
PE and COFF format
The close to 8,000 API calls in the Windows OS
How most if not all of the windows internals work
All of their monad articles including scripting tutorials for monad.
DirectX
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp

These are just some I've read in the past few days, if you want more I can supply more.

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

[Newby]

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

Nice to see you calming down and not jumping the gun at every user that flames Windows.

mc0 is awesome. Speaking of which, mc0, I haven't seen you in #beta in a while. What's up?

[Warrior]

XChat expired, I really should download HydraIRC or something.

[Sidoh]

I think MSDN is the best possible proof of how much Microsoft documents.

Examples:
FAT32
PnP COM
PnP ISA
PnP for Firmware
PE and COFF format
The close to 8,000 API calls in the Windows OS
How most if not all of the windows internals work
All of their monad articles including scripting tutorials for monad.
DirectX
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp

These are just some I've read in the past few days, if you want more I can supply more.

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

By document, I mean give the guts of the subsystem.  Do they actually describe how they implement DirectX and PnP, or do they just describe how to interface it?  API calls have to be documented in some sense if they want their OS to be versatile in any sense.

[Newby]

XChat expired, I really should download HydraIRC or something.

I meant mc0, but you should get on more often too!

[Warrior]

I think MSDN is the best possible proof of how much Microsoft documents.

Examples:
FAT32
PnP COM
PnP ISA
PnP for Firmware
PE and COFF format
The close to 8,000 API calls in the Windows OS
How most if not all of the windows internals work
All of their monad articles including scripting tutorials for monad.
DirectX
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html/rtc_enhancerichclient-real-timecomm.asp

These are just some I've read in the past few days, if you want more I can supply more.

Just like you call names to "emphasize how irrational and uninformed your opinion was" I'll do the same in a less harsh method of sarcasm. I personally think mc0 has brought all the good discussions to the table because he seems to be an avid Linux user.

By document, I mean give the guts of the subsystem.  Do they actually describe how they implement DirectX and PnP, or do they just describe how to interface it?  API calls have to be documented in some sense if they want their OS to be versatile in any sense.

Well on DirectX I don't know since it's pretty sticky information a lot dangerous because of their trade secrets with companies like ATi and nVidia.

I remember seeing articles on the implementation of things in Windows (A LOT of memory management and some pitfalls they encounter), I saw some on dangers of 32bit code in a 64 bit enviroment, things like task starvation in windows 3.11 etc..

[Sidoh]

Well on DirectX I don't know since it's pretty sticky information a lot dangerous because of their trade secrets with companies like ATi and nVidia.

I remember seeing articles on the implementation of things in Windows (A LOT of memory management and some pitfalls they encounter), I saw some on dangers of 32bit code in a 64 bit enviroment, things like task starvation in windows 3.11 etc..

It's good that they at least document some of their findings.

It kind of reminds me of the military.  Did you know it's illegal to release encryption algorithms in the US (or at least it used to be -- I don't think it's much of a problem now that quantum computers are a reality) that take government supercomputers more than an hour to crack?  Once they're done with its use, they release it to the public.

[Warrior]

This is why there was such a big issue when Windows 2000 source was leaked, a lot of secrets in there. Same thing with ReactOS and how they reversed some Windows code. Forced them to do a full code audit.