Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption (warning: long rant follows)

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 14 February 2006 21:05, Jeff Vian wrote:
>On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 11:16 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Tuesday 14 February 2006 09:46, John Pierce wrote:
>> ><<This week, we're dealing with Microsoft's Antispyware Beta -
>> >in recent updates, it has definitions that ferret out parts of
>> > Norton Antivirus as malicious, and ask to remove it!!! If someone
>> > clicks yes, it takes registry hacking to get back ->>
>> >
>> >Claude, if possible, you should document what this is doing and
>> > hang on to it.  Could be useful by the DOJ.
>>
>> By now, referenceing these mailing lists in general, this is a well
>> known problem since the last update by M$.  Since they've a
>> reputation for such tricks, I'd have to assume that these reports of
>> registry trashing are true, and thats its 100% intentional since M$
>> wants to sell their own version of Norton et all.
>>
>> Just another reason why any M$ product that is not required to run
>> the machine, is ruthlessly hunted down and exterminated here.  Even
>> the dos I use when I need to use a dos is drdos.  No windows
>> machines allowed on the premises, and never has been since forever. 
>> 90% of the time, the cd that comes with a new toy device I might
>> buy, is never inserted into the cd drive.
>>
>> The DOJ was right, but Bush didn't want to see the business
>> disruption that brstepper_incheaking up the cartel could generate.  
And that
>> WON'T change till Bush is gone.  I vote independent, and I voted for
>> somebody else the last time, so don't blame me.
>
>I think if you look at dates, the action to squash the anti-trust
>settlement was well underway while the previous president was still in
>office.  You cannot blame the current leader (in any organization) for
>things done before he took the position (although he should be willing
>to correct what is wrong).

Sitting out here in the wilds of West Virginia, with only limited 
coverage by the media of something they obviously didn't understand, 
but excellent network connectivity, it was not until Bush was sworn in 
that the DOJ was flat told to drop it.  I do believe that noises had 
been made in the DOJ offices that they knew which way the wind was 
going to be blowing shortly, and there was quite a bit of foot dragging 
and outright digging in of heels, simply because they knew conditions 
in the white house were changing & then they'd have to back-track, so 
they sat and shuffled and resorted papers until...

>Yes, I am extremely frustrated that things are on the track they are,
>but it comes from within all levels of politics as well.

Which is why we often quote the bumper sticker that says "clean house, 
senate too".

Incumbents that have outlived their democratic government principals 
enthusiasm that made them politicians in the first place, seem to be 
super glued to those $2k chairs come election time.  We truely need a 
fresh start, maybe in all 3 branches.  Fortunately, I believe the next 
president might counter the direction shift that we may see in the next 
term of the court as he will get to appoint at least one according to 
the statistical chances of all of those 9 living for his tenure, doubly 
so if the next one gets re-elected, which seems to be our style in 
recent history unless he turns out to be truely worthless.  I'm not 
convinced that Harry was right to set a two term limit only for the 
presidency.  I'd like to see it set to 3 for the house, and 2 for the 
senate.  I truely believe democracy would be a lot better off.

I happen to like Bobby Bird, but I'm also well aware that the country 
couldn't survive with 99 others like him dishing out pork like FEMA has 
been doing for 30 years that I know of.  OTOH, we wouldn't have any 
roads here without him.  Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, 
there seems to be little middle ground.

>M$ makes sure to butter the proper persons/organizations.  Look at
> what was done when Windows98 was being released.  M$ had two registry
> keys that allowed themselves and the NSA to access any machine on the
> internet that ran 98.  It was only when that was identified during
> the beta testing and made public that they were forced to acknowledge
> the fact less than 3 months before release.  Microsoft then agreed to
> remove the access but it has not stopped their attempts to intrude
> and make you play by their rules.

As we've abundantly noticed.  If you or I did that, we'ed be in jail.

>The latest attempt that is presently in progress is the TCP (trusted
>computing platform) chips they are working (with others) to get
>installed on motherboards.  The TCP chips will be used to assist in
>forcing DRM compliance among other things.  What I find most
> threatening here is the restrictions on what processors can be used
> with that chip.

Yeah, that miscarrige the MPAA has bought, should be treated like what 
it is, something to be buried.  Without any services to honour its 
memory...  Crap like that will, as we both know, only bother the honest 
people.  The dishonest will quickly find a way around it and go merrily 
on their way, penalties be damned.

-- 
Cheers John, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.