sorry, but i wasnt asking for a link or any copy-righted data.
that guy sounded like he had seen it, and discovreed somthing interesting.

anyways.. WOW this thread grew fast.

and im pretty sure windows2K runs off the windows NT kernel.

Umm. I asked if anyone had seen it, I never said Ive seen it. Ive seen little clips of it and it has written messages cursing things in it, its quite amusing But I don't have the time to find it and see if it is actually real.

I probably should have tried to get it the day it was released, but bittorrent networks probably have the real one floating around more than kazza.

Which works for my expression, people are stupid I think some people are so computer dumb it is terrible, but then again, some of these people are extremely intelligent but their gift is in things other than technology.

Of course my mom supposedly, know fortran, cobol and a bunch of other old languages, yet she had trouble using Windows (NOT because of crashing, just trouble doing simple things). I dunno. I guess some people just dont get it

Maybe she might feel a little bit more comfortable with linux! :P
I think the command line might feel more familiar to her

Bull. She has trouble copying and pasting urls from the adress bar, let alone using a command line.

Like mother like son??
hehe you've got it inherited right????

Of course. This is why I build computers in my spare time.

I do not like the command line, itis not coding. It is simply making things harder than they really are, but nevertheless I can use it fine.

You say command line make things harder but I don't know why I use it more than the GUI....
Maybe I like to make things complicated... that way they seem easier to me

I like GUI things. Actually, I just like saying goooey But anyhow, for most people the terminal is harder to use and learn than clicking an icon and having the program install

you're oversimpifying this... the issue isn't so black and white, and you know it...

there's tons of shades of grey in there...

for example, it's also much harder for most decent system administrators to actually keep online a system where people do things like "clicking an icon and having the program install" (microsoft windows)...

what you posted can also be stated as "clicking an attachment and having the system get infected and destroyed by a virus made by some 9-year-old script-kiddie in siberia"...

this is one of the reasons why linux users don't need to be paranoid about checking their email...

I'm going to steer the thread back on the road here.

I was just courious as to if windows is closed source and linux open why is it that windows gets (oh I thinks its abotu 200+ now) viruses writen for XP alone.

One more is the leaked source code of windows I heard was probibly 2+ years old, so not much usable info could come from it... besides humorous programmer note.

thanks, Nick

First off, theres probably 2000+ viruses for xp And know why? Because windows is 95% of all computers. Wow, that means a virus can affect 95% instead of just like 3% of linux users. If Linux was 95% of the market share, it too would have constant viruses.

Yeah, it was 2 years old but would the source code not have the NTFS file system code in it? I doubt it would have changed much. I though NT was leaked too....

Just to clarify, that is most likely desktop market share.. Windows does not control 95% of the server market..

Yeah yeah, but 95% of all people on the net use IE therefore 95% of the people on the net use windows (yeah, because noone else would ever want to use IE) so they are the main target. And yes, desktop viruses affect people the most (average people, not server oweners )

That "popularity"-argument is crap : even if the vast majority of internet-users would be on Linux , Virus-writers would still have an extremely hard time , writing their mayhem for it ;
As was pointed out elsewhere on these boards (several times) , due to the large amounts of different kernels , drivers need to be specifically compiled on that specific system to even work.
Same should go for virusses ; there's no way in hell to write a virus that'd be able to infect any significant amount of computers in a single go ; the virus-writer should release a virus for each and every possible kernel-configuration.
And then I'm not even touching upon the "Needs Root-access to write anything at all"-part of this matter....

No ; the reason , Windows is plagued by so many virusses , is that it's soooooo damn EASY to do.
Popularity only helps the spread of 'em , not enable them.

90% windows of desktop and not 95%. And this does not mean that all uses IE. Netscape, opera etc got a good marketshare. My girlfriend uses Nescape because IE does not work and never did and I'm not touching here computer.

And as said above I still get the viruses and the problem even if its because of market dominance. And lets not take about the security structure thats the real issue when talking viruses.