Ghosts?

[Pulse]

OK So you admit your years behind and out of touch.

By 'onboard' I meant that the user starts a utility (if not already set to
automatic) and the utility takes care of the updating. The user doesn't
"visit a website" and hasn't for years now. So it's not "the same".

Really, if you are going to spend your time knocking Microsoft Windows 7, at
least know what is going on. Maybe you should find some Windows 7 machine
and actually have a look at what you hate so much so you aren't making
statements so behind the times people wonder if you are a fool. Got it wise
guy?

 

[Pulse]

No one needs to 'visit a website' to do these updates. The utility contacts
a server and grabs the update - no user browsing necessary. hello. But the
point is is that you didn't even know this. You thought it was like Windows
98 where the user visits the website, might have to do a validation check
(what you were chiding Frank about avoiding) and then select the updates
etc. etc. That was over years ago guy. Get with the times. When you are
wrong you are wrong and a check of this thread tells me you were chiding
Frank about avoiding visiting the update website probably because you are
implying his software is a bit hot one way or another.

Anyway, if you are one of these men who can't admit he's ever wrong, just
let me know so I just won't bother with you.

 

[Pulse]

Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Barking Mad]

Al Smith pulled this Usenet boner:


It's no joke.


http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/ge...vation-technologies-update-for-windows-7.aspx

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html

Who Owns Your PC? New Anti-Piracy Windows 7 Update "Phones Home" to
Microsoft Every 90 Days

How long before we get a virus written that flags up legitimate operating
systems as being pirated ? Bets anyone ?

 

[Al Smith]

Wow. Just wow. Let this be a heads up to everyone.

1. Don't configure your Win7 PC to automatically install updates.
2. Manually reject Update KB971033
3. Periodically check to make sure it hasn't been silently installed
behind your back.

The audacity and unmitigated gall of Microsoft never ceases to amaze
me. Even though the update will initially be optional, I fully expect
at some point they will ignore your update preferences and simply push
it out to everyone, as they have done before with XP updates.

I stopped doing Microsoft updates years ago. You can't trust
Microsoft. The only security they care about is their own.

-Al-

 

[Joel]

It's no joke.

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/ge...vation-technologies-update-for-windows-7.aspx

"So, what are the risks of activation exploits? Searching for,
downloading, or installing activation exploits or counterfeit software
on the Internet is risky, because sites that advertise these pirated
products often contain malware, viruses, and Trojans, which are found
bundled with or directly built into the activation exploit or
counterfeit software."


They have a point. Maybe it's simply social responsibility, to "begin
to" (if that TV lingo means anything will actually change - I'm not
holding my breath, to be clear) put a stop to this warez trash on the
Net. It can't get rid of it, to be sure, but what's wrong with giving
people the option to demonstrate their commitment to safe computing?

 

[Char Jackson]

"So, what are the risks of activation exploits? Searching for,
downloading, or installing activation exploits or counterfeit software
on the Internet is risky, because sites that advertise these pirated
products often contain malware, viruses, and Trojans, which are found
bundled with or directly built into the activation exploit or
counterfeit software."


They have a point. Maybe it's simply social responsibility, to "begin
to" (if that TV lingo means anything will actually change - I'm not
holding my breath, to be clear) put a stop to this warez trash on the
Net. It can't get rid of it, to be sure, but what's wrong with giving
people the option to demonstrate their commitment to safe computing?

Didn't those people demonstrate all the necessary commitment when they
bought a copy of Windows? Why should their commitment be open ended?
(Rhetorical, you don't need to answer.)

 

[Joel]

Didn't those people demonstrate all the necessary commitment when they
bought a copy of Windows? Why should their commitment be open ended?

Because it's something that some of us actually feel passionately
about. And, as an optional update, they are clearly not interested in
"cracking" down on warez - someone who is using counterfeit Windows,
presumably without realizing it, would be affected, and might *want*
to know they had been ripped off.

Moreover, as to how this deals with the risks of illegal software
generally, I think it implicitly sets a good example. I don't buy
software I won't use. It's bewildering how typical warez lamers will
install a pirated copy of a commercial application, just to see what
it's like, and add to their "library" of scum-seeping, mildewy
"software". How reckless can one be, to expose his/her system to that
kind of filth, for no meaningful purpose?

 

[Joel]

Of course not because Windows and safe computing just don't compute.

No, *WAREZ* (including that from *counterfeiters*, which is what this
software is targeting) and safe computing don't compute.

 

[Joel]

I hate to bring the truth up but both pirated or genuine Windows and
safe computing don't compute.

If you feel that way, don't use Windows. If you want to make a case
to others not to use it, try being the slightest bit consistent,
instead of trolling with dangerous misinformation, asshole.

There is no difference between a good
pirated copy of Windows and a "genuine" copy other than the activation
crap has been disabled.

Listen, my young non-friend, I know people who have pirated Windows,
who can reasonably be expected to determine the safety of their
sources. I wouldn't do it, personally, but I'm not suggesting that it
*necessarily* will be infected with anything. To suggest that it
isn't possible, however, is irresponsible - and that's what you're
doing, by equating it with legit copies.

BTW, warez disappeared a long time ago. Now it's done by P2P via
torrents. See http://www.thepiratebay.org/ for more information so the
next time you post about this, you don't look like such fool.

So, warez stopped being warez because a new P2P medium was developed.
Very interesting. I sure feel like a fool, not to have made that
amazing leap of (il)logic.

 

[Char Jackson]

Quite the contrary. I use online banking/shopping all the time. I
don't worry, because I secure my system properly. Prevention is the
best medicine.

You said in an earlier post that you don't secure your system *at
all*, but in this post you say you secure your system properly. Are
you referring to two different systems?

 

[Joel]

You said in an earlier post that you don't secure your system *at
all*, but in this post you say you secure your system properly. Are
you referring to two different systems?

Uh, do you mean the earlier post where I said I don't use any
untrustworthy software? It's fun being wrong, isn't it!

 

[Char Jackson]

Because it's something that some of us actually feel passionately
about.

Yes, but how does your passion have anything to do with it? You're
just another user like the rest of us, right? I'm equally passionate,
but I'm 180 degrees opposed to your position. Passionate users have no
bearing here. This was 100% a Microsoft decision, and a bad one at
that.

Moreover, as to how this deals with the risks of illegal software
generally, I think it implicitly sets a good example.

Good example? Wow, we really are 180 degrees out of sync on this.

I don't buy software I won't use.

I flat out don't believe that. The flip side of your statement is that
you use all the software you buy, and anyone who says that simply
isn't being honest. We've all bought software that disappointed us to
some degree. We put it aside, do more homework, buy something else,
and move on.

It's bewildering how typical warez lamers will

I don't pretend to know much about typical warez lamers, but your
description doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Eric Allen]

Warez was the name of a group of hackers who are sitting in jail right
now. No illogic involved, just your ignorance.

and on the usenet rooms of irc wasn't it?

 

[Char Jackson]

Uh, do you mean the earlier post where I said I don't use any
untrustworthy software? It's fun being wrong, isn't it!

No, I mean this:

I run Win7 without UAC, without file-system protection, under a
non-passworded Admin account, without any anti-spyware/malware
software, nor any software firewall.

I don't know if it's fun being wrong, or if you're even wrong at all.
It's more like foolish than wrong, if you ask me.

 

[Eric Allen]

Yep, both of them.

at least my memory is still somewhat working

 

[Joel]

Like what, pray tell?

You had stated that legal or pirated Windows were both equally unsafe.
Now you've admitted that it takes "a good pirated copy". Of course,
that *still* doesn't really address the basic point. No matter how
careful one is about what warez they install, it's at least *a tiny
bit* more dangerous than legal for-profit software.

Warez was the name of a group of hackers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez


Looks like you need to update Wikipedia with your wealth of knowledge
about this group of fine human beings. It's a shame that only you
seem to have such inside info.

who are sitting in jail right
now.

Oh, well, I *definitely* want to get this "info" straight! ROFL! How
proud all the warez groups must be, to have such brave freedom
fighters sacrificing their rights and dignity, and/or anal virginity,
to the righteous cause of stealing from programmers who work 80+ hour
weeks.

No illogic involved, just your ignorance.

Once again, kiddie, the "fool" and "ignorant" labels are getting
mirrored right back to ya. Why are you getting so sidetracked on
warez, anyway? It's so totally not relevant to the Linux vs. MS
debate. I think you occasionally make some decent posts about Linux,
but all the trolling, and bullshitting about warez, casts a shadow on
that.

 

[Joel]

No, I mean this:

Yeah, I know that's the cherry-picked post that you meant. My point
is that you cherry-picked it.

I don't know if it's fun being wrong, or if you're even wrong at all.
It's more like foolish than wrong, if you ask me.

I used to use an anti-malware program, before XP SP2 (with 9x/2K, and
XP RTM/SP1). There just isn't enough of a reason, anymore (although,
that is speaking for me - I'm not *discouraging* the use of security
software).

 

[Char Jackson]

Yeah, I know that's the cherry-picked post that you meant.

I knew you knew, and you still made me go back and get it. *sigh*

 

[Char Jackson]

Well, neither one of us are required to install this update.

Not at first, no, but will it surprise anyone when MS silently ignores
a person's update preferences and installs it anyway? They've done it
before, and this is an excellent candidate for them to do it again.

I know there's no real point to installing it,

That's probably the only thing we've agreed on so far.

since I know where I got my
license from, and what I've done with it since. I still will install
it, though, because I want to demonstrate in any way I can how
committed I am to discouraging the use of pirated software.

Demonstrate to who?

I have used all the software I've bought until it was outdated/
unnecessary/replaced (or am still using it, in the case of many
programs - for example this newsreader, which I have licenses for four
out of five of the newer versions of, but prefer this old one for text
groups). Why would I buy it until I had a use for it?

I raise the BS flag.

<snipped mini-rant about 'warez' and people who supposedly promote it>

You're definitely passionate, I don't think anyone will argue that.