Ten Reasons to buy Windows Vista

[Newby]

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:

Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!

Knoppix DVD. :)

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
I also stated that Linux took almost everything it has today from Unix. Nothing about Linux is innovative.
It's an idea around 20 years old that they cling on to.

You don't think there are any differences between Linux and UNIX?  I think you'd better do some research.

No, they both use a stupid 20 year old idea yet Linux claim they someone made that idea better or something.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
Okay, not too hard with Zend Encoder

That's a stupid waste of time.

Again, want to provide reasoning? It's annoying you stating things withought backing it up.
Cmon mr big bad debator I'm sure you can do better than that.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
It's called "Testing it"?

Why?  Are they afraid that their patches suck so much that they're going to reek havog on their user's PC's and they'll get sued?  Probably.

I guess Linux users write flawless code then? That right there is what annoys me.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
They don't try to be, they also don't try to hide all of their technology. They just don't give it away like Linux does.

No, but they sure as hell hide most of it.

...wow. You insult every chance you get about "Knowledgable posts" then you make an outrageous claim withought backing it up in the least. No one cares what you "Think" they do, find me some proof, not some of your conspiracy theories.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
When you come out and say something then say it had a different meaning, sorta makes it look like you change the meaning on the fly to make yourself look good..tell me what exactly does it mean? It's pretty in your face pointing to what I interpreted it as.

Quote the sentence you're talking about and I'll tell you.

The entire thing was simply another way of saying "We suck but it's not our fault, it's open sources fault" I showed it to others and they too said "Wtf, did he just insult Linux".

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
You're including knowing about Linux as a need for being non ignorant..Linux isn't anything special..
Maybe I should go write a Unix clone and then claim that anyone who doesn't know about it is "Technologicly Ignorant", cmon..

How in the HELL did you pull the meaning you're suggesting out of my statement?  I said that the average computer user is technologically ignorant--plain and simple.  No details attached.  They simply don't know much about IT.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
Compare that to the insane amount of exploits for Linux? It takes time to exploit windows because of Microsoft's cryptic method of coding. From viewing their source which "after a course of events" landed on my hands, it's easily seen how hard they make their code to understand. However it's elegance was preserved. Like I said, Hackers arn't getting much out of a user, they'll be lucky if they get a couple thousand. Hackers hit the big bucks.

Then why are there thousands of trojans that are exclusively used on Windows?  Why are there e-mail viruses that work exculsively on Windows?  A hacker's intent is rarely money (again: we're obviously not using the same definition for a hacker).  Usually it's just to be a malicious prick.

It's called a script kiddie at a security website, thank iago and his whitehat friends for that.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
Now find me statistics, anything since you're so good at it and I'll agree Windows is in the hackers scope, right now it doesn't look like it nor is it going to change because YOU say it is.

Again: it's not my fault you're stupid enough to believe that Linux is exploited in greater numbers (or proportions) than Windows.  If you want to believe that, I'm not going to fight you.  You be on your merry way.

Okay, so long as you know that you couldn't come up with good proof. I'm happy.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
Linux and Windows have different purposes, my problem with Linux is them pushing themselves onto an arena where they don't belong: The desktop. My beef is also them criticising windows but their desktop situation is horrible. Of course you're going to go and state something Windows can't do.

EXACTLY.  For once, you're starting to make sense!  Linux isn't supposed to be like Windows!  It's not even intended to replace Windows!  It's supposed to be there to provide an acceptable alternative for Windows.  That is exactly waht it does.  What's wrong with Linux having a desktop environment?  Who cares if it's not as good as Windows' desktop environment?  I'd be pretty appauled if it was. I'd much rather have the functionality that Linux provides.

It's not that, it's them going on the desktop scene and having a sense of superiority over Windows. If they want competition windows will sure as hell mop the floor with them desktop wise. Something we can agree on, no?

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56494#msg56494 date=1140502423]
Okay find me a linux distro which can do this:

Run most if not all drivers currently out there today. Wait that's asking too much of the operating system. Maybe the all powerful Linux will have a meltdown!

Are you saying that Vista can run Linux drivers?

Most of them are probably reversed Windows drivers so Vista in a sense ran them first.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
No, they both use a stupid 20 year old idea yet Linux claim they someone made that idea better or something.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.

Prove it, please.  Prove that Linux is exactly the same as UNIX as you're implying.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
Again, want to provide reasoning? It's annoying you stating things withought backing it up.
Cmon mr big bad debator I'm sure you can do better than that.

I didn't think I needed to provide reasoning for something that was so obvious.

  1) You could just provide the source.  That'd save you a lot of time and the trouble of legally obtaining a copy of Zend Encoder (I assume you plan to do that if you're going to publically release your CMS)?
  2) You could save your users the pain of waiting you to fix bugs if you release the source.  They could do it themselves.
  3) You could be a source.  People could look at your code to learn how to do things.

What are the reasons to use Zend Encoder?  Here's the one I can think of:

  1) People can't see your source.  You're more exhaulted in your own eyes.

There are a few reasons.  If you need more, let me know.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
I guess Linux users write flawless code then? That right there is what annoys me.

Absolutely not.  However, they're confident enough to release it.  Microsoft tests it for three weeks until they're "absolutely sure" that it's a stable patch.  How hard is it to fuck up a patch that royally?

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
...wow. You insult every chance you get about "Knowledgable posts" then you make an outrageous claim withought backing it up in the least. No one cares what you "Think" they do, find me some proof, not some of your conspiracy theories.

You find me proof that they document all (or even most) of their features.  I really, REALLY doubt it's a proportion even close to 0.5.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
The entire thing was simply another way of saying "We suck but it's not our fault, it's open sources fault" I showed it to others and they too said "Wtf, did he just insult Linux".

Quote my statement and I'll clarify it.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
It's called a script kiddie at a security website, thank iago and his whitehat friends for that.

Now you're saying that covering up the exploits is okay?  You're less insightful than I had originally thought.  I doubt people at Full Disclosure would appreciate or agree with you calling them script kiddies.  I'm thinking most of them know a whole hell of a lot more than you do.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
Okay, so long as you know that you couldn't come up with good proof. I'm happy.

I posted about seven links in the other thread.  Go read them there.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
It's not that, it's them going on the desktop scene and having a sense of superiority over Windows. If they want competition windows will sure as hell mop the floor with them desktop wise. Something we can agree on, no?

No, it's you assuming things again.  You think just because Linux implements a desktop environment that they're trying to wipe Windows off of the face of the Earth.  There are quite a few people who use Linux.  Most of those people appreciate the simplicity that a desktop environment such as KDE provides for them.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding additional features to an operating system.  In fact, as one might suspect, I'd definitely recommend and encourage it. :P

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
Most of them are probably reversed Windows drivers so Vista in a sense ran them first.

Who cares if Vista ran them?  The point is that Linux can run them.

[ink]

You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.

I agree completely, Windows should give up on trying to add security and such.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
No, they both use a stupid 20 year old idea yet Linux claim they someone made that idea better or something.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks and frankly this old dog needs to be put to sleep.

Prove it, please.  Prove that Linux is exactly the same as UNIX as you're implying.

Isn't it obvious? Look how EVERYTHING is handled in the Linux kernel

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
Again, want to provide reasoning? It's annoying you stating things withought backing it up.
Cmon mr big bad debator I'm sure you can do better than that.

I didn't think I needed to provide reasoning for something that was so obvious.

  1) You could just provide the source.  That'd save you a lot of time and the trouble of legally obtaining a copy of Zend Encoder (I assume you plan to do that if you're going to publically release your CMS)?
  2) You could save your users the pain of waiting you to fix bugs if you release the source.  They could do it themselves.
  3) You could be a source.  People could look at your code to learn how to do things.

What are the reasons to use Zend Encoder?  Here's the one I can think of:

  1) People can't see your source.  You're more exhaulted in your own eyes.

There are a few reasons.  If you need more, let me know.

1)  Jeff has Zend Encoded which he said I could use. No thanks at providing the source.
2) I would fix my bugs the day I learn about them, I want my source to stay with me.
3) No thanks, they can go through the same process I went through. They arn't going to get rewarded for doing
nothing, sorry.

I write my code, I have a right to not show my code.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
I guess Linux users write flawless code then? That right there is what annoys me.

Absolutely not.  However, they're confident enough to release it.  Microsoft tests it for three weeks until they're "absolutely sure" that it's a stable patch.  How hard is it to fuck up a patch that royally?

I think I already discussed things at length before, it's because of Linux users who hop on Microsoft for every mistake. They take the extra time to make sure it really works. Make sure no new strains of the exploit occur and for more information regarding it.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
...wow. You insult every chance you get about "Knowledgable posts" then you make an outrageous claim withought backing it up in the least. No one cares what you "Think" they do, find me some proof, not some of your conspiracy theories.

You find me proof that they document all (or even most) of their features.  I really, REALLY doubt it's a proportion even close to 0.5.

Look on Channel9 and MSDN, how do you think I know so much about Vista? I know pretty much all the main details of its internals and a lot of details on how it will handle low level things.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
The entire thing was simply another way of saying "We suck but it's not our fault, it's open sources fault" I showed it to others and they too said "Wtf, did he just insult Linux".

Quote my statement and I'll clarify it.

Actually, coding for the greater good (open source) takes vast amounts of time less than it does to code for a corporate cause.  When you're coding for money, you have to take security measures.

I'm sorry but since when don't programmers take security measures? This may be so for Linux users..

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
It's called a script kiddie at a security website, thank iago and his whitehat friends for that.

Now you're saying that covering up the exploits is okay?  You're less insightful than I had originally thought.  I doubt people at Full Disclosure would appreciate or agree with you calling them script kiddies.  I'm thinking most of them know a whole hell of a lot more than you do.

I didn't call them that, people that visit the websites and grab the exploits are the script kiddies. I'da thought you can atleast get that right. You release them a bunch of morons grab them. Then they cry when they are getting exploited left and right. There is no "Good way" to handle an exploit. Best way is to not release it at all or disclose it only to the companies which it affects (Microsoft) with PoC code showing it is indeed an exploit.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
Okay, so long as you know that you couldn't come up with good proof. I'm happy.

I posted about seven links in the other thread.  Go read them there.

And I reply, you should go read them.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
It's not that, it's them going on the desktop scene and having a sense of superiority over Windows. If they want competition windows will sure as hell mop the floor with them desktop wise. Something we can agree on, no?

No, it's you assuming things again.  You think just because Linux implements a desktop environment that they're trying to wipe Windows off of the face of the Earth.  There are quite a few people who use Linux.  Most of those people appreciate the simplicity that a desktop environment such as KDE provides for them.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding additional features to an operating system.  In fact, as one might suspect, I'd definitely recommend and encourage it. :P

What? Linux wiping windows off the face of the earth? That'll be the day. KDE? Simple? Naah. I'd rather not have Kmyapplicationnamehere infront of anything for a Windows look alike (and according to you a Mac look alike) when I can get the real deal.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56503#msg56503 date=1140503406]
Most of them are probably reversed Windows drivers so Vista in a sense ran them first.

Who cares if Vista ran them?  The point is that Linux can run them.

Whoopty do, withought Vista or Windows for that matter you'd be using VESA, some crappy NIC card, and craptastic ports of code based on loosely documented PDF's. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you think OSDev is a waste of time, yet you support the development of the Linux kernel. Against or with it, make up your mind.


@ink: You're getting annoying, either post something which actually argues a point or leave the topic -- now you're just taking snipes at windows and picking apart small parts of replies. In other words: Go fuck yourself.

[ink]

And all your doing is taking snipes at Linux?
Don't get mad cause I turned your 'old dog' analogy around on ya.

[Warrior]

No, I'm supplying my attacks with arguments while you on the other hand, havn't said something useful in a while. Now either get your shit together and say something which is worth my time or don't respond at all. Plain and simple.

[ink]

Riiight

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
Isn't it obvious? Look how EVERYTHING is handled in the Linux kernel

Yeah, in the same way 3.1 handles everything when compared to 95.  They're different, Warrior.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
1)  Jeff has Zend Encoded which he said I could use. No thanks at providing the source.
2) I would fix my bugs the day I learn about them, I want my source to stay with me.
3) No thanks, they can go through the same process I went through. They arn't going to get rewarded for doing
nothing, sorry.

I write my code, I have a right to not show my code.

  In response to:
  1) Okay, fair enough.  It's still a waste of time.
  2) Unless you're a hermit, that's physically impossible.
  3) Selfishness is stupid.  Greediness is going to get you nowhere in this situation.

I didn't say you don't have that right.  I'm suggesting you don't take advantage of it.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
I think I already discussed things at length before, it's because of Linux users who hop on Microsoft for every mistake. They take the extra time to make sure it really works. Make sure no new strains of the exploit occur and for more information regarding it.

Haha, I think this was a huge deal.  IE renders an image and your computer's toast?  That's a massive deal.  It's something that should be jumped on.  They can't release a patch they know works and then make sure those things are in order?  No.  They care more about profit than customer satisfaction.  That's how Microsoft is.  That's why I don't respect them as much as I do the open source community.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
Look on Channel9 and MSDN, how do you think I know so much about Vista? I know pretty much all the main details of its internals and a lot of details on how it will handle low level things.

No.  Do it for me.  You made me find you links.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
I'm sorry but since when don't programmers take security measures? This may be so for Linux users..

Ugh, do I have to explain everything?  You take everything that can relate directly to programming in that context.  Stop, please.

By security measures, I mean implementing CD key validators, registration methods and things of this nature.  Microsoft spends a noticable chunk of time doing things like this.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
I didn't call them that, people that visit the websites and grab the exploits are the script kiddies. I'da thought you can atleast get that right. You release them a bunch of morons grab them. Then they cry when they are getting exploited left and right. There is no "Good way" to handle an exploit. Best way is to not release it at all or disclose it only to the companies which it affects (Microsoft) with PoC code showing it is indeed an exploit.

If the script kiddies have it, it's going to be more of a threat.  That's going to make Microsoft fix it.  In case you didn't notice, Microsoft has a long history of "letting things slide."  Full Disclosure helps that.  I'm aware of several people who tried to contact Microsoft before posting things on FD and other similar websites.  Often, FD is a last resort when Microsoft will not respond or comply to their request.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
And I reply, you should go read them.

Why don't you read them?  They looked like completely relevant articles.  If you don't like them, why don't you search google for yourself?

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
What? Linux wiping windows off the face of the earth? That'll be the day. KDE? Simple? Naah. I'd rather not have Kmyapplicationnamehere infront of anything for a Windows look alike (and according to you a Mac look alike) when I can get the real deal.

Warrior, there you go again.  You're taking things out of context.  I said Linux is not trying to wipe Windows off the face of the Earth.  God, if you're not going to read the entire thing and use it in the context that it is obviously intended to be in, don't reply.  What's wrong with calling things names that begin with a "K?"  Mac puts "i" at the beginning of everything.  It's a convention, there's nothing wrong with that.  Who cares if it looks like Windows?

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56517#msg56517 date=1140506744]
Whoopty do, withought Vista or Windows for that matter you'd be using VESA, some crappy NIC card, and craptastic ports of code based on loosely documented PDF's. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you think OSDev is a waste of time, yet you support the development of the Linux kernel. Against or with it, make up your mind.


@ink: You're getting annoying, either post something which actually argues a point or leave the topic -- now you're just taking snipes at windows and picking apart small parts of replies. In other words: Go fuck yourself.

You asked me to find an OS that ran as many drivers as Vista.  Stop trailing off of the subject to avoid the argument that you made.

How can you prove that this is how things would be without Windows?  I'm fairly confident it'd be different.  Just because I don't like coding OS' doesn't mean I don't understand how they work.  Sure, my understanding may not be as deep as yours, but that's a decision I have purposefully made.  I don't think coding OS' is a valid cause.  There are tons of OS' out there that are multitudes better than the one you're working on, so what's the point of working on it?  I can read documentation on how memory is allocated without programming in ASM for two weeks.  Once again, Warrior: stop taking things out of context.

Perhaps he's not as willing to waste his time arguing with you?  Personally, I think his replies make perfect sense.  Just because he didn't reply to your entire message doesn't mean that his argument isn't worth retorting.  I thought it was a perfectly good attack at Windows.

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56527#msg56527 date=1140520174]
No, I'm supplying my attacks with arguments while you on the other hand, havn't said something useful in a while. Now either get your shit together and say something which is worth my time or don't respond at all. Plain and simple.

No, you're saying that.  Most of his posts have been useful.  Just because they've been short, you've refused to reply to them.  That's your fault, not his.

[MyndFyre]

  3) Selfishness is stupid.  Greediness is going to get you nowhere in this situation.

So you can't think of other problems that might arise?  Do you think we should let the WoW connection API out into the public?

I of course do not want other people to just have a WoW connection without putting their time and work into it.  A lot of people contributed to it, but I of course think that malicious things might come out of people having access to it.  I can think of potential malicious things happening to War's CMS if he publically releases it too.

You find me proof that they document all (or even most) of their features.  I really, REALLY doubt it's a proportion even close to 0.5.

I think you're absolutely right that they don't document all of their features, but the proportion is to be judged by what you call a "feature."  Their API is only supposed to be used, it's 100%-documented, and that's the only thing that is guaranteed to be cross-platform compliant along Windows versions.  Arguably you could say there are undocumented Windows API functions, but they're not really part of the API are they; they're simply calls that you can make.  However, they're not guaranteed to be there in future versions, so it's not a good idea to rely on them.

Other things, like hyperlinks in rich text, are notorously difficult to deal with.  For instance, the Rich Edit control allows you to set the EM_LINK style to make a \v...\v0 field a hyperlink with the specified data, but it doesn't *tell* you that it's \v...\v0, nor the format of the rich text.  Then they also have a Rich Edit 5.1 control MSFTEDIT_CLASS ("RICHED51W") that is entirely undocumented (in a separate DLL no less).

That still begs the question about whether you're supposed to use it.  Almost all of the kernel exports haven't changed in NT 4.0 to XP, aside from adding some no doubt, and the APIs are primarily thunks to the kernel calls.  However, the API is there to provide a consistent interface to the kernel, because the kernel implementations or exports may change.

This problem pops up when you try to use different Linux kernels (like I pointed out earlier about the one #define being different so symbols in 30 different files are off). 

Haha, I think this was a huge deal.  IE renders an image and your computer's toast?  That's a massive deal.  It's something that should be jumped on.  They can't release a patch they know works and then make sure those things are in order?  No.  They care more about profit than customer satisfaction.  That's how Microsoft is.  That's why I don't respect them as much as I do the open source community.

I think the problem with patching is that there are so many different codebases.  Microsoft must make sure a patch is persistent in all of its codebases that it currently supports.  What does that mean for us right now?  Windows 98 SE, Windows "Me", Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Workstation, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Server, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Terminal Server, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a Datacenter Server, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Terminal Server, Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Media Center 2004, Windows XP Media Center 2005, (I'm getting cramps) Windows Server 2003 - Web Edition, Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition, Terminal Server Edition, Datacenter Edition, all of the above in IA64 and x64 flavors as well.  That's just one product line.  Let's talk then about checking for the same vulnerability in Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Microsoft Office.

No.  Do it for me.  You made me find you links.

Now you're just picking at straw.

By security measures, I mean implementing CD key validators, registration methods and things of this nature.  Microsoft spends a noticable chunk of time doing things like this.

So do other companies.  You don't complain about Macromedia or Adobe.

If the script kiddies have it, it's going to be more of a threat.  That's going to make Microsoft fix it.  In case you didn't notice, Microsoft has a long history of "letting things slide."  Full Disclosure helps that.  I'm aware of several people who tried to contact Microsoft before posting things on FD and other similar websites.  Often, FD is a last resort when Microsoft will not respond or comply to their request.

I truly believe the only people who REALLY want to cause damage *are* the script kiddies.  I think it's therefore irresponsible for security people to post these kinds of explots publically, ever.  If you're not comfortable using an operating system, then don't use it.  If people start migrating, I promise Microsoft will notice.  At the end of the day that's infintely more responsible than posting to Full-Disclosure.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with Warrior's position.  He just sucks at stating it.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56540#msg56540 date=1140540212]
I truly believe the only people who REALLY want to cause damage *are* the script kiddies.  I think it's therefore irresponsible for security people to post these kinds of explots publically, ever [...] At the end of the day that's infintely more responsible than posting to Full-Disclosure.

I wholly disagree with your position.  But I suspect that it's because of a lack of education/experience on your part, not because of being wrong. 

I'm actually planning on writing my final ethics paper on disclosure policies.  We'll see how that goes. 

[MyndFyre]

x86] link=topic=4909.msg56540#msg56540 date=1140540212]
I truly believe the only people who REALLY want to cause damage *are* the script kiddies.  I think it's therefore irresponsible for security people to post these kinds of explots publically, ever [...] At the end of the day that's infintely more responsible than posting to Full-Disclosure.

I wholly disagree with your position.  But I suspect that it's because of a lack of education/experience on your part, not because of being wrong. 

I'm actually planning on writing my final ethics paper on disclosure policies.  We'll see how that goes. 

That very well may be, because this isn't my particular area of expertise.  However, it's pretty clear to me that real threats (criminals) aren't going to be targetting me.  It's the script kiddies are the ones who pose the large-scale danger, and that means that they're the ones who have the best chance of reaching me.  That's precisely why Sidoh said that it's more of a threat once script kiddies get their hands on them.

At the end of the day, it's the difference between shipping nuclear energy past Iraq versus handing Saddam the keys to the bomb.  (You can quote me in your paper if you want, that was a pretty cool analogy).

[Warrior]

I don't see how I can write a project, work hard on it RELEASE it for free and still be called selfish. I guess anyone who doesn't comply with your OSS way of thinking is automaticly selfish.

I fix CMS bugs as I encounter them and usually within the hour or within the day. I think I even discussed how I would implement the error subsystem into the core to allow easy bug reporting.

Back on the topic of Linux: Linux cannot run every windows driver. Linux depends off windows. I don't understand how you can't see that. Until you strike exclusive deals with OSes and get specifications under an NDA, I don't think you should be dissing an OS you take so much from :).

[ink]

Where do script kiddies get their scripts?
They are thrown to the public once the creator(s) feel they've used it enough or have found a newer more effective exploit.
All the while that the exploits are private = time which users like us who actually DO get updated and such, can still potentially be targeted since patches havn't yet been released for them yet. The people who have access to them aren't script kiddies  :-X

The only ways script kiddies would pose a risk to you would be if you didn't bother getting critical updates, or (not sure this even applies) if they decide to ddos you, which doesn't really cause any permanent damages.

[Warrior]

Where do script kiddies get their scripts?
They are thrown to the public once the creator(s) feel they've used it enough or have found a newer more effective exploit.
All the while that the exploits are private = time which users like us who actually DO get updated and such, can still potentially be targeted since patches havn't yet been released for them yet. The people who have access to them aren't script kiddies  :-X

Let's not forget the public posting of such exploits by whitehats once they are found. Then again they seem to think they are helping the security industry by doing this. I'd only see FD as a last resort, however it seems to be used..much much too often to be a "Last resort"