Microsoft's new product activation policy threat
George Chapman
during product activations eg. for Outlook.
It would appear that you have the choice of activating on the net or by
phone verbally. However even if by phone you are required to give them some
very long encrypted message (presumably mapped to your current h/w config
ONLY???--right).
They could encrypt anything in that key..!!!
Thanks.
George
motar
<gfch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>They could encrypt anything in that key..!!!
>
>Thanks.
>George
You answered your own question.
Mti
a75er
><gfch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> They could encrypt anything in that key..!!!
> You answered your own question.
I heard a rumour that if a webcam is found to
be connected to the box during product activation,
a snapshot is taken and that too is forwarded to
Redmond.
Apparently, Bill has compiled a rogues gallery of
people who install his software in the buff.
ZKL
"a75er" <a7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3o416a...@4ax.com...
motar
On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 07:29:30 GMT, "ZKL" <alf...@picknowl.com.au>
wrote:
>Register the product by phone as i did
Can we use your phone to do it? They might use caller ID.
Mti
infospy
motar <mo...@motar.corn> wrote in message
news:3c84a25c...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
George Chapman
(files types etc) they encrypt in those keys you must read off to them.
"infospy" <inf...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:u89n2d4...@corp.supernews.com...
anon
crap? Is there a substantial amount of necessary software that requires xp to
run? Are there features of xp that are so important you would pledge your
dog's life to Microsoft? In short, why bother?
MOTAR the imperious
>Is there any good reason to "upgrade" to xp, if it means dealing with this
>crap? Is there a substantial amount of necessary software that requires xp to
>run? Are there features of xp that are so important you would pledge your
>dog's life to Microsoft? In short, why bother?
We are paving a way to reliance on the unreliable.
Mti
MOTAR's home site:
http://www.angelfire.com/rock/motar/index.html
ZKL
I am using xp at the moment and i use many programs written
for Ms dos, windows 3.5, 95, 98 and 2000
"Anonymous" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:JJU1PVNO3732...@anonymous.poster...
> On Tue, 05 Mar 2002, anon <an...@ymous.mil> wrote:
> >Is there any good reason to "upgrade" to xp, if it means dealing with
this
> >crap? Is there a substantial amount of necessary software that requires
xp to
> >run? Are there features of xp that are so important you would pledge
your
> >dog's life to Microsoft? In short, why bother?
>
> No, there is no reason, at least for me. I run 3 machines, all of them on
> WIN98SE, and there they'll stay. I completely skipped ME/2000, and you
> couldn't convince me to use XP with a cattle prod and rubber bullets.
>
> I haven't run across any XP-Only software yet, although I'm sure it's
> coming (from Micro$loth, no doubt), but there will always be an
> alternative.
>
> And one last thought, I'm not pledging my dog's life to anyone or
anything,
> least of all MS. He's my best buddy, my faithful hound, my constant
> companion. Screw Gates. Let him buy his OWN dog.
MOTAR the imperious
wrote:
>Hello
>
> I am using xp at the moment and i use many programs written
>for Ms dos, windows 3.5, 95, 98 and 2000
That point was established. It was also speculated that as of yet, no
Microsoft software on the market ~requires~ XP to run it. In other
words, If XP isn't required, why voluntarilly use it?
MOTAR the imperious
<harr...@limenet.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 06:36:10 GMT, "ZKL" <alf...@picknowl.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>:) I am using xp at the moment
>
>You have my sympathies.
>
>
>--
>
>© 2002
>}{arry £ime
But don't you love the new graphics which have the feel and look which
is suitable for a five year old? Ooooh! Bright green and blue. You
click on the windows and they move! Wow!
ZKL
it is based on Unix.
I have a program caled Ad-aware which stops any program
from phoning home, i recently installed a newer version of
real audio and download which put 10 entries into the register
ad-aware removed them all.
"Harry Lime" <harr...@limenet.invalid> wrote in message
news:57oc8u04mfktlvori...@4ax.com...
MOTAR the imperious
wrote:
>I have Xp installed works fine does not lockup like 95, 98
>it is based on Unix.
>
>I have a program caled Ad-aware which stops any program
> from phoning home, i recently installed a newer version of
>real audio and download which put 10 entries into the register
>ad-aware removed them all.
That is silly. You are concerned about spyware, but you use software
that extracts serial numbers from your hardware and sends it back to
Microsoft based on the assumption you just *might* do something
illegal.
MOTAR will use Microsoft's logic in an analogy....
Please send MOTAR immediately a list of ALL the video tapes you own
and keep the list updated as you buy new titles because you or someone
in your home might one day pop some child porn into your VCR and
violate federal law. If you do not send the list, your VCR will not be
allowed to view VCR tapes.
It's nice that Bill Gates not only has the money and potential to
*buy* favorable legislation, but he can enforce the copyright laws
himself and everyone just says "wow, that's not good" and accepts it.
The world is filled with mindless sheep. MOTAR hopes they all find a
better sheppard than Bill.
George Chapman
"ZKL" <alf...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$os0lsg$xm8$1...@maggie.netlink.com.au...
> I have Xp installed works fine does not lockup like 95, 98
> it is based on Unix.
>
> I have a program caled Ad-aware which stops any program
> from phoning home,
about Messenger/netmeeting) the latter of which you would expect to connect
to internet and yet might tunnel encrypted messages back to "Satan". Find me
a sniffer or anything that will stop that strategy!!!!
George Chapman
I, sadly, agree with your thinking...I don't think the rest of the sheep
have woken up!
How the h... do you prevent this shit??
"MOTAR the imperious" <mo...@motar.corn> wrote in message
news:3c86de9b...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
anon
why feed the monster at all?
MOTAR the imperious
<gfch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Motar,
>I, sadly, agree with your thinking...I don't think the rest of the sheep
>have woken up!
>How the h... do you prevent this shit??
Education, vocal chords and a spine.
MOTAR the imperious
>Just slightly missing the point. If it is not necessary to "upgrade" to xp,
>why feed the monster at all?
1) There is no need.
2) Windows has a selling point known as "product awareness". This
benefit gives their product "momentum". It can continue for a long
time with that alone. People will not easily exchange what they know
for what they do not know.
3) You are not given an option to use older operating systems at all
when a brand new prepackaged assembly line computer is built for the
mass market. Go tell Dell or Gateway you want Windows 95 or FreeBSD.
They will probably laugh at you.
4) Windows has security flaws which are resolved with each version.
Windows XP *should* be more secure than older version.... just not
more secure from Microsoft.
5) There is no need.
You are going to see other operating systems mature enough that
average users can get all the core features they want and need without
Microsoft. When that happens, reliance on Microsoft will start to
fade. Windows XP was a step towards all the mistakes which left Mac
having a bad competitive start. If you ask most Microsoft users who
have knowledge of other systems why they use Microsoft... it is
because of the software titles available.
Blue Bird
in VMS - the NT family which XP is the indirect decendent of. The Win9x
family is decended from DOS with a GUI stuck on top.
Win2000 is also very stable and is probably the last WinOS I'll use. I'll
get XP to learn how to support it but run W2K for my desktop (or FreeBSD).
FYI the new Mac OS - OS X is based on a Unix like kernel (mach) and is the
best desktop Unix around.
"ZKL" <alf...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$os0lsg$xm8$1...@maggie.netlink.com.au...
MOTAR the imperious
wrote:
>Small point - NONE of Microsoft's OS's are based on Unix.
Evidence seems to support that some windows components are vulnerable
to some very specific flaws which mirror flaws that are present in
software designed for Unix based systems. It is reasonable to assume
that Windows borrowed the imperfect code rather than mysteriously
creating the same exact defects from scratch on their own.
Evidence also supports that Bill Gates does not have a history of
being innovative. He made his money borrowing ideas that were already
conceived.
Perhaps your debate hinges on semantics. If FreeBSD and Linux are
based on Unix and Microsoft borrowed any code from any of those
systems... then Microsoft has based aspects of their OS on Unix.
Stephen K. Gielda
blue...@coldmail.com says...
> Small point - NONE of Microsoft's OS's are based on Unix. Some have roots
> in VMS - the NT family which XP is the indirect decendent of. The Win9x
> family is decended from DOS with a GUI stuck on top.
>
>
I think some of the components grew out of BSD stuff. I forget if it
was the ip stack or command.com that contained comments in the source
that were straight from BSD.
/steve
--
Stephen K. Gielda
http://www.cotse.com
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it."
-- Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
Blue Bird
virtual clones on Unix commands. But the core is what's usually referred to
when deciding whether an OS is based on another OS or not. Windows' core is
not based on Unix or Mach but NT does have architectural features from VMS
which is not surprising since the head of the NT program was the main leader
of the VMS program at DEC.
"Blue Bird" <blue...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:cJcm8.80895$ZR2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
George Henry
: Yes and there are several command line applications in Windows that are
: virtual clones on Unix commands. But the core is what's usually referred to
: when deciding whether an OS is based on another OS or not. Windows' core is
: not based on Unix or Mach but NT does have architectural features from VMS
: which is not surprising since the head of the NT program was the main leader
: of the VMS program at DEC.
possibly more OS/2 than Unix..
--
g
John C. Ring, Jr.
>Yes and there are several command line applications in Windows that are
>virtual clones on Unix commands. But the core is what's usually referred to
>when deciding whether an OS is based on another OS or not. Windows' core is
>not based on Unix or Mach but NT does have architectural features from VMS
>which is not surprising since the head of the NT program was the main leader
>of the VMS program at DEC.
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=4494&pg=2 gives enough
details for most anyone that's interested...
Doc.Cypher
On Tue, 02 Apr 2002, Dave Martel <no...@nospam123.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:27:47 GMT, "Blue Bird" <blue...@coldmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Yes and there are several command line applications in Windows that are
>>virtual clones on Unix commands. But the core is what's usually referred to
>>when deciding whether an OS is based on another OS or not. Windows' core is
>>not based on Unix or Mach but NT does have architectural features from VMS
>>which is not surprising since the head of the NT program was the main leader
>>of the VMS program at DEC.
>
>Said leader also resigned because MS kept wanting to throw away
>security and stability for gee-whiz features. The last straw was when
>MS overrode him and moved graphics code into ring0.
>
>Microsoft is very good at creating poor imitations.
I thought Dave Cutler was still at Microsoft.
And, to be really picky about the NT pre-history, Cutler rewrote the VMS
kernel in C as part of a project called Mica. When Digital canned the
project he quit and went to M$ where a surprisingly large quantity of Mica
code turned up in NT. I'll admit, from the reminising on comp.os.vms about
his time at Digital I can just imagine how well he took the mixing of the
GUI and the kernel. If they hadn't done that then NT would probably have
been as reliable as VMS.
Doc.
- --
The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it.
~ Phineas Taylor Barnum. http://vmsbox.cjb.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPKo38sriC3SGiziTAQEJhgf9EzTqC7tucJ7m+esEwD9Y6KlzTBU9dvjy
UhE30eqwW7bdcbPBh/b3HaKWFGg7L2t0UJqk9Gl3P9JQVCFcvzfgPn/a0t4f4EsF
qvslBpD0F4oyzqqFHF+3/SUFylH03EmK80BoZ8X/5Cvi4owVBOblpsDx8PW6/szj
6tdehe2XS4IBfEbAQE4Wo+ruE3y7/jxki23ZYFt2pTSwvln0dT00XHsCqCWpoU+2
UNBUGiuS1ikB+D9l1ceXzlUCTgK7Nq8e/znI0N1KmFF3HXQihjKl16uXtLwaJHu+
rnUABn4FSNiAaN4NWziL1ICHmZly1tL+HBtic48jyGi57s7QOBVihA==
=Ndrh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Blue Bird
direction that the main frame companies used - leasing the software and
requiring an ongoing fee to keep it up to date and working. The obvious
problem is that the old main frames had lots of IT people to support it. In
today's world a W2K server may be sitting in a real estate office's closet
and they don't want to even think about it - just do their email, webbing,
running offers and mortgage sheets etc. Unless MS comes up with a way to
remotely maintain systems that's reliable and cheap I think they'll end up
having to back off on the licensing model.
those who know me have no need of my name
>Back to product activation.
>Unless MS comes up with a way to remotely maintain systems that's reliable
>and cheap I think they'll end up having to back off on the licensing
>model.
they've already made steps in that direction, at least with regard to
licensing / activations, present in nt, 2000 and xp.
--
bringing you boring signatures for 17 years
MOTAR the imperious
wrote:
Unless MS comes up with a way to
>remotely maintain systems that's reliable and cheap I think they'll end up
>having to back off on the licensing model.
Never underestimate the resources or stupidity of corporate America.