Maybe I should install another hard drive for downloading all these updates..and Vista has bot been released...lol.lol

Seriously, I got a USB memory key with all of em--anything from the DCOM95 to IE 5.5SP2 with updates and all the IE6SP1 updates and SP2 and updates. Not to mention Office 97 SR-2a and updates, 2000 SR-1 and SP3, OfficeXP SP3, (don't have or use or see many office 2003's) and NT 4.0 SP6a and SP6 cumulative update, as well as Windows 98 and ME updates and Windows 2000 SP4 and Security Rollup 2. Here's some more to add to my "super-update" drive...

I was not being serious. I am merely concerned with these redundant updates. The only one that has any value is " the malicious software removal tool".Having been an Apple fanatic for so long , I have been spoiled by the the stability of their Operating System.Of course few hackers bother to attack Apple.We are a silent minority.

Your concern has been duly noted.

So you guys are singing an opera again about Linux and Windows and FreeBSD and MACH - again.
what has all this opera to do with the above article?

What kind of sense does this make, anyway?

This is about MS providing those who want it with their latest patchwork. Say "thanx" or just leave it.

by pass all this Micro$oft crap and use Apple's tiger o/s or any Linux o/s.feel the freedom !!

Is that a subtle way of suggesting that people should use the OS that they are most comfortable with?

If so, I am inclined to point out that some people aren't comfortable with any of the choices and end up choosing the products that are the "lesser of evils" (in their mind).

I am also inclined to point out that freedom is a relative term. What defines freedom to you is obviously different from mine. :)

Yes, I agree. While I recognize the superb quality of OSX 10.4 or above, I've seen my Uncle use it and tried my hand. It lacks the things I love(hotkeys!...instant searches...log files, etc.)

With windows I can search for a file in less than two seconds, and until XP Win+R opened the run box that I use so often.

I think I wouldn't actually mind commandline stuff all that much, assuming I still had that directory popup from the run box.

Check your facts. There are many updates to the Tiger OS alone:
http://www.apple.com/sup...s/macosxupdate1044.html
And keep checking... Redhat 3 - More than all of the current MS Operating Systems combined.
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel3es-errata.html
Blah, Blah, Blah - You really need to stop speaking passionately and start speaking knowledgably. Hiding false knowledge behind a pocket protector will only get you half the distance. You need to come prepared.

iDMan Out

Thanks, but no thanks. I like MS.

What wait for Tuesday? Give me then when they are done.

Become a Microsoft Premier partner. They get them for beta testing and every step of the way. They all sign NDA's however and they are rarely leaked.

Many updates like KB896256 aren't even available on Microsoft web site even if you own an original Windows license and you pass the spyware checking on you (and probably doing more than just checking if your copy is legit, I bet...---just like they claim that WPA doesn't collect info on people, yeah sure...).
Fortunately hardware manufacturers don't care too much about Microsoft and so they put hotfixes like KB896256 (new kernel fixing SMP issues) freely available on their sites so that any customer could use them without being scanned or having to phone anyone and give an explanation of why the patch is needed.
All this insane Microsoft Activation spy on people policy affects not only single PC users but even businesses and multinational groups nowadays. And I see too many IT technicians simply relying on Windows Update to get all the hotfixes installed instead of creating both slipstreamed versions of the installation CDs wherever possible and silent install batch scripts.

Why do you use Microsoft products period if you don't trust them? Kinda hipocritical of you to claim they spy on you using some software, but not others, yet you still use it. Go run linux and stop crying a river.

Microsoft's activation thing is a little worrying, but I doubt their spying on people.

On another note, I just downloaded the latest updates for my LT's Windows XP home... and it caused Explorer to stop working... I had to use System restore to undo the updates....

What's up with that? :(

Geez. The silly "use Linux" claim... use Linux for what ? To say "I am PC wizard, a genius becuase I use a Unix thing" ?

Also, if people really knew a bit of Unix they would be using FreeBSD,that's true Unix, and not a lame Linux hack with all its anarchy and communistic way of developing things that just don't work thanks to the insane "open source" "GNU" and "GPL" communistic derived propaganda things and rules that are just silly and pathetic.

The only reason why free Unixes, Linux being the first, spread out in the business market and web hosting was to avoid paying legit royalties to Unix brand owners in the industry. That was a way to steal a Unix and claim that by being free it was better for the poors and so on. A bunch of lies, that's what it was. It only allowed a capitalistic market to change into a pseudo capitalistic one with a communistic mentality against any royalty and the need to buy the license to start a web hosting service. Over the years web scripts for servers got more expensive in some case than any other OS Unix license, it's a business market on drugs, it's not a true capitalistic market. Capitalism applies only when some groups want to steal some money and commit frauds, that's not good, at all. It's insane that people claim copyright and sue others on open source software. This whole system just created a lot of confusion worldwide, it was made to mine the right to defend your own work and not make your code public in the first place, claiming that the source must be shared -- well, that's even worse than spying on people, that's a way to destroy competition, to let Companies steal from others without even need to spy on them if it's worth doing that because a lot of open source code it's just pure garbage, the majority of it is pure garbage actually.

"Also, if people really knew a bit of Unix they would be using FreeBSD,that's true Unix, and not a lame Linux hack with all its anarchy and communistic way of developing things that just don't work thanks to the insane "open source" "GNU" and "GPL" communistic derived propaganda things and rules that are just silly and pathetic."

This is just a stab at humor right? Surely you couldn't be that umm well, you know.

Hmm, I just read the rest. You really don't have a clue.

I bet you are a Linux/Open Source fanatic that can't accept the truth. Well, keep claiming whatever you want, not only Linux is what allows Microsoft to exist as a monopoly but the insane GNU/GPL and Open Source communistic propaganda mined the market and any possible competition, it killed OS/2 as well as it killed any real commercial UNIX version to crack the Microsoft monopoly.
Bill Gates best allies are those behind Linux that even don't understand to be using a technically inferior UNIX.
AIX is a real Unix, SCO, Sun and FreeBSD have real UNIXes. Linux is everything and nothing of Unix. Its propaganda is that it's like the Holy Grail when in fact it's far from that.

Anyone with a bit of knowledge of UNIXes would easily understand why Apple (which is Microsoft anyway) used FreeBSD to make Mac OS X and not Linux, just like Microsoft is using FreeBSD code inside NT (which is VMS inside--an OS pretty similar to UNIXes).

Torvalds produced an hack of UNIX which is Linux. FreeBSD derived from real research on UNIX since the beginning by those that made commercial UNIXes for Multinational groups like IBM.

Actually, fewt is one of the more reasonable and intelligent posters on these forums. Like me, he has a tendency of pointing out the flaws in people's arguments. That I've seen, fewt is a strong supporter of things that make sense, and I've seen him both support and criticize both sides of the fence based on the actual information being presented, not by prejudice of a company.

That being said, thanks for your regurgitation of computer history 101, but what does it have to do with the article about security flaws, or about fewt or mjm's suggestion that people shouldn't be hypocrites by using a product that they claim to hate.

LOL

"Open Source fanatic" - How about you back your ill-informed spew with some links to prove your opinions as fact.

Apple didn't "use FreeBSD" to make OSX they used Mach which is a fork related to FreeBSD. Go look at the Unix timeline and educate yourself.

They did use FreeBSDs "services" model, but the core technology is Mach.

"The most widely-sold UNIX-based operating system, Mac OS X offers a unique combination of technical elements to the discerning geek, such as fine-grained multithreading, Mach 3.0 microkernel, FreeBSD services, tight hardware integration and SMP-safe drivers, as well as zero configuration networking. Tiger’s state-of-the-art kernel features improved SMP scalability and 64-bit virtual memory, while standards-based access control lists take UNIX permissions to the next level."

- http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

Anyone with 1/2 a unix brain knows that Linux and Unix go hand in hand and work extremely well together. Most corporations are adopting Linux at an alarming rate to replace their aging Unix systems, why? One large reason is the cost of O&M support. For 1/2 the price of a years maintenence on a big iron system a faster Linux system can be purchased to replace it. With minimal effort, code can be moved over and the unix server gets retired. I've seen it happen time and time again.

How about you provide some documented evidence that Linux is inferior to Unix instead of just telling me that you know it is. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you were recently laid off and your mission system converted to Linux. Maybe you should consider learning and adopting it before it does happen if it hasn't yet.

I have more than just a little bit of knowledge in for example Unix (Solaris,HP-UX, AIX) Unix *LIKE* (FreeBSD) and Linux (Pick one). I can walk into any company in the world and immediately begin helping them no matter what their issue. How do I know? Well I've spent many years doing just that for companys much larger than you can imagine.

Linux is where it's all headed (when talking Unix), go ahead and hate Linux, like anyone cares. It's just more money for those of us that aren't ignorant of reality.

Linus did NOT produce a hack of Unix, he wrote Linux from scratch because he didn't want to buy a Minux license.

How about you educate yourself at least a LITTLE bit before you spew your hatred.

FreeBSD is not Unix, it is Unix LIKE. It's based on BSD 4.4 which WAS unix - seven core files.

It's not even certified as a Unix incase you weren't aware.
- http://www.opengroup.org...fication/registers.html

Hey, thanks. :-)

Besides what's been pointed out by fewt, you just completely read over my post! I don't care what OS you use, operating system fanatics are silly, (I use about 80% windows and the rest Linux, I don't have time in life to learn anything else to an expert level,) you use what you need to get stuff done, and you balance political and economic forces to do so. I'm just pointing out that it's hipocritical to kvetch about MS as being untrustworthy, yet still use their OS's? Everyone knows MS restricts the source like a hawk (less now than in the past,) and why would you use a product you don't trust or can't be sure to trust? I'm not arguing is MS, linux, or freeBSD is superior because of their models, but at the least you can examine the latter two and see for yourself.

---------
LINUX is obsolete

* Subject: LINUX is obsolete
* From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
* Date: 29 Jan 92 12:12:50 GMT
* Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
* Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

http://www.educ.umu.se/~.../obsolete/msg00000.html

---------

http://www.dina.dk/~abra...Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html

----

The Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate

http://www.sindominio.ne...urces-html/node137.html

----

http://ezine.daemonnews.org/199909/freebsd.html

"FreeBSD is a Linux Clone"
FreeBSD is not a Linux clone. In many ways, Linux is a FreeBSD clone. FreeBSD and Linux are indeed similar. They are based on Unix and given away for free. Linux was developed by an undergraduate student at the University of Helsinki to correct the flaws of Minix. However, FreeBSD is based on the 4.4BSD distribution of Unix from the University of California at Berkeley released in 1994. Prior to 1994, BSD development was funded by the United States Department of Defense for nearly 15 years. The early BSD work involved adding virtual memory to Unix, the C Shell, and vi in the late 1970s. The first widely used TCP/IP stack was included in 4.2BSD and was reused in dozens of other operating systems.

FreeBSD continues in the tradition of the Berkeley by offering a simple, stable, powerful, advanced, yet free implementation of the Unix environment.
-------

LOL quote articles from 1992, and from a single man whose opinion was obviously debatable.

That's pretty good.

What are you going to do for your next trick, use smoke and mirrors?

Good grief! Why don't you just search for a workaround for your fearing problem? Go to Google and search for "Windows.Genuine.Advantage.Validation.v1.4.393.0.". That should lay your fears to rest . . .

You have no arguments to reply with and so you insult people. You claim to be the smartest and best one around, that's pretty pathetic. You should try being a bit humble sometime and try to understand what others you don't agree with say.

Wait, wait, wait! (LOL) Are you sure you want him to use GOOGLE? Yeah, they don't spy on what you are doing.

Is he bleeding after that beating? I think I saw some things flying here and the screaming was pretty intense.

Most likely - Spyware or adware.

What's there to argue?

"1.1. What is FreeBSD?

Briefly, FreeBSD is a UNIX® like operating system for the Alpha/AXP, AMD64 and Intel® EM64T, i386™ IA-64, PC-98, and UltraSPARC® platforms based on U.C. Berkeley's “4.4BSD-Lite” release, with some “4.4BSD-Lite2” enhancements. It is also based indirectly on William Jolitz's port of U.C. Berkeley's “Net/2” to the i386, known as “386BSD”, though very little of the 386BSD code remains. A fuller description of what FreeBSD is and how it can work for you may be found on the FreeBSD home page."

- http://www.freebsd.org/d...on.html#WHAT-IS-FREEBSD

Didn't I say "Unix like"?

The market speaks for itself. You can't take one mans opinion from more than 10 years ago and use it as a fact. Sure Tanenbaum thought Linux was obsolete so what.

IBM, HP, SUN, and many other fortune companies think quite the opposite. Who's right?

Not you.

When did I say that I was the smartest or best one around?

Hey, check it out there's your smoke and mirrors.

You've got nothin.

Have a nice day.

LOL

IBM , HP , SUN all lost a lot of money on Linux projects.
IBM didn't trash their real Unix that's AIX in favour of an inferior hack like Linux. IBM surely got too many issues thanks to its management in the last few years but fortunately they put Linux in the cheap, low-end market segments. They would go bankrupt if they would trash AIX in favour of Linux.
Red Hat lost a lot of money on Linux, Novell it's not making huge profits on Linux either.

The only real success for Linux is with web hosting services that use it to avoid buying any commercial Unix, that's the reason why they started using it in the first place. However those services using FreeBSD are far more realiable than the ones using Linux if they got technicians and coders that know what they are doing.

With all the money put on the Linux project by multinational groups nowadays it should have got 50% of the desktop market with some real hardware support at the driver and API level. Instead it didn't simply because with anarchy and communistic ideas you don't create market segments, you can steal money but you don't do anything else. And in fact it didn't do anything better than that so far and it simply won't.
It's great for IT multinational managers to push the hype on Linux, GPL and so on to look good and for the people (at least those thinking that Linux will save them from Bill Gates' monopoly) but that's it. Nothing more than that.

PROOF, where is it?

You keep posting your lies and have yet to back ANYTHING up with anything more than mere opinions.

You surely are so humble when you reply to people. Whatever you say it's the word of a IT-wizard and absolutely true, whatever other people reply you or point you at must be lies and mere opinions.
Yeah, right. You are the best one around, you are a genius. That's great but it doesn't change reality a single bit not how the market works.

---
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/21161.html

----

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/46619/

"Aside from the general unwillingness of VC's to invest in startups, Linux is a no go. Many factors come into play with the primary lack of an exit strategy topping the list. When will Linux companies see the light at the end of the tunel? Or will they?

The $40 million or so Novell paid for Ximian got Boston area VC's Charles River and Battery Ventures out of a sour looking Linux investment in August 2003. Other venture capitalists from angels to the mega-billion dollar funders like Kleiner Perkins may have felt a little envy. They all found themselves in a game of musical chairs when the band stopped playing in 2001. In retrospect those days seem akward.

With Red Hat looking like a potential institutional stock and Novell peeping around the corner again, one might think that Linux companies would have a chance at serious financing. Don't count on it. Venture Capital firms have little to no interest in Linux.

While they might invest in a law firm intending to sue for patent infringements, their current interest in open source company fundings doesn't couple with Linux per se. IBM's acquisition of Gluecode Software, an open source developer of business infrastructure started a mini-shuffle in California a few months back. Then some financing rounds for Funambol and Jaspersoft got the press hot and bothered.

Those deals did not involve Linux distributors. If you want to make money with Linux you'll have to find a way to create a real business that generates revenue and cash flow. You might get a few meetings by visiting VC's but that's the most you can expect. " [..]

----------

"In 2004, the Linux market – including servers, software, and services -- was $3B growing at 32% a year. Since 1999, Linux has been the fastest growing server operating system. The only other one that’s growing is Windows but Linux is growing four times faster than Windows. There are currently 1.3 million Linux servers.

But IBM’s Linux business has grown faster than the market’s 32%. IBM requires all 14 divisions to include a portion of that growth in their business objectives. IBM’s Linux server business is growing at eight times the rate of the server market. "

- http://www.itnetcentral....&info=Computerworld

" A surge in new sales helped Red Hat, the top seller of the Linux operating system, to a net income of $5 million and revenue that grew 43 percent to $37 million for its most recent quarter."

- http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5178057.html

"Research Report Reveals New Facts on Linux Management that Show TCO Superior to Windows"

- http://biz.yahoo.com/prn...60213/sfm034.html?.v=39

Lets not forget Novell only recently purchased Ximian and SUSE. You can't buy two companies and turn a profit overnight.

"HP's Linux Sales Reach $2.5 Billion in 2003"
- http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32619.html

Companies all over the fortune map are lowering their TCO by moving off of Unix to Linux.

Believe whatever you want, I really don't care.

You can take your lies and FUD and head on home kiddo why waste them here when no one believes you?

You take only what you like from articles to prove your point and then you claim that what others say and point to must be all lies. Unfortunately the market doesn't work based on what you and other Linux/OpenSource fanatics like or claim.
Serious business analysis tells the truth about Linux and how much it is a failure overall.

LOL more lies and FUD.

have a nice day.

How about giving us a Service Pack 3 Tuesday. All these updates are starting to pile up.

9 months? eh right

So where is the fix for USB 2.0 devices slurping up power on laptops?

Interesting, I have no problems with my USB devices on my system. You might try an updated driver from your system board vendor.

http://www.reghardware.c.../intel_core_duo_usb_bug/

It's not so much a noticeable problem, unless you really pay attention to Laptop battery lifetime...

O.O

That would be why my laptop battery doesn't last so long, I presume :(

Assuming you have a Core Duo processor...

I'm sure it would be a problem if I actually used a Core Duo... now that you've identified the actual problem I do recall reading about that. I was going to wait and buy a system that had one, but decided to save the money. Glad that I did.

You could also, just unplug the device when not in use; as well as there are HUBs that can power the USB device instead of the laptop to bypass this power drain problem.

There also seems to be some disagreement on whose problem it actually is - MS or Intel. But I laugh at the fact that always MS is attacked whether theirs or not. MS has enough problems as it is to be blamed for all computer issues.

Maybe just a bad battery or design. God knows there are many of those!

patch tuesday, flash friday .... yup , sounds about right ... :P

It's patch Tuesday. There's supposed to be lots of updates. I'll comment further if need be but this'll be off the front page by the time the updates actually come around.