Why I hate MS
Blip!
responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent manner
to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
Anyone care to speculate as to why? :-)
Is it even worth mentioning that none of them have stepped forward with
an excuse for the Shatter attacks being a design flaw as well?
-Blip!
Tim Smith
> Hmm...it's been quite awhile, yet none of the Windows advocates have
> responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent manner
> to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
Well, here's an intelligent response: I went to the page, and the sound of
someone barfing came from my speakers, and it was looping, so I did the
intelligent thing and closed the window.
--
--Tim Smith
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
And of course the whole notion that no one felt that someone's
immature ranting (complete with puking sound effects no less) was
worth responding to didn't make any impression with you whatsoever did
it?
--
I got a sweater for Christmas last year. I wanted
a screamer or a moaner, but I got a sweater.
-Steven Wright
Mayor of R'lyeh
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>In article <bso1u...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Blip! wrote:
It didn't loop for me. I just got a one off. You might want to check
your settings.
Of course that sound effect pretty much sets the tone of the piece and
its an excellent gauge of the maturity of the author and his
criticisms.
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Well, here's an intelligent response: I went to the page, and the sound of
> >someone barfing came from my speakers, and it was looping, so I did the
> >intelligent thing and closed the window.
>
> It didn't loop for me. I just got a one off. You might want to check
> your settings.
> Of course that sound effect pretty much sets the tone of the piece and
> its an excellent gauge of the maturity of the author and his
> criticisms.
Ooohh... yeah, ad hominem attacks against the author of the piece are
so much more subtle when you can focus on something offensive about the
web page, imply that it somehow applies to the author and therefore the
article content. Tell me, how does a disgusting sound effect negate any
valid points made in the article? I bet you two actually *did* read it
and couldn't respond so you chose to nitpick this sound effect thing.
Nice, and you almost got away with it.
So, I'll admit it for you: "Windows users failed to repond to the 'Why
I Hate MS' article that was posted, implying that the points made
therein were valid ones."
See, that wasn't so bad, was it?
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <9qavuvc54m3odntti...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
LOL! No watching you strut around apparently hepped up on goofballs
wasn't bad at all. 8)
Tim Smith
> Ooohh... yeah, ad hominem attacks against the author of the piece are so
> much more subtle when you can focus on something offensive about the web
> page, imply that it somehow applies to the author and therefore the
> article content. Tell me, how does a disgusting sound effect negate any
> valid points made in the article? I bet you two actually *did* read it and
> couldn't respond so you chose to nitpick this sound effect thing. Nice,
> and you almost got away with it.
Big words ("ad hominem") are only effective when used correctly.
A disgusting sound effect doesn't negate any valid points made. However, I
didn't see any valid points because the sound effects were annoying, and by
the size of the thumb on the scroll bar, I could see it was a long page, so
I didn't read it.
If someone can't present their argument in a reasonable form, I'm not going
to waste time on it, because experience shows that about 99.9999% of the
time, stupid sound effects is a reliable indicator of a studid argument to
follow.
There are enough smart people writing articles on the web that if I
mistakenly weed out a few because of stupid presentation, there will be
others to take their place.
Feel free to summarize the arguments from that page, and then maybe there
will be discussion here.
--
--Tim Smith
zurg
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Big words ("ad hominem") are only effective when used correctly.
I agree which is precisely why I used it correctly.
The Mayor wrote: "Of course that sound effect pretty much sets the tone
of the piece and its an excellent gauge of the maturity of the author
and his criticisms."
Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me, question the maturity of the
author to discount what he has to say. Perhaps you are the one who is
unclear on the definition.
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LOL! No watching you strut around apparently hepped up on goofballs
> wasn't bad at all. 8)
Oooh... on an ad hominem roll, are ya?
Andrew J. Brehm
I wasn't under the impression that he actually _questioned_ the author's
maturity as much as that he _concluded_ that it was limited to a certain
level.
Maybe the sound effect merely helped underscoring what the article had
already made clear?
I wouldn't know though, I only briefly read parts of it.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Tim Smith
> In article <KfSHb.24172$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tim
> Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> Big words ("ad hominem") are only effective when used correctly.
>
> I agree which is precisely why I used it correctly.
>
> The Mayor wrote: "Of course that sound effect pretty much sets the tone of
> the piece and its an excellent gauge of the maturity of the author and his
> criticisms."
The paragraph you used it in seemed to be lumping me and the Mayor together,
so it seemed you were saying I was using ad hominem, which I was not.
--
--Tim Smith
Dan Johnson
news:bso1u...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Hmm...it's been quite awhile, yet none of the Windows advocates have
> responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent manner
> to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
>
> Anyone care to speculate as to why? :-)
That silly sound-effect is a turn-off. And it's
very long.
> Is it even worth mentioning that none of them have stepped forward with
> an excuse for the Shatter attacks being a design flaw as well?
I have done so in the past. This fellow does not talk about
that as far as I can see. I have reviewed his "design flaws"
appendix. It's uniformly bunk, so you'll forgive me if I don't
read the whole thing. But briefly:
o Limited memory protection and memory management
Windows provides full memory protection; applications cannot write
on other application's memory. Windows does not throw exceptions on
memory exhaustion- in extremis, it will return NULL (or the like) from
the allocation routines. This is at least more robust to typical Unixes
(and Linux) which terminate processes in such a case (for technical reasons
relating to the POSIX API's goofy design, they can't reliably signal
out-of-memory conditions to applications).
Windows will throw an exception if an app tries to use the NULL pointer,
but if unhandled this will just cause the app to terminate, not the system.
o Insufficient process management
Windows does reclaim resources when processes terminate. Windows
does not give adminstrators unlimited access to processes; there is no
equivalent of a "root" account. This is a feature- a totally unlimited
account is a security weakness.
o No adequate separation between user-level and kernel-level code
Windows provides the usual kernel/user separates. Users can install
kernel code (drivers, etc) and render the system unusable that way, if
they have sufficient access rights. The registry is similar- access is
controlled with ACLs, and ordinary users can't change anything
critical.
The system would be very much less useful if *no* users, not even
adminstrators could not install drivers!
o Lack of meaningful error messages
Good error messages are hard; MS does a better job than
many. Better than Apple, in my experience. No 'error -36'; there
are well defined APIs for apps to use to get error messages for
OS error numbers, and they are used.
o No maintenance mode
Fixing a hosed system is hard, but MS does provide more tools than
is typical for this. "Safe mode" *is* maintenance mode; it starts as little
of the OS as may be so you can repair things. If the OS is so hosed
safe mode can't work, nobody's "maintenance mode" will work, and
you have to break out some sort of separate utility.
o No code sharing
EXE code can also be shared, just like in Unix. Actually
more than in Unix. Like Unix, Windows uses memory mapping
so that the same physical RAM is used to hold the executable
code for multiple process.
On top of this, Windows can expose objects from one
application to another through COM. With this technology
multiple applications can share objects from the same
application. They share both code and data in this case.
o No version control whatsoever on DLL code
MS has extensive version control for DLL codes;
they started putting it in in Win95 and it is now very
extensive.
o A very rudimentary and weak security model
Window's security model resembles VMS; it's pretty
solid (as models go). It can't do everything we want,
but it's not as flawed as Unix at least. It does not have
"root" or "setuid"; it does have ACLs and it provides
extensive security services for applications- not just
the filesystem.
o Rudimentary multi-user support
Windows includes support for multiple users
simultaneously logged in, either by console or
with a GUI. There's nothing wrong with it.
o OS code, application code and user data cannot be
maintained separately from the OS and from each other
Installers integrate apps into the OS because doing this
is desirable. This is how you can have things like app
specific property pages in explorer.
The OS in no way *requires* this.You can just copy your
files in and work- if you don't mind not being integrated with
the OS.
o Windows does not follow global protocol standards correctly
Microsoft sometimes tries to compete with open standards,
but sometimes tries to extend them. It does not reduce itself to
the lowest common denominator willingly. It's not obvious to me
why it should.
o Windows' API is only partially documented
Windows' API is extensively documented and MS is
very good about not breaking older apps by changing its
behavior.
o Windows' code is a collection of bad programming practices
I don't know what MS's programming practices are bad,
but the results are pretty good.
The thing is, In the past they've prioritized features over
security. It's not a "programming practice" to do this or
refuse to do this- it's the kind of thing we have management
around to decide.
They say they took the opposite attitude for Windows 2003,
and time will tell how that plays out. But so far I hear they're
doing a bit better with that product.
Blip!
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:55:32 GMT, Tim Smith
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>>In article <bso1u...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Blip! wrote:
>>> Hmm...it's been quite awhile, yet none of the Windows advocates have
>>> responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent
>>> manner to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
>>>
>>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
>>
>>Well, here's an intelligent response: I went to the page, and the sound
>>of someone barfing came from my speakers, and it was looping, so I did
>>the intelligent thing and closed the window.
>
> It didn't loop for me. I just got a one off. You might want to check
> your settings.
> Of course that sound effect pretty much sets the tone of the piece and
> its an excellent gauge of the maturity of the author and his criticisms.
Okay; care to cite actual samples and rebuttals?
-Blip!
Blip!
I don't get a loop; try *reading* the material and judge from that, since
I was asking about the material contained on the site and not some looped
sound effect.
-Blip!
Blip!
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:01:55 -0500, Blip! <nos...@nospam.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>>Hmm...it's been quite awhile, yet none of the Windows advocates have
>>responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent
>>manner to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
>>
>>http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
>>
>>Anyone care to speculate as to why? :-)
>>
>>Is it even worth mentioning that none of them have stepped forward with
>>an excuse for the Shatter attacks being a design flaw as well?
>>
>>-Blip!
>
> And of course the whole notion that no one felt that someone's immature
> ranting (complete with puking sound effects no less) was worth
> responding to didn't make any impression with you whatsoever did it?
Nope, but the fact that you STILL haven't actually cited quotes from the
site and rebutted them sure has.
-Blip!
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <KfSHb.24172$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Actually its based on both his idiotic sound and a glance through of
his long-winded 'arguments'.
Blip!
> "Blip!" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:bso1u...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Hmm...it's been quite awhile, yet none of the Windows advocates have
>> responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent
>> manner to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
>>
>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
>>
>> Anyone care to speculate as to why? :-)
>
> That silly sound-effect is a turn-off. And it's very long.
I would reply that a silly sound effect doesn't negate the validity of
the arguments contained in the site, and the fact that it's very long
shouldn't necessarily prevent people from reading it and rebutting the
points if they are interested in advocacy...apparently it's simply easier
to ignore the points, regardless of how valid they are, and use simple
ad hominem attacks that do nothing but waste bandwidth instead.
>
>> Is it even worth mentioning that none of them have stepped forward with
>> an excuse for the Shatter attacks being a design flaw as well?
>
> I have done so in the past. This fellow does not talk about that as far
> as I can see.
No, he doesn't; I posted a link to the sites discussing Shatter before
and none of the Windows advocates replied to those either. I just didn't
repost the links.
If you'd like I can repost them so you can review them...I think it's a
good illustration of the architecture underlying Windows being flawed...
>I have reviewed his "design flaws" appendix. It's
> uniformly bunk, so you'll forgive me if I don't read the whole thing.
> But briefly:
EXCELLENT! Finally someone actually replying with some CONTENT. Thank
you.
> o Limited memory protection and memory management
>
> Windows provides full memory protection; applications cannot write on
> other application's memory. Windows does not throw exceptions on memory
> exhaustion- in extremis, it will return NULL (or the like) from the
> allocation routines. This is at least more robust to typical Unixes (and
> Linux) which terminate processes in such a case (for technical reasons
> relating to the POSIX API's goofy design, they can't reliably signal
> out-of-memory conditions to applications).
>
> Windows will throw an exception if an app tries to use the NULL pointer,
> but if unhandled this will just cause the app to terminate, not the
> system.
I'll take your word for this; I haven't exhausted available memory+VM on
a UNIX system to the point where exceptions could be thrown before. For
memory protection...there have been cases where I've seen apps
mysteriously not opening or interacting oddly with other applications,
but that may or may not be due to a flaw in the memory protection.
Windows *has* gotten better with major releases in the memory protection
arena. I just get irritated at the oddball quirks that still occur when
I have a system on too long. Memory leaks, perhaps? I don't know. I do
know that a reboot tends to clear the problem up :-/ I have not had this
problem with the Linux systems I have. Again, purely anecdotal so I'll
have to take your word to support your argument.
> o Insufficient process management
>
> Windows does reclaim resources when processes terminate. Windows does
> not give adminstrators unlimited access to processes; there is no
> equivalent of a "root" account. This is a feature- a totally unlimited
> account is a security weakness.
Depends on your security model. There are times when I believe I
*should* have been able to kill certain processes that Windows wouldn't
let me. In UNIX the only "protected" process was Init...killing it will
simply reboot the system.
Why shouldn't I be able to kill all the system processes or restart them
if they are running errant?
> o No adequate separation between user-level and kernel-level code
>
> Windows provides the usual kernel/user separates. Users can install
> kernel code (drivers, etc) and render the system unusable that way, if
> they have sufficient access rights. The registry is similar- access is
> controlled with ACLs, and ordinary users can't change anything critical.
Perhaps someone should tell vendors what ACL settings they should
use...getting some Adobe apps to run in the Windows 2000 workstations
without giving users local admin privs was a PAIN. :-)
> o Lack of meaningful error messages
>
> Good error messages are hard; MS does a better job than many. Better
> than Apple, in my experience. No 'error -36'; there are well defined
> APIs for apps to use to get error messages for OS error numbers, and
> they are used.
I've seen it run both ways. My favorite errors are the blank error
dialogues. My most irritating ones are the ones that give the WRONG
information...like "file may be in use" when I really just needed to take
ownership of a file within the directory. In this case, though, I think
it is a still a valid argument against MS, but it is also a sin committed
by the developers of apps in question...
> o No maintenance mode
>
> Fixing a hosed system is hard, but MS does provide more tools than is
> typical for this. "Safe mode" *is* maintenance mode; it starts as little
> of the OS as may be so you can repair things. If the OS is so hosed safe
> mode can't work, nobody's "maintenance mode" will work, and you have to
> break out some sort of separate utility.
Their minimal is still fatter than the average UNIX minimal. It's far
easier to edit a few text files from single-user mode than to diagnose a
registry problem and/or dll problem under Windows...one of my gripes is
that there haven't been enough command-line oriented tools under Windows,
it's management is too GUI-centric so when things do go poof you can't
easily dig to a command line to fix things. UNIX is largely command-line
based with GUI tools layered on top, so if all else fails you can use
tools *meant* for the command line to go in and fix it...when the Windows
system is hosed beyond GUI usage, it's pretty difficult to get it running
again short of a parallel install.
> o No code sharing
>
> EXE code can also be shared, just like in Unix. Actually more than in
> Unix. Like Unix, Windows uses memory mapping so that the same physical
> RAM is used to hold the executable code for multiple process.
>
> On top of this, Windows can expose objects from one application to
> another through COM. With this technology multiple applications can
> share objects from the same application. They share both code and data
> in this case.
I'll give you that one until someone else can post a rebuttal with a
decent point :-)
> o No version control whatsoever on DLL code
>
> MS has extensive version control for DLL codes; they started putting it
> in in Win95 and it is now very extensive.
So why isn't it in use? Why is it only now that they have a system
restore that attempts to roll back from "DLL Hell", if they have a
versioning system that could be used to prevent it?
> o A very rudimentary and weak security model
>
> Window's security model resembles VMS; it's pretty solid (as models go).
> It can't do everything we want, but it's not as flawed as Unix at least.
> It does not have "root" or "setuid"; it does have ACLs and it provides
> extensive security services for applications- not just the filesystem.
Personally I prefer the root account. If I'm administrator, I should be
able to delete the profile or kill a process. It's downright stupid to
make me jump through the hoops of taking ownership and altering all the
permissions if I *can* do it anyway...but that's a double edged sword (rm
-rf /...oops...)
ACLs actually can and have been implemented on UNIX and Windows NT. I
think the flawed model is more a reference to the Domain
model...domains/workgroups work well in some instances, but fail (and add
headaches) in others. Mixed bag. Personally I prefer hardening and
logging into individual resources and computers rather than risk a
trusted system being hacked and gaining automatic access to other
machines. And what's the deal with the default of sharing your C: drive?
> o Rudimentary multi-user support
>
> Windows includes support for multiple users simultaneously logged in,
> either by console or with a GUI. There's nothing wrong with it.
Um...yes, there is. Many apps work, many do not. Multiuser support was
tacked on. It's not on the system by design. We have had several
vendors tell us they simply don't support term services. We have also
had several issues with printers (Lexmark!? ARGH!) on term services.
We've also had misdirected error messages and utilities that pop up on
the console regardless of the user who caused the exception.
Windows was NOT designed to support multiple simultaneous logins, it was
added later on and it shows.
> o OS code, application code and user data cannot be maintained
> separately from the OS and from each other
>
> Installers integrate apps into the OS because doing this is desirable.
> This is how you can have things like app specific property pages in
> explorer.
I don't desire it...it creates a tangled mess if you want to remove it.
I prefer the ability to simple delete an app, kind of like app bundles,
to get rid of the OS. It also prevents flaws in one app from becoming a
problem in other OS areas (causing things like Explorer flakiness) or
other apps developing problems.
> The OS in no way *requires* this.You can just copy your files in and
> work- if you don't mind not being integrated with the OS.
I don't like apps getting their fingers into the OS. My philosophy just
differs from yours, I guess.
> o Windows does not follow global protocol standards correctly
>
> Microsoft sometimes tries to compete with open standards, but sometimes
> tries to extend them. It does not reduce itself to the lowest common
> denominator willingly. It's not obvious to me why it should.
Compete? Ever heard of "embrace and extend"? At least let them fail to
a point where they're compatible with the rest of the world instead of
creating headaches. As a system administrator it's nice when differing
machines speak the same language without having to beat the OS in the
head...it's a huge PITA to have implementation that are "almost"
compatible but "not quite" because MS wants to lock out other systems.
Why is it a good thing that you only have one solution to share files?
> o Windows' API is only partially documented
>
> Windows' API is extensively documented and MS is very good about not
> breaking older apps by changing its behavior.
History shows this to be false...I remember there being a releases of
Windows that specifically broke when running on a different vendor's
implementation of DOS, not because of technical reasons but because they
just didn't like that vendor.
There have also been many allegations of parts of Windows being "tweaked"
to run MS applications better than their competition by using "partially
documented" functions.
> o Windows' code is a collection of bad programming practices
>
> I don't know what MS's programming practices are bad, but the results
> are pretty good.
Um...I'll refrain from commenting on this :-)
> The thing is, In the past they've prioritized features over security.
> It's not a "programming practice" to do this or refuse to do this- it's
> the kind of thing we have management around to decide.
>
> They say they took the opposite attitude for Windows 2003, and time will
> tell how that plays out. But so far I hear they're doing a bit better
> with that product.
There have been many flaws for 2003 already, but the tune has already
changed for MS so that Longhorn is supposed to implement secure practices
while 2003 is just another stepping stone.
I've read other people in print who have said that the source for DOS and
Windows are both a lot of hacks and crud, but since I am not a
professional programmer nor have I seen the source code, I can't say
whether it is "good" or "bad". I can say that I am not alone in
believing that for a secure OS or application, security cannot be an
afterthought. It must be part of the design, or it will always be
broken. Windows, and the programming practices that spawned it, will
always be broken in this respect.
-Blip!
Blip!
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:57:38 GMT, zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>>In article <KfSHb.24172$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tim
>>Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Big words ("ad hominem") are only effective when used correctly.
>>
>>I agree which is precisely why I used it correctly.
>>
>>The Mayor wrote: "Of course that sound effect pretty much sets the tone
>>of the piece and its an excellent gauge of the maturity of the author
>>and his criticisms."
>>
>>Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me, question the maturity of the
>>author to discount what he has to say. Perhaps you are the one who is
>>unclear on the definition.
>
> Actually its based on both his idiotic sound and a glance through of his
> long-winded 'arguments'.
How about just cutting the side commentary ("avoiding the issue") and
actually cite some of the points from the article and rebut them with
some intelligent counter arguments? So far only one person advocating
Windows has actually tried arguing for Windows with commentary from that
website...
-Blip!
zurg
Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> I wasn't under the impression that he actually _questioned_ the author's
> maturity as much as that he _concluded_ that it was limited to a certain
> level.
That much would be fine, but he extended it to discount the points made
by the author, which is effectively an ad hominem attack.
zurg
Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> The paragraph you used it in seemed to be lumping me and the Mayor together,
> so it seemed you were saying I was using ad hominem, which I was not.
Ah, I see. I didn't mean to do that. My apologies.
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually its based on both his idiotic sound and a glance through of
> his long-winded 'arguments'.
Uh-huh. You function in two modes: ad hominem and off. No surprise, you
identify yourself as a "mayor." I bet with logic such as this, you are
a perfect fit for politics.
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And of course the whole notion that no one felt that someone's
> immature ranting (complete with puking sound effects no less) was
> worth responding to didn't make any impression with you whatsoever did
> it?
I don't suppose the sound card you have in your PC allows you to... um,
I dunno... maybe, *TURN OFF* the sound temporarily. Or are you scared
that you'd cause a BSOD by doing that?
Snit
I think the Mayor wants us to quote the entire article...
Maybe someone will do that for him.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:12:32 -0500, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:57:38 GMT, zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>>In article <KfSHb.24172$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tim
>>>Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big words ("ad hominem") are only effective when used correctly.
>>>
>>>I agree which is precisely why I used it correctly.
>>>
>>>The Mayor wrote: "Of course that sound effect pretty much sets the tone
>>>of the piece and its an excellent gauge of the maturity of the author
>>>and his criticisms."
>>>
>>>Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me, question the maturity of the
>>>author to discount what he has to say. Perhaps you are the one who is
>>>unclear on the definition.
>>
>> Actually its based on both his idiotic sound and a glance through of his
>> long-winded 'arguments'.
>
>How about just cutting the side commentary ("avoiding the issue") and
>actually cite some of the points from the article and rebut them with
>some intelligent counter arguments? So far only one person advocating
>Windows has actually tried arguing for Windows with commentary from that
>website...
>
>-Blip!
What exactly is the proper response to a baby's wail?
Andrew J. Brehm
I believe you misunderstand the concept of the ad hominem fallacy. It is
true that a person's other qualities say nothing about the validity of
his argument. However they DO say a lot about the value of his opinion.
Dan Johnson
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:06:15 -0500, Dan Johnson wrote:
>
> > "Blip!" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:bso1u...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >> Hmm...it's been quite awhile, yet none of the Windows advocates have
> >> responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent
> >> manner to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
> >>
> >> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
> >>
> >> Anyone care to speculate as to why? :-)
> >
> > That silly sound-effect is a turn-off. And it's very long.
>
> I would reply that a silly sound effect doesn't negate the validity of
> the arguments contained in the site,
It demonstrates a certain lack of seriousness, that's all.
> and the fact that it's very long
> shouldn't necessarily prevent people from reading it and rebutting the
> points if they are interested in advocacy...
That it is very long means that rebutting it in toto would take
while. Since it is evidently not serious, why bother?
> apparently it's simply easier
> to ignore the points, regardless of how valid they are, and use simple
> ad hominem attacks that do nothing but waste bandwidth instead.
Well, this is *.advocacy. Wasting bandwidth is the point. :D
> >> Is it even worth mentioning that none of them have stepped forward with
> >> an excuse for the Shatter attacks being a design flaw as well?
> >
> > I have done so in the past. This fellow does not talk about that as far
> > as I can see.
>
> No, he doesn't; I posted a link to the sites discussing Shatter before
> and none of the Windows advocates replied to those either. I just didn't
> repost the links.
I missed it. I've posted on this subject before, if you want to know
what's going on.
> If you'd like I can repost them so you can review them...I think it's a
> good illustration of the architecture underlying Windows being flawed...
You are mistaken. It's an illustration of the architecture being *different
from Unix*; but it is different in a way that makes secure software
easier, though certainly not automatic.
> >I have reviewed his "design flaws" appendix. It's
> > uniformly bunk, so you'll forgive me if I don't read the whole thing.
> > But briefly:
>
> EXCELLENT! Finally someone actually replying with some CONTENT. Thank
> you.
Oh, anytime. But a lot of my "content" turned out to be
just contradicting him, I'm afraid. :D
> > o Limited memory protection and memory management
[snip- memory and exception behavior]
> > Windows will throw an exception if an app tries to use the NULL pointer,
> > but if unhandled this will just cause the app to terminate, not the
> > system.
>
> I'll take your word for this; I haven't exhausted available memory+VM on
> a UNIX system to the point where exceptions could be thrown before.
Unix does not have exceptions, it has signals. Some Unixes fire
signals before terminating processes willy nilly, but many do not. Linux,
for instance, does not. If you run out of memory and VM, processes
are going to die.
Many Unixes cannot even expand their pagefiles to avoid this,
which Windows will attempt to do.
> For
> memory protection...there have been cases where I've seen apps
> mysteriously not opening or interacting oddly with other applications,
> but that may or may not be due to a flaw in the memory protection.
There are many bugs in the world; most of them have
little to do with memory protection.
> Windows *has* gotten better with major releases in the memory protection
> arena. I just get irritated at the oddball quirks that still occur when
> I have a system on too long. Memory leaks, perhaps?
Possibly; that would cause performance to drop over time.
Leaking things like locks can cause worse failure.
And there are other bugs than can become apparent if you
run a program for a long time.
> I don't know. I do
> know that a reboot tends to clear the problem up :-/ I have not had this
> problem with the Linux systems I have. Again, purely anecdotal so I'll
> have to take your word to support your argument.
I've used systems with no memory protection; if somebody
overwrites somebody else's memory, the results are often
neither subtle nor gradule. I dunno what happened to you,
but I think it's something else.
> > o Insufficient process management
> >
> > Windows does reclaim resources when processes terminate. Windows does
> > not give adminstrators unlimited access to processes; there is no
> > equivalent of a "root" account. This is a feature- a totally unlimited
> > account is a security weakness.
>
> Depends on your security model. There are times when I believe I
> *should* have been able to kill certain processes that Windows wouldn't
> let me. In UNIX the only "protected" process was Init...killing it will
> simply reboot the system.
Init is a critical process in Unix. If Unix did not have
root, you probably would not be able to kill it.
> Why shouldn't I be able to kill all the system processes or restart them
> if they are running errant?
Because it will make the system drop dead. Killing "CSRSS" will
not only kill the OS, it will do so in a way that prevents user-mode
buffers in any application from writing back. You can lose data. That
would be bad.
If you want to reboot, doing it the normal way is safer.
> > o No adequate separation between user-level and kernel-level code
> >
> > Windows provides the usual kernel/user separates. Users can install
> > kernel code (drivers, etc) and render the system unusable that way, if
> > they have sufficient access rights. The registry is similar- access is
> > controlled with ACLs, and ordinary users can't change anything critical.
>
> Perhaps someone should tell vendors what ACL settings they should
> use...getting some Adobe apps to run in the Windows 2000 workstations
> without giving users local admin privs was a PAIN. :-)
Some applications won't install without adminstrative rights
because they actually do need to install kernel code or the like;
others are just pig-headed. :D
> > o Lack of meaningful error messages
> >
> > Good error messages are hard; MS does a better job than many.
[snip- better than Apple]
>
> I've seen it run both ways. My favorite errors are the blank error
> dialogues.
I've never seen one of those on any system!
> My most irritating ones are the ones that give the WRONG
> information...like "file may be in use" when I really just needed to take
> ownership of a file within the directory.
What is that wrong? I *have* seen wrong errors- it's hard to
ensure that the software never misdiagnoses itself when it fails-
but that one sounds right.
> In this case, though, I think
> it is a still a valid argument against MS, but it is also a sin committed
> by the developers of apps in question...
MS develops the occasional app, too. :D
> > o No maintenance mode
> >
> > Fixing a hosed system is hard, but MS does provide more tools than is
> > typical for this. "Safe mode" *is* maintenance mode; it starts as little
> > of the OS as may be so you can repair things. If the OS is so hosed safe
> > mode can't work, nobody's "maintenance mode" will work, and you have to
> > break out some sort of separate utility.
>
> Their minimal is still fatter than the average UNIX minimal.
That's because they know their users are a bit more demanding;
no GUI is unacceptable.
> It's far
> easier to edit a few text files from single-user mode than to diagnose a
> registry problem and/or dll problem under Windows...one of my gripes is
> that there haven't been enough command-line oriented tools under Windows,
> it's management is too GUI-centric so when things do go poof you can't
> easily dig to a command line to fix things. UNIX is largely command-line
> based with GUI tools layered on top, so if all else fails you can use
> tools *meant* for the command line to go in and fix it...when the Windows
> system is hosed beyond GUI usage, it's pretty difficult to get it running
> again short of a parallel install.
If you favor command lines, Windows is not for you. But
you should recognize that you are in the minority, and
MS is not being unreasonable to target the much larger
market segment that not only desires a GUI, but insists upon
one.
> > o No code sharing
[snip- can so!]
>
> I'll give you that one until someone else can post a rebuttal with a
> decent point :-)
Thank you. :D
> > o No version control whatsoever on DLL code
> >
> > MS has extensive version control for DLL codes; they started putting it
> > in in Win95 and it is now very extensive.
>
> So why isn't it in use?
It is. The older stuff is more widely deployed than
the newer stuff, and there is still some old code kicking
around with *no* versioning.
It's not always easy to retrofit this stuff to existing
code, so there is always a delay. The latest verifiable,
digitally signed DLLs are rare because you need .NET
to use them.
But by this point COM interface versioning is widespread,
and most DLLs at least have internal version numbers.
Applications with (unmanaged) manifests turn up here and
there these days as well.
> Why is it only now that they have a system
> restore that attempts to roll back from "DLL Hell", if they have a
> versioning system that could be used to prevent it?
They do that because they dare not break existing apps-
MS is *very* gung ho about compatibility.
Some old apps would do awful things like *overwrite system DLLs*-
and I don't mean "DLLs in the System folder", I mean DLLs that
shipped with Windows. System restore makes those apps work.
It's terribly kludgey, but applying "real" versioning would just
make those apps break.
> > o A very rudimentary and weak security model
> >
> > Window's security model resembles VMS; it's pretty solid (as models go).
> > It can't do everything we want, but it's not as flawed as Unix at least.
> > It does not have "root" or "setuid"; it does have ACLs and it provides
> > extensive security services for applications- not just the filesystem.
>
> Personally I prefer the root account. If I'm administrator, I should be
> able to delete the profile or kill a process. It's downright stupid to
> make me jump through the hoops of taking ownership and altering all the
> permissions if I *can* do it anyway...but that's a double edged sword (rm
> -rf /...oops...)
Yes. And having a root account is also more dangerous should
you be "rooted"; it's bad enough if an Administrator account is
compromised; if it's root your entire system is completely
compromised. This is why MacOS X has "admin" accounts,
for instance.
It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have setuid, and of course
"setuid root" executables.
> ACLs actually can and have been implemented on UNIX and Windows NT.
They aren't part of the model, so you don't see too much software
that knows about them and uses them. They can still protect your
filesystem, but NT makes this ACL stuff available for application
use also.
> I
> think the flawed model is more a reference to the Domain
> model...domains/workgroups work well in some instances, but fail (and add
> headaches) in others. Mixed bag. Personally I prefer hardening and
> logging into individual resources and computers rather than risk a
> trusted system being hacked and gaining automatic access to other
> machines.
Active Directory domains are intended for larger installations
where that sort of thing would be too unweildy to use. The NT
security model covers networks quite neatly; Unix rather less
so, I think.
> And what's the deal with the default of sharing your C: drive?
Windows makes all your drives available to administrators,
not just C.
> > o Rudimentary multi-user support
> >
> > Windows includes support for multiple users simultaneously logged in,
> > either by console or with a GUI. There's nothing wrong with it.
>
> Um...yes, there is. Many apps work, many do not. Multiuser support was
> tacked on. It's not on the system by design.
Multiuser support was there in the first versions of NT, but
of course some apps do not support it because, in some market
segments, it's rarely used.
> We have had several
> vendors tell us they simply don't support term services.
That is probably because they want to sell you licenses for
your individual computers. :D
> We have also
> had several issues with printers (Lexmark!? ARGH!) on term services.
> We've also had misdirected error messages and utilities that pop up on
> the console regardless of the user who caused the exception.
I don't know beans about Lexmark's printers; programs are able
to contact the console on the theory that this is not just another
login, but serves an administrative function. However, if they do so
inappropriately it can be awkward.
> Windows was NOT designed to support multiple simultaneous logins, it was
> added later on and it shows.
I'm afraid it was. You are complaining about *applications* not being
designed to support multiple users.
> > o OS code, application code and user data cannot be maintained
> > separately from the OS and from each other
> >
> > Installers integrate apps into the OS because doing this is desirable.
> > This is how you can have things like app specific property pages in
> > explorer.
>
> I don't desire it...it creates a tangled mess if you want to remove it.
> I prefer the ability to simple delete an app, kind of like app bundles,
> to get rid of the OS. It also prevents flaws in one app from becoming a
> problem in other OS areas (causing things like Explorer flakiness) or
> other apps developing problems.
I desire it; I think a lot of people do. I think many app vendors think
so too.
> > The OS in no way *requires* this.You can just copy your files in and
> > work- if you don't mind not being integrated with the OS.
>
> I don't like apps getting their fingers into the OS. My philosophy just
> differs from yours, I guess.
I think so.
> > o Windows does not follow global protocol standards correctly
> >
> > Microsoft sometimes tries to compete with open standards, but sometimes
> > tries to extend them. It does not reduce itself to the lowest common
> > denominator willingly. It's not obvious to me why it should.
>
> Compete? Ever heard of "embrace and extend"?
I even said "extend" above. :D
> At least let them fail to
> a point where they're compatible with the rest of the world instead of
> creating headaches.
Why should they fail?
MS does not always implement flawless products, but
they often do try to be compatible. They are not, however,
*obliged* to do this.
It is not really a bad thing when they try to build something
incompatible, but better.
> As a system administrator it's nice when differing
> machines speak the same language without having to beat the OS in the
> head...it's a huge PITA to have implementation that are "almost"
> compatible but "not quite" because MS wants to lock out other systems.
>
> Why is it a good thing that you only have one solution to share files?
Um, you don't. MS did *not* 'embrace and extend' existing
file sharing protocols like AFS or NFS; they built their own,
which was very successful.
> > o Windows' API is only partially documented
> >
> > Windows' API is extensively documented and MS is very good about not
> > breaking older apps by changing its behavior.
>
> History shows this to be false...I remember there being a releases of
> Windows that specifically broke when running on a different vendor's
> implementation of DOS, not because of technical reasons but because they
> just didn't like that vendor.
You are mistaken. There was a *beta* of Windows 3.1 that gave
weird unintelligible errors when installed on DR-DOS, but it worked
other than that. The release version did work with no funny errors.
None of that is at all relevant to the documentation of the Windows
API.
> There have also been many allegations of parts of Windows being "tweaked"
> to run MS applications better than their competition by using "partially
> documented" functions.
Lots of allegations, but no proof. I've yet to hear anyone point out
any functionality in any MS application that can't be done with documented
APIs.
> > o Windows' code is a collection of bad programming practices
> >
> > I don't know what MS's programming practices are bad, but the results
> > are pretty good.
>
> Um...I'll refrain from commenting on this :-)
That's probably just as well. :D
> > The thing is, In the past they've prioritized features over security.
> > It's not a "programming practice" to do this or refuse to do this- it's
> > the kind of thing we have management around to decide.
> >
> > They say they took the opposite attitude for Windows 2003, and time will
> > tell how that plays out. But so far I hear they're doing a bit better
> > with that product.
>
> There have been many flaws for 2003 already, but the tune has already
> changed for MS so that Longhorn is supposed to implement secure practices
> while 2003 is just another stepping stone.
News to me. I had heard that there were fewer security issues
for Win2003 than there had been for Win2000 or WinXP by
this time in their lives. Is that mistaken?
> I've read other people in print who have said that the source for DOS and
> Windows are both a lot of hacks and crud, but since I am not a
> professional programmer nor have I seen the source code, I can't say
> whether it is "good" or "bad".
I suspect that the code they saw was not so much good or
bad as *old*. Keeping code very clean for a very long time
is not at all easy.
> I can say that I am not alone in
> believing that for a secure OS or application, security cannot be an
> afterthought.
Security was not an afterthought for MS; they designed for it
right from the first versions of NT. Your mistake- and perhaps
MS's also- is to assume that forethought, by itself, is sufficient. :D
> It must be part of the design, or it will always be
> broken. Windows, and the programming practices that spawned it, will
> always be broken in this respect.
It's easy to say this kind of thing, but it's just a non sequitur.
"I'd like Windows to be more secure than it is, therefore
security was not considered in the design at all".
It just doesn't follow.
zurg
Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> I believe you misunderstand the concept of the ad hominem fallacy. It is
Not really. I spent a good amount of time in college studying formal
logic and logical fallacies. I was tossing around the term 'ad hominem'
long before it came into common usage on the Internet in these kinds of
arguments (primarily in political discussions where it is
breathtakingly commonplace.) I've been trying to get 'post hoc' and 'tu
quoque' to catch on too by using those terms on Slashdot and Fark and
other popular web sites where logically-loose arguments break out.
Those are also typical logical fallacies that should be more commonly
labelled and recognized for what they are.
> true that a person's other qualities say nothing about the validity of
> his argument. However they DO say a lot about the value of his opinion.
It may or may not. That's not part of the fallacy. The fallacy is using
that perception of the person to discount their opinion. There is
absolutely not basis for that. The most immature moron can
simultaneously have the most sound and logical argument. You may save
yourself time in day-to-day life by applying ad hominem thinking to
people and their opinions (which we all do, otherwise we go nuts) but
you cannot use it to form a valid counter-argument or dismiss someone's
point of view in a forum like this where, presumably, valid arguments
should be presented.
So, the Mayor's attempt to dismiss this article because he infers that
the author is immature due to a sound effect on the site is not a valid
argument. It may save the Mayor his own time, which is fine, but he
can't rightly dismiss any valid points on the site by citing the
immaturity of the author nor can he rightly imply that there are no
valid points in the article.
John
The Mac advocates dismiss serious problems by saying "the link is the same".
Jim Lee Jr.
ev5...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/30/03 3:28 PM:
> What exactly is the proper response to a baby's wail?
You tell us, since you and the other Windroids do a lot of wailing. Unless
MuahMan, John and Edwin care to do your replying for you.
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1g6sy04.calsk61tkp4qwN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>
> > I believe you misunderstand the concept of the ad hominem fallacy. It is
>
> Not really. I spent a good amount of time in college studying formal
> logic and logical fallacies.
This is an interesting point. Do you realize that what we have here is a
case of a reverse ad hominem? the fact that you have studied formal
logic doesn't mean that you understood the case here correctly.
> I was tossing around the term 'ad hominem' long before it came into common
> usage on the Internet in these kinds of arguments (primarily in political
> discussions where it is breathtakingly commonplace.) I've been trying to
> get 'post hoc' and 'tu quoque' to catch on too by using those terms on
> Slashdot and Fark and other popular web sites where logically-loose
> arguments break out. Those are also typical logical fallacies that should
> be more commonly labelled and recognized for what they are.
Nope. You are still barking up the wrong tree. The Mayor has not been
refering to an argument and why it wasn't valid, but merely to an
opinion and what he thinks of the opinion of an imature person.
> > true that a person's other qualities say nothing about the validity of
> > his argument. However they DO say a lot about the value of his opinion.
>
> It may or may not. That's not part of the fallacy. The fallacy is using
> that perception of the person to discount their opinion.
But that didn't happen here. Recall that my assumption was that the
Mayor thought that the sound effect underlined the author's imaturity
which was already apparent from the article.
He didn't argue that the author's argument was wrong because of a sound
effect that showed a certain imaturity, he argued that the author was
imature because of what he had written in the article and that the sound
effect already set the tone of the article.
> There is absolutely not basis for that. The most immature moron can
> simultaneously have the most sound and logical argument. You may save
> yourself time in day-to-day life by applying ad hominem thinking to people
> and their opinions (which we all do, otherwise we go nuts) but you cannot
> use it to form a valid counter-argument or dismiss someone's point of view
> in a forum like this where, presumably, valid arguments should be
> presented.
As I said, you have misunderstood the concept of the ad hominem fallacy.
It is about arguments, not opinions; and it is about thinking that an
observation that relate to the author also related to the argument.
> So, the Mayor's attempt to dismiss this article because he infers that
> the author is immature due to a sound effect on the site is not a valid
> argument. It may save the Mayor his own time, which is fine, but he
> can't rightly dismiss any valid points on the site by citing the
> immaturity of the author nor can he rightly imply that there are no
> valid points in the article.
The Mayor didn't dismiss the article because of the authorÄs imaturity,
he rather infered from the article and the sound effect that the author
was imature.
Alan Baker
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
This link will remain the same too:
<news:microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support>
Your wonderful OS seems to have a lot of problems..
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
forge
>I would reply that a silly sound effect doesn't negate the validity of
>the arguments contained in the site, and the fact that it's very long
>shouldn't necessarily prevent people from reading it and rebutting the
>points if they are interested in advocacy...apparently it's simply easier
>to ignore the points, regardless of how valid they are, and use simple
>ad hominem attacks that do nothing but waste bandwidth instead.
...but of course the sound effect of someone throwing up doesn't waste
bandwidth.
Snit
Not as much as has been wasted using the sound effect as an excuse to not
take the article seriously. :)
zurg
Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> This is an interesting point. Do you realize that what we have here is a
> case of a reverse ad hominem? the fact that you have studied formal
> logic doesn't mean that you understood the case here correctly.
Heh... that's fair! I confess to using rhetorical fallacies when it
suits me. :^) It's actually called an associative fallacy, and I'm
impressed you caught it. It's like saying Jello brand pudding must be
good and wholesome because Bill Cosby, who is good and wholesome, sells
it. Most people can't pick apart these things at that level. You ought
to read up on the topic of logic as it appears you have an aptitude for
it.
> Nope. You are still barking up the wrong tree. The Mayor has not been
> refering to an argument and why it wasn't valid, but merely to an
> opinion and what he thinks of the opinion of an imature person.
In the context, it really doesn't matter. The Mayor used a personal
judgment about the author to evaluate the material at hand. That's an
ad hominem argument regardless of whether he uses it to discount
specifics in the article or whether he uses it to judge the value of
the author's opinion. Either way, it's an ad hominem resopnse, shades
of gray notwithstanding.
I have gained a great deal of respect for you through this discussion,
so don't take this wrong, but it seems that you're splitting hairs at
this point.
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What exactly is the proper response to a baby's wail?
Whatever your mommy does.
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1g6t0ij.17um0etohl5yaN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>
> > This is an interesting point. Do you realize that what we have here is a
> > case of a reverse ad hominem? the fact that you have studied formal
> > logic doesn't mean that you understood the case here correctly.
>
> Heh... that's fair! I confess to using rhetorical fallacies when it
> suits me. :^) It's actually called an associative fallacy, and I'm
> impressed you caught it. It's like saying Jello brand pudding must be
> good and wholesome because Bill Cosby, who is good and wholesome, sells
> it. Most people can't pick apart these things at that level. You ought
> to read up on the topic of logic as it appears you have an aptitude for
> it.
:-)
> > Nope. You are still barking up the wrong tree. The Mayor has not been
> > refering to an argument and why it wasn't valid, but merely to an
> > opinion and what he thinks of the opinion of an imature person.
>
> In the context, it really doesn't matter. The Mayor used a personal
> judgment about the author to evaluate the material at hand. That's an
> ad hominem argument regardless of whether he uses it to discount
> specifics in the article or whether he uses it to judge the value of
> the author's opinion. Either way, it's an ad hominem resopnse, shades
> of gray notwithstanding.
>
> I have gained a great deal of respect for you through this discussion,
> so don't take this wrong, but it seems that you're splitting hairs at
> this point.
I am. Have a good New Year's.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <8gr3vv01jsjpgj6on...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
She usually says 'Thank God my kids are all adults now and I don't
hear that from them anymore unlike zurg's mom who hears it all the
time.'
Blip!
And Mayor side steps again!
-Blip!
Blip!
Here's an idea...state the problem and not keep posting the @#$% web
site?
-Blip!
Snit
You do realize that would require he actually read the site, don't you. Not
gonna happen.
Blip!
On Usenet? No.
-Blip!
Blip!
> "Blip!" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:bsqu0...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:06:15 -0500, Dan Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > "Blip!" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bso1u...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> >> Hmm...it's been quite awhile, yet none of the Windows advocates have
>> >> responded to my previous challenge of responding in an intelligent
>> >> manner to the "Why I Hate MS" article found at
>> >>
>> >> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
>> >>
>> >> Anyone care to speculate as to why? :-)
>> >
>> > That silly sound-effect is a turn-off. And it's very long.
>>
>> I would reply that a silly sound effect doesn't negate the validity of
>> the arguments contained in the site,
>
> It demonstrates a certain lack of seriousness, that's all.
>
>> and the fact that it's very long
>> shouldn't necessarily prevent people from reading it and rebutting the
>> points if they are interested in advocacy...
>
> That it is very long means that rebutting it in toto would take while.
> Since it is evidently not serious, why bother?
Um...you didn't read the material...thus you don't know if it's serious
or not. Sounds more like you're avoiding the issue.
Your computer runs Windows, Windows is crap, so anything done on Windows
is crap...yeah, that makes perfect sense...
>
>> apparently it's simply easier
>> to ignore the points, regardless of how valid they are, and use simple
>> ad hominem attacks that do nothing but waste bandwidth instead.
>
> Well, this is *.advocacy. Wasting bandwidth is the point. :D
I don't think that was the point...merely what it has degraded to.
>> >> Is it even worth mentioning that none of them have stepped forward
>> >> with an excuse for the Shatter attacks being a design flaw as well?
>> >
>> > I have done so in the past. This fellow does not talk about that as
>> > far as I can see.
>>
>> No, he doesn't; I posted a link to the sites discussing Shatter before
>> and none of the Windows advocates replied to those either. I just
>> didn't repost the links.
>
> I missed it. I've posted on this subject before, if you want to know
> what's going on.
Please do. I haven't seen anyone post actual rebuttals to why this isn't
a demonstration of an architectural (and fundamental) flaw in the OS.
>> If you'd like I can repost them so you can review them...I think it's a
>> good illustration of the architecture underlying Windows being
>> flawed...
>
> You are mistaken. It's an illustration of the architecture being
> *different from Unix*; but it is different in a way that makes secure
> software easier, though certainly not automatic.
easier? Didn't look like (in conjunction with some sample code) it's
that hard to show how *insecure* it is. How is it good that
non-privileged code can gain privileged rights because there is always a
privileged program running on the desktop?
>> >I have reviewed his "design flaws" appendix. It's
>> > uniformly bunk, so you'll forgive me if I don't read the whole thing.
>> > But briefly:
>>
>> EXCELLENT! Finally someone actually replying with some CONTENT. Thank
>> you.
>
> Oh, anytime. But a lot of my "content" turned out to be just
> contradicting him, I'm afraid. :D
That's fine and dandy as long as it's actual content and not some of the
typical whining and "so's your momma" crap found in the forums now.
>> > o Limited memory protection and memory management
> [snip- memory and exception behavior]
>> > Windows will throw an exception if an app tries to use the NULL
>> > pointer, but if unhandled this will just cause the app to terminate,
>> > not the system.
>>
>> I'll take your word for this; I haven't exhausted available memory+VM
>> on a UNIX system to the point where exceptions could be thrown before.
>
> Unix does not have exceptions, it has signals. Some Unixes fire signals
> before terminating processes willy nilly, but many do not. Linux, for
> instance, does not. If you run out of memory and VM, processes are going
> to die.
I would say that at the point where the system can't handle anything
more being allocated, you're already in a bundle of trouble (thrashing
thrashing thrashing).
However, if the behavior is as you describe, I'd be interested in knowing
why it was done the way it was done on *NIX. I kind of like the signal
approach and the fact that I can send signals to processes to do things
like sighup :-)
> Many Unixes cannot even expand their pagefiles to avoid this, which
> Windows will attempt to do.
True, since some UNIX systems use a dedicated partition. It is actually
dependant on the system, though...there are those that do have a pagefile
that expands, and others can be reconfigured to do so, so in that way
Linux would actually be more flexible. And Windows is also limited by a
setting in the registry, and users would have to adjust the maximum size
allowable.
>> For
>> memory protection...there have been cases where I've seen apps
>> mysteriously not opening or interacting oddly with other applications,
>> but that may or may not be due to a flaw in the memory protection.
>
> There are many bugs in the world; most of them have little to do with
> memory protection.
I was thinking more along the lines of the recent event I ran into where
I couldn't start Print Shop...no error, nothing but the hourglass for a
few moments then a return to the pointer. I checked the task list and
about six instances of the app were listed as running. I had to reboot
before it would allow the program to actually run. Problem with a
library? Why didn't killing all the instances of the app "recollect all
the garbage in memory" so it would run?
No idea.
But you are correct in that Windows has gotten much better about memory
protection now. I've simply run into less problems with Linux/BSD in
this regard.
>> Windows *has* gotten better with major releases in the memory
>> protection arena. I just get irritated at the oddball quirks that
>> still occur when I have a system on too long. Memory leaks, perhaps?
>
> Possibly; that would cause performance to drop over time. Leaking things
> like locks can cause worse failure.
I believe that there should be less problems at this point so that
keeping the Windows workstations running straight for long periods of
time shouldn't manifest oddball quirk behavior. It's still not unusual
for people to need to reboot machines once in awhile because something
"just isn't right", and the behavior disappears after the reboot. And
installing other apps (and later uninstalling them) shouldn't cause the
OS to manifest odd behavior either ("because of rogue libraries" or "crap
in the registry"...) these are signs of problems with the way the OS is
designed.
> And there are other bugs than can become apparent if you run a program
> for a long time.
True. But leaks should be recollected after killing the app and
restarting the app...and not have to do so by killing the login session
or the OS.
>> I don't know. I do
>> know that a reboot tends to clear the problem up :-/ I have not had
>> this problem with the Linux systems I have. Again, purely anecdotal so
>> I'll have to take your word to support your argument.
>
> I've used systems with no memory protection; if somebody overwrites
> somebody else's memory, the results are often neither subtle nor
> gradule. I dunno what happened to you, but I think it's something else.
Sometimes. Depends on what gets corrupted :-)
>
>> > o Insufficient process management
>> >
>> > Windows does reclaim resources when processes terminate. Windows does
>> > not give adminstrators unlimited access to processes; there is no
>> > equivalent of a "root" account. This is a feature- a totally
>> > unlimited account is a security weakness.
>>
>> Depends on your security model. There are times when I believe I
>> *should* have been able to kill certain processes that Windows wouldn't
>> let me. In UNIX the only "protected" process was Init...killing it
>> will simply reboot the system.
>
> Init is a critical process in Unix. If Unix did not have root, you
> probably would not be able to kill it.
That's kind of the point :-)
>> Why shouldn't I be able to kill all the system processes or restart
>> them if they are running errant?
>
> Because it will make the system drop dead. Killing "CSRSS" will not only
> kill the OS, it will do so in a way that prevents user-mode buffers in
> any application from writing back. You can lose data. That would be bad.
But there are some apps I *should* be able to kill. I've had cases where
I couldn't kill the terminal services process. The stop/restart icons
were greyed out, and errors appeared when I tried to use the command
line. The only thing that fixed it (windows 2000, latest patches) was a
restart. Why? I haven't run into any errant server processes that I
couldn't kill and restart under Linux. May take a -9 signal as root, but
it worked.
> If you want to reboot, doing it the normal way is safer.
Of course. But there are occasions where you're left with little other
option.
>> > o No adequate separation between user-level and kernel-level code
>> >
>> > Windows provides the usual kernel/user separates. Users can install
>> > kernel code (drivers, etc) and render the system unusable that way,
>> > if they have sufficient access rights. The registry is similar-
>> > access is controlled with ACLs, and ordinary users can't change
>> > anything critical.
>>
>> Perhaps someone should tell vendors what ACL settings they should
>> use...getting some Adobe apps to run in the Windows 2000 workstations
>> without giving users local admin privs was a PAIN. :-)
>
> Some applications won't install without adminstrative rights because
> they actually do need to install kernel code or the like; others are
> just pig-headed. :D
Doesn't eliminate the fact that they are a PITA. I believe it shows that
Windows' model of workflow evolved, and during this evolution it became
flawed. If things like security aren't designed from the beginning into
the architecture, they are tacked on (evolved) and in the process there
are serious flaws.
>> > o Lack of meaningful error messages
>> >
>> > Good error messages are hard; MS does a better job than many.
> [snip- better than Apple]
>>
>> I've seen it run both ways. My favorite errors are the blank error
>> dialogues.
>
> I've never seen one of those on any system!
Probably rare, but I've had one or two in my time :-)
>> My most irritating ones are the ones that give the WRONG
>> information...like "file may be in use" when I really just needed to
>> take ownership of a file within the directory.
>
> What is that wrong? I *have* seen wrong errors- it's hard to ensure that
> the software never misdiagnoses itself when it fails- but that one
> sounds right.
It's not in use if the problem is an ACL setting or some goofy filename
error that Explorer doesn't like. Especially if I can
easily delete it with rmdir /s <dir> from the cmd prompt.
I have one operation...delete a directory. I take ownership of it and
it's contents. I right click and select "delete". Explorer starts to do
this but then tells me that a particular file cannot be found. Huh?
Open the cmd prompt. Navigate to the directory. Rmdir /s <dir>. Gone.
Huh?
>> > o No maintenance mode
>> >
>> > Fixing a hosed system is hard, but MS does provide more tools than is
>> > typical for this. "Safe mode" *is* maintenance mode; it starts as
>> > little of the OS as may be so you can repair things. If the OS is so
>> > hosed safe mode can't work, nobody's "maintenance mode" will work,
>> > and you have to break out some sort of separate utility.
>>
>> Their minimal is still fatter than the average UNIX minimal.
>
> That's because they know their users are a bit more demanding; no GUI is
> unacceptable.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Just because users don't
know how to fix an engine doesn't mean you just weld the hood
shut...mechanics still need to get in there to work on it. The CLI is,
in many cases, faster and smaller in memory footprint for doing some
emergency work. It's wonderful to have a boot floppy that has all the
tools you need to diagnose a problem and edit a file to get the OS to
boot.
How long have you been using OS's? You MUST remember the days when you
counted a blessing or two to have a bootable floppy of DOS to get into a
computer with fdisk, edit, maybe a virus checker...with Linux, you still
have that ability. Heck, you can get a whole usable OS off the floppy.
Windows? If you're using NTFS, the boot floppy thing may not work so
well (unless you have the R/W version of the NTFS driver for DOS...how
much does that cost?)
>> It's far
>> easier to edit a few text files from single-user mode than to diagnose
>> a registry problem and/or dll problem under Windows...one of my gripes
>> is that there haven't been enough command-line oriented tools under
>> Windows, it's management is too GUI-centric so when things do go poof
>> you can't easily dig to a command line to fix things. UNIX is largely
>> command-line based with GUI tools layered on top, so if all else fails
>> you can use tools *meant* for the command line to go in and fix
>> it...when the Windows system is hosed beyond GUI usage, it's pretty
>> difficult to get it running again short of a parallel install.
>
> If you favor command lines, Windows is not for you. But you should
> recognize that you are in the minority, and MS is not being unreasonable
> to target the much larger market segment that not only desires a GUI,
> but insists upon one.
There is an opinion for the GUIvsCLI wars for general use, and for
fixing the system. For maintenance, there are just times when the CLI is
faster and usable in a smaller footprint. For general use, I do like a
mix of GUI and CLI.
The CLI is simpler and more flexible...what about times when the mouse
isn't available? Or with all the types of mice out there, you may get
into a situation where it's not detected or only 2 out of the fifteen
buttons on the logitech megamytiemouse USB work? The CLI was designed
for the keyboard, and there are times where you may find that the
keyboard is the only periph working!
Again, for general work, you or an end user may not deal with it. At the
lab or workbench or repair shop, I don't have that luxury. Give me an OS
that I can work with in a pinch for a myriad of situations, please!
>> > o No code sharing
> [snip- can so!]
>>
>> I'll give you that one until someone else can post a rebuttal with a
>> decent point :-)
>
> Thank you. :D
I try to be reasonable...I only ask that others be likewise :-)
>> > o No version control whatsoever on DLL code
>> >
>> > MS has extensive version control for DLL codes; they started putting
>> > it in in Win95 and it is now very extensive.
>>
>> So why isn't it in use?
>
> It is. The older stuff is more widely deployed than the newer stuff, and
> there is still some old code kicking around with *no* versioning.
Reminds me of my arguments referring to OS "evolution" isntead of saying
"this is crap, let's do it better" and starting from scratch. That's
part of why I liked the OS X system more. The pure legacy stuff was
largely shifted into a sandbox "classic" mode. WinNT almost had this
right with the Win16 subsystem, but they kept mixing up things with the
Win9x and WinNT flavors of Win32 so there were still mixed-breed crap
programs running out there that while both were "win32", some caused
problems when designed purely for Win9x use :-/
> It's not always easy to retrofit this stuff to existing code, so there
> is always a delay. The latest verifiable, digitally signed DLLs are rare
> because you need .NET to use them.
Ugh.
> But by this point COM interface versioning is widespread, and most DLLs
> at least have internal version numbers. Applications with (unmanaged)
> manifests turn up here and there these days as well.
it's nice that there's some semblance of a fix out there, but the fact
that it isn't mandatory and that the OS can still be corrupted by this
problem is, as I see it, an architectural design issue.
>> Why is it only now that they have a system
>> restore that attempts to roll back from "DLL Hell", if they have a
>> versioning system that could be used to prevent it?
>
> They do that because they dare not break existing apps- MS is *very*
> gung ho about compatibility.
Then we are of two different schools of thought on this issue. Backward
compatibility is good, except when it compromises the OS. Otherwise,
I'd rather design an isolation system; some VM implementation or
something like User Mode Linux to run the app in a sandbox. Takes more
resources and more memory (as if MS has ever cared about that...), but it
protects the OS and makes it more reliable and stable.
> Some old apps would do awful things like *overwrite system DLLs*- and I
> don't mean "DLLs in the System folder", I mean DLLs that shipped with
> Windows. System restore makes those apps work.
>
> It's terribly kludgey, but applying "real" versioning would just make
> those apps break.
Then perhaps they need to be broken, if it means not having users calling
up asking to have their PC fixed because of some rogue app making their
computer turn a pretty blue. Update the app or run it in a sandbox.
>> > o A very rudimentary and weak security model
>> >
>> > Window's security model resembles VMS; it's pretty solid (as models
>> > go). It can't do everything we want, but it's not as flawed as Unix
>> > at least. It does not have "root" or "setuid"; it does have ACLs and
>> > it provides extensive security services for applications- not just
>> > the filesystem.
>>
>> Personally I prefer the root account. If I'm administrator, I should
>> be able to delete the profile or kill a process. It's downright stupid
>> to make me jump through the hoops of taking ownership and altering all
>> the permissions if I *can* do it anyway...but that's a double edged
>> sword (rm -rf /...oops...)
>
> Yes. And having a root account is also more dangerous should you be
> "rooted"; it's bad enough if an Administrator account is compromised; if
> it's root your entire system is completely compromised. This is why
> MacOS X has "admin" accounts, for instance.
It is a resource that requires the most protection and care. And OS X
has a root account; you are simply prompted for the password when
something needing these privs trys to do something (admin users are just
added to the wheel group, as I recall).
I personally haven't had the "rm -rf /" initiation yet. But it would be
my fault if it didn't happen, and I'm extremely careful with those
commands. But I see it this way...root, as with any other resource,
deserves protection. Strong passwords, limited exposure to
vulnerabilities (by updates when remote exploits are found), etc. I take
care with it. I have a "master key" to my workplace's several buildings
so I can access different offices and rooms to work on computer systems
even if a custodian isn't available at the moment in that building,and
replacment costs if the key is compromised would run in the tens of
thousands for my employer. But I still have it because it's part of the
job, and I'm responsible for taking care of that key. Same with the Root
account.
> It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have setuid, and of course "setuid
> root" executables.
Depending on how it is used, this is a weakness and a strength. I agree
I'd rather not have it. It's a poor workaround for something better
served by proper ACLs or Chrooted jails or sandboxes; security is always
better served is an application has a separation in privileges so it has
only the minimum access necessary to do it's job.
>> ACLs actually can and have been implemented on UNIX and Windows NT.
>
> They aren't part of the model, so you don't see too much software that
> knows about them and uses them. They can still protect your filesystem,
> but NT makes this ACL stuff available for application use also.
No, they're not part of the model. Available, yes (trustix?), can it
break things? Stock, yes. I think that it is usually just a matter of
increased system administration though (setup, etc.) to get things to run
properly though. The apps are just denied access to files outside their
ACLs.
I don't like it because it's an evolutionary bandaid to Linux-like OS's.
I think OS's like EROS hold some interesting ideas for security...
>> I
>> think the flawed model is more a reference to the Domain
>> model...domains/workgroups work well in some instances, but fail (and
>> add headaches) in others. Mixed bag. Personally I prefer hardening and
>> logging into individual resources and computers rather than risk a
>> trusted system being hacked and gaining automatic access to other
>> machines.
>
> Active Directory domains are intended for larger installations where
> that sort of thing would be too unweildy to use. The NT security model
> covers networks quite neatly; Unix rather less so, I think.
UNIX security is excellent for protecting individual resources, in my
opinion. Trust doesn't leak over, authenticating to individual machine
minimize the risk of "compromise machine A and automatically gain access
to machine B because B trusts A". I want to get to files on machine C, I
ssh into it's ip and log into it.
I think the reference to the flawed model still stands because
domains/workgroups were THE way microsoft said everyone was to go, and in
the end they decided to shift to AD (for some reason it seems to closely
resemble a certain NDS structure...) and now AD is THE way everyone is to
go. NT's networking model is/was based on workgroups and domains. AD is
a new way to go for the architecture of the *model* NT uses.
The preference of the model to use is largely personal. For small
workgroups, domains and workgroups are what I prefer for windows
workgroups. I like having central Linux servers that I can log into by
attaching to the resource and giving a password to that server, while
having "open" resources also available (public printer for the workgroup,
for example). Domains, workgroups, simple IP, AD/NDS...they're largely
dependant on the way the sysadmin is comfortable working, the size of the
network, etc...
>> And what's the deal with the default of sharing your C: drive?
>
> Windows makes all your drives available to administrators, not just C.
Yes...but by default it shares your C$ drive. That irritates me...you
don't know if/when someone else with "access" is browsing your files.
>> > o Rudimentary multi-user support
>> >
>> > Windows includes support for multiple users simultaneously logged in,
>> > either by console or with a GUI. There's nothing wrong with it.
>>
>> Um...yes, there is. Many apps work, many do not. Multiuser support
>> was tacked on. It's not on the system by design.
>
> Multiuser support was there in the first versions of NT, but of course
> some apps do not support it because, in some market segments, it's
> rarely used.
? I think we may have different definitions of multiuser?
>> We have had several
>> vendors tell us they simply don't support term services.
>
> That is probably because they want to sell you licenses for your
> individual computers. :D
Nope. Won't run on term services.
>> We have also
>> had several issues with printers (Lexmark!? ARGH!) on term services.
>> We've also had misdirected error messages and utilities that pop up on
>> the console regardless of the user who caused the exception.
>
> I don't know beans about Lexmark's printers; programs are able to
> contact the console on the theory that this is not just another login,
> but serves an administrative function. However, if they do so
> inappropriately it can be awkward.
CAN BE? It IS a pain.. Console or remote should not be treated
differently; the network should be transparent, so to speak. It's
another way the "tacked on" evolution shows, in my opinion.
>> Windows was NOT designed to support multiple simultaneous logins, it
>> was added later on and it shows.
>
> I'm afraid it was. You are complaining about *applications* not being
> designed to support multiple users.
How is it in the original NT? It can support multiple users via
profiles, but multiple "desktops", like X so multiple users can utilize
the resources of the system simultaneously (not just as an app or file
server, but as a CPU server)? If so, why was the Terminal Services first
in NT implemented by Citrix?
>> > o OS code, application code and user data cannot be maintained
>> > separately from the OS and from each other
>> >
>> > Installers integrate apps into the OS because doing this is
>> > desirable. This is how you can have things like app specific property
>> > pages in explorer.
>>
>> I don't desire it...it creates a tangled mess if you want to remove it.
>> I prefer the ability to simple delete an app, kind of like app bundles,
>> to get rid of the OS. It also prevents flaws in one app from becoming
>> a problem in other OS areas (causing things like Explorer flakiness) or
>> other apps developing problems.
>
> I desire it; I think a lot of people do. I think many app vendors think
> so too.
BUT it's not the Windows Way(tm). Code/library sharing has tradeoffs :-)
>> > The OS in no way *requires* this.You can just copy your files in and
>> > work- if you don't mind not being integrated with the OS.
>>
>> I don't like apps getting their fingers into the OS. My philosophy
>> just differs from yours, I guess.
>
> I think so.
>
>> > o Windows does not follow global protocol standards correctly
>> >
>> > Microsoft sometimes tries to compete with open standards, but
>> > sometimes tries to extend them. It does not reduce itself to the
>> > lowest common denominator willingly. It's not obvious to me why it
>> > should.
>>
>> Compete? Ever heard of "embrace and extend"?
>
> I even said "extend" above. :D
But do we agree on this? :-)
>> At least let them fail to
>> a point where they're compatible with the rest of the world instead of
>> creating headaches.
>
> Why should they fail?
Because MS tweaks their implementation until something doesn't work
properly with non-MS implementations?
> MS does not always implement flawless products, but they often do try to
> be compatible. They are not, however, *obliged* to do this.
Then they should not call their implementation by the same name. There
was much todo when the details of Kerberos, as MS would be doing it, came
out...because it wouldn't be fully compatible with Kerberos. If you have
to wrestle with the OS to get it to work with the baseline version of a
"standard", then it isn't standards-compliant. And they DO try to break
things. They add "features" until they have the market overwhelmed, then
define themselves as the new standard; to me, standards should NEVER be
closed and proprietary if they are to be called standards.
> It is not really a bad thing when they try to build something
> incompatible, but better.
It must, as a baseline default, support the standard to be called the
name of the standard. Anything else is an addon. And it's bad to play
with "standards". Vendor lockin is a BAD thing.
>> As a system administrator it's nice when differing machines speak the
>> same language without having to beat the OS in the head...it's a huge
>> PITA to have implementation that are "almost" compatible but "not
>> quite" because MS wants to lock out other systems.
>>
>> Why is it a good thing that you only have one solution to share files?
>
> Um, you don't.
If they had their way, you do. And it sounds like that's what you're
hinting that you want...MS has this solution to offer, and they try to
outdo competition by adopting their methods and then extending them with
proprietary addons until MS's version ONLY works with MS products.
>MS did *not* 'embrace and extend' existing file sharing
> protocols like AFS or NFS; they built their own, which was very
> successful.
SMB/CIFS? Yes, that was MS's baby. And it has been called sloppy by
many many many people. But it "works" with Windows, and for many things
it is more than adequate. And as soon as someone on another platform
said "hey, guys, use this and you can share files with Windows on
<platform of choice>, MS started "tweaking" their protocol until it
broke on everything but the latest version of Windows.
But what of "web standards"? and the halloween documents? MS has as much
as admitted to the embrace and extend (and extinguish) strategy...it's
going to be hard for you to argue otherwise, I'm afraid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_and_extend
>> > o Windows' API is only partially documented
>> >
>> > Windows' API is extensively documented and MS is very good about not
>> > breaking older apps by changing its behavior.
>>
>> History shows this to be false...I remember there being a releases of
>> Windows that specifically broke when running on a different vendor's
>> implementation of DOS, not because of technical reasons but because
>> they just didn't like that vendor.
>
> You are mistaken. There was a *beta* of Windows 3.1 that gave weird
> unintelligible errors when installed on DR-DOS, but it worked other than
> that. The release version did work with no funny errors.
It was orchestrated (eerie music inserted here). A lot of this came out
in the DOJ hearings.
> None of that is at all relevant to the documentation of the Windows API.
Please look at (comment on?)
API documentation:
http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/windows-on-gnu.html
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp
http://www.bigredswitch.com/blog/archives/2002/09/01/000030.html
competitor being artificially "broken":
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20447,00.html
http://eatthestate.org/03-07/MicrosoftPlaysHardball.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/7715.html
The fact is that there are many API functions that are/were hidden away,
and it took a court finding for MS to start documenting many previously
hidden away APIs. How else are there so many "undocumented windows"
programming manuals?
>> There have also been many allegations of parts of Windows being
>> "tweaked" to run MS applications better than their competition by using
>> "partially documented" functions.
>
> Lots of allegations, but no proof. I've yet to hear anyone point out any
> functionality in any MS application that can't be done with documented
> APIs.
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0525ms.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~henrih/microsoft.htm
The allegation was more along the lines of, they have access to APIs,
they can use this knowledge to make their products work *better* and
*faster*. I mean, you can get a result of five by adding 1+1+1+1+1 or by
adding 5+0. Which is more steps? If there are APIs that let you do a
certain function, doesn't it help your app look better if there is a
shortcut to do it faster than your competitor?
Kind of hard to "prove" it when it's not documented :-)
>> > o Windows' code is a collection of bad programming practices
>> >
>> > I don't know what MS's programming practices are bad, but the results
>> > are pretty good.
>>
>> Um...I'll refrain from commenting on this :-)
>
> That's probably just as well. :D
With good reason. I could wildly speculate as others in this group are
prone to do, if you'd like...
>> > The thing is, In the past they've prioritized features over security.
>> > It's not a "programming practice" to do this or refuse to do this-
>> > it's the kind of thing we have management around to decide.
>> >
>> > They say they took the opposite attitude for Windows 2003, and time
>> > will tell how that plays out. But so far I hear they're doing a bit
>> > better with that product.
>>
>> There have been many flaws for 2003 already, but the tune has already
>> changed for MS so that Longhorn is supposed to implement secure
>> practices while 2003 is just another stepping stone.
>
> News to me. I had heard that there were fewer security issues for
> Win2003 than there had been for Win2000 or WinXP by this time in their
> lives. Is that mistaken?
I believe it is better, relatively speaking, regarding the number of
found issues (keyword being "found"). However, the problems are
still their, despite the hype their marketing department has released
over the trustworthy computing initiative.
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,83221,00.html?f=x73
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-941398.html
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/innovation/twc/overview_arbogast.asp
>> I've read other people in print who have said that the source for DOS
>> and Windows are both a lot of hacks and crud, but since I am not a
>> professional programmer nor have I seen the source code, I can't say
>> whether it is "good" or "bad".
>
> I suspect that the code they saw was not so much good or bad as *old*.
> Keeping code very clean for a very long time is not at all easy.
I think the more appropriate term would be legacy. They aren't rewriting
this stuff, they're rewrapping with more features and re-releasing it. I
never meant to imply that keeping it "clean" is easy, BUT there are key
sections that probably should have been reworked and reimplemented over
time. I wonder if there are any fun strings embedded in the system
software with other vendor's copyrights in there... :-)
>> I can say that I am not alone in
>> believing that for a secure OS or application, security cannot be an
>> afterthought.
>
> Security was not an afterthought for MS;
I'll pretend you're drinking while posting that line...
>they designed for it right from
> the first versions of NT. Your mistake- and perhaps MS's also- is to
> assume that forethought, by itself, is sufficient. :D
There are flaws with the security model. Each subsequent release has
"patched" holes in the implementation (simple example...number of apps
"broken" by the new permissions on certain keys on the registry because
they "tightened the defaults").
Forethought alone, no, it's not sufficient. BUT security as a
forethought, then slackened, can be MADE secure again because it's part
of the architecture, part of the design. You can't make a house stable
by plonking it flat on sand and shoring it up a lot later.
>> It must be part of the design, or it will always be
>> broken. Windows, and the programming practices that spawned it, will
>> always be broken in this respect.
>
> It's easy to say this kind of thing, but it's just a non sequitur. "I'd
> like Windows to be more secure than it is, therefore security was not
> considered in the design at all".
>
> It just doesn't follow.
No, I'm saying "I'd like Windows to be more secure than it was orginally
meant to be". The workflow for the Windows Way evolved from DOS. NT was
compromised to be compatible with the older applications that still had
the market with Windows; there were compromises. This was discussed in
Showstopper! (a good book, BTW).
Windows wasn't built for security. It was based on a single user model,
it was based on trying to be simple over having users whine about too
many passwords to remember, etc. etc...
-Blip!
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Whatever your mommy does.
>
> She usually says 'Thank God my kids are all adults now and I don't
> hear that from them anymore unlike zurg's mom who hears it all the
> time.'
How does she manage to get that out clearly while she's blowing you?
Dan Johnson
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:14:20 -0500, Dan Johnson wrote:
> > It demonstrates a certain lack of seriousness, that's all.
> >
> >> and the fact that it's very long
> >> shouldn't necessarily prevent people from reading it and rebutting the
> >> points if they are interested in advocacy...
> >
> > That it is very long means that rebutting it in toto would take while.
> > Since it is evidently not serious, why bother?
>
> Um...you didn't read the material...thus you don't know if it's serious
> or not. Sounds more like you're avoiding the issue.
I read some of the material, and posted about it. The part I read
was wrong about nearly everything.
> Your computer runs Windows, Windows is crap, so anything done on Windows
> is crap...yeah, that makes perfect sense...
My computer runs Windows, Windows is great, so everything
done on my computer is great. :D
[snip]
> > Well, this is *.advocacy. Wasting bandwidth is the point. :D
>
> I don't think that was the point...merely what it has degraded to.
If I recall correctly, the advocacy groups were created to divert
this stuff from the real newsgroups. :D
[snip]
> >> No, he doesn't; I posted a link to the sites discussing Shatter before
> >> and none of the Windows advocates replied to those either. I just
> >> didn't repost the links.
> >
> > I missed it. I've posted on this subject before, if you want to know
> > what's going on.
>
> Please do. I haven't seen anyone post actual rebuttals to why this isn't
> a demonstration of an architectural (and fundamental) flaw in the OS.
The people who claim that are stuck in a very Unixy way of thinking;
Windows is designed differently- more like VMS. That makes
misundertanding awfully easy, sadly.
In Unix, you have certain programs that require elevated privileges and
these programs are configured to assume those privileges whenever
a user runs them, even if that user does not otherwise have them. This
is done by setting the "setuid" bit on the executable image, and assigning
an appropriate owner.
In Windows, the programs you run get your privileges. There is no "setuid"
If you need to run a program that requires elevated privileges, then you
must write a second program which contains the privileged code. This
program is a service, and services can only be started by the OS; but the OS
can be configured to assign higher privileges to them.
Uers cannot run services. They need to run UI "front end" programs that
communciate with services to get things done. They can communicate with
named pipes, COM, whatever- but the trick to making this secure is not
to secure the front end, but to secure the communications channel so that
malicious inputs there are blocked.
There are advantages to this approach. Securing a GUI is very difficult
to do on any OS- they are very complex. Using services means you don't
have to do this at all.
Further, the OS need not try to restrict the interaction between
GUI programs that the user runs himself. This allows UI design
options that are rather more difficult to realize if you have to protect
some of the user's programs from other programs.
For instance, on Windows (using IE), if you click on a link to a .pdf file,
Acrobat Reader will open inside IE. Acrobat Reader is a separate program,
just as on the Mac, but Windows does not try to protect IE from it.
On the Macintosh, Acrobat Reader does not integrate in this way because
the APIs are designed to prevent this kind of thing; that makes it harder
for a setuid-root GUI program to be compromised, but it also makes the
UI a bit less nice.
(On X-Windows, there does not appear to be any effort to prevent
this kind of thing; security in the presence of setuid-root GUI programs
seems not to have been considered.)
> >> If you'd like I can repost them so you can review them...I think it's a
> >> good illustration of the architecture underlying Windows being
> >> flawed...
> >
> > You are mistaken. It's an illustration of the architecture being
> > *different from Unix*; but it is different in a way that makes secure
> > software easier, though certainly not automatic.
>
> easier? Didn't look like (in conjunction with some sample code) it's
> that hard to show how *insecure* it is. How is it good that
> non-privileged code can gain privileged rights because there is always a
> privileged program running on the desktop?
If there *is* always a privileged program running on the desktop,
you do have a problem. Doing that defeats the NT security
model.
That can happen if you have a service installed that opens windows;
I believe the original shatter-attack paper used Symatec's anti-virus
program, which contained a privileged service that would open
windows.
[snip]
> >> I'll take your word for this; I haven't exhausted available memory+VM
> >> on a UNIX system to the point where exceptions could be thrown before.
> >
> > Unix does not have exceptions, it has signals. Some Unixes fire signals
> > before terminating processes willy nilly, but many do not. Linux, for
> > instance, does not. If you run out of memory and VM, processes are going
> > to die.
>
> I would say that at the point where the system can't handle anything
> more being allocated, you're already in a bundle of trouble (thrashing
> thrashing thrashing).
Yes, but thrashing is better than killing processes in my
view.
> However, if the behavior is as you describe, I'd be interested in knowing
> why it was done the way it was done on *NIX. I kind of like the signal
> approach and the fact that I can send signals to processes to do things
> like sighup :-)
It is done that way because one of the more important Unix APIs
cannot be implemented efficiently and still report out-of-memory
errors.
I speak of "fork()". fork() copies an entire process; a new process
gets a copy of all of its memory, file handles, the lot. This is a very easy
way to split of a process to perform a task, because the new process
has access to all the data the old one did, without taking any special
measures. It's convenient in the way threads are.
But it would be amazingly slow to actually do the copy up front;
Unixes always use a technique called "copy on write"; they let the
new process use the old processes' memory, but copy each page
that the new process tries to write. This looks very much like the
process was copied, but it is fast- almost as fast as threads, and
it fails more robustly should any process crash.
fork() is very widely used on Unix. But should memory be
exhausted, those copy-on-write operations will fail to
allocate memory to copy data into. But it is now much too
late to return an error from fork(). This is hte pont
where some Unixes will try to signal, but if that does
not work there's nothing they can do but kill processes
(or have a kernel panic).
You could implement fork() it so that it would fail if
it could not reserve enough memory to do any copies
that might be needed. This is not done because in typical
usage, Unix programs fork() very often but change very
little of the 'copied' data. If you require each process to
reserve all memory it might need, then you will be not be
able to fork() nearly enough to get decent thoughput.
Windows does not have this problem because they
build a new API. Windows implements fork() the
amazingly slow way, and real Windows program never
use it- they spawn threads instead. Threads do not copy
on write- they just share memory.
> > Many Unixes cannot even expand their pagefiles to avoid this, which
> > Windows will attempt to do.
>
> True, since some UNIX systems use a dedicated partition. It is actually
> dependant on the system, though...there are those that do have a pagefile
> that expands, and others can be reconfigured to do so, so in that way
> Linux would actually be more flexible. And Windows is also limited by a
> setting in the registry, and users would have to adjust the maximum size
> allowable.
Actually, if programs try to allocate more memory than there is page-file,
Windows will complain to the user, but it will also try to expand the page
file above that maximum. This will make the system slow, but it avoids
program failure.
Windows tries really hard to avoid having programs drop dead due to
memory starvation.
[snip]
> > There are many bugs in the world; most of them have little to do with
> > memory protection.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of the recent event I ran into where
> I couldn't start Print Shop...no error, nothing but the hourglass for a
> few moments then a return to the pointer. I checked the task list and
> about six instances of the app were listed as running. I had to reboot
> before it would allow the program to actually run. Problem with a
> library? Why didn't killing all the instances of the app "recollect all
> the garbage in memory" so it would run?
If the application was listed six times in the task manager, it
had not been killed. You can kill it using the "End Process" button
in task manager (you'll have to kill each one). Bear in mind that
"End Task" is *not* the same thing- that just asks the app to
close, politely. It appears Print Shop was misbehaving.
[snip]
> But you are correct in that Windows has gotten much better about memory
> protection now. I've simply run into less problems with Linux/BSD in
> this regard.
It seems to me that while you may well have run into less problems
with Linux or with BSD, there's no way to know what "regard"
the problems were in, as it were. :/
[snip]
> > Possibly; that would cause performance to drop over time. Leaking things
> > like locks can cause worse failure.
>
> I believe that there should be less problems at this point so that
> keeping the Windows workstations running straight for long periods of
> time shouldn't manifest oddball quirk behavior. It's still not unusual
> for people to need to reboot machines once in awhile because something
> "just isn't right", and the behavior disappears after the reboot.
This is voodoo system administration. Rebooting a Windows
system typically *does not* solve whatever the problem
actually is. The problem behavior will come back. I am sure you
have noticed *that*.
> And
> installing other apps (and later uninstalling them) shouldn't cause the
> OS to manifest odd behavior either ("because of rogue libraries" or "crap
> in the registry"...) these are signs of problems with the way the OS is
> designed.
The OS is designed so that users can install system services, drivers,
etc. They can do it with ordinary installers.
This is a good and useful thing; Windows would not be acceptable
desktop OS were this not the case.
> > And there are other bugs than can become apparent if you run a program
> > for a long time.
>
> True. But leaks should be recollected after killing the app and
> restarting the app...and not have to do so by killing the login session
> or the OS.
Leaks can be collected by killing the app; the only reason killing a
login session can help with leaks is that it kills all of your apps, even
the ones that have no windows open.
If a service is leaking, restarting the OS will help- but you can also
restart the service itself.
If a driver is leaking, you just lose.
[snip]
> >> Why shouldn't I be able to kill all the system processes or restart
> >> them if they are running errant?
> >
> > Because it will make the system drop dead. Killing "CSRSS" will not only
> > kill the OS, it will do so in a way that prevents user-mode buffers in
> > any application from writing back. You can lose data. That would be bad.
>
> But there are some apps I *should* be able to kill.
CSRSS is not one of them. :D
> I've had cases where
> I couldn't kill the terminal services process. The stop/restart icons
> were greyed out, and errors appeared when I tried to use the command
> line. The only thing that fixed it (windows 2000, latest patches) was a
> restart. Why? I haven't run into any errant server processes that I
> couldn't kill and restart under Linux. May take a -9 signal as root, but
> it worked.
I do not know what you mean by "terminal services processes";
you can kill processes in a terminal services session with task
manager, I believe.
> > If you want to reboot, doing it the normal way is safer.
>
> Of course. But there are occasions where you're left with little other
> option.
If you are going to do this, you might as well go all-out, and pull
the power cord. :D
[snip]
> > Some applications won't install without adminstrative rights because
> > they actually do need to install kernel code or the like; others are
> > just pig-headed. :D
>
> Doesn't eliminate the fact that they are a PITA.
This is not a complaint about Windows, though.
> I believe it shows that
> Windows' model of workflow evolved, and during this evolution it became
> flawed. If things like security aren't designed from the beginning into
> the architecture, they are tacked on (evolved) and in the process there
> are serious flaws.
Windows does not have a "model of workflow". Security *was*
designed from the beginning into the architecture; programs that
ignore it do so at their peril. The security rules *will* be enforced,
even if that breaks your program.
[snip]
> > What is that wrong? I *have* seen wrong errors- it's hard to ensure that
> > the software never misdiagnoses itself when it fails- but that one
> > sounds right.
>
> It's not in use if the problem is an ACL setting or some goofy filename
> error that Explorer doesn't like. Especially if I can
> easily delete it with rmdir /s <dir> from the cmd prompt.
Ah. It sounded like a genuine file-in-use problem.
> I have one operation...delete a directory. I take ownership of it and
> it's contents. I right click and select "delete". Explorer starts to do
> this but then tells me that a particular file cannot be found. Huh?
> Open the cmd prompt. Navigate to the directory. Rmdir /s <dir>. Gone.
> Huh?
Without knowing what file it can't find I can't say what
happened. It does not sound security related to me, though.
[snip]
> >> Their minimal is still fatter than the average UNIX minimal.
> >
> > That's because they know their users are a bit more demanding; no GUI is
> > unacceptable.
>
> I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Just because users don't
> know how to fix an engine doesn't mean you just weld the hood
> shut...mechanics still need to get in there to work on it. The CLI is,
> in many cases, faster and smaller in memory footprint for doing some
> emergency work. It's wonderful to have a boot floppy that has all the
> tools you need to diagnose a problem and edit a file to get the OS to
> boot.
As I said, this kind of thing is simply not acceptable to MS's
customers. That's one reason why they insist on using Windows
when cheaper OSes are available.
> How long have you been using OS's? You MUST remember the days when you
> counted a blessing or two to have a bootable floppy of DOS to get into a
> computer with fdisk, edit, maybe a virus checker...with Linux, you still
> have that ability.
I remember. I *hated* that about early Windows. You should *never*
have to use COMMAND.COM- or any other CLI.
It's better now. Not perfect, but better.
> Heck, you can get a whole usable OS off the floppy.
> Windows? If you're using NTFS, the boot floppy thing may not work so
> well (unless you have the R/W version of the NTFS driver for DOS...how
> much does that cost?)
Windows is a little bit too large for a floppy. A bootable CD
maybe. :D
[snip]
> > If you favor command lines, Windows is not for you. But you should
> > recognize that you are in the minority, and MS is not being unreasonable
> > to target the much larger market segment that not only desires a GUI,
> > but insists upon one.
>
> There is an opinion for the GUIvsCLI wars for general use, and for
> fixing the system. For maintenance, there are just times when the CLI is
> faster and usable in a smaller footprint. For general use, I do like a
> mix of GUI and CLI.
CLIs do have a smaller footprint, but they simply do not
rise to the minimum level of UI quality needed. And that level
is not high, mind you.
As a general rules, anything that can be done only using a CLI
might as well not be included at all. Only a very select group of
people will every use such a feature.
> The CLI is simpler and more flexible...what about times when the mouse
> isn't available?
Use a keyboard to navigate the GUI. It sucks, but it beats
a CLI. :D
> Or with all the types of mice out there, you may get
> into a situation where it's not detected or only 2 out of the fifteen
> buttons on the logitech megamytiemouse USB work?
*One* button is enough. Windows is very good about
detecting mice and keyboards; it needs to be.
> The CLI was designed
> for the keyboard, and there are times where you may find that the
> keyboard is the only periph working!
You can still use a GUI; not as well as with a mouse,
but it's better than even a good CLI in my view.
> Again, for general work, you or an end user may not deal with it. At the
> lab or workbench or repair shop, I don't have that luxury. Give me an OS
> that I can work with in a pinch for a myriad of situations, please!
You can work with Windows if you are willing to use the tools it
gives you, rather than insisting on a Unix-style CLI-only single user
boot mode.
[snip]
> >> So why isn't it in use?
> >
> > It is. The older stuff is more widely deployed than the newer stuff, and
> > there is still some old code kicking around with *no* versioning.
>
> Reminds me of my arguments referring to OS "evolution" isntead of saying
> "this is crap, let's do it better" and starting from scratch. That's
> part of why I liked the OS X system more. The pure legacy stuff was
> largely shifted into a sandbox "classic" mode. WinNT almost had this
> right with the Win16 subsystem, but they kept mixing up things with the
> Win9x and WinNT flavors of Win32 so there were still mixed-breed crap
> programs running out there that while both were "win32", some caused
> problems when designed purely for Win9x use :-/
It would be nice to have a system designed with no legacy crap, but
as a practical matter it won't fly. You need that compatibility.
> > It's not always easy to retrofit this stuff to existing code, so there
> > is always a delay. The latest verifiable, digitally signed DLLs are rare
> > because you need .NET to use them.
>
> Ugh.
Ugh? I thought you *liked* versioning...
> > But by this point COM interface versioning is widespread, and most DLLs
> > at least have internal version numbers. Applications with (unmanaged)
> > manifests turn up here and there these days as well.
>
> it's nice that there's some semblance of a fix out there, but the fact
> that it isn't mandatory and that the OS can still be corrupted by this
> problem is, as I see it, an architectural design issue.
There are numerous semblances of a fix. But no complete fix, because
to mandate this kind of thing would block older apps, and that would
never be acceptable to MS's customers.
Compatibility is very important.
I don't clearly understand what you mean by "an architectural design
issue"; but if MS was prepared to forget about compatibility, they
could simply turn off the offending loader behaviors tomorrow.
[snip]
> > They do that because they dare not break existing apps- MS is *very*
> > gung ho about compatibility.
>
> Then we are of two different schools of thought on this issue. Backward
> compatibility is good, except when it compromises the OS. Otherwise,
> I'd rather design an isolation system; some VM implementation or
> something like User Mode Linux to run the app in a sandbox. Takes more
> resources and more memory (as if MS has ever cared about that...), but it
> protects the OS and makes it more reliable and stable.
VMs work well when they are asked to handle well-behaved apps,
but weird, ambititous, or unconventional ones will tend to throw them;
you can see that with the Classic box in MacOS X. It can't run
everything.
[snip]
> > It's terribly kludgey, but applying "real" versioning would just make
> > those apps break.
>
> Then perhaps they need to be broken, if it means not having users calling
> up asking to have their PC fixed because of some rogue app making their
> computer turn a pretty blue. Update the app or run it in a sandbox.
Sandboxes aren't a panacea. MS is not going to tell their users
that they can't run the apps they've run for years. If they did,
the users would simply not upgrade to the latest Windows- and
your tech support problems would be *worse* if that happened,
I think. Your users would be insisting on buying new computers and
installing Win3 on them. :D
[snip]
> > Yes. And having a root account is also more dangerous should you be
> > "rooted"; it's bad enough if an Administrator account is compromised; if
> > it's root your entire system is completely compromised. This is why
> > MacOS X has "admin" accounts, for instance.
>
> It is a resource that requires the most protection and care. And OS X
> has a root account; you are simply prompted for the password when
> something needing these privs trys to do something (admin users are just
> added to the wheel group, as I recall).
Root accounts are not really necessary, as NT demonstrates. But
of course you can't get rid of it completely on Unix.
> I personally haven't had the "rm -rf /" initiation yet. But it would be
> my fault if it didn't happen, and I'm extremely careful with those
> commands. But I see it this way...root, as with any other resource,
> deserves protection. Strong passwords, limited exposure to
> vulnerabilities (by updates when remote exploits are found), etc. I take
> care with it. I have a "master key" to my workplace's several buildings
> so I can access different offices and rooms to work on computer systems
> even if a custodian isn't available at the moment in that building,and
> replacment costs if the key is compromised would run in the tens of
> thousands for my employer. But I still have it because it's part of the
> job, and I'm responsible for taking care of that key. Same with the Root
> account.
Even that key does not give you the ability to walk off with
the building's foundations- you can steal things, but at least
the building itself will not collapse.
There is a need for the "master key" or the "administrator
account"; there is not a need for root.
> > It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have setuid, and of course "setuid
> > root" executables.
>
> Depending on how it is used, this is a weakness and a strength. I agree
> I'd rather not have it. It's a poor workaround for something better
> served by proper ACLs or Chrooted jails or sandboxes; security is always
> better served is an application has a separation in privileges so it has
> only the minimum access necessary to do it's job.
Yes, quite so.
> >> ACLs actually can and have been implemented on UNIX and Windows NT.
> >
> > They aren't part of the model, so you don't see too much software that
> > knows about them and uses them. They can still protect your filesystem,
> > but NT makes this ACL stuff available for application use also.
>
> No, they're not part of the model. Available, yes (trustix?), can it
> break things? Stock, yes. I think that it is usually just a matter of
> increased system administration though (setup, etc.) to get things to run
> properly though. The apps are just denied access to files outside their
> ACLs.
>
> I don't like it because it's an evolutionary bandaid to Linux-like OS's.
> I think OS's like EROS hold some interesting ideas for security...
Bear in mind that it's not just files. People used to Unix sometimes
assume that "security" and "file access" are the same thing; NT
makes security primitives available to protect anything you, as
a programmer, care to protect.
[snip]
> > Active Directory domains are intended for larger installations where
> > that sort of thing would be too unweildy to use. The NT security model
> > covers networks quite neatly; Unix rather less so, I think.
>
> UNIX security is excellent for protecting individual resources, in my
> opinion.
Well, it's better at that than at distributed networks.
> Trust doesn't leak over, authenticating to individual machine
> minimize the risk of "compromise machine A and automatically gain access
> to machine B because B trusts A". I want to get to files on machine C, I
> ssh into it's ip and log into it.
Having log-ins everywhere can make you more secure, but
it only scales up so far.
> I think the reference to the flawed model still stands because
> domains/workgroups were THE way microsoft said everyone was to go, and in
> the end they decided to shift to AD (for some reason it seems to closely
> resemble a certain NDS structure...) and now AD is THE way everyone is to
> go. NT's networking model is/was based on workgroups and domains. AD is
> a new way to go for the architecture of the *model* NT uses.
No. Active Directory replaces some bits of the *implementation*, but
the domain model remains essentially as it was.
> The preference of the model to use is largely personal. For small
> workgroups, domains and workgroups are what I prefer for windows
> workgroups. I like having central Linux servers that I can log into by
> attaching to the resource and giving a password to that server, while
> having "open" resources also available (public printer for the workgroup,
> for example). Domains, workgroups, simple IP, AD/NDS...they're largely
> dependant on the way the sysadmin is comfortable working, the size of the
> network, etc...
If you favor having separate passwords for everything, you'll
not like what NT gives you. But there *is* a place for NT
domains.
And NT *does* support having every computer separate
if that's what you want to do.
> >> And what's the deal with the default of sharing your C: drive?
> >
> > Windows makes all your drives available to administrators, not just C.
>
> Yes...but by default it shares your C$ drive. That irritates me...you
> don't know if/when someone else with "access" is browsing your files.
Well, I can see this. MS was probably thinking of your basic
big faceless corporation when the decided that admins should
be able to do that.
[snip]
> > Multiuser support was there in the first versions of NT, but of course
> > some apps do not support it because, in some market segments, it's
> > rarely used.
>
> ? I think we may have different definitions of multiuser?
Some people feel that NT 3 was not multiuser because it
did not have remote GUI support. My feeling is that this argument
is self defeating. It's obviously an attempt to expand the
term "multi-user" into "X-Windows". :D
If you leave that controversy aside, it was multiuser.
[snip]
> > That is probably because they want to sell you licenses for your
> > individual computers. :D
>
> Nope. Won't run on term services.
There may be a reason for that. Like they want to sell you
licenses for your individual computers. :D
[snip]
> > I don't know beans about Lexmark's printers; programs are able to
> > contact the console on the theory that this is not just another login,
> > but serves an administrative function. However, if they do so
> > inappropriately it can be awkward.
>
> CAN BE? It IS a pain..
If you say so. I've never seen this, but then I've never
used a Lexmark printer.
> Console or remote should not be treated
> differently; the network should be transparent, so to speak. It's
> another way the "tacked on" evolution shows, in my opinion.
You would be wrong. It shows that MS disagrees with
you about the desirability to have a place where critical
errors can be signaled immediately.
> >> Windows was NOT designed to support multiple simultaneous logins, it
> >> was added later on and it shows.
> >
> > I'm afraid it was. You are complaining about *applications* not being
> > designed to support multiple users.
>
> How is it in the original NT? It can support multiple users via
> profiles, but multiple "desktops", like X so multiple users can utilize
> the resources of the system simultaneously (not just as an app or file
> server, but as a CPU server)? If so, why was the Terminal Services first
> in NT implemented by Citrix?
I have little patience for the "multi-user = X-Windows" argument.
The first Unix versions did not support multiple desktops either- they
were CLI only. This does not mean that Unix wasn't multi-user back
then.
[snip]
> > I desire it; I think a lot of people do. I think many app vendors think
> > so too.
>
> BUT it's not the Windows Way(tm). Code/library sharing has tradeoffs :-)
Integrating everything in sight into Explorer certainly *is* the Windows
Way;
just ask Microsoft. In front of a judge, even. :D
[snip]
> >> Compete? Ever heard of "embrace and extend"?
> >
> > I even said "extend" above. :D
>
> But do we agree on this? :-)
You may feel that it is *bad* for MS to try to improve
upon open standards. Many do.
> >> At least let them fail to
> >> a point where they're compatible with the rest of the world instead of
> >> creating headaches.
> >
> > Why should they fail?
>
> Because MS tweaks their implementation until something doesn't work
> properly with non-MS implementations?
They don't stop tweaking there, either! :D
But seriously: you seem to be saying MS's "open standards" protocol
implementations *should* fail, not that they do fail. Do I misunderstand
you?
> > MS does not always implement flawless products, but they often do try to
> > be compatible. They are not, however, *obliged* to do this.
>
> Then they should not call their implementation by the same name. There
> was much todo when the details of Kerberos, as MS would be doing it, came
> out...because it wouldn't be fully compatible with Kerberos.
That is not true. MS Kerberos was and is fully compatible. MS did their
extensions in the manner mandated by the standard so that this would be
true. Unix systems can and do simply ignore the extra data; so do Win95
systems for that matter.
Unix systems that authenticate with an NT kerberos server do not
join the NT domain, but even if they could understand the extra data
Windows sends them, *still* they would not be able to join the domain-
Unix has no notion of "domains" in the NT sense.
> If you have
> to wrestle with the OS to get it to work with the baseline version of a
> "standard", then it isn't standards-compliant.
Well, that or it is just plain user-unfriendly. :D
> And they DO try to break
> things. They add "features" until they have the market overwhelmed, then
> define themselves as the new standard; to me, standards should NEVER be
> closed and proprietary if they are to be called standards.
You sound like you prefer a bad technology as long as it is not
proprietary. I don't feel that way myself.
> > It is not really a bad thing when they try to build something
> > incompatible, but better.
>
> It must, as a baseline default, support the standard to be called the
> name of the standard. Anything else is an addon. And it's bad to play
> with "standards".
MS does not call their incompatible alternatives to open standards
by the same names as open standards.
> Vendor lockin is a BAD thing.
Standard's body politics is *also* a bad thing. Pick your poison. :D
[snip]
> >> Why is it a good thing that you only have one solution to share files?
> >
> > Um, you don't.
>
> If they had their way, you do.
That's silly. MS introduced *yet another* file sharing protocol;
by doing this they increased the diversity of technologies out
there.
> And it sounds like that's what you're
> hinting that you want...MS has this solution to offer, and they try to
> outdo competition by adopting their methods and then extending them with
> proprietary addons until MS's version ONLY works with MS products.
It seems to me that you are hinting the same thing. You want
there not not be proprietary alternatives to open standards.
> >MS did *not* 'embrace and extend' existing file sharing
> > protocols like AFS or NFS; they built their own, which was very
> > successful.
>
> SMB/CIFS? Yes, that was MS's baby. And it has been called sloppy by
> many many many people.
Well, it was sloppy. Typical MS- get version 1 out the door, then
worry about getting it right. :D
> But it "works" with Windows, and for many things
> it is more than adequate. And as soon as someone on another platform
> said "hey, guys, use this and you can share files with Windows on
> <platform of choice>, MS started "tweaking" their protocol until it
> broke on everything but the latest version of Windows.
MS always tweaks their products; it's part of the way they
develop software. It's why MS products are typically no good
until version 3. :D
> But what of "web standards"?
MS seems to feel that there's an opportunity to replace
HTML will a new, proprietary protocol that will enable
*good* UIs for web applications. They are calling
it XAML.
This could be big- if it works.
> and the halloween documents? MS has as much
> as admitted to the embrace and extend (and extinguish) strategy...it's
> going to be hard for you to argue otherwise, I'm afraid.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_and_extend
I am not arguing otherwise. I think it is a *good thing* that
MS competes with open standards in this way.
For instance, using kerberos in Active Directory is
good- because now Unix machines can authenticate
with NT domain controllers, where before they could not.
Their extension here is *also* good- NT users continue
to enjoy integrated domain security, and they also get
kerberos's neat authentication technology.
It's win-win.
[snip]
> > You are mistaken. There was a *beta* of Windows 3.1 that gave weird
> > unintelligible errors when installed on DR-DOS, but it worked other than
> > that. The release version did work with no funny errors.
>
> It was orchestrated (eerie music inserted here). A lot of this came out
> in the DOJ hearings.
That theory is just goofy.
>
> > None of that is at all relevant to the documentation of the Windows API.
>
> Please look at (comment on?)
> API documentation:
> http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/windows-on-gnu.html
Some programs do access the internal implementation of
Windows. That's a bad thing- those programs break on
new versions of Windows.
Those internal implementations are not APIs however.
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp
MS was required by their settlement to document the
interfaces between certain parts of Windows, apparently
making these interfaces APIs.
I say apparently because it is not clear that MS is
committed to keeping those interfaces stable in future
releases.
But it seems like that would be the spirit of the thing.
> http://www.bigredswitch.com/blog/archives/2002/09/01/000030.html
The 'Native API' is not an API at all- it is the interface beween
the API implementation and the kernel. It exists so that you can
have both Win32 and POSIX on the same computer.
> competitor being artificially "broken":
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20447,00.html
> http://eatthestate.org/03-07/MicrosoftPlaysHardball.htm
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/7715.html
These are all about the DR-DOS thing again. Remember,
when the finally shipped it it *did* work on DR-DOS, and
there was no funny error.
The whole conspiracy theory that's grown up around this
business founders on that simple fact.
> The fact is that there are many API functions that are/were hidden away,
> and it took a court finding for MS to start documenting many previously
> hidden away APIs. How else are there so many "undocumented windows"
> programming manuals?
Those manuals document the internal workings of Windows. Those
workings are not APIs. An API is an interface for application use
that will remain stable between Windows versions; it's a promise
by Microsoft not to break your code. It's just just any old thing lying
around in Windows.
Nobody has every made a case that there are acutal APIs
revealed only to the Office team or anything like that.
[snip]
> > Lots of allegations, but no proof. I've yet to hear anyone point out any
> > functionality in any MS application that can't be done with documented
> > APIs.
>
> http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0525ms.html
This seems to be a complain that Active Directory
is intergated into NT. The relevant escapes me;
the APIs to access active directory are documented,
and the APIs to integrate your own authentication
services are also documented.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~henrih/microsoft.htm
This seems to be an argument in defence of Microsoft;
it explicitly denies that MS has hidden APIs.
> The allegation was more along the lines of, they have access to APIs,
> they can use this knowledge to make their products work *better* and
> *faster*. I mean, you can get a result of five by adding 1+1+1+1+1 or by
> adding 5+0. Which is more steps? If there are APIs that let you do a
> certain function, doesn't it help your app look better if there is a
> shortcut to do it faster than your competitor?
It can, but I have yet to see any proof (or even evidence) that
there are hidden APIs that provide better performance, either.
> Kind of hard to "prove" it when it's not documented :-)
It's not that hard. You can get a dump of the DLL imports
in a program like Office and you can see if they are hitting
any that are not documented.
[snip]
> > News to me. I had heard that there were fewer security issues for
> > Win2003 than there had been for Win2000 or WinXP by this time in their
> > lives. Is that mistaken?
>
> I believe it is better, relatively speaking, regarding the number of
> found issues (keyword being "found"). However, the problems are
> still their, despite the hype their marketing department has released
> over the trustworthy computing initiative.
So you feel that though they are *apparently* doing better
now, really the exploitable bugs are still there, but not
beign found.
Is that right?
>
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,83221,00.html?f=x73
This article tells us that that Win2003 has not has
*zero* defects. We knew that. :D
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-941398.html
This one talks about their upcoming copy protection
technology. The relevance of this is not clear to me.
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/innovation/twc/overview_arbogast.asp
This interview talks about MS's efforts to handle privacy better-
again, the relevance of this is not clear.
[snip]
> > I suspect that the code they saw was not so much good or bad as *old*.
> > Keeping code very clean for a very long time is not at all easy.
>
> I think the more appropriate term would be legacy.
You know, in any other business a "legacy" is a *good* thing.
Funny how that works out, innit? :D
> They aren't rewriting
> this stuff, they're rewrapping with more features and re-releasing it.
They do not spend 100% of their time rewriting, but they
*do* rewrite things. Longhorn is apparently going to have
a rewritten GUI widget set, for instance. XP included
an all-new graphics library.
Maybe they aren't doing it fast enough, but they are doing it.
> I
> never meant to imply that keeping it "clean" is easy, BUT there are key
> sections that probably should have been reworked and reimplemented over
> time. I wonder if there are any fun strings embedded in the system
> software with other vendor's copyrights in there... :-)
I don't quite see what you are getting at here.
> >> I can say that I am not alone in
> >> believing that for a secure OS or application, security cannot be an
> >> afterthought.
> >
> > Security was not an afterthought for MS;
>
> I'll pretend you're drinking while posting that line...
It is a historical fact. You can't just say "they did a lousy
job, so it was an afterthought". It wasn't.
> >they designed for it right from
> > the first versions of NT. Your mistake- and perhaps MS's also- is to
> > assume that forethought, by itself, is sufficient. :D
>
> There are flaws with the security model.
I know of no flaws in the *model*.
> Each subsequent release has
> "patched" holes in the implementation (simple example...number of apps
> "broken" by the new permissions on certain keys on the registry because
> they "tightened the defaults").
Those are corrections to the implementation and the configuration,
not the model.
> Forethought alone, no, it's not sufficient. BUT security as a
> forethought, then slackened, can be MADE secure again because it's part
> of the architecture, part of the design. You can't make a house stable
> by plonking it flat on sand and shoring it up a lot later.
I am not so sure. Unix is widelly trusted, but it was originally
not secure at all (didn't even have memory protection), and even
now the underlying model is lousy. Yet it gets by.
I think you are, perhaps overstating the importance of the design in
these things.
[snip]
> > It's easy to say this kind of thing, but it's just a non sequitur. "I'd
> > like Windows to be more secure than it is, therefore security was not
> > considered in the design at all".
> >
> > It just doesn't follow.
>
> No, I'm saying "I'd like Windows to be more secure than it was orginally
> meant to be".
I think what you really want is for it to be as secure as it was
original meant to be- as secure as VMS.
> The workflow for the Windows Way evolved from DOS. NT was
> compromised to be compatible with the older applications that still had
> the market with Windows; there were compromises. This was discussed in
> Showstopper! (a good book, BTW).
Honestly, these sentences don't say anything. The "Windows Way" is
not a component of the OS. Even if it were, Windows does not have
a "workflow". Even if it *did*, NT's security arrangements derive from
VMS, not DOS, and not some "workflow".
> Windows wasn't built for security. It was based on a single user model,
> it was based on trying to be simple over having users whine about too
> many passwords to remember, etc. etc...
'Taint so.
Anyway, I think this thread is over. You've said your piece,
and now you've launched into a bunch of old canards and even
links to articles. You are just trying to score points against MS
now, by whatever means are handy.
If you are prepared to do that, you probably can't be
reasoned with. Don't feel bad; that can be said for pretty
much everybody here. :D
But these posts are just way too long to continue like
this.
Snit
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <92m6vv40d9i9tf423...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
That's my zurg! You can always count on him to take the high road.
I hope you went home for the holidays, zurg. I was talking to your dad
the other day and he was complaining that he hasn't had any decent sex
since you left.
Blip!
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:29:03 GMT, zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>>In article <92m6vv40d9i9tf423...@4ax.com>, Mayor of R'lyeh
>><ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Whatever your mommy does.
>>>
>>> She usually says 'Thank God my kids are all adults now and I don't
>>> hear that from them anymore unlike zurg's mom who hears it all the
>>> time.'
>>
>>How does she manage to get that out clearly while she's blowing you?
>
> That's my zurg! You can always count on him to take the high road. I
> hope you went home for the holidays, zurg. I was talking to your dad the
> other day and he was complaining that he hasn't had any decent sex since
> you left.
The most rediculous part is you poke fun at zurg for not "taking the high
road" then turn around and say that.
Christ...
-Blip!
Blip!
> "Blip!" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:bt0cu...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:14:20 -0500, Dan Johnson wrote:
> [snip- silly sound effect]
>> > It demonstrates a certain lack of seriousness, that's all.
>> >
>> >> and the fact that it's very long
>> >> shouldn't necessarily prevent people from reading it and rebutting
>> >> the points if they are interested in advocacy...
>> >
>> > That it is very long means that rebutting it in toto would take
>> > while. Since it is evidently not serious, why bother?
>>
>> Um...you didn't read the material...thus you don't know if it's serious
>> or not. Sounds more like you're avoiding the issue.
>
> I read some of the material, and posted about it. The part I read was
> wrong about nearly everything.
I apologize, I thought the post was someone else there (I read the "why
bother" replying part out of context). You're correct, you have been
posting a conversation that discusses the issues, and I apologize for
that. Totally my mistake there. :-(
Wrong about everything, though? I think there can be some issue taken to
it :-)
>> Your computer runs Windows, Windows is crap, so anything done on
>> Windows is crap...yeah, that makes perfect sense...
>
> My computer runs Windows, Windows is great, so everything done on my
> computer is great. :D
>
> [snip]
In that case...hmm...can I have your computer? My Windows 98 computer
keeps needing frequent reboots to work properly (average uptime seems to
be in the neighborhood of ~2 to 4 days...)
>> > Well, this is *.advocacy. Wasting bandwidth is the point. :D
>>
>> I don't think that was the point...merely what it has degraded to.
>
> If I recall correctly, the advocacy groups were created to divert this
> stuff from the real newsgroups. :D
Damn! Where can I find the groups that actually rationally discuss
issues rationally and point out the merits of operating systems?
> [snip]
>> >> No, he doesn't; I posted a link to the sites discussing Shatter
>> >> before and none of the Windows advocates replied to those either. I
>> >> just didn't repost the links.
>> >
>> > I missed it. I've posted on this subject before, if you want to know
>> > what's going on.
>>
>> Please do. I haven't seen anyone post actual rebuttals to why this
>> isn't a demonstration of an architectural (and fundamental) flaw in the
>> OS.
>
> The people who claim that are stuck in a very Unixy way of thinking;
> Windows is designed differently- more like VMS. That makes
> misundertanding awfully easy, sadly.
Sorry...UNIX has always been more flexible and stable (and reliable) for
me. Windows has time and time again left a bad aftertaste. It has
burned me one too many times.
BUT please do continue to elaborate...I'm interested in hearing more on
this.
> In Unix, you have certain programs that require elevated privileges and
> these programs are configured to assume those privileges whenever a user
> runs them, even if that user does not otherwise have them. This is done
> by setting the "setuid" bit on the executable image, and assigning an
> appropriate owner.
So far so good. It's a privilege-by-proxy workaround to do things.
Unfortunately there aren't too many fine-grained access accounts, so that
program meant to drop a file in someone else's home directory also has
the ability to, say, open privileged IP ports. Understood. :-)
> In Windows, the programs you run get your privileges. There is no
> "setuid" If you need to run a program that requires elevated privileges,
> then you must write a second program which contains the privileged code.
> This program is a service, and services can only be started by the OS;
> but the OS can be configured to assign higher privileges to them.
Actually, there is a "run as" that can be assigned, but it still is a
different mechanism. I do not like the way Windows does the services
though...it's a blanket and not finely grained enough to properly rein in
a misbehaved service. but this is a different area than the privilege
use you're describing.
> Uers cannot run services. They need to run UI "front end" programs that
> communciate with services to get things done. They can communicate with
> named pipes, COM, whatever- but the trick to making this secure is not
> to secure the front end, but to secure the communications channel so
> that malicious inputs there are blocked.
What exactly is your background? I haven't heard too many people
actually using terminology like secured channels of communication in this
group...
> There are advantages to this approach. Securing a GUI is very difficult
> to do on any OS- they are very complex. Using services means you don't
> have to do this at all.
Secure the lowest levels first (by design) and it makes it a lot easier.
A sloppy GUI frontend to a secured command line interface...but that's
just my first reaction to reading this. :-)
> Further, the OS need not try to restrict the interaction between GUI
> programs that the user runs himself. This allows UI design options that
> are rather more difficult to realize if you have to protect some of the
> user's programs from other programs.
? Losing me here.
> For instance, on Windows (using IE), if you click on a link to a .pdf
> file, Acrobat Reader will open inside IE. Acrobat Reader is a separate
> program, just as on the Mac, but Windows does not try to protect IE from
> it.
Ah. This is a design choice I never liked with Windows. By making the
apps so interdependant, you open new channels of security problems. For
example, the mail programs interpreting executable code in preview. Or
having the mail program rely on the web browser's rendering engine. A
flaw in IE suddenly becomes a channel in OE to attack a computer.
> On the Macintosh, Acrobat Reader does not integrate in this way because
> the APIs are designed to prevent this kind of thing; that makes it
> harder for a setuid-root GUI program to be compromised, but it also
> makes the UI a bit less nice.
I'd rather have the "bit less nice" over the surprise of "why is my
computer suddenly sending traffic over port 25?..."
> (On X-Windows, there does not appear to be any effort to prevent this
> kind of thing; security in the presence of setuid-root GUI programs
> seems not to have been considered.)
X is unique on in many ways. Great ideas, but I do think it is nearing
time to rethink some things in the way it works and re-implement some
things. The way things have gone, though, make me think that it's too
ingrained in the Linux/BSD worlds to have this really change now...anyone
interested in a GNU OS? (HA! a funny!)
>> >> If you'd like I can repost them so you can review them...I think
>> >> it's a good illustration of the architecture underlying Windows
>> >> being flawed...
>> >
>> > You are mistaken. It's an illustration of the architecture being
>> > *different from Unix*; but it is different in a way that makes secure
>> > software easier, though certainly not automatic.
>>
>> easier? Didn't look like (in conjunction with some sample code) it's
>> that hard to show how *insecure* it is. How is it good that
>> non-privileged code can gain privileged rights because there is always
>> a privileged program running on the desktop?
>
> If there *is* always a privileged program running on the desktop, you do
> have a problem. Doing that defeats the NT security model.
Maybe you haven't seen the shatter attack papers? Or are thinking of a
different one?
Take a gander...
http://security.tombom.co.uk/shatter.html
There's another link there that takes you to a followup he also wrote on
it. There is always a privileged program accessible at the desktop; it's
just not *visible*. But there are other instances of privileged programs
running as well.
> That can happen if you have a service installed that opens windows; I
> believe the original shatter-attack paper used Symatec's anti-virus
> program, which contained a privileged service that would open windows.
Okay, you did read the paper...but did you see the followup as well?
> [snip]
>> >> I'll take your word for this; I haven't exhausted available
>> >> memory+VM on a UNIX system to the point where exceptions could be
>> >> thrown before.
>> >
>> > Unix does not have exceptions, it has signals. Some Unixes fire
>> > signals before terminating processes willy nilly, but many do not.
>> > Linux, for instance, does not. If you run out of memory and VM,
>> > processes are going to die.
>>
>> I would say that at the point where the system can't handle anything
>> more being allocated, you're already in a bundle of trouble (thrashing
>> thrashing thrashing).
>
> Yes, but thrashing is better than killing processes in my view.
Hmm...depends on the OS at that point, I suppose. Thrashing is bad if
the response time is so terrible that you can't regain control.
Regardless, I'm sure you'll agree that at that point you're in trouble
regardless.
BUT is there a way to trap that error to prevent the app from being
killed, and if not if this is a platform-specific problem (i.e., is it in
OS X and in Linux and in *BSD, etc.)...this is something actually
dictated in the POSIX standards?
>> However, if the behavior is as you describe, I'd be interested in
>> knowing why it was done the way it was done on *NIX. I kind of like
>> the signal approach and the fact that I can send signals to processes
>> to do things like sighup :-)
>
> It is done that way because one of the more important Unix APIs cannot
> be implemented efficiently and still report out-of-memory errors.
I see you're answering my question already. You must have ESPN or
something. :-)
<snip>
> fork() is very widely used on Unix. But should memory be exhausted,
> those copy-on-write operations will fail to allocate memory to copy data
> into. But it is now much too late to return an error from fork(). This
> is hte pont where some Unixes will try to signal, but if that does not
> work there's nothing they can do but kill processes (or have a kernel
> panic).
> You could implement fork() it so that it would fail if it could not
> reserve enough memory to do any copies that might be needed. This is not
> done because in typical usage, Unix programs fork() very often but
> change very little of the 'copied' data. If you require each process to
> reserve all memory it might need, then you will be not be able to fork()
> nearly enough to get decent thoughput.
What did you say your background was again?
> Windows does not have this problem because they build a new API. Windows
> implements fork() the amazingly slow way, and real Windows program never
> use it- they spawn threads instead. Threads do not copy on write- they
> just share memory.
Both have pluses and minuses, I suppose. What about pthreads on Linux?
Do these have this same type of problem as fork()?
And isn't fork a little less troublesome to debug than threaded programs?
>> > Many Unixes cannot even expand their pagefiles to avoid this, which
>> > Windows will attempt to do.
>>
>> True, since some UNIX systems use a dedicated partition. It is
>> actually dependant on the system, though...there are those that do have
>> a pagefile that expands, and others can be reconfigured to do so, so in
>> that way Linux would actually be more flexible. And Windows is also
>> limited by a setting in the registry, and users would have to adjust
>> the maximum size allowable.
>
> Actually, if programs try to allocate more memory than there is
> page-file, Windows will complain to the user, but it will also try to
> expand the page file above that maximum. This will make the system slow,
> but it avoids program failure.
Windows will try to expand beyond the maximum? This one is new to me. I
thought it was a limit that it wouldn't go over until the admin user
changed the settings.
> Windows tries really hard to avoid having programs drop dead due to
> memory starvation.
Nope, they drop dead from a blue screen. HA! (just kidding)
>> > There are many bugs in the world; most of them have little to do with
>> > memory protection.
>>
>> I was thinking more along the lines of the recent event I ran into
>> where I couldn't start Print Shop...no error, nothing but the hourglass
>> for a few moments then a return to the pointer. I checked the task
>> list and about six instances of the app were listed as running. I had
>> to reboot before it would allow the program to actually run. Problem
>> with a library? Why didn't killing all the instances of the app
>> "recollect all the garbage in memory" so it would run?
>
> If the application was listed six times in the task manager, it had not
> been killed.
I didn't kill it yet. I had double clicked, the hour glass appeared,
then became a pointer again without anything appearing on the desktop. I
tried it again and again...same results...until I checked the task list.
>You can kill it using the "End Process" button in task
> manager (you'll have to kill each one).
That's what I ended up doing. But it wouldn't launch (even when all the
ps6's were gone) until I restarted the OS. Otherwise it just kept
spawning half-alive backgrounded print shop apps.
>> But you are correct in that Windows has gotten much better about memory
>> protection now. I've simply run into less problems with Linux/BSD in
>> this regard.
>
> It seems to me that while you may well have run into less problems with
> Linux or with BSD, there's no way to know what "regard" the problems
> were in, as it were. :/
True, I haven't any memory dumps to verify what happened.
>> > Possibly; that would cause performance to drop over time. Leaking
>> > things like locks can cause worse failure.
>>
>> I believe that there should be less problems at this point so that
>> keeping the Windows workstations running straight for long periods of
>> time shouldn't manifest oddball quirk behavior. It's still not unusual
>> for people to need to reboot machines once in awhile because something
>> "just isn't right", and the behavior disappears after the reboot.
>
> This is voodoo system administration. Rebooting a Windows system
> typically *does not* solve whatever the problem actually is. The problem
> behavior will come back. I am sure you have noticed *that*.
Yes. I've noticed I end up doing it more in Windows than I ever have had
under a Linux. The app doesn't seem to show any problems in logs,
doesn't show problems in task lists, etc. etc...by the time I get it
working I could probably have rebooted several times.
This is a typical type of problem where there are quirks in applications
and the OS so people end up (eventually) reinstalling. You have to
balance the pluses and minuses with time investment...in the time it
takes to weed out errant registry entries, bad DLL's, etc. etc. will it
take more time and hassle than just reinstalling or (in much less severe
cases) rebooting?
Windows seems FAR more prone to this than Linux has been for me,
unfortunately. You are very much correct in that this is an unfortunate
state of affairs. I would prefer a quirk behavior that can be traced
back easily and doesn't magically disappear after a reboot.
Any speculation what causes quirks like that that disappear when
rebooted? Problem with a shared library, perhaps? An OS library?... :-/
>> And
>> installing other apps (and later uninstalling them) shouldn't cause the
>> OS to manifest odd behavior either ("because of rogue libraries" or
>> "crap in the registry"...) these are signs of problems with the way the
>> OS is designed.
>
> The OS is designed so that users can install system services, drivers,
> etc. They can do it with ordinary installers.
>
> This is a good and useful thing; Windows would not be acceptable desktop
> OS were this not the case.
If that were the case, securing an OS would be impossible. General end
users have shown time and time again that they really don't care about
security and updates. MS is struggling with a way to force updates down
the throats of users whether they want it or not, while those who know
better are leery because of potential problems with updates (and privacy
and security and...)
>> > And there are other bugs than can become apparent if you run a
>> > program for a long time.
>>
>> True. But leaks should be recollected after killing the app and
>> restarting the app...and not have to do so by killing the login session
>> or the OS.
>
> Leaks can be collected by killing the app; the only reason killing a
> login session can help with leaks is that it kills all of your apps,
> even the ones that have no windows open.
>
> If a service is leaking, restarting the OS will help- but you can also
> restart the service itself.
Not always. I've had cases where I can't restart a service.
> If a driver is leaking, you just lose.
Isn't it possible to make a more modular driver...i.e., be able to
restart a driver module? You may lock yourself out of one avenue of
interaction in the process...but if other services are working...I can
remember once locking up netscape on Linux many many moons ago. X was
totally locked. It stopped reading keyboard and mouse input. I rolled
the chair to a neighboring SillyGraph and telnetted in from that, then
killed the netscape process and that returned control back at the Linux
console.
*shrug* there must be some way to design an OS for this.
>> >> Why shouldn't I be able to kill all the system processes or restart
>> >> them if they are running errant?
>> >
>> > Because it will make the system drop dead. Killing "CSRSS" will not
>> > only kill the OS, it will do so in a way that prevents user-mode
>> > buffers in any application from writing back. You can lose data. That
>> > would be bad.
>>
>> But there are some apps I *should* be able to kill.
>
> CSRSS is not one of them. :D
Neither is Init. But I should be able to kill those that I know are
misbehaving! :-)
>> I've had cases where
>> I couldn't kill the terminal services process. The stop/restart icons
>> were greyed out, and errors appeared when I tried to use the command
>> line. The only thing that fixed it (windows 2000, latest patches) was
>> a restart. Why? I haven't run into any errant server processes that I
>> couldn't kill and restart under Linux. May take a -9 signal as root,
>> but it worked.
>
> I do not know what you mean by "terminal services processes"; you can
> kill processes in a terminal services session with task manager, I
> believe.
In the services manager there is a terminal services process that handles
incoming RDP connection requests. It wouldn't let me restart the
process. It is a service, so I can't kill it from task manager.
>> > Some applications won't install without adminstrative rights because
>> > they actually do need to install kernel code or the like; others are
>> > just pig-headed. :D
>>
>> Doesn't eliminate the fact that they are a PITA.
>
> This is not a complaint about Windows, though.
Actually, it is, since it is the way Windows expects things to work and
is the "Windows Way", modifying parts of the registry or sticking DLL's
into subdirectories that they really shouldn't be sticking DLL's into.
>> I believe it shows that
>> Windows' model of workflow evolved, and during this evolution it became
>> flawed. If things like security aren't designed from the beginning
>> into the architecture, they are tacked on (evolved) and in the process
>> there are serious flaws.
>
> Windows does not have a "model of workflow". Security *was* designed
> from the beginning into the architecture; programs that ignore it do so
> at their peril. The security rules *will* be enforced, even if that
> breaks your program.
Windows allows them to ignore the security precautions.
Yes, there was better security. But there still were oversights, and I
think there are things that could have been done better.
http://security.ece.orst.edu/koc/ece478/project/nt1.pdf
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2002-August/020588.html
http://secinf.net/windows_security/Network_Strategy_Report_Windows_NT_Security.html
http://secinf.net/windows_security/NTs_Top_Security_Problems.html
And maybe some of the theories being tested with EROS could have been
used too...
Also keep in mind that a lot of NT's security was legacy from Windows for
Workgroups, LANMAN, etc...
Okay, how about someone lurking in this thread start a new thread on what
can be done to actually secure NT without the flow of content-less crap
from the usual suspects and the tide of sarcasm we'll get whether I
actually ask people not to do that or not...
What could be done to actually design a secure OS?
>> > What is that wrong? I *have* seen wrong errors- it's hard to ensure
>> > that the software never misdiagnoses itself when it fails- but that
>> > one sounds right.
>>
>> It's not in use if the problem is an ACL setting or some goofy filename
>> error that Explorer doesn't like. Especially if I can easily delete it
>> with rmdir /s <dir> from the cmd prompt.
>
> Ah. It sounded like a genuine file-in-use problem.
Nope...see below...
>> I have one operation...delete a directory. I take ownership of it and
>> it's contents. I right click and select "delete". Explorer starts to
>> do this but then tells me that a particular file cannot be found. Huh?
>> Open the cmd prompt. Navigate to the directory. Rmdir /s <dir>. Gone.
>> Huh?
>
> Without knowing what file it can't find I can't say what happened. It
> does not sound security related to me, though.
I don't think it was. The file was a file in the profile directory of a
terminal server. The open files list in the manage this computer utility
didn't show any files in that directory open. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
My guess: bug in Explorer.
>> >> Their minimal is still fatter than the average UNIX minimal.
>> >
>> > That's because they know their users are a bit more demanding; no GUI
>> > is unacceptable.
>>
>> I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Just because users don't
>> know how to fix an engine doesn't mean you just weld the hood
>> shut...mechanics still need to get in there to work on it. The CLI is,
>> in many cases, faster and smaller in memory footprint for doing some
>> emergency work. It's wonderful to have a boot floppy that has all the
>> tools you need to diagnose a problem and edit a file to get the OS to
>> boot.
>
> As I said, this kind of thing is simply not acceptable to MS's
> customers. That's one reason why they insist on using Windows when
> cheaper OSes are available.
BUT we (troubleshooters, as it is) NEED that kind of access. We NEED to
be able to fix those problems. Windows isn't as simple as an
etch-a-sketch here, and the reality of the situation is that there are
those problems that need a "tech geek" to come in and fix it. You can't
take away those tools or the only fix available will be the same fix you
had most of the time under the old MacOS...reinstall! :-)
>> How long have you been using OS's? You MUST remember the days when you
>> counted a blessing or two to have a bootable floppy of DOS to get into
>> a computer with fdisk, edit, maybe a virus checker...with Linux, you
>> still have that ability.
>
> I remember. I *hated* that about early Windows. You should *never* have
> to use COMMAND.COM- or any other CLI.
>
> It's better now. Not perfect, but better.
You hold a different philosophy. I don't like those times that I had to
do it, but there are times when it was tremendously handy. Just like the
usefulness to being able to remotely SSH in and copy a remote file over
or check a server's status quickly without GUI voodoo.
>> Heck, you can get a whole usable OS off the floppy. Windows? If you're
>> using NTFS, the boot floppy thing may not work so well (unless you have
>> the R/W version of the NTFS driver for DOS...how much does that cost?)
>
> Windows is a little bit too large for a floppy. A bootable CD maybe. :D
Yes. BUT there are GUI based OS's that DO fit on a floppy or two :-)
The point is that you can fit a bootable instance of Linux on a floppy,
and even with CD's you can boot from there are those instances where you
run into an old machine out there that can't boot from the CD (bad CD
drive, CD drive not available, etc.) and having the *option* to boot a
full OS from floppy can be handy. I want that option.
>> > If you favor command lines, Windows is not for you. But you should
>> > recognize that you are in the minority, and MS is not being
>> > unreasonable to target the much larger market segment that not only
>> > desires a GUI, but insists upon one.
>>
>> There is an opinion for the GUIvsCLI wars for general use, and for
>> fixing the system. For maintenance, there are just times when the CLI
>> is faster and usable in a smaller footprint. For general use, I do
>> like a mix of GUI and CLI.
>
> CLIs do have a smaller footprint, but they simply do not rise to the
> minimum level of UI quality needed. And that level is not high, mind
> you.
I'm not talking general desktop use there. I'm talking about the "shit
this is not happening to me now..." moments when the machine needs to be
fixed for some reason...
> As a general rules, anything that can be done only using a CLI might as
> well not be included at all. Only a very select group of people will
> every use such a feature.
Like, system administrators or techs that need to script things? How
much more overhead is there in scripting a GUI operation vs. a Bash
script?
Those "very select" people are very much out there and you'll have
problems if you don't appease them...they're the ones keeping the NOCs
running when the users go home at night.
>> The CLI is simpler and more flexible...what about times when the mouse
>> isn't available?
>
> Use a keyboard to navigate the GUI. It sucks, but it beats a CLI. :D
Yeah, if you want carpal tunnel from it.
>> Or with all the types of mice out there, you may get
>> into a situation where it's not detected or only 2 out of the fifteen
>> buttons on the logitech megamytiemouse USB work?
>
> *One* button is enough. Windows is very good about detecting mice and
> keyboards; it needs to be.
Yes, but there are those times when mice aren't available, or something's
wrong with the mouse, or you want to set up a headless server...hey,
these things happen!
>> The CLI was designed
>> for the keyboard, and there are times where you may find that the
>> keyboard is the only periph working!
>
> You can still use a GUI; not as well as with a mouse, but it's better
> than even a good CLI in my view.
Please, GUI navigation is clunky at best with just the keyboard.
>> Again, for general work, you or an end user may not deal with it. At
>> the lab or workbench or repair shop, I don't have that luxury. Give me
>> an OS that I can work with in a pinch for a myriad of situations,
>> please!
>
> You can work with Windows if you are willing to use the tools it gives
> you, rather than insisting on a Unix-style CLI-only single user boot
> mode.
BUT the UNIX style CLI tools are more flexible and faster to use in many
cases. There are things I can do from the command prompt of your average
Linux system that you cannot do from Windows, and this flexibility is
very handy when remotely troubleshooting.
>> >> So why isn't it in use?
>> >
>> > It is. The older stuff is more widely deployed than the newer stuff,
>> > and there is still some old code kicking around with *no* versioning.
>>
>> Reminds me of my arguments referring to OS "evolution" isntead of
>> saying "this is crap, let's do it better" and starting from scratch.
>> That's part of why I liked the OS X system more. The pure legacy stuff
>> was largely shifted into a sandbox "classic" mode. WinNT almost had
>> this right with the Win16 subsystem, but they kept mixing up things
>> with the Win9x and WinNT flavors of Win32 so there were still
>> mixed-breed crap programs running out there that while both were
>> "win32", some caused problems when designed purely for Win9x use :-/
>
> It would be nice to have a system designed with no legacy crap, but as a
> practical matter it won't fly. You need that compatibility.
*cough* *Classic environment* *cough*
Win16 subsystem separate from Win32 subsystem (they did that part right
at the time...)
VM...usermode linux...
There are ways to separate ill-behaved apps from the OS to the point
where the OS could survive an app totally going kaplooey in "legacy mode".
>> > It's not always easy to retrofit this stuff to existing code, so
>> > there is always a delay. The latest verifiable, digitally signed DLLs
>> > are rare because you need .NET to use them.
>>
>> Ugh.
>
> Ugh? I thought you *liked* versioning...
Does anyone actually know what .NET is at this point? It seems as if it
was too vague for most people to nail down for the longest time... :-)
>> > But by this point COM interface versioning is widespread, and most
>> > DLLs at least have internal version numbers. Applications with
>> > (unmanaged) manifests turn up here and there these days as well.
>>
>> it's nice that there's some semblance of a fix out there, but the fact
>> that it isn't mandatory and that the OS can still be corrupted by this
>> problem is, as I see it, an architectural design issue.
>
> There are numerous semblances of a fix. But no complete fix, because to
> mandate this kind of thing would block older apps, and that would never
> be acceptable to MS's customers.
> Compatibility is very important.
Compatibility, or security and robustness? Are they always going to
conflict with each other?
If I understand you correctly, Windows will never be as secure or robust
as it could be because it must support crappy older apps...in that case,
I don't think I could ever find it an acceptable OS to hammer on...
> I don't clearly understand what you mean by "an architectural design
> issue"; but if MS was prepared to forget about compatibility, they could
> simply turn off the offending loader behaviors tomorrow.
These bahaviors aren't simple enough to turn off. They're ingrained as
part of Windows, such as with the shatter attacks and followup to it.
The author even stated that fixing shatter couldn't be done without
breaking a LOT of applications.
>> > They do that because they dare not break existing apps- MS is *very*
>> > gung ho about compatibility.
>>
>> Then we are of two different schools of thought on this issue. Backward
>> compatibility is good, except when it compromises the OS. Otherwise,
>> I'd rather design an isolation system; some VM implementation or
>> something like User Mode Linux to run the app in a sandbox. Takes more
>> resources and more memory (as if MS has ever cared about that...), but
>> it protects the OS and makes it more reliable and stable.
>
> VMs work well when they are asked to handle well-behaved apps, but
> weird, ambititous, or unconventional ones will tend to throw them; you
> can see that with the Classic box in MacOS X. It can't run everything.
You're right. And as long as it runs "well enough" the vast majority of
legacy apps, it's good enough for most. Those vendors can't stay in
business if they don't offer an upgrade path that does work.
Apple was "doomed" when they switched from the 68x00 chips to PPC because
of compatibility issues. But, somehow, they pulled it off. They were
"doomed" when they switch to OS X, which could run OS X apps or classic
apps via a compatibility layer that didn't run everything. Today they
are selling 10.3 sans system folder. Windows NT was doomed because it
only ran the "majority" of Win16/DOS apps, and the security (though
compromised to allow more Win16 apps to run) disallowed a lot of
applications from running properly, but today that seems to be a non
issue (except for the cases I run into where legacy hardware still won't
run because it's trying direct access to ports...*sigh*)
It's a solution that can work.
>> > It's terribly kludgey, but applying "real" versioning would just make
>> > those apps break.
>>
>> Then perhaps they need to be broken, if it means not having users
>> calling up asking to have their PC fixed because of some rogue app
>> making their computer turn a pretty blue. Update the app or run it in
>> a sandbox.
>
> Sandboxes aren't a panacea. MS is not going to tell their users that
> they can't run the apps they've run for years. If they did, the users
> would simply not upgrade to the latest Windows- and your tech support
> problems would be *worse* if that happened, I think. Your users would be
> insisting on buying new computers and installing Win3 on them. :D
Nope, they'd do exactly what happened with Windows NT and DOS apps (and
some Win16 apps)...they'd keep running the old OS until a new solution
was available. It happened. It still happens. Eventually they cave in
and upgrade. That's what happens when you have the marketing muscle MS
has.
Will they like it? No.
Will they do it? Yes.
Resistance is futile.
>> > Yes. And having a root account is also more dangerous should you be
>> > "rooted"; it's bad enough if an Administrator account is compromised;
>> > if it's root your entire system is completely compromised. This is
>> > why MacOS X has "admin" accounts, for instance.
>>
>> It is a resource that requires the most protection and care. And OS X
>> has a root account; you are simply prompted for the password when
>> something needing these privs trys to do something (admin users are
>> just added to the wheel group, as I recall).
>
> Root accounts are not really necessary, as NT demonstrates. But of
> course you can't get rid of it completely on Unix.
Administrator is a limited root. NT still makes you go through hoops to
do some things (take ownership of a profile before deleting it when it
has a corrupted cached profile, for example...I always found that
irritating since it's going to let me do it anyway, but I suppose it's a
nice way of trying to keep the average MSCE from shooting themselves in
the foot...)
>> I personally haven't had the "rm -rf /" initiation yet. But it would
>> be my fault if it didn't happen, and I'm extremely careful with those
>> commands. But I see it this way...root, as with any other resource,
>> deserves protection. Strong passwords, limited exposure to
>> vulnerabilities (by updates when remote exploits are found), etc. I
>> take care with it. I have a "master key" to my workplace's several
>> buildings so I can access different offices and rooms to work on
>> computer systems even if a custodian isn't available at the moment in
>> that building,and replacment costs if the key is compromised would run
>> in the tens of thousands for my employer. But I still have it because
>> it's part of the job, and I'm responsible for taking care of that key.
>> Same with the Root account.
>
> Even that key does not give you the ability to walk off with the
> building's foundations- you can steal things, but at least the building
> itself will not collapse.
Nope, but it lets people in who may do something to that building.
That's stretching the example though.
> There is a need for the "master key" or the "administrator account";
> there is not a need for root.
Root is the administrator account. Root is the UNIX god...you want your
files back, be nice to me!! HAHAHAHA! <ahem>...um...move along now...
<SUID>
>> Depending on how it is used, this is a weakness and a strength. I
>> agree I'd rather not have it. It's a poor workaround for something
>> better served by proper ACLs or Chrooted jails or sandboxes; security
>> is always better served is an application has a separation in
>> privileges so it has only the minimum access necessary to do it's job.
>
> Yes, quite so.
But keep in mind it was an evolutionary addon to compensate for a
weakness. The architecture of UNIX is very very long...the fact that
it's still in use and that it does many server-oriented tasks very well
is a testament to the simplicity of it's design being very flexible.
>> No, they're not part of the model. Available, yes (trustix?), can it
>> break things? Stock, yes. I think that it is usually just a matter
>> of increased system administration though (setup, etc.) to get things
>> to run properly though. The apps are just denied access to files
>> outside their ACLs.
>>
>> I don't like it because it's an evolutionary bandaid to Linux-like
>> OS's. I think OS's like EROS hold some interesting ideas for
>> security...
>
> Bear in mind that it's not just files. People used to Unix sometimes
> assume that "security" and "file access" are the same thing; NT makes
> security primitives available to protect anything you, as a programmer,
> care to protect.
Security and file access are not the same thing (although the line blurs
for some things since UNIX treats many resources as files); security is
the limiting of access to resources, period. Resources could be
hardware, files, applications...
>> > Active Directory domains are intended for larger installations where
>> > that sort of thing would be too unweildy to use. The NT security
>> > model covers networks quite neatly; Unix rather less so, I think.
>>
>> UNIX security is excellent for protecting individual resources, in my
>> opinion.
>
> Well, it's better at that than at distributed networks.
? You mean enterprise networks? Because Beowulf seems to be quite
popular in some circles... :-)
>> Trust doesn't leak over, authenticating to individual machine minimize
>> the risk of "compromise machine A and automatically gain access to
>> machine B because B trusts A". I want to get to files on machine C, I
>> ssh into it's ip and log into it.
>
> Having log-ins everywhere can make you more secure, but it only scales
> up so far.
True. Depends on the situation. And unix DOES, remember, support
implementations of single-signon. I'm personally not a big fan of it for
smaller installations.
> No. Active Directory replaces some bits of the *implementation*, but the
> domain model remains essentially as it was.
? I'm not so sure of this...but perhaps you're right in many respects.
I think it's more like a tip of the hat to Novell that NDS was superior
to Domains :-)
http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=7156
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/0607directory.html
Keep in mind that I hated using Netware... :-)
>> The preference of the model to use is largely personal. For small
>> workgroups, domains and workgroups are what I prefer for windows
>> workgroups. I like having central Linux servers that I can log into by
>> attaching to the resource and giving a password to that server, while
>> having "open" resources also available (public printer for the
>> workgroup, for example). Domains, workgroups, simple IP,
>> AD/NDS...they're largely dependant on the way the sysadmin is
>> comfortable working, the size of the network, etc...
>
> If you favor having separate passwords for everything, you'll not like
> what NT gives you. But there *is* a place for NT domains.
Yes there is. I just like knowing who is using what on my machine :-)
> And NT *does* support having every computer separate if that's what you
> want to do.
It doesn't like this, though. It makes this setup far more cumbersme
than just breaking down and doing things the Microsoft Way.
>> Yes...but by default it shares your C$ drive. That irritates me...you
>> don't know if/when someone else with "access" is browsing your files.
>
> Well, I can see this. MS was probably thinking of your basic big
> faceless corporation when the decided that admins should be able to do
> that.
And it's a security problem.
>> > Multiuser support was there in the first versions of NT, but of
>> > course some apps do not support it because, in some market segments,
>> > it's rarely used.
>>
>> ? I think we may have different definitions of multiuser?
>
> Some people feel that NT 3 was not multiuser because it did not have
> remote GUI support. My feeling is that this argument is self defeating.
> It's obviously an attempt to expand the term "multi-user" into
> "X-Windows". :D
> If you leave that controversy aside, it was multiuser.
It's a distinguishment between what is being shared and locality...
file servers share data, printer servers share printers, the locality is
your local PC (processing, other hardware use, etc. is your system in
front of you)
terminal servers share processor use to a remote terminal, and the
locality is that terminal server.
multiuser means using these resources at the same time among various
users without clashing. More than one person could not fully utilize an
NT system until Terminal Services was implemented...you could use a file
share, you could use the authentication services, you could use the
printers...but you couldn't use that system's applications and processor
while Fred down the hall was logged into it unless there was an
additional application like Citrix installed.
http://www.engineering.sdstate.edu/~salehnia/cs456/uwc.html
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:hL-4BN2kYxoJ:sirius.fh-friedberg.de/MND_MS_Forum/Rechnerverbund-09-April-1999/NT4unix/NT4unix.PDF+definition+multiuser+windows+unix&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I'm not the only one that counts interactive login as being part of the
definition for multiuser...otherwise, what makes an OS multiuser? I can
fashion DOS to share files to a network with a simple FTP server or mail
server program...does that make it multiuser when multiple users can
access it at the same time?
>> Nope. Won't run on term services.
>
> There may be a reason for that. Like they want to sell you licenses for
> your individual computers. :D
:-p I mean the app *won't run* :-)
Some wouldn't even install.
>> CAN BE? It IS a pain..
>
> If you say so. I've never seen this, but then I've never used a Lexmark
> printer.
Take my word for it then :-)
Their tech people, when I contacted them about the problem, said "we
don't support our printers used in a terminal services environment."
>> Console or remote should not be treated
>> differently; the network should be transparent, so to speak. It's
>> another way the "tacked on" evolution shows, in my opinion.
>
> You would be wrong. It shows that MS disagrees with you about the
> desirability to have a place where critical errors can be signaled
> immediately.
Hey! just because MS disagrees with me doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Besides that...our servers run headless most of the time. Who would see
the error? My Linux system is set to email me if something is detected
going wrong with the RAID array in it (my home system).
Yes, there are ways to broadcast (or signal) warnings to an email address
out there..but I have yet to find a "native" way to get Windows to stop
popping those @#%!# warnings on the console and instead redirecting
everything to an email address or to just a logfile. A bad print job is
hardly something important enough to blip on the console screen. Really
important things like RAID controllers going wonky seem to only get
popped into the logfile anyway or have a proprietary app/service that
must be configured outside the OS...
It still doesn't explain the decision to have some errors appear on the
console (printer errors) while others are broadcast to all network users
(why is this virus warning appearing here? and why is a UPS shutting down
in five minutes?...)
Wouldn't you agree that it would be nicer if these things were handled
in a more consistent manner? Maybe you like them all on the console. I
don't.
>> How is it in the original NT? It can support multiple users via
>> profiles, but multiple "desktops", like X so multiple users can utilize
>> the resources of the system simultaneously (not just as an app or file
>> server, but as a CPU server)? If so, why was the Terminal Services
>> first in NT implemented by Citrix?
>
> I have little patience for the "multi-user = X-Windows" argument.
>
> The first Unix versions did not support multiple desktops either- they
> were CLI only. This does not mean that Unix wasn't multi-user back then.
Actually, you could telnet into them and your multiple users were all
running shell sessions. My college had it all the time, as many many
many students were told to use Pine and so it was easy to see who was
logged in where over the Sun systems in place.
all of us could be running pine, who, telnet to other machines in the
cluster, etc...it is multiuser.
You made the insinuation that I'm too Unix-centric in evaluating how
things work to properly see Windows. Maybe it goes both ways :-)
>> BUT it's not the Windows Way(tm). Code/library sharing has tradeoffs
>> :-)
>
> Integrating everything in sight into Explorer certainly *is* the Windows
> Way;
> just ask Microsoft. In front of a judge, even. :D
And interaction among these applications can have ramifications, like
unseen interactions. Who would have thought that the same nifty
interactions allowed by integrating Outlook and it's spawn with IE would
allow people to track when you previewed a particular message or allowed
an application to run without your knowledge?
>> >> Compete? Ever heard of "embrace and extend"?
>> >
>> > I even said "extend" above. :D
>>
>> But do we agree on this? :-)
>
> You may feel that it is *bad* for MS to try to improve upon open
> standards. Many do.
Improve, sure. As long as it adheres, at the minimum, to the standard so
other implementations work as well. If you want to add something that
makes your telnet session have pretty colors that dance around, be my
guest...but if I use Joe Blow's telnet client to connect to that same
server, I want it to work. In MS's world, it just gives garbage and the
response is "sorry, you'll need MSTelnet3.0 to do that..."
If it is a beneficial improvement, submit it to those that control the
standard and let everyone use it.
>> > Why should they fail?
>>
>> Because MS tweaks their implementation until something doesn't work
>> properly with non-MS implementations?
>
> They don't stop tweaking there, either! :D
>
> But seriously: you seem to be saying MS's "open standards" protocol
> implementations *should* fail, not that they do fail. Do I misunderstand
> you?
I don't mean they should fail. I am saying that they do fail to play
nicely with others.
This is what makes companies get stuck in the vendor lockin idea. Sun
shops become sun shops, MS shops become MS shops...interoperability is a
headache. Standards are supposed to try to stop this from happening. MS
isn't the only one guilty of it, but they are the biggest target.
Talk to web developers. IE does NOT play nicely with standards for the
Web. There are extensions that only work on IE. MS is in no hurry to
allow other to use those extensions, and they are trying to use their
market muscles to push others out because some users are too newbie to
see that sometimes FrontPage is more bloat than necessary for the job.
Is this something closer to your philosophy?
http://udell.roninhouse.com/bytecols/2000-07-26.html
to be clear, I don't think the extend part is "bad", as long as the
Embrace part is done properly so my linux box can talk to my Windows box
and my OS X box. PLEASE!!
>> > MS does not always implement flawless products, but they often do try
>> > to be compatible. They are not, however, *obliged* to do this.
>>
>> Then they should not call their implementation by the same name. There
>> was much todo when the details of Kerberos, as MS would be doing it,
>> came
>
>> out...because it wouldn't be fully compatible with Kerberos.
>
> That is not true. MS Kerberos was and is fully compatible. MS did their
> extensions in the manner mandated by the standard so that this would be
> true. Unix systems can and do simply ignore the extra data; so do Win95
> systems for that matter.
There was considerable controversy over their Kerberos. They altered the
final product *because* of this.
> Unix systems that authenticate with an NT kerberos server do not join
> the NT domain, but even if they could understand the extra data Windows
> sends them, *still* they would not be able to join the domain- Unix has
> no notion of "domains" in the NT sense.
SAMBA does. Some PAM modules do.
The UNIX system itself, no, does not, so it can't take advantage of those
things that it would offer like profiles.
>> If you have
>> to wrestle with the OS to get it to work with the baseline version of a
>> "standard", then it isn't standards-compliant.
>
> Well, that or it is just plain user-unfriendly. :D
Unix is user friendly. It's just picky about it's friends.
>> And they DO try to break
>> things. They add "features" until they have the market overwhelmed,
>> then define themselves as the new standard; to me, standards should
>> NEVER be closed and proprietary if they are to be called standards.
>
> You sound like you prefer a bad technology as long as it is not
> proprietary. I don't feel that way myself.
I prefer things to play nicely with each other and if there's an
additional feature that's useful, add it to the standard so everyone can
keep playing nice.
Apple's interface, arguably it's biggest draw over using Linux, is NOT
non-proprietary. I wouldn't really want to use Darwin as it stands
alone...maybe someday, but not now. I still love using OS X.
>> It must, as a baseline default, support the standard to be called the
>> name of the standard. Anything else is an addon. And it's bad to play
>> with "standards".
>
> MS does not call their incompatible alternatives to open standards by
> the same names as open standards.
I think my link above alludes to this. My memory may be fuzzy though...this
response is long enough to give me carpal tunnel...
>> Vendor lockin is a BAD thing.
>
> Standard's body politics is *also* a bad thing. Pick your poison. :D
Gotta pick someone. The standards bodies have a lot less to gain than
one individual corporation trying to make a profit. At least the
standards bodies try to piss everyone off equally.
>> >> Why is it a good thing that you only have one solution to share
>> >> files?
>> >
>> > Um, you don't.
>>
>> If they had their way, you do.
>
> That's silly. MS introduced *yet another* file sharing protocol; by
> doing this they increased the diversity of technologies out there.
And they tweak it with every release to intentionally break other
implementations so Linux, et al have to work to keep up through another
round of reverse engineering.
Please...corporations don't make their bucks through playing nicely.
Every time they can throw a wrench in the works they do. It's what
corporations do, and I really understand that. That's fine and
dandy...but let's not pretend it's not the case :-)
Look at the halloween documents for evidence.
>> And it sounds like that's what you're
>> hinting that you want...MS has this solution to offer, and they try to
>> outdo competition by adopting their methods and then extending them
>> with proprietary addons until MS's version ONLY works with MS products.
>
> It seems to me that you are hinting the same thing. You want there not
> not be proprietary alternatives to open standards.
I want different platforms to interoperate. There are things that Linux
is better suited for in troubleshooting and serving within our
organization...what's wrong with wanting it to play nicely with a
Windows9x box?
Isn't the Internet ABOUT diversity speaking through standard protocols?
>> SMB/CIFS? Yes, that was MS's baby. And it has been called sloppy by
>> many many many people.
>
> Well, it was sloppy. Typical MS- get version 1 out the door, then worry
> about getting it right. :D
Well...we agree on something else.
> MS always tweaks their products; it's part of the way they develop
> software. It's why MS products are typically no good until version 3. :D
Yes, but there's a difference between tweaking the product and
intentionally slipping a change that breaks something someone you don't
like is using.
>> But what of "web standards"?
>
> MS seems to feel that there's an opportunity to replace HTML will a new,
> proprietary protocol that will enable *good* UIs for web applications.
> They are calling it XAML.
>
> This could be big- if it works.
BUT will it ONLY be viewable through IE?
This is a BAD thing. If you want it to be a standard, let others speak
the protocol and implement things their own way.
>> and the halloween documents? MS has as much as admitted to the embrace
>> and extend (and extinguish) strategy...it's going to be hard for you to
>> argue otherwise, I'm afraid.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_and_extend
>
> I am not arguing otherwise. I think it is a *good thing* that MS
> competes with open standards in this way.
You can't compete with them if you're eliminating them. Put your
protocol out there and in the end other people will use it. The price to
pay is other people will implement it, possibly better than you did.
Linux trounced some serious butt with the latest SAMBA offerings. Now
they play catchup by releasing 2003.
> For instance, using kerberos in Active Directory is good- because now
> Unix machines can authenticate with NT domain controllers, where before
> they could not.
I don't know about the kerberos part...AD integration is done through
schema enhancements to LDAP, no?
>> > You are mistaken. There was a *beta* of Windows 3.1 that gave weird
>> > unintelligible errors when installed on DR-DOS, but it worked other
>> > than that. The release version did work with no funny errors.
>>
>> It was orchestrated (eerie music inserted here). A lot of this came
>> out in the DOJ hearings.
>
> That theory is just goofy.
It was in discussions from the court hearings...wasn't that quoted in
some of the sites I listed?
>> > None of that is at all relevant to the documentation of the Windows
>> > API.
>>
>> Please look at (comment on?)
>> API documentation:
>> http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/windows-on-gnu.html
>
> Some programs do access the internal implementation of Windows. That's a
> bad thing- those programs break on new versions of Windows.
>
> Those internal implementations are not APIs however.
? Aren't they using "internal" API's to get their speedups?
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp
>
> MS was required by their settlement to document the interfaces between
> certain parts of Windows, apparently making these interfaces APIs.
>
> I say apparently because it is not clear that MS is committed to keeping
> those interfaces stable in future releases.
>
> But it seems like that would be the spirit of the thing.
True. Or that's their spin now.
The point is there were internal calls being made using internal
knowledge that competitors couldn't use because it wasn't documented.
when a new version of windows comes out, these calls *could* be changed
(but lets be honest...if backoffice were using them, do you really think
they would change them and break their flagship toys that easily?)
>> http://www.bigredswitch.com/blog/archives/2002/09/01/000030.html
>
> The 'Native API' is not an API at all- it is the interface beween the
> API implementation and the kernel. It exists so that you can have both
> Win32 and POSIX on the same computer.
Yes, no one supposedly really knows NT's native API because everything is
supposed to use Win32.
But do they?...
>> competitor being artificially "broken":
>> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20447,00.html
>> http://eatthestate.org/03-07/MicrosoftPlaysHardball.htm
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/7715.html
>
> These are all about the DR-DOS thing again. Remember, when the finally
> shipped it it *did* work on DR-DOS, and there was no funny error.
>
> The whole conspiracy theory that's grown up around this business
> founders on that simple fact.
It was fixed because it became known.
>> The fact is that there are many API functions that are/were hidden
>> away, and it took a court finding for MS to start documenting many
>> previously hidden away APIs. How else are there so many "undocumented
>> windows" programming manuals?
>
> Those manuals document the internal workings of Windows. Those workings
> are not APIs. An API is an interface for application use that will
> remain stable between Windows versions; it's a promise by Microsoft not
> to break your code. It's just just any old thing lying around in
> Windows.
Yes, BUT who is to say there weren't internal, faster calls being used
outside of those they were publishing? And while they can say now that
they weren't committing to keep all the APIs that weren't
documented...geez, how many API calls are there now documented? And how
many aren't "supposed to be used?"
> Nobody has every made a case that there are acutal APIs revealed only to
> the Office team or anything like that.
You have to admit it's a very hard case to prove but has a very high
probability of being the truth.
<snip>
>> The allegation was more along the lines of, they have access to APIs,
>> they can use this knowledge to make their products work *better* and
>> *faster*. I mean, you can get a result of five by adding 1+1+1+1+1 or
>> by adding 5+0. Which is more steps? If there are APIs that let you do
>> a certain function, doesn't it help your app look better if there is a
>> shortcut to do it faster than your competitor?
>
> It can, but I have yet to see any proof (or even evidence) that there
> are hidden APIs that provide better performance, either.
Anyone out there have better links or proof documented?
>> Kind of hard to "prove" it when it's not documented :-)
>
> It's not that hard. You can get a dump of the DLL imports in a program
> like Office and you can see if they are hitting any that are not
> documented.
Oh, sure, pull that one on me. Where are the allegations coming from?
>> I believe it is better, relatively speaking, regarding the number of
>> found issues (keyword being "found"). However, the problems are still
>> their, despite the hype their marketing department has released over
>> the trustworthy computing initiative.
>
> So you feel that though they are *apparently* doing better now, really
> the exploitable bugs are still there, but not beign found.
>
> Is that right?
I'm sure that all OS's have exploitable but unfound bugs in them, and MS
is doing better or at least trying to...they'd be fools not to. They are
taking a huge pounding in the press for the problems found to date. they
are spread enough now that even ATMs have been infected with worms!
These make corporates very not-happy.
> http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,83221,00.html?f=x73
>
> This article tells us that that Win2003 has not has *zero* defects. We
> knew that. :D
>
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-941398.html
>
> This one talks about their upcoming copy protection technology. The
> relevance of this is not clear to me.
Security.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/innovation/twc/overview_arbogast.asp
>
> This interview talks about MS's efforts to handle privacy better- again,
> the relevance of this is not clear.
Security...another aspect...
>> > I suspect that the code they saw was not so much good or bad as
>> > *old*. Keeping code very clean for a very long time is not at all
>> > easy.
>>
>> I think the more appropriate term would be legacy.
>
> You know, in any other business a "legacy" is a *good* thing. Funny how
> that works out, innit? :D
Except when it's too old to keep running properly...
>> They aren't rewriting
>> this stuff, they're rewrapping with more features and re-releasing it.
>
> They do not spend 100% of their time rewriting, but they *do* rewrite
> things. Longhorn is apparently going to have a rewritten GUI widget set,
> for instance. XP included an all-new graphics library.
They do rewrite some pieces, many legacy parts come along for the ride
still.
> Maybe they aren't doing it fast enough, but they are doing it.
>
>> I
>> never meant to imply that keeping it "clean" is easy, BUT there are key
>> sections that probably should have been reworked and reimplemented over
>> time. I wonder if there are any fun strings embedded in the system
>> software with other vendor's copyrights in there... :-)
>
> I don't quite see what you are getting at here.
There was something in there about copyrights from BSD in the IP
stack...don't remember the proof but I remember running across that being
written up before. And also old copyright notices in older versions of
DOS showing IBM still in it and the original seattle dos copyrights (or
whatever that company was...it's getting late for me :-)
>> >> I can say that I am not alone in
>> >> believing that for a secure OS or application, security cannot be an
>> >> afterthought.
>> >
>> > Security was not an afterthought for MS;
>>
>> I'll pretend you're drinking while posting that line...
>
> It is a historical fact. You can't just say "they did a lousy job, so it
> was an afterthought". It wasn't.
a lousy job or an afterthought...?
>> >they designed for it right from
>> > the first versions of NT. Your mistake- and perhaps MS's also- is to
>> > assume that forethought, by itself, is sufficient. :D
>>
>> There are flaws with the security model.
>
> I know of no flaws in the *model*.
What is the definition of model we're using here?
I question any model that allows things like the depth of interdependance
between IE and OE so that a flaw in one flows directly into another...
>> Forethought alone, no, it's not sufficient. BUT security as a
>> forethought, then slackened, can be MADE secure again because it's part
>> of the architecture, part of the design. You can't make a house stable
>> by plonking it flat on sand and shoring it up a lot later.
>
> I am not so sure. Unix is widelly trusted, but it was originally not
> secure at all (didn't even have memory protection), and even now the
> underlying model is lousy. Yet it gets by.
The basic model of UNIX, the stuff that Linux was based on, was so sparse
and simple that it is hard to completely break it.
> I think you are, perhaps overstating the importance of the design in
> these things.
I don't know about that...
>> No, I'm saying "I'd like Windows to be more secure than it was
>> orginally meant to be".
>
> I think what you really want is for it to be as secure as it was
> original meant to be- as secure as VMS.
NT yes. Win32 on NT, no. Even cutler wasn't happy about being forced to
go that way, as I recall in ShowStopper!.
>> Windows wasn't built for security. It was based on a single user
>> model, it was based on trying to be simple over having users whine
>> about too many passwords to remember, etc. etc...
>
> 'Taint so.
That doesn't explain how you believe Windows is designed for
compatibility and having support for Windows for
Workgroups-style-authentication/security etc. while still being designed
from the ground up with security in mind.
> Anyway, I think this thread is over. You've said your piece, and now
> you've launched into a bunch of old canards and even links to articles.
> You are just trying to score points against MS now, by whatever means
> are handy.
>
> If you are prepared to do that, you probably can't be reasoned with.
> Don't feel bad; that can be said for pretty much everybody here. :D
>
> But these posts are just way too long to continue like this.
Sorry...I already started replying to it.
I do enjoy the discussions. And I'd like to hear more about your
reasoning. I really would.
I'm sorry if you'd rather not discuss things anymore. From the sounds of
it I could actually learn some things from you and maybe you might see
things and learn some things from my point of view as well.
-Blip!
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That's my zurg! You can always count on him to take the high road.
That's my Mayor! Always willing to respond in kind.
> I was talking to your dad the other day
Yes, he asked me to tell you to stop calling him for illicit sexual
encounters. He's not interested. Go pay for it, if you need it that
badly!
zurg
wrote:
> The most rediculous part is you poke fun at zurg for not "taking the high
> road" then turn around and say that.
It's not ridiculous at all! In the case of the Mayor McCheese, it's
totally expected.
Anyway, he's just pissed because his mom's always giving me freebie
handjobs and she ought to be charging so she can support his crack
habit.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <rb39vvg35avmtidn3...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
>R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's my zurg! You can always count on him to take the high road.
>
>That's my Mayor! Always willing to respond in kind.
>
>> I was talking to your dad the other day
>
>Yes, he asked me to tell you to stop calling him for illicit sexual
>encounters.
When did he quit whoring out your mom and sisters? I liked going there
because it was always half off when they were on the rag. I saved a
ton of money that way!
>He's not interested. Go pay for it, if you need it that
>badly!
Figures. He probably got religion or something, eh?
Tim Smith
>> Not really. I spent a good amount of time in college studying formal
>> logic and logical fallacies.
>
> This is an interesting point. Do you realize that what we have here is a
> case of a reverse ad hominem? the fact that you have studied formal
> logic doesn't mean that you understood the case here correctly.
That would be the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.
An interesting project would be to see how many fallacies you can find in this
newsgroup. Here's a nice list of 42 kinds of fallacies to look for.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
In some recent debates with Steve C and Elizabot I was kept referring them
to sites with fallacy lists. They were none too happy, and tried to counter
by showing my "fallacies", but kept getting them wrong. It was very funny
to watch. Well, for me. For everyone one else not involved it was long.
boring. useless, and probably ignored. So be it. :)
Andrew J. Brehm
> >> Not really. I spent a good amount of time in college studying formal
> >> logic and logical fallacies.
> >
> > This is an interesting point. Do you realize that what we have here is a
> > case of a reverse ad hominem? the fact that you have studied formal
> > logic doesn't mean that you understood the case here correctly.
>
> That would be the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.
>
I know. But it was funnier to point out that it was related to ad
hominem. (It was also an argument directed at a person rather than an
issue.)
Elizabot
Poor Snit! You must be terribly frustrated that Steve and I quit responding to you.
You have now resorted to outright lying. Not only were YOU the one arguing
fallacies, you also displayed your ignorance of tautologies, and you have
clearly demonstrated you have never taken Symbolic Logic, typically a philosophy
class, BTW.
YOU are the one insisting that you are presenting a LOGICAL ARGUMENT and that
since others have not disproved your unproven "logical argument," your argument
has some validity. Also, as a side note, YOU are the one who apparently believes
that an argument containing the premises "John never eats tomatoes" and "John
eats ketchup," etc., somehow supports the conclusion of "John does not like
tomatoes."
Here are some of the fallacies you used in your failed attempt to prove your
logical argument.
1) Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from
ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true,
simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued
that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."
Snit: "Especially since my argument *still* stands without valid
refutation that disproves it."
see also 5)
Please bear in mind that you INSISTED you were presenting a "logical argument."
2) Argumentum ad nauseam: "This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is
more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often
it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition
in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're
sick of hearing it."
Snit: "Want to go find how many times I repeated the argument for
you? Not even repeating it for others - but specifically for you. Wait -
you have even complained I have posted it too many times."
3) Argumentum ad numerum: "It consists of asserting that the more people who
support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is
correct."
Remember all those google links you posted? You never answered what would
constitute "strong support" for an argument, although you do use the tactic of
throwing out large quantities of Google links, as though that is your support.
4) Circulus in demonstrando: "This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the
conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that
the fallacy appears to be a valid argument."
Remember your "A=A" argument?
5) Shifting the burden of proof: "The burden of proof is always on the person
asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum
ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption
that something is true unless proven otherwise."
"A successful refutation would be one that logically denies mine and
does not, itself, have a successful refutation."
I.e. I must disprove your logical argument.
6) Straw man "The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's
position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented
position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made."
"I presented the following as a demonstration that the legal system does not
apply to every argument (as had been claimed)."
Yet you refused to state who made such a claim.
Definitions from: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Is it your goal to prove your unproven argument?
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
This is hilarious to say the least. I actually kill-filed him because he
is extremely disingenuous and a flat out liar. So, if it appears I am
not responding to him, it's correct. He does seem to be showing up where
I do so maybe I'll follow him around a bit again... :) Probably not...
it does get rather boring. I'm glad to see you counter his horseshit
with reality that slices him to pieces over and over, though. He
deserves it because he leaves the wound open. I always knew I was bad
but he's like a pitbull... I pity his wife and kids... seriously.
Steve
Elizabot
He's tried to bait us a couple of times by mentioning our names. I figured it
was only a matter of time before he started his "revision" of what really
happened. I'm waiting for him to repost all that stuff that I already answered,
removed from context, as though I didn't answer it. Straw man arguments like
"You seemed to be claiming that John stating he hates tomatoes does not support
the idea that he does not like them." followed by "That is absurd." I never
made such an argument.... But it's apparent Snit needs a new beating for the
New Year. Here we go.
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Perhaps... but is he really worth it? I mean... everyone in here
basically let him know he was wrong by either telling him so or
abstaining from comment altogether and he still walks around clamoring
his bullshit. John was the only person that came to his rescue in that
thread... pretty much says it all if you ask me. If I want that I'll go
to any street corner in San Francisco on a friday night... ya know...
when they clean rooms at the asylums :)
Steve
zurg
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When did he quit whoring out your mom and sisters?
When he found out he could earn much more pimping for your mom. He
can't charge as much for her because of the wooden leg, the lack of
teeth and the persistent body hair issue, but she's willing to do more
for her clients and work longer hours so it works out better.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote on 1/2/04 2:56 PM:
>>
>>
>>> In article <1g6t0ij.17um0etohl5yaN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J. Brehm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not really. I spent a good amount of time in college studying formal
>>>>> logic and logical fallacies.
>>>>
>>>> This is an interesting point. Do you realize that what we have here is a
>>>> case of a reverse ad hominem? the fact that you have studied formal
>>>> logic doesn't mean that you understood the case here correctly.
>>>
>>> That would be the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.
>>>
>>> An interesting project would be to see how many fallacies you can find in
>>> this
>>> newsgroup. Here's a nice list of 42 kinds of fallacies to look for.
>>>
>>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
>>
>>
>> In some recent debates with Steve C and Elizabot I was kept referring them
>> to sites with fallacy lists. They were none too happy, and tried to counter
>> by showing my "fallacies", but kept getting them wrong. It was very funny
>> to watch. Well, for me. For everyone one else not involved it was long.
>> boring. useless, and probably ignored. So be it. :)
>>
>
> Poor Snit! You must be terribly frustrated that Steve and I quit responding to
> you.
No - amused with Steve - confident you would come back. This time you come
back apparently agreeing with me that my argument stands with support and
without valid refutation. Yet, despite your now apparent change of heart to
agree with me, you also seem to want to argue with me. Odd.
>
> You have now resorted to outright lying. Not only were YOU the one arguing
> fallacies, you also displayed your ignorance of tautologies, and you have
> clearly demonstrated you have never taken Symbolic Logic, typically a
> philosophy class, BTW.
Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You have now acknowledged
that you are no longer attempting to refute my argument, although it is
clear you were at one point trying. We seem to both agree that my argument
stands with support and without refutation. The fact that it is not proved,
as in a logical proof, does not invalidate it. To assume so is to commit an
argument from ignorance.
> YOU are the one insisting that you are presenting a LOGICAL ARGUMENT and that
> since others have not disproved your unproven "logical argument," your
> argument has some validity.
Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. Again, we seem to agree that
my argument stands with support and without refutation. Why do you argue
with something you seem to agree with in other places? Either you
communicate very poorly or you are making some logical flaw. Or you are
just trolling. Is there an option I missed? And before you attempt to
blame me - it is true that you agree with me now?
> Also, as a side note, YOU are the one who apparently believes that an argument
> containing the premises "John never eats tomatoes" and "John eats ketchup,"
> etc., somehow supports the conclusion of "John does not like tomatoes."
You never did come up with the reasonable arguments against that in our
lesson. There are at least two that I can think of. You keep repeating
this as though there could be no reasonable way this could be the case.
Spend as much time on your homework as on your silly attacks and you might
get somewhere with it. Or do you give up? If you do - so be it... I have
no real desire to share the answer with you. Just be sure that there are
reasoned answers.
>
> Here are some of the fallacies you used in your failed attempt to prove your
> logical argument.
Hmmm, did I erroneously use the word "prove" before this turned into a silly
debate focused on the semantics and not on the concepts of the argument
itself? Can you show this anywhere? It may be true, but I do not remember
doing so. In any case, of I did, and that is where you became confused,
then let me assure you that the lack of a refutation does not prove my well
supported argument. Then again, we have been over this several times - you
are continuing your game and not even attempting to refute the argument
itself. At least now you admit you have stopped doing so.
>
> 1) Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from
> ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true,
> simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is
> argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."
>
> Snit: "Especially since my argument *still* stands without valid refutation
> that disproves it."
LOL.... I just re-read that and I think I see how you have been misreading
it. You thought "that disproved it" referred to my argument, as though my
argument were disproved. LOL... am I right? Have you been misreading it
that way this whole time? The funny think is I threw in the phrase "that
disproved it" to clarify how I was using the word "refutation" - you were
not understanding the word correctly in context.
>
> see also 5)
>
> Please bear in mind that you INSISTED you were presenting a "logical
> argument."
>
> 2) Argumentum ad nauseam: "This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is
> more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more
> often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant
> repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again
> until you're sick of hearing it."
>
> Snit: "Want to go find how many times I repeated the argument for you? Not
> even repeating it for others - but specifically for you. Wait - you have even
> complained I have posted it too many times."
Where does that imply that the repeats make it any more accurate? I was
trying to focus you on the argument you were attempting to refute. I
failed. So be it.
>
> 3) Argumentum ad numerum: "It consists of asserting that the more people who
> support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition
> is correct."
>
> Remember all those google links you posted? You never answered what would
> constitute "strong support" for an argument, although you do use the tactic of
> throwing out large quantities of Google links, as though that is your support.
I posted the supporting links when people claimed I was not qualified. I
even state, on my web site that discusses this "Additional information is
supplied in the argument itself; including more detail on the premises and
support from over 300 law professors (which does not technically support the
logic of the case, but it does help lend support for people who need that
type of thing)."
So did you miss this or were you just trying to throw empty attacks at me?
If so, why? Remember your claim of my "Argumentum ad nauseam". This is why
I kept repeating it - even after all those posts, you still never understood
it, did you?
I think we are in agreement now that my argument stands with support and
without valid refutation.
>
> 4) Circulus in demonstrando: "This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise
> the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so
> that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument."
>
> Remember your "A=A" argument?
Are you claiming that A does not equal A? Are you saying it is not shown
that A=A? A does, in fact, equal A.
Now if you disagree with A, stating A does not support A. That is what the
fallacy states...
>
> 5) Shifting the burden of proof: "The burden of proof is always on the person
> asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of
> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on
> the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is
> the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
>
> "A successful refutation would be one that logically denies mine and does not,
> itself, have a successful refutation."
>
> I.e. I must disprove your logical argument.
If you want my argument to be disproved, you, or someone, must disprove it.
Really.
Now if I were claiming that my argument were proved, as in a mathematical
proof, perhaps you would have a point. But once I show an argument, if you
want to disprove it - do so. If you do not, that is fine. You started off
trying, with the 1441 argument. When I responded to that you crumbled -
though you never admitted you were unable to respond to my argument.
> 6) Straw man "The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's
> position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that
> misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been
> demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments
> that have been made."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/22mbb
>
> "I presented the following as a demonstration that the legal system does not
> apply to every argument (as had been claimed)."
>
> Yet you refused to state who made such a claim.
That was in reference to Steve, who, did, in fact, claim that the legal
system can come into play in any argument.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2106352748d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&selm=BC079DFF.3645A%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
>
> Definitions from: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>
> Is it your goal to prove your unproven argument?
No. It is my goal to have my argument stand with support and without
refutation. We both seem to agree it does so, even if you insist on trying
to point out "errors" of mine ...
The bottom line is nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do not
offer one here, and now state you have no desire to. You do nothing but try
to explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical
fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
You have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
refutation. That is fine. Why do you keep working on explaining why you
should not? If you do not, for any reason (giving up, bored, no time, no
trust in me, whatever) you do not need to try to explain it away. Making a
clear admission you have dropped your attempt at a refutation would be nice,
but is not needed.
Snit
Apparently Steve will never read my refutation ... oh well. :)
Snit
If so, it clearly worked. :)
> I figured it was only a matter of time before he started his "revision" of
> what really happened. I'm waiting for him to repost all that stuff that I
> already answered, removed from context, as though I didn't answer it. Straw
> man arguments like "You seemed to be claiming that John stating he hates
> tomatoes does not support the idea that he does not like them." followed by
> "That is absurd." I never made such an argument.... But it's apparent Snit
> needs a new beating for the New Year. Here we go.
'round and 'round she goes...
"You keep showing that you do not understand what types of information might
support a conclusion, you repeatedly misuse the idea of a common logical
flaw, and you repeat childish attempts to rub your invalid points in. I
tell you this in an attempt to get you to stop for a moment before you reply
to a public forum."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC0B5BB0.36D46%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
From that link you can easily get to your responses....
Snit
Steve, you seem to forget that you ended up agreeing with me. Even 'bot
seems to now. You both came to the conclusion that my argument stands with
support and without refutation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC090978.3686C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
That post ended with "We can just leave it where we are: with the idea that
while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations have been
made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
So now you claim others though I was wrong even though you ended up agreeing
with me. Flip flop. Flip flop.
Elizabot
The bottom line is that you presented your argument as a logical argument. You
formed the conclusion "Bush has used the military to break US and International
law." You have agreed to the negation of the conclusion of your own logical
argument when you agreed "Bush may not have used the military to break US and
International law."
Face it. You agreed to the negation of your conclusion of your own logical
argument. I expect this "little" fact and how it pertains to a logical argument
to be beyond your understanding.
And quit spreading lies. I never agreed that your "argument stand with support
and without refutation."
You are the one who has behaved childishly and have even admitted to it.
Snit
The logical possibility of there being a refutation is not a refutation in
itself.
Then again, you also state that you do not want to refute my argument, so
this attempt is another flip flop of yours.
> Face it. You agreed to the negation of your conclusion of your own logical
> argument. I expect this "little" fact and how it pertains to a logical
> argument to be beyond your understanding.
What negation... that there is a chance it could be refuted? That *is* an
argument from ignorance.
> And quit spreading lies. I never agreed that your "argument stand with support
> and without refutation."
You have now acknowledged that you are no longer attempting to refute my
argument, although it is clear you were at one point trying. We seem to
both agree that my argument stands with support and without refutation. The
fact that it is not proved, as in a logical proof, does not invalidate it.
To assume so is to commit an argument from ignorance.
If you do not agree with me, would you please state the refutation to the
argument that begins with "Based on the US Constitution".
So do you agree with me, or are you committing an argument from ignorance?
As stated before
-------
Elizabot
[snip]
>
> So do you agree with me, or are you committing an argument from ignorance?
More fallacies.
Bifurcation: "Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false
dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only
two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist."
Or is it straw man: "The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone
else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that
misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments
that have been made."
It's both! Two fallacies in one sentence!
I never argued that your argument was false because it hadn't been proven true.
I only made statements to the effect that you have not proven your argument.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
[snip]
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
That's a good one... I saw him tell more of his lies (concerning me,
too) in it. When he's creating the lies, it appears he doesn't think
people know how to, or will use, google for some reason... weird.
Here's one of my favs:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=evidence+didn%27t+prove+anything+group:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy+insubject:Scary+insubject:Article+author:Snit&hl=en
&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBFB6B56.349FF%25snit-nospam%40cable
one.net&rnum=1
In it, we find Snit stating:
"Evidence is not the same thing as proof. My argument does not prove
anything, it offers strong support for my case. Support that has not been
refuted."
Of course, anyone with a brain that understands the nature of a logical
argument like this one knows the burden of proof rests with the one
making the argument and that his evidence SHOULD strive to prove that
argument. Kinda tough to do when you stated what he did above. Hell, it
doesn't even need to be a legal argument, though, this one clearly is,
if only a theoretical one. He didn't understand he bore such a burden
and was too stupid to realize that he killed his argument when he
admitted his evidence didn't prove ANYTHING. He couldn't comprehend that
failure to offer SOME sort of proof(at least, beyond a reasonable doubt)
doesn't elevate him to the status of meeting the burden, a requisite for
the continued existence of such an argument. He tried to equate it to a
simple logical argument with 'John and tomatoes' or some such... it was
hilarious. The one thing we couldn't refute was the fact that his
evidence still offers -strong support- in HIS mind. Gee... I wonder why
we couldn't accomplish such a goal... LOL!!! Not that it was part of his
original request made to the group. It didn't occur to him that we had
no need to refute *support* (or, what HE considered support, anyway) in
order to refute his original 'legal argument'(his words). Our goal was
to refute his argument which consisted of 'proof' in the form of legal
evidence and he helped us to do that. As shown above, he played the word
game with evidence/support... and LOST. We did have the fun of watching
him pretend he made a logical argument that required no burden of proof
(you know, evidence that actually DOES make an attempt at proving
something... as opposed to evidence offered by someone who subsequently
tells you it doesn't prove ANYTHING) on his part... all the while
claiming it has yet to be refuted. Only someone very 'special' would
have done such a thing in public :)
Steve
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <gupbvv4fk52f0ffpf...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
You can pretty much see this is in us. You obviously come from a line
of lazy layabouts while I come from a line of hard workers.
Snit
So you agree that my argument stands with support and has not been refuted.
Snit
>> >> 6 btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
>>
>
> That's a good one... I saw him tell more of his lies (concerning me,
> too) in it. When he's creating the lies, it appears he doesn't think
> people know how to, or will use, google for some reason... weird.
>
> Here's one of my favs:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=evidence+didn%27t+prove+anything+group:
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy+insubject:Scary+insubject:Article+author:Snit&hl=en
> &lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBFB6B56.349FF%25snit-nospam%40cable
> one.net&rnum=1
>
>
> In it, we find Snit stating:
>
> "Evidence is not the same thing as proof. My argument does not prove
> anything, it offers strong support for my case. Support that has not been
> refuted."
>
> Of course, anyone with a brain that understands the nature of a logical
> argument like this one knows the burden of proof rests with the one
> making the argument and that his evidence SHOULD strive to prove that
> argument.
* evidence AND proof
Can you differentiate them yet?
> Kinda tough to do when you stated what he did above. Hell, it
> doesn't even need to be a legal argument, though, this one clearly is,
> if only a theoretical one.
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
Can you differentiate those sets?
> He didn't understand he bore such a burden and was too stupid to realize that
> he killed his argument when he admitted his evidence didn't prove ANYTHING.
'round and 'round... again. Lack of proof for an argument is not disproof.
Do you know how many times I have explained to you why this is wrong? Look
it up in Google. At *least* 47 times. Really.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=steve++%22lack+of+proof%22+group:comp.sys.
mac.advocacy+author:snit&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&saf
e=off&scoring=d&filter=0
Ok, some of those are probably just quotes. Call it 30. Plus my website...
you used this one so many times I called it "Steve's Defense"
See http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/
Refutation III: "Steve's Defense"
> He couldn't comprehend that
> failure to offer SOME sort of proof(at least, beyond a reasonable doubt)
> doesn't elevate him to the status of meeting the burden, a requisite for
> the continued existence of such an argument.
A new lumpit (well, one I have not pointed out to you)! Congrats:
* proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
in a trial)
Can you differentiate those?
> He tried to equate it to a simple logical argument with 'John and tomatoes' or
> some such... it was hilarious.
The one where Elizabot has been unable to move to the next step in that
argument. Can you?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC0B5BB0.36D46%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
> The one thing we couldn't refute was the fact that his evidence still offers
> -strong support- in HIS mind.
Un-refuted support at the very least.
> Gee... I wonder why
> we couldn't accomplish such a goal... LOL!!! Not that it was part of his
> original request made to the group. It didn't occur to him that we had
> no need to refute *support* (or, what HE considered support, anyway) in
> order to refute his original 'legal argument'(his words). Our goal was
> to refute his argument which consisted of 'proof' in the form of legal
> evidence and he helped us to do that.
Lumpits. You really do not get what you are mixing up. You really cannot
differentiate these things. I thought you were just acting like you could
not - but either you can not or your pride has gotten in your way.
Here is your list. You have failed to be able differentiate any of these:
* an argument AND a statement
* proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
in a trial)
* an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
* a legal system AND a judicial system
* an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
that can only be categorized as a legal argument
* defense of an argument AND an argument
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
* Snit AND Josh (whoever that is)
* an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
* a lack of proof AND a disproof
* evidence AND proof
* an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
system
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
* order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
Can you now? Do you really think those sets of items are in reference to
the same thing?
> As shown above, he played the word game with evidence/support... and LOST.
You even decided I may have "won".
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC090978.3686C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
Flip flop. Flip flop.
> We did have the fun of watching him pretend he made a logical argument that
> required no burden of proof (you know, evidence that actually DOES make an
> attempt at proving something... as opposed to evidence offered by someone who
> subsequently tells you it doesn't prove ANYTHING) on his part... all the
> while claiming it has yet to be refuted. Only someone very 'special' would
> have done such a thing in public :)
So do you agree that my argument stands with support and has not been
refuted.
The bottom line is nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do not
offer one here, and it now seems you have no desire to. You do nothing but
try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical
fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
Have you have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
Brock McNuggets
one...
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/3/04 5:33 PM:
> In article <3ff74d39$0$196$7586...@news.frii.net>,
>> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=BBFFEDAC.351
>> >> 5
>> 0%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DI
>> >> S
>> O-8859-1%26safe%3Doff%26q%3D%2Bchildish%2BOR%2Bchildishly%2Bauthor%253Asnit%2
>> >> 6 btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
>>
>
> That's a good one... I saw him tell more of his lies (concerning me,
> too) in it. When he's creating the lies, it appears he doesn't think
> people know how to, or will use, google for some reason... weird.
>
> Here's one of my favs:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=evidence+didn%27t+prove+anything+group:
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy+insubject:Scary+insubject:Article+author:Snit&hl=en
> &lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBFB6B56.349FF%25snit-nospam%40cable
> one.net&rnum=1
>
>
> In it, we find Snit stating:
>
> "Evidence is not the same thing as proof. My argument does not prove
> anything, it offers strong support for my case. Support that has not been
> refuted."
>
> Of course, anyone with a brain that understands the nature of a logical
> argument like this one knows the burden of proof rests with the one
> making the argument and that his evidence SHOULD strive to prove that
> argument.
* evidence AND proof
Can you differentiate them yet?
> Kinda tough to do when you stated what he did above. Hell, it
> doesn't even need to be a legal argument, though, this one clearly is,
> if only a theoretical one.
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
Can you differentiate those sets?
> He didn't understand he bore such a burden and was too stupid to realize that
> he killed his argument when he admitted his evidence didn't prove ANYTHING.
'round and 'round... again. Lack of proof for an argument is not disproof.
Do you know how many times I have explained to you why this is wrong? Look
it up in Google. At *least* 47 times. Really.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=steve++%22lack+of+proof%22+group:comp.sys.
mac.advocacy+author:snit&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&saf
e=off&scoring=d&filter=0
Ok, some of those are probably just quotes. Call it 30. Plus my website...
you used this one so many times I called it "Steve's Defense"
See http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/
Refutation III: "Steve's Defense"
> He couldn't comprehend that
> failure to offer SOME sort of proof(at least, beyond a reasonable doubt)
> doesn't elevate him to the status of meeting the burden, a requisite for
> the continued existence of such an argument.
A new lumpit (well, one I have not pointed out to you)! Congrats:
* proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
in a trial)
Can you differentiate those?
> He tried to equate it to a simple logical argument with 'John and tomatoes' or
> some such... it was hilarious.
The one where Elizabot has been unable to move to the next step in that
argument. Can you?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC0B5BB0.36D46%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
> The one thing we couldn't refute was the fact that his evidence still offers
> -strong support- in HIS mind.
Un-refuted support at the very least.
> Gee... I wonder why
> we couldn't accomplish such a goal... LOL!!! Not that it was part of his
> original request made to the group. It didn't occur to him that we had
> no need to refute *support* (or, what HE considered support, anyway) in
> order to refute his original 'legal argument'(his words). Our goal was
> to refute his argument which consisted of 'proof' in the form of legal
> evidence and he helped us to do that.
Lumpits. You really do not get what you are mixing up. You really cannot
differentiate these things. I thought you were just acting like you could
not - but either you can not or your pride has gotten in your way.
Here is your list. You have failed to be able differentiate any of these:
* an argument AND a statement
* proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
in a trial)
* an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
* a legal system AND a judicial system
* an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
that can only be categorized as a legal argument
* defense of an argument AND an argument
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
* Snit AND Josh (whoever that is)
* an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
* a lack of proof AND a disproof
* evidence AND proof
* an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
system
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
* order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
Can you now? Do you really think those sets of items are in reference to
the same thing?
> As shown above, he played the word game with evidence/support... and LOST.
You even decided I may have "won".
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC090978.3686C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
Flip flop. Flip flop.
> We did have the fun of watching him pretend he made a logical argument that
> required no burden of proof (you know, evidence that actually DOES make an
> attempt at proving something... as opposed to evidence offered by someone who
> subsequently tells you it doesn't prove ANYTHING) on his part... all the
> while claiming it has yet to be refuted. Only someone very 'special' would
> have done such a thing in public :)
So do you agree that my argument stands with support and has not been
Steve Carroll
Brock McNuggets <kra...@cableone.net> wrote:
(snip)
One of the most idiotic and hard-headed posters to ever grace this Ng
wrote:
> * evidence AND proof
>
> Can you differentiate them yet?
* An argument where your evidence intends to prove your argument AND
John eating ketchup but disliking tomatoes
Can you differentiate them yet? :)
> > Kinda tough to do when you stated what he did above. Hell, it
> > doesn't even need to be a legal argument, though, this one clearly is,
> > if only a theoretical one.
>
> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
A theoretical legal argument in a NG AND a legal argument made in a
courtroom
Still can't tell the difference yet? :) Gee, I figured it would be easy
being that you made them both up...
> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
An argument where the presenter TELLS YOU he cannot show guilt AND an
idiot who thinks others believe usenet is real life just so he can argue
that it isn't (OK... this one was just fun to write)
Grow a brain yet? :)
> Can you differentiate those sets?
You can't... hey, this is fun!
> > He didn't understand he bore such a burden and was too stupid to realize
> > that
> > he killed his argument when he admitted his evidence didn't prove ANYTHING.
>
> 'round and 'round... again. Lack of proof for an argument is not disproof.
Well... stop spinning and you won't go 'round and 'round :) Lack of
proof in an argument where the presenter is bound by the burden of proof
is disproof. This isn't remotely similar to a guy who will use ketchup
but dislikes tomatoes. Only a moron would attempt to draw such an
idiotic analogy. I suppose that's why we find you doing it :)
> Do you know how many times I have explained to you why this is wrong? Look
> it up in Google. At *least* 47 times. Really.
So you've shown this NG you don't understand your own argument 47 times?
I think you've broken Eddie's record!
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=steve++%22lack+of+proof%22+group:comp.sys.
> mac.advocacy+author:snit&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&saf
> e=off&scoring=d&filter=0
>
> Ok, some of those are probably just quotes. Call it 30. Plus my website...
> you used this one so many times I called it "Steve's Defense"
Yeah... I figured you were padding it... cheater! LOL!!!
> See http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/
> Refutation III: "Steve's Defense"
>
> > He couldn't comprehend that
> > failure to offer SOME sort of proof(at least, beyond a reasonable doubt)
> > doesn't elevate him to the status of meeting the burden, a requisite for
> > the continued existence of such an argument.
>
> A new lumpit (well, one I have not pointed out to you)! Congrats:
> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
> in a trial)
Something didn't just fall on your head by any chance, did it?
> Can you differentiate those?
>
> > He tried to equate it to a simple logical argument with 'John and tomatoes'
> > or
> > some such... it was hilarious.
>
> The one where Elizabot has been unable to move to the next step in that
> argument. Can you?
There is no next step for you... you fell too hard over the first one :)
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
> =off&selm=BC0B5BB0.36D46%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
>
> > The one thing we couldn't refute was the fact that his evidence still
> > offers
> > -strong support- in HIS mind.
>
> Un-refuted support at the very least.
And what does it support? An argument that requires proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt to retain any hopes of continued existence?
You're a riot... LOL!!! an absolute riot!
> > Gee... I wonder why
> > we couldn't accomplish such a goal... LOL!!! Not that it was part of his
> > original request made to the group. It didn't occur to him that we had
> > no need to refute *support* (or, what HE considered support, anyway) in
> > order to refute his original 'legal argument'(his words). Our goal was
> > to refute his argument which consisted of 'proof' in the form of legal
> > evidence and he helped us to do that.
>
> Lumpits. You really do not get what you are mixing up. You really cannot
> differentiate these things. I thought you were just acting like you could
> not - but either you can not or your pride has gotten in your way.
>
> Here is your list. You have failed to be able differentiate any of these:
>
> * an argument AND a statement
Uh... that's your lumpit.
> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
> in a trial)
Another of your lumpits. Burden of proof will teach you not to make such
stupid lumpits.
> * an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
I have you saying your evidence WAS your argument. LOL!! Moron...
> * a legal system AND a judicial system
A judicial system is a subsystem of a legal system. YOU built the
strawman that this is a real courtroom, not me... try again :)
> * an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
> that can only be categorized as a legal argument
I think you've damaged yourself... better go to the shop.
> * defense of an argument AND an argument
This one was easy... I got to watch you TRY to defend your argument for
about 12 seconds ... then you stepped on your dick with a track shoe. No
missing that...
> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
Another of your lumpits. In your argument you did both of the above, as
well as convict and label someone a war criminal based on your argument
where the evidence was shown, by YOU, to not prove ANYTHING! I just
can't write that line enough!!!! LOL... So, we really have a quad-lumpit
on your part here. Could be a record... I'll get back to you :)
> * Snit AND Josh (whoever that is)
Now wait a minute, there is plenty of evidence at google to verifiably
lump these.
> * an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
The same strawman lumpit as above...
> * a lack of proof AND a disproof
Hmmm... could be tricky. I know what a proof is... but lemme see....
what IS a disproof in an argument where the burden of proof rests on the
one making an accusation purporting guilt? Oh... I know... I KNOW! It's
where the idiot making the argument TELLS you his evidence doesn't prove
ANYTHING! LOL!
> * evidence AND proof
Yeah... I f*cked you up pretty good with that one, didn't I? I'm
surprised you're stupid enough to continue mentioning it :)
> * an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
> system
That's your lumpit again... your argument tried to do this and more but
the audience wasn't buying. Tough crowd, huh? LOL!!
> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
Same strawman you used in several other lumpits. C'mon, show some
originality, will ya...
> * order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
Well, you never put forth a logical argument so we'll really never know,
will we? :)
> Can you now? Do you really think those sets of items are in reference to
> the same thing?
You want to know what I THINK? Really?
I think you have lost what little mind you had when you got to this NG
and I'm glad to be able to say I contributed to it. Now... have you wife
drive you to the nice place and stay there awhile... you'll feel much
better for it.
> > As shown above, he played the word game with evidence/support... and LOST.
>
> You even decided I may have "won".
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
> =off&selm=BC090978.3686C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
>
> Flip flop. Flip flop.
The flip flop you keep hearing is in your own head. Get in the car...
let your wife drive... go there... NOW.
> > We did have the fun of watching him pretend he made a logical argument that
> > required no burden of proof (you know, evidence that actually DOES make an
> > attempt at proving something... as opposed to evidence offered by someone
> > who
> > subsequently tells you it doesn't prove ANYTHING) on his part... all the
> > while claiming it has yet to be refuted. Only someone very 'special' would
> > have done such a thing in public :)
>
> So do you agree that my argument stands with support and has not been
> refuted.
LOL! Your argument, to actually BE the kind of argument you presented it
as, requires more than just support, it requires proof and, in this
case, that proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. You told us your
evidence didn't prove ANYTHING... thereby creating more than just
reasonable doubt, it's 100% doubt wrt your evidence. Here... I'll sum it
up for you in your own language:
A = an argument that purports guilt based on the breaking of a law in a
specific legal system that offers, as part of a defense in the advent
that charges are brought forth, innocence until guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
B = an idiot that offers evidence for argument A but then flatly states
that his evidence doesn't prove ANYTHING at all,(I love this part).
A + B = no argument at all due to the fact that the burden of proof was
not satisfactorily met because the idiot trashed his own evidence.
See? That wasn't so hard, was it? Or do you still need a fruit or
vegetable based analogy? Well, OK... but do we HAVE to use ketchup and
tomatoes? LOL!!
> The bottom line is nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do not
> offer one here, and it now seems you have no desire to. You do nothing but
> try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical
> fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
>
> Have you have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
> refutation. That is fine. Why do you keep working on explaining why you
> should not? If you do not, for any reason (giving up, bored, no time, no
> trust in me, whatever) you do not need to try to explain it away. Making a
> clear admission you have dropped your attempt at a refutation would be nice,
> but is not needed.
>
Here... you like looking at such things... maybe you can learn something
from this site you haven't yet learned from the ones you seem to worship:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Just so you don't do what you usually do and stumble over yourself, I'll
quote the pertinent section for you:
"In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it.
This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim
of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is
assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases
is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many
cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In
some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in
American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty
(hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). "
Gee... no mention of a courtroom, adjudication or punishment.
Interesting, isn't it? Why... they COULD just be talking about a
THEORETICAL argument based on American law, huh? LOL! I guess we now
get to watch you, once again, pretend that you don't purport guilt with
your argument and that it somehow isn't a theoretical legal argument. I
noticed you ran far and fast when I attempted to extract what your
argument was actually arguing. Gee... what was it again? Couldn't have
been purporting guilt, could it? ROTFLMAO!!! Oh well, I guess we need to
get the 'bot' to start teaching you from the beginning again. She has
more patience than do I. I'm glad I didn't miss this, though. HEY!!! You
WERE right about something after all! You're too easy... Plonk.
Steve
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/3/04 5:24 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>So do you agree with me, or are you committing an argument from ignorance?
>>
>>More fallacies.
>>
>>Bifurcation: "Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false
>>dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only
>>two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist."
>>
>>Or is it straw man: "The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone
>>else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that
>>misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been
>>demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments
>>that have been made."
>>
>>It's both! Two fallacies in one sentence!
>>
>>I never argued that your argument was false because it hadn't been proven
>>true.
>>
>>I only made statements to the effect that you have not proven your argument.
>>
>>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>
> So you agree that my argument stands with support and has not been refuted.
Nope. But we agree that you have not proven your argument and that you are the
one who needs to provide the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise would be
another fallacy on your behalf.
> The bottom line is nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do not
> offer one here, and now state you have no desire to. You do nothing but try
> to explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical
> fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
Funny how *you* started pointing out logical fallacies here:
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBF539D3.33ED0%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bfallacy%2BOR%2Bfallacies%2Bgroup:comp.sys.mac.advocacy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D11%26as_miny%3D2003%26as_maxd%3D4%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_maxy%3D2003%26filter%3D0
Message-ID: <BBF539D3.33ED0%snit-...@cableone.net>
You pointed out fallacies not one, not two, not three, but actually TWELVE times
to another poster. Are you suggesting that your use of the
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies web site was not a valid debating technique?
Here's another quote of yours "Please try to avoid logical fallacies in your
response to that."
Why would you suggest such a thing if you think that pointing out logical
fallacies is not a valid debating technique?
Why would you include the datanation link on your web site?
No need for you to answer these questions. I already know the answer. Snit is a
hypocritical crybaby who can't stand it when his own arguments are used against
him. Now *that* has a familiar ring.
> You have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
> refutation. That is fine. Why do you keep working on explaining why you
> should not? If you do not, for any reason (giving up, bored, no time, no
> trust in me, whatever) you do not need to try to explain it away. Making a
> clear admission you have dropped your attempt at a refutation would be nice,
> but is not needed.
"There are a number of common pitfalls to avoid when constructing a deductive
argument; they're known as fallacies. In everyday English, we refer to many
kinds of mistaken beliefs as fallacies; but in logic, the term has a more
specific meaning: a fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an argument unsound
or invalid."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Whether you like it or not, my pointing out your fallacies *is* a valid
technique in destroying your argument. You *did* state you were making a logical
argument.
I will continue to point out your fallacies as long as you continue to make them.
Brock McNuggets
directly comment on in the following post. You see, nothing, and I mean
*nothing* refutes an argument other than a refutation. You do not
offer one here, and it now seems you have no desire to. You do nothing but
try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical
fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
Have you have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
refutation. That is fine. Why do you keep working on explaining why you
should not? If you do not, for any reason (giving up, bored, no time, no
trust in me, whatever) you do not need to try to explain it away. Making a
clear admission you have dropped your attempt at a refutation would be nice,
but is not needed.
Oh, and I do not believe you differentiated any of your apparent lumpits
correctly. To be honest I barely skimmed your silly attempts - so you may
have been right on one by accident or something.
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/3/04 10:49 PM:
Snit
directly comment on in the following post. You see, nothing, and I mean
here, and it now seems you have no desire to (you have even stated such).
You do nothing but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued
use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games,
etc.).
You have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
refutation. That is fine. Why do you keep working on explaining why you
should not? If you do not, for any reason (giving up, bored, no time, no
trust in me, whatever) you do not need to try to explain it away. Why you
stop making attempts at a refutation but continue to play such games is
strange at best.
Oh, I suppose one thing is worth commenting on in your post... when using
logic in a persuasive argument, there are times it is appropriate to use not
only rational appeals, but appeals based on ethics and even emotions, at
least according to Aristotle. I assume you are not ready for those lessons,
but here is a link for you that might help:
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/engl_101/appeals.htm
In any case - assume I did make some blunder there (though there is no
reason to believe that, let us accept it for the moment) - there is still
nothing that refutes an argument but a refutation.
My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned
refutation. Your supposition that it also stands with some blunder on my
part to defend it, one that is not related to any reasoned refutation, does
not change that. Your one reasoned attempt was shot down, and not even you
have ever made reasoned comments why you believe my argument against it was
invalid.
"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/3/04 11:26 PM:
Steve Carroll
Brock McNuggets <kra...@cableone.net> wrote:
> I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing to
> directly comment on in the following post.
Translation: I can't touch any of the shit at the bottom. It contains
too many truths I refuse to address and I can't ever admit I was wrong.
That is simply not an option for me. I'd rather spend all day in several
threads on this NG showing everyone, over and over, just how f*cking
stupid I can be instead of making such an admission. I don't care that
I've polluted the NG... I AM right, DAMMIT!!! So I'll just stick to
avoiding everything Steve says that actually addresses the issue and
I'll focus on a bunch of other shit. Yeah, a good solid smokescreen
oughta do it...
> You see, nothing, and I mean
> *nothing* refutes an argument other than a refutation.
Uh huh.... and what is it that I am supposed to refute? If you have an
argument, don't show the evidence that supports it... tell me, in 20
words or less, what your argument is actually arguing. Should be easy,
right? Oh.. that's right, I forgot... your evidence IS your argument.
LOL! See... you CAN'T tell me that your argument purports guilt (even
though any moron can see that it does) because to do so opens up a box
of shit that chokes the life out of it. I love having you in such a
ridiculous position indefinitely. :) Spin, Snit...
S
S P
n I
N n I
N N
N N
> You do not
> offer one here, and it now seems you have no desire to. You do nothing but
> try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical
> fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
Clue time: Your *My argument is NOT a legal argument* stance isn't
working... and it never did. No one will forget that even YOU once
called it a legal argument and even went so far as to distinguish it
from a non-legal argument. And the best part? It's all still at google.
Doesn't really matter anyway because, regardless of what kind of
argument you're TRYING to rename it as, it's as far from a logical
argument as it can get:) Next step for you? Why not attack the burden of
proof fallacy I provided the link for? Yeah... that'll be a tough one.
People will REALLY need their eyes closed for you to pull that one off,
won't they? I already knew the burden of proof landed on your head.
Yeah... everyone else knew it too. Face it... you f*cked yourself. The
fun part is that you know it, too... otherwise... you wouldn't keep
spinning faster and faster to avoid what's so obvious to all ;-) <BIG
wink>.
> Have you have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
> refutation.
A truly pathetic attempt at a strawman:) I can't build a refutation as
there is nothing to refute. BTW... tell Lund that I know what a strawman
is... he seems to use the same logic you do... perhaps you can get
through to him while you're helping him with his swastika.
> That is fine. Why do you keep working on explaining why you
> should not?
Because I actually enjoy helping you make yourself look like a fool over
and over. It's funny... I thought I would tire of it... but the 'bot'
was correct... only needed a break. Yayyyyy... It's FUN again!
> If you do not, for any reason (giving up, bored, no time, no
> trust in me, whatever) you do not need to try to explain it away. Making a
> clear admission you have dropped your attempt at a refutation would be nice,
> but is not needed.
Tell me what I'm supposed to be refuting. What does your argument seek
to argue? No... I don't want the evidence that 'strongly supports' it,
(LOL!!). I want WHAT the argument is seeking to argue. Surely you can
tell me that, right? I'll wait for your answer... but in the meantime...
I AM having too much fun asking you the same question and watching you
squirm because you CAN'T answer it... and I thought you said you'd
answer any and all questions... just another Snit lie.
> Oh, and I do not believe you differentiated any of your apparent lumpits
> correctly. To be honest I barely skimmed your silly attempts - so you may
> have been right on one by accident or something.
Why talk about everything other than your argument, Snit? Gee...
everyone here is wondering why you keep doing that. No one has clue ONE
why you keep avoiding it... ;-) Tell me again... what DOES your argument
seek to argue? ROTFLMAO!!!!
Keeepppppp SSSSPPPIIINNNNIIINNNGGGGgggggggggggg ... LOL!!
S
S P
n I
N n I
N N
N N
Elizabot
> I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing to
> directly comment on in the following post.
Red herring: "This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant
material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted
away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Then why did you write "Oh, I suppose one thing is worth commenting on in your
post." below? It's not as though you aren't allowed to edit and correct your
post before you send it.
You don't have to answer that. I know it's because you can't refute my argument
and you are trying to deflect attention away from that fact. "You see, nothing,
and I mean *nothing* refutes an argument other than a refutation." Sound familiar?
> You see, nothing, and I mean
> *nothing* refutes an argument other than a refutation. You do not offer one
> here, and it now seems you have no desire to (you have even stated such).
> You do nothing but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued
> use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games,
> etc.).
Funny how *you* started pointing out logical fallacies here:
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBF539D3.33ED0%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bfallacy%2BOR%2Bfallacies%2Bgroup:comp.sys.mac.advocacy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D11%26as_miny%3D2003%26as_maxd%3D4%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_maxy%3D2003%26filter%3D0
Message-ID: <BBF539D3.33ED0%snit-...@cableone.net>
You pointed out fallacies in that post not one, not two, not three, but actually
TWELVE times to another poster. Are you suggesting that your use of the
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies web site was not a valid debating technique?
Here's another quote of yours "Please try to avoid logical fallacies in your
response to that."
Why would you suggest such a thing if you think that pointing out logical
fallacies is not a valid debating technique?
Why would you include the datanation link on your web site?
No need for you to answer these questions. I already know the answer. Snit is a
hypocritical crybaby who can't stand it when his own arguments are used against
him. Now *that* has a familiar ring.
> You have now changed your mind and no longer want to work on building a
> refutation. That is fine. Why do you keep working on explaining why you
> should not? If you do not, for any reason (giving up, bored, no time, no
> trust in me, whatever) you do not need to try to explain it away. Why you
> stop making attempts at a refutation but continue to play such games is
> strange at best.
"There are a number of common pitfalls to avoid when constructing a deductive
argument; they're known as fallacies. In everyday English, we refer to many
kinds of mistaken beliefs as fallacies; but in logic, the term has a more
specific meaning: a fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an argument unsound
or invalid."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Whether you like it or not, my pointing out your fallacies *is* a valid
technique in destroying your arguments.
I will continue to point out your fallacies as long as you continue to make them.
> Oh, I suppose one thing is worth commenting on in your post... when using
> logic in a persuasive argument, there are times it is appropriate to use not
> only rational appeals, but appeals based on ethics and even emotions, at
> least according to Aristotle.
Argumentum ad verecundiam: "The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous
person to try and win support for an assertion."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
> I assume you are not ready for those lessons,
Argumentum ad hominem
> but here is a link for you that might help:
> http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/engl_101/appeals.htm
Explain the relevancy of this link.
> In any case - assume I did make some blunder there (though there is no
> reason to believe that, let us accept it for the moment) - there is still
> nothing that refutes an argument but a refutation.
I do not agree with that.
Unsound or invalid arguments do not require refuting.
Not every argument merits a response.
Pointing out logical fallacies of an argument is to point out technical flaws in
the argument.
You already agreed to the negation of the conclusion of your argument.
> My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned
> refutation.
Liar.
You made the following comments:
"You have furthered the discussion."
"So, now it is up to me to argue against your refutation."
"let me again congratulate you on making a reasoned refutation"
> Your supposition that it also stands with some blunder on my
> part to defend it, one that is not related to any reasoned refutation, does
> not change that.
You have admitted you have not proven your argument, and you continue to urge me
to disprove that argument.
Snit: "A successful refutation would be one that logically denies mine and does
not, itself, have a successful refutation."
> Your one reasoned attempt was shot down,
Really?
Here's an example of how you "shot down" a point in my refutation:
Elizabot: "Where is it written in the Constitution that we can kill people after
Congress has authorized the President to use War Powers?"
Snit: "As you wrote above: "The Congress shall have Power: To declare War"
It was a simple question, Snit, but you were unwilling to give me a simple,
reasoned, straightforward answer to it.
Your response to my refutation was lacking, to say the least.
> and not even you
> have ever made reasoned comments why you believe my argument against it was
> invalid.
Yet another fallacy. "Shifting the burden of proof"
Hey Steve! If you are reading this, I was Googling away and I believe I just
found another of Snit's lumpits: "I will say, however, that at least this is a
refutation based on reason, not just the faith and logical fallacies of most."
Faith AND logical fallacies!
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing to
>> directly comment on in the following post.
>
> Red herring: "This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant
> material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is
> diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
>
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>
> Then why did you write "Oh, I suppose one thing is worth commenting on in your
> post." below? It's not as though you aren't allowed to edit and correct your
> post before you send it.
>
> You don't have to answer that. I know it's because you can't refute my
> argument and you are trying to deflect attention away from that fact. "You
> see, nothing, and I mean *nothing* refutes an argument other than a
> refutation." Sound familiar?
I think this explains where we disagree: to me this is a matter of an
argument I made. I am open to reasoned refutations, am willing to respond
to them (as I have), and am relatively open to ideas that might show me
incorrect or have me change my mind. To me this is mainly about ideas.
To you, the actual argument I made, and your attempts at a refutation, which
you have now claimed to drop, are nothing more than a red herring. To you
this is about something else. It seems like a personal attack to me, but
one that is done so poorly as to be inconsequential.
Read the below: you *still* do not present anything resembling a refutation
to my argument, or even support for your one attempt. Just more of you
continued use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing
semantic games, etc. You use these to try to explain why you should not
focus on my argument and the attempted refutations. I am not buying it.
>> You see, nothing, and I mean *nothing* refutes an argument other than a
>> refutation. You do not offer one here, and it now seems you have no desire to
>> (you have even stated such). You do nothing but try to explain why you should
>> not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit
>> picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
>>
> Funny how *you* started pointing out logical fallacies here:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBF539D3.33ED0%2
> 5snit-nospam%40cableone.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bfallacy%2BOR%2Bfallacies%2Bg
> roup:comp.sys.mac.advocacy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scori
> ng%3Dd%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D11%26as_miny%3D2003%26as_maxd%
> 3D4%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_maxy%3D2003%26filter%3D0 Message-ID:
> <BBF539D3.33ED0%snit-...@cableone.net>
>
LOL. This supports the idea that you are not ready for it yet.
>
>> In any case - assume I did make some blunder there (though there is no
>> reason to believe that, let us accept it for the moment) - there is still
>> nothing that refutes an argument but a refutation.
>
> I do not agree with that.
>
> Unsound or invalid arguments do not require refuting.
>
> Not every argument merits a response.
>
> Pointing out logical fallacies of an argument is to point out technical flaws
> in
> the argument.
>
> You already agreed to the negation of the conclusion of your argument.
>
>> My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned
>> refutation.
>
> Liar.
>
> You made the following comments:
>
> "You have furthered the discussion."
>
> "So, now it is up to me to argue against your refutation."
>
> "let me again congratulate you on making a reasoned refutation"
Which was refuted. You never made a reasoned response to that. Which means
My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned refutation
(that has not, itself, been refuted). There, does that help you. See...
more use of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing
semantic games, etc.
>
>> Your supposition that it also stands with some blunder on my
>> part to defend it, one that is not related to any reasoned refutation, does
>> not change that.
>
> You have admitted you have not proven your argument, and you continue to urge
> me
> to disprove that argument.
>
> Snit: "A successful refutation would be one that logically denies mine and
> does
> not, itself, have a successful refutation."
>
>> Your one reasoned attempt was shot down,
>
> Really?
>
> Here's an example of how you "shot down" a point in my refutation:
>
> Elizabot: "Where is it written in the Constitution that we can kill people
> after
> Congress has authorized the President to use War Powers?"
>
> Snit: "As you wrote above: "The Congress shall have Power: To declare War"
>
> It was a simple question, Snit, but you were unwilling to give me a simple,
> reasoned, straightforward answer to it.
>
> Your response to my refutation was lacking, to say the least.
Do you know what happens in war? People die. Sad fact of life.
Snit
> In article <BC1D676E.3937F%kra...@cableone.net>,
> Brock McNuggets <kra...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing to
>> directly comment on in the following post.
>
> Translation: I can't touch any of the shit at the bottom. It contains
> too many truths I refuse to address and I can't ever admit I was wrong.
> That is simply not an option for me. I'd rather spend all day in several
> threads on this NG showing everyone, over and over, just how f*cking
> stupid I can be instead of making such an admission. I don't care that
> I've polluted the NG... I AM right, DAMMIT!!! So I'll just stick to
> avoiding everything Steve says that actually addresses the issue and
> I'll focus on a bunch of other shit. Yeah, a good solid smokescreen
> oughta do it...
Nothing in this even mentions my argument or any refutation to it.
>
>> You see, nothing, and I mean
>> *nothing* refutes an argument other than a refutation.
>
> Uh huh.... and what is it that I am supposed to refute? If you have an
> argument, don't show the evidence that supports it... tell me, in 20
> words or less, what your argument is actually arguing.
My argument is about how Bush broke US and international law by using force
against Iraq.
> Should be easy, right?
Yep. It was. Four words left over and I did not even try to be concise.
> Oh.. that's right, I forgot... your evidence IS your argument.
> LOL! See... you CAN'T tell me that your argument purports guilt (even
> though any moron can see that it does) because to do so opens up a box
> of shit that chokes the life out of it. I love having you in such a
> ridiculous position indefinitely. :) Spin, Snit...
>
> S
> S P
> n I
> N n I
> N N
> N N
I have to say, while that has nothing to do with my argument or any
refutation to it, it is pretty cool. Good job on the SPIN symbol.
In any case, none of the below references the argument, other than for you
to admit you to repeatedly ask what it is!
The argument that supports my 14 word summation of the conclusion can be
found here: http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
Also, please remember you did at one time decide I may very well be right:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC090978.3686C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
It was about then that you decided that this was no longer fun (as you call
it, below).
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBF539D3.33ED0%2
> 5snit-nospam%40cableone.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bfallacy%2BOR%2Bfallacies%2Bg
> roup:comp.sys.mac.advocacy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scori
> ng%3Dd%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D11%26as_miny%3D2003%26as_maxd%
> 3D4%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_maxy%3D2003%26filter%3D0
> Message-ID: <BBF539D3.33ED0%snit-...@cableone.net>
>
Of COURSE I'm reading and I've gotta tell ya... I LOVE what you are
doing to him! He's polluted the entire NG with this trash for far too
long. I'm surprised other posters haven't bitched more about it. IMO he
deserves everything you can dish... but PLEASE... (clasping my hands
together as in prayer) leave some for me? :)
Steve
Snit
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBF539D3.33ED0%>>
2
>>
5snit-nospam%40cableone.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bfallacy%2BOR%2Bfallacies%2B>>
g
>>
roup:comp.sys.mac.advocacy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scor>>
i
>>
ng%3Dd%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D11%26as_miny%3D2003%26as_maxd>>
%
This from a guy who decided I may very well be right.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC090978.3686C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
Please remember, nothing refutes an argument but a refutation... and none
have been offered that have not been lacking.
So my argument still stands with plenty of support and no solid refutation.
You and 'bot will probably keep posting, but will not get to the point. You
have even recently stated that you do not even, *still*, know what the
argument is or what it shows.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/4/04 10:01 AM:
>
> > In article <BC1D676E.3937F%kra...@cableone.net>,
> > Brock McNuggets <kra...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing
> >> to
> >> directly comment on in the following post.
> >
> > Translation: I can't touch any of the shit at the bottom. It contains
> > too many truths I refuse to address and I can't ever admit I was wrong.
> > That is simply not an option for me. I'd rather spend all day in several
> > threads on this NG showing everyone, over and over, just how f*cking
> > stupid I can be instead of making such an admission. I don't care that
> > I've polluted the NG... I AM right, DAMMIT!!! So I'll just stick to
> > avoiding everything Steve says that actually addresses the issue and
> > I'll focus on a bunch of other shit. Yeah, a good solid smokescreen
> > oughta do it...
>
> Nothing in this even mentions my argument or any refutation to it.
What argument? You claim you have an argument yet you won't tell me what
it is... you just keep posting evidence you claim strongly supports it.
> >> You see, nothing, and I mean
> >> *nothing* refutes an argument other than a refutation.
> >
> > Uh huh.... and what is it that I am supposed to refute? If you have an
> > argument, don't show the evidence that supports it... tell me, in 20
> > words or less, what your argument is actually arguing.
>
> My argument is about how Bush broke US and international law by using force
> against Iraq.
OK... now we're getting somewhere. So, to be perfectly clear here, you
are making a theoretical claim that Bush is guilty of breaking laws in
your argument? Laws that are based on the U.S. and international legal
systems? Is this what your argument is attempting to argue? Note: I say
'theoretical claim' because reality shows usenet is not a courtroom and
we don't want people confusing the two :)
Steve
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/4/04 11:14 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing to
>>>directly comment on in the following post.
>>
>>Red herring: "This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant
>>material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is
>>diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
>>
>>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
No response.
>>Then why did you write "Oh, I suppose one thing is worth commenting on in your
>>post." below? It's not as though you aren't allowed to edit and correct your
>>post before you send it.
>>
>>You don't have to answer that. I know it's because you can't refute my
>>argument and you are trying to deflect attention away from that fact. "You
>>see, nothing, and I mean *nothing* refutes an argument other than a
>>refutation." Sound familiar?
>
>
> I think this explains where we disagree: to me this is a matter of an
> argument I made. I am open to reasoned refutations, am willing to respond
> to them (as I have), and am relatively open to ideas that might show me
> incorrect or have me change my mind. To me this is mainly about ideas.
Classic unsubstantiated claim.
> To you, the actual argument I made, and your attempts at a refutation, which
> you have now claimed to drop, are nothing more than a red herring.
Classic unsubstantiated and hypocritical claim.
> To you
> this is about something else. It seems like a personal attack to me, but
> one that is done so poorly as to be inconsequential.
Classic unsubstantiated claim.
> Read the below: you *still* do not present anything resembling a refutation
> to my argument, or even support for your one attempt. Just more of you
> continued use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing
> semantic games, etc. You use these to try to explain why you should not
> focus on my argument and the attempted refutations. I am not buying it.
And I don't buy that you really want someone to refute your argument.
I see you are unable to explain the relevancy of that link. No surprise, really.
This supports my idea that the link is a RED HERRING.
>>>In any case - assume I did make some blunder there (though there is no
>>>reason to believe that, let us accept it for the moment) - there is still
>>>nothing that refutes an argument but a refutation.
>>
>>I do not agree with that.
>>
>>Unsound or invalid arguments do not require refuting.
>>
>>Not every argument merits a response.
>>
>>Pointing out logical fallacies of an argument is to point out technical flaws
>>in
>>the argument.
>>
>>You already agreed to the negation of the conclusion of your argument.
>>
>>
>>>My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned
>>>refutation.
>>
>>Liar.
>>
>>You made the following comments:
>>
>>"You have furthered the discussion."
>>
>>"So, now it is up to me to argue against your refutation."
>>
>>"let me again congratulate you on making a reasoned refutation"
>
>
> Which was refuted. You never made a reasoned response to that. Which means
> My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned refutation
> (that has not, itself, been refuted).
So? What's your point?
> There, does that help you. See...
> more use of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing
> semantic games, etc.
The link you posted above is a side issue. You just made a claim about my
responses and a red herring at the beginning of this post.
"See... more use of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing
semantic games, etc.."
Hypocrite.
>>>Your supposition that it also stands with some blunder on my
>>>part to defend it, one that is not related to any reasoned refutation, does
>>>not change that.
>>
>>You have admitted you have not proven your argument, and you continue to urge
>>me
>>to disprove that argument.
>>
>>Snit: "A successful refutation would be one that logically denies mine and
>>does
>>not, itself, have a successful refutation."
>>
>>
>>>Your one reasoned attempt was shot down,
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>Here's an example of how you "shot down" a point in my refutation:
>>
>>Elizabot: "Where is it written in the Constitution that we can kill people
>>after
>>Congress has authorized the President to use War Powers?"
>>
>>Snit: "As you wrote above: "The Congress shall have Power: To declare War"
>>
>>It was a simple question, Snit, but you were unwilling to give me a simple,
>>reasoned, straightforward answer to it.
>>
>>Your response to my refutation was lacking, to say the least.
>
>
> Do you know what happens in war? People die. Sad fact of life.
Where in the Constitution is that stated, Snit? You can't answer this without
playing your semantic games now, can you?
[snip]
Elizabot
Our chew toy is plenty big enough to share! In fact, I thought Hanson wanted a
piece of it a while back and decided I could even share it with him. ;-)
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/4/04 11:14 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing
>>>> to
>>>> directly comment on in the following post.
>>>
>>> Red herring: "This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant
>>> material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is
>>> diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
>>>
>>> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>
> No response.
I am not responding you (many) of you logical
fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.
Does this frustrate you as much as it seems to? As much as the fact that my
argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted seems to?
I suggest you make this less personal and focus on the argument and the
refutation attempts.
Well, no. I would probably be happier if my argument held up. But if you
want to make an attempt at a refutation, being that none have been made so
far that have stood up, then I am open to it.
>
>>
>>>> You see, nothing, and I mean *nothing* refutes an argument other than a
>>>> refutation. You do not offer one here, and it now seems you have no desire
>>>> to
>>>> (you have even stated such). You do nothing but try to explain why you
>>>> should
>>>> not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit
>>>> picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny how *you* started pointing out logical fallacies here:
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BBF539D3.33ED0
>>> %2
>>> 5snit-nospam%40cableone.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2Bfallacy%2BOR%2Bfallacies%2
>>> Bg
>>> roup:comp.sys.mac.advocacy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26sco
>>> ri
>>> ng%3Dd%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D11%26as_miny%3D2003%26as_max
>>> d%
You now want me to side track and run off explaining to you how a site about
making logical arguments is relevant to your erroneous claims. No thanks.
If you can not see how it relates now, no amount of my explaining it to you
will help you. You have show me that. Deal with the real issue, and
perhaps we can re-visit this later.
>
>>>> In any case - assume I did make some blunder there (though there is no
>>>> reason to believe that, let us accept it for the moment) - there is still
>>>> nothing that refutes an argument but a refutation.
>>>
>>> I do not agree with that.
>>>
>>> Unsound or invalid arguments do not require refuting.
>>>
>>> Not every argument merits a response.
>>>
>>> Pointing out logical fallacies of an argument is to point out technical
>>> flaws
>>> in
>>> the argument.
>>>
>>> You already agreed to the negation of the conclusion of your argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>> My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned
>>>> refutation.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> You made the following comments:
>>>
>>> "You have furthered the discussion."
>>>
>>> "So, now it is up to me to argue against your refutation."
>>>
>>> "let me again congratulate you on making a reasoned refutation"
>>
>>
>> Which was refuted. You never made a reasoned response to that. Which means
>> My argument *still* stands with plenty of support and no reasoned refutation
>> (that has not, itself, been refuted).
>
> So? What's your point?
That is my point. Do you disagree? If so, then show the successful
refutation to my argument.
You now need the Constitution to tell you that people die in wars? Either
that, or you want to go off on some whacked tangent. Either way - not
biting.
Snit
You seem to be confusing a few concepts here:
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
(even a mock trial)
* an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
* an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
system
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
(even a mock court)
Once you can differentiate those ideas, you will better be able to
understand my claim and the argument that supports it.
Snit
You seem to be confusing a few concepts here:
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
(even a mock trial)
* an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
* an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
system
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
(even a mock court)
Once you can differentiate those ideas, you will better be able to
understand my claim and the argument that supports it.
------------------
I left one out! A new one from my list:
* being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
(even in a mock trial)
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/4/04 12:50 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/4/04 11:14 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really nothing
>>>>>to
>>>>>directly comment on in the following post.
>>>>
>>>>Red herring: "This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant
>>>>material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is
>>>>diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>>
>>No response.
>
>
> I am not responding you (many) of you logical
> fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.
>
> Does this frustrate you as much as it seems to?
See how you are acting like Josh? He attempted to project his frustrations on me
as well. You've mentioned "frustration" several times. I am not frustrated at
all. I've dealt with your type before.
> As much as the fact that my
> argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted seems to?
Why should your proclaimed status of your unproven argument frustrate me? You
can make all the claims you want. What you seem unable to do is substantiate them.
> I suggest you make this less personal and focus on the argument and the
> refutation attempts.
I am not making this personal. You are. You have even attempted to embarrass me
on two separate occasion by posting bullshit comments about me from other posters.
Prove that you are and answer my question at the bottom of this post with a
valid response.
I honestly didn't spend much time looking at it. It is apparently another of
your side issues. If you wish me to continue to look at your side issues, you
need to explain their relevancy.
More semantic games by Snit.
Your "argument" deals with Constitutional issues. It is a fair question. You
didn't answer it. I will ask it again.
Where is it written in the Constitution that we can kill people after Congress
has authorized the President to use War Powers?
> Either
> that, or you want to go off on some whacked tangent. Either way - not
> biting.
>
Fallacy of Bifurcation.
Quit playing semantic games and making fallacious arguments and answer a very
simple question.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
(snip)
On January 4, 2004 a poster calling himself Snit wrote:
> >> My argument is about how Bush broke US and international law by using force
> >> against Iraq.
> >
> > OK... now we're getting somewhere. So, to be perfectly clear here, you
> > are making a theoretical claim that Bush is guilty of breaking laws in
> > your argument? Laws that are based on the U.S. and international legal
> > systems? Is this what your argument is attempting to argue? Note: I say
> > 'theoretical claim' because reality shows usenet is not a courtroom and
> > we don't want people confusing the two :)
>
> You seem to be confusing a few concepts here:
Actually, you're the one who is confused :-) Reality shows I'm merely
questioning you to clarify what your argument is proposing to argue.
Pretty disingenuous of you to ask people to refute an argument you won't
help them clarify... especially when you said you would answer any and
all questions pertaining to it. Here's the problem you now face: If even
YOU cannot define what you are CALLING your argument (yes... it seems
the issue of whether your argument even IS an argument is now up for
debate) on so basic a level it must not actually be an argument. IOW,
you now have only two choices from which to pick:
1 - Define your argument as it pertains to the clarification question I
asked like you said you would do,(any and all questions)
or
2- Admit that your argument is not an argument at all due to the fact
that even YOU cannot define it.
Steve
Elizabot
I've tried to get him to clarify the ground rules. He won't do it.
He also refuses to define what constitutes "strong support." I asked him point
blank several times.
But he *has* made the statement "A successful refutation would be one that
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/4/04 12:50 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> >> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/4/04 11:14 AM:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Snit wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I generally do not top post, but here I will, for there is really
> >>>> nothing
> >>>> to
> >>>> directly comment on in the following post.
> >>>
> >>> Red herring: "This fallacy is committed when someone introduces
> >>> irrelevant
> >>> material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is
> >>> diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
> >>>
> >>> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
> >
> > No response.
>
> I am not responding you (many) of you logical
> fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.
>
> Does this frustrate you as much as it seems to? As much as the fact that my
> argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted seems to?
Hmmm... this wouldn't be the thing you are CALLING an argument yet
refusing to define what it actually attempts to argue by any chance,
would it? Sorry, that falls outside of the definiton of an argument. To
have an argument you must define what it attempts to argue. If you
cannot do so then you don't have what is considered an argument...
that's called a rant. Just thought you'd like to know:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
If he cannot tell us what his -argument- attempts to argue... he has no
argument... all he has is a rant.
> He also refuses to define what constitutes "strong support." I asked him
> point
> blank several times.
>
> But he *has* made the statement "A successful refutation would be one that
> logically denies mine and does not, itself, have a successful refutation."
>
Well... logic prevents him from making such a statement pertaining to
what he is *calling* his argument. Logic dictates that it's impossible
to get to the refutation stage if he can't explain what the -argument-
seeks to argue. There's simply nothing there to refute :) He knows this
is true... that's why he won't answer the question I asked. All this
other crap is just that... C R A P
Steve
Snit
In those words, nowhere. I am not sure what this has to do with refuting my
argument - care to explain.
Also, is this an attempt to refute it now - before you said you did not want
to. What is your goal here? You seem to be flip flipping. If you want to
do so and again try to refute my argument, I welcome it.
Snit
Um, remember you asked me to define it in 20 words or less. I had 4 left
over. That was today, and you have made references to it so I know you read
it.
Supports my assertion that you do not even try to refute my argument, but do
little but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of
logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).
Snit
should have actually shown that you were not.
Remember asking me what it was in 20 words or less? Remember deciding I may
be right? Sigh....
If you have a refutation you would like to present, present it. If not stop
with the silliness.
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 1/4/04 1:58 PM:
Snit
Snit
Remember your 20 words or less request? Four left over...
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> I see you snipped the places I claimed you were confused.
Of course, it was irrelevant. The only thing I'm confused about is what
the thing you are calling your argument actually seeks to argue. See...
that's why I asked the question you still haven't answered :) So...
you're still left with picking one of the following:
1 - Define your argument as it pertains to the clarification question I
asked like you said you would do,(any and all questions)
or
2- Admit that your argument is not an argument at all due to the fact
that even YOU cannot define it.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
How can there be? You can't even define what you are calling your
argument. You run away like a little schoolgirl when asked what it is.
It's ludicrous of you to expect anyone to refute something you can't
even define. Only an idiot would dream up such bullshit. I guess that's
why we find you standing all alone... dreaming it. LOL!
Steve
Snit
> In article <BC1DF1F1.3945F%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> I see you snipped the places I claimed you were confused.
>
> Of course, it was irrelevant. The only thing I'm confused about is what
> the thing you are calling your argument actually seeks to argue. See...
> that's why I asked the question you still haven't answered :) So...
> you're still left with picking one of the following:
>
> 1 - Define your argument as it pertains to the clarification question I
> asked like you said you would do,(any and all questions)
What questions? The ones in the post where we see that you tentatively
admit I am right?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC090978.3686C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
You seem to not be able to comment on it when I link to it, so I will copy
it for you... below.
> or
>
> 2- Admit that your argument is not an argument at all due to the fact
> that even YOU cannot define it.
Just to make sure you understand what you are talking about, can you be
specific as to which argument you are talking about?
-----
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote on 12/19/03 10:04 AM:
>>> Face it! YOU CAN'T WIN!!!!!!!
>>
>> I already did. Long ago.
>
> These things take time so please forgive us for not acknowledging your
> win before now.
No problem, it is good to see, based on your words here and, in another
post, to Elizabot [1] that you now realize I may have "won" - in other words
that my argument against Bush (referenced below) has not been successfully
and logically refuted.
Will you also disavow all insults that you have thrown my way? Or is this
"new, improved" Steve just a "trick"? Please excuse my skepticism, but you
are the one who has previously claimed you "tricked" me, and have even
stated, about me, "Like I'm really gonna give a shit about breaking my word
to a deviant like yourself... ". I am sure you can see where you have hurt
your credibility.
Also, I think we should note that a "win" for me simply means my argument
has not been successfully refuted (the argument is shown here,
on my web page: http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#case
and on Google:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BBF40FD
3.33995%25snit...@cableone.net&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en).
A "win" for you would mean that you have successfully, based on logic,
refuted my argument (offered a reason based on logic why it cannot be true).
In either case, if one of us were to later find more information, then this
*could* change; that is the nature of a logical argument (as opposed to, for
example, a judicial argument).
> In an effort to validate your win,
Again I notice you acknowledge my "win", though you understandably want to
validate it. Good to see this acknowledgement.
> I'd like to examine a few things you've told the NG while presenting your
> argument as they pertain to the asking of a few simple yes/no questions to see
> exactly how you accomplished this win.
How I accomplished my win is a matter of record on Google, which is what we
can assume you based this conclusion on (either through reading the content
on some news reader or reading it on Google itself). It is interesting to
note that your tentative conclusion that I am right is based on those
previous discussions. Perhaps you spent the time to re-read past posts?
> I will ask a yes/no question and follow it with the condition as it currently
> APPEARS to be. Later, you will be given the opportunity to explain why these
> things are not how they APPEAR... but please stick to the format for the time
> being so any confusion can be avoided during the validation process. ANYTHING
> other than a 'yes' or a 'no' will be immediately rejected.
Your conditions are not accepted.
I can ask you a question such as, "Have you stopped eating elephant poop?"
There is no "Yes" or "No" answer that works. I hope.
Looking below, you are not clear when you use words like "guilt" and "legal
system". There is no clear distinction in your questions between someone
being guilty by actions and someone being found guilty in a court. Nor do
you state if you mean a legal system of laws (which *would not* include the
judicial system), or a legal system of justice (which *would* include the
judicial system).
Please clarify what context you are using those terms, and allow for more
than a yes or no answer. When you do so, perhaps we can more forward on
this (depending on what other conditions you apply).
If my conditions are not acceptable, and we cannot come to an agreement on
what terms should be used to verify our shared belief that I appear to be
right, then let's end this debate (we have argued too much already). We can
just leave it where we are: with the idea that while I appear to be right,
and no clear accurate refutations have been made, there is the logical
possibility that I am wrong.
> 1 - From your perspective, is there any presumption of innocence in your
> argument ? It APPEARS your answer is a 'no'.
>
> 2 - From your perspective, is there any presumption of guilt in your
> argument ? It APPEARS your answer is a 'no'.
>
> 3 - From your perspective, is there NO presumption at all in your
> argument? It APPEARS your answer is a 'yes'.
>
> 4 - From your perspective, given the manner in which you have presented
> your argument and acknowledging item 3 in the affirmative, do your
> actions and your argument comprise a guilt accusation accompanied with a
> refusal to acknowledge defense benefits existent in the very legal
> system that enables the guilt accusation in the argument? It APPEARS
> your answer is 'yes'.
>
> 5 - From your perspective, must 100% positive proof be given for someone
> to be proven innocent? Due to the fact that you believe it CAN'T happen
> with respect to guilt,(see item 6) by YOUR logic, it CAN'T happen with
> respect to innocence, either... so it APPEARS your answer is a 'no'.
>
> 6 - From your perspective, CAN guilt be proven in your argument?
> Realize, we have you on Google saying such a condition can't REALLY ever
> happen. Remember? You used a fun analogy to show us... so it APPEARS
> your answer is a 'no'.
>
> 7 - From your perspective, is proving guilt a necessary component in
> deciding the outcome of your argument? I ask this question because you
> are claiming a win with the full knowledge that you didn't prove
> ANY--THING with respect to your argument. Given your 'win
> proclaimation', it APPEARS your answer is a 'no'.
>
> 8 - From your perspective, is someone guilty merely because the evidence
> 'strongly supports' it? If your challenge was a real challenge, this is
> essentially what you are contending by proclaiming your win... so it
> APPEARS your answer is a 'yes'.
>
>
> The above draws on the assumption that your argument is SEEKING to find
> a person guilty based on the evidence you presented. This MUST be true
> if your challenge was a real challenge. These are the conditions that
> APPEAR to be existent at the time you are proclaiming your win,
> conditions created by you. If some of them APPEAR to be at odds, that
> can only have been created by you. Please clarify, *BELOW* this
> paragpaph, your reasons for why things are not as they APPEAR to be.
> After you answer these, I have one more little list of questions I'd
> like to ask regarding your actions in defense of your argument.
> Remember? You said you'd answer any and all questions so I expect you to
> oblige by starting with the above... but a few more are forthingcoming
> and dependant on the answers here. Speaking only for myself, I have
> every intention of acknowledging your win, I am merely trying to
> validate it first. After all... it's only fair, right? Realize, being
> that you offered your challenge to the entire NG, others may have their
> own list of validation questions that need answering before the award
> ceremony can begin.
>
> Steve
[1] Elizabot stated, to me, "No you didn't [win].", and you responded with,
"Let's not be so hasty 'bot... maybe he did."