I need help in an argument!
I am engaged in a battle with this guy on a private forum. He works for MS and is able to refut alot of the stuff I say, but I think I made a good point that he said was ridiculous.
We were discussing audit logs, and I basically asked him how to audit object access on FAT32 and told him he couldn't, thereby throwing it in his face. He laughed and said that it indicated my lack of knowledge on the platform as there was no good reason to use it over NTFS anyhow. I really would like to get him on this one, so I was hoping that maybe someone here could help out. Thanks in advance! |
I'm not sure what you're looking for... an excuse to use FAT over NTFS? The only two reasons I ever had for using FAT were a) being able to use a Win98 bootdisk to fix things or access files if the system broke (more important for NT4 than 2k or XP), and b) being able to write data safely from linux.
But if you're in a situation where object access is a security concern, why would you be using a filesystem that doesn't have any kind of access permissions? I don't think you can win an argument on those grounds. You're basically asking why a filesystem designed several years ago doesn't support newer security features. If you actually want to log accesses to files, it's possible regardless of what filesystem you use, but Microsoft don't provide a tool to do it - filemon and diskmon from sysinternals.com can do something like this. |
I think the NTFS object auditing does.
Hmm. Now I'm going after cmd not being a real shell and only being a DOS VM. I think I may get him here. |
Sorry, I meant MS don't provide a tool to do it for any filesystem. Obviously they do give you a way to log access to NTFS :)
CMD is not a DOS VM, COMMAND would be closer to that, as it runs under NTVDM. CMD.EXE is a 32 bit process, and has a lot of features to make it more like a real shell (it is nowhere near as powerful as, say, bash, but it does a lot more than DOS ever did). In fact, I used to run XP with the shell set to CMD.EXE so I didn't have to look at that godawful start bar. |
Threads asking to help you prove someone else wrong in an argument not even Linux related or Linux on a technical level belong in our General forum, not our technical Linux forums. Please try to place your threads in the most appropiate forum.
|
If you don't program for MS it seems to be a futile effort.
The main points still are. MS costs, the command line is crap , tweaking the sytem is crap. You can't modify the system to your liking. Remote server admin has 3 million buttons with too much overhead to find them. The Registry is untransparent and just messy. Ther is obviously some logic involved, but too complicated to be user friendly. His company dominates the world in some predefined boring look. Many of the issues against MS are policy related. every time someone comes up with stuff that improves MS, they rebuild it and force companies out of business. Netscape, now zip is included. The whole filemanager issues etc. For example I disable the fecking Messanger, then I have to test Outlook for a customer and that fecking thing pops up again. They try to force you to use their stuff. They do an OS and user software and constantly force you to be confronted with their stuff. IE being one issue, that messenger the next than the fecking passport crap. If they would do just OS, there wouldn't be that much of an issue, but no they try to force you to use their shady software crap too. Constantly. :mad: It can NOT BE that ONE company controls how the whole world exchanges information. Now why the fuck should they control how I bank, how I am identified etc. They are a company not a fecking elected government. Rant over ;) |
woot on, man. Nice rant.
|
You say:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I use two different XP systems, and neither of them run Messenger, and they only run IE when I specifically order them to (or use software that uses an embedded IE component). If I click an internet shortcut, Opera loads. How have they forced me to use their software? They have created a system to try and make it easy for the clueless to operate without getting in their way (in some cases they have even succeeded). They have also made it possible (not always simple, but possible) for the clueful to make the computer operate the way they want. The only problem is when the user falls in somewhere between clueless and clueful - i.e: smart enough to know what they want, but apparently not smart enough to do a little investigation into how it's done. 30 minutes with google would solve most of your Windows complaints, but it's much more fun to pretend that it's all crap than admit you can't (be bothered to) figure it out. The only point I can totally agree with you on is Microsoft's predatory nature - they do have a tendency to crush the competition, but that is not a trait solely restricted to Microsoft - it's a product of the 'money is everything' focus of the US, and it's only more obvious with them because they're so huge. It's one thing to disagree with their policy, it's quite another to make up bullshit to make your disagreement seem more valid. Sorry if this sounds confrontational - I just can't stand seeing baseless accusations go unchallenged. The best thing you can do for yourself and others is become platform agnostic, and learn to use every system. Learn to appreciate the good things, and pinpoint the bad, and when you've done that you might be in a position to improve some of the horrible linux software out there ;) |
Quote:
MS costs. It's a disadvantage if you consider you can get some things for free. I don't mind charging for software at all. Good software should cost money. But in the context of a linux guy arguing with a MS guy, he can use it as an argument, if the original poster wants to. MS forcing on it's software. Take the IE. The US had a court case about it. I doubt I am wrong here. All i tried to express to the original poster was that MS will by default have also good programs and good programmers. Their _management_ policies are though a different issue. The issue is very simple: Do you want to allow a company, with 92% market share to grow even more? You might have lived in nice times in your lives. But history shows that too much power corrupts. That's why anti-trust laws have been made. I would conclude from this it is a generally accepted fact that too big ain't good. It supresses honest competition. |
hello :)
[edit - oops! this is really long] let us not forget that M$ is a company built on lies and deception (DOS anybody?). :p i jest, but there is truth to it. The principal problem is the way in which M$ treats its users. Just like nixon and kissinger, M$ appears to see the 'average citizen' as an unfortunate inconvenience that must be placated in order to 'get on with business'. For so long as the 'average citizen' continues to vote/buy to their favour the 'average citizen' will remain utterly unimportant. Again like nixon and kissinger, M$ calculatedly encourage ignorance. It was the general ignorance of the population that allowed the nixon administration to illegally cluster-bomb millions of inocent Cambodians. And it is the general ignorance of the population which allows M$ to retain its (partially) dishonestly acquired market share. It is all about power. the user of an M$ slOperalting System is forced to cede power to the corporation ('treacherous computing'?). On the contrary, GNU/Linux, and open source software generally, works according to an antithetical ideology - the user should have the power (don't like the code? then change it, or ask someone who knows how to do it for you). Another nixon/kissinger comparison ( :D, sorry): if you were around at the time and found the idea of America illegally bombing Cambodia offensive, then you could have done nothing about it - because you wouldn't have known it was happening. So, how much offensive code does Sindows install on you PC? who knows. CroMagnon wrote: Quote:
With regards to 'tweaking' Sindows. I am told that XP made it impossible to turn off 'tooltips' (i can't verify this, but i trust the source). Equally, i find the idea of a mandatory "my documents" directory truly offensive - and as far as i know, it is impossible to delete this, or (in XP) even move it. Please take a few seconds to consider the implications of this directory (and also please forgive the fact that i come from a literary background - this may seem trivial to others). The word "my" explicitly refers to the speaker/writer (i cannot say "my" when i am refering to "you"). In this case the word "my" was writen by M$. So who owns the 'documents' in said directory? Such practice is symtomatic of a company that believes it retains ownership of, and all rights to, a product it has sold while the buyer has no rights whatsoever. CroMagnon wrote: Quote:
CroMagnon wrote: Quote:
CroMagnon wrote: Quote:
M$ are evil. As far as i know they have not been responsible for any deaths, unlike some other of the worlds most lucrative corporations, which keeps them shy of the 'top of the heap'. But they have demonstrated that they are completely indifferent to any suffering their actions may cause and have consistently shown a total disregard for the ethical standards which govern the lives of the vast majority of people on this planet. Wrong is Wrong, and no amount of capital reward can alter this. Nor can an immoral act be justified on the basis of the profit it generates. Now, since i believe that M$ is overtly unethical, and since i beleive that complacency towards an immoral act is equivalent to complicity in that act, i cannot in good conscience become "platform agnostic". Finally, regarding "some of the horrible linux software out there". Most GNU/Linux users who openly criticise M$ do not do so on the basis of the vast amount of clumsy, barely-if-at-all functional, third-party software available for the Sindows platform. We criticise on the basis of M$'s own applications. And all of us, regardless of what our beliefs are, cannot help but express our own biases. Rather than becoming "platform agnostic", it is far more productive to treat all opinions, even those we agree with, with a certain amount of scepticism and do our utmost to ensure that the beliefs we have, or acquire, are founded on actual evidence rather than simple prejudice. thank you for reading my rant :) . -ant. |
DrNeil: I misunderstood your first comment, so I'll apologise for that. I don't think cleoro stood a chance arguing with this guy in the first place, as he has been fed a lot of anti-windows propoganda that isn't true (like the CMD/COMMAND thing - a lot of people still think CMD is DOS).
Quote:
fourleggedant: Some nice points in your rant... how is it that you think MS is built on lies and deception because of DOS? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Linux does absolutely nothing to 'nurse' new users to the command line. Their first exposure to it is usually pure confusion because someone on a message board told them typing the nonsenical looking magical incantation "/etc/init.d/network restart" might solve their problem. Another user might recommend "rm -rf /" to them as a joke, or purely out of malice. How is a new user to know the difference? "Gee Tim, you're an idiot - you should have type 'man rm' before doing that!"? The linux command line, while powerful, is far from simple and well documented - it is arcane and cryptic, as a result of history. 'Grep' to search? 'ls' to show files? cat? bash? sed? awk? These are not intuitive or self-describing names. It takes a hefty time investment to learn to use it effectively, and as I pointed out earlier, most non-geek users are simply not interested in devoting that much to time to learning about a system. There are people who think their operating system is "Windows97". [/quote]and then there is LQ and similar forums where a new user can genuinely expect to have things explained within minutes. This is where the true power of the GNU/Linux command-line is to be found.[/quote] LQ is great - I have received semi-instant help on my questions, and I have been able to help a good number of people with their problems. But a new linux install does not tell people this site exists, and there is no guarantee their problem will be solved. Besides that, there are similar sites available for Windows problems too! Experts-Exchange, for example, is the one I've found the best answers on. Quote:
I usually find tooltips are more useful than not - only the balloon tips bug me ("Get a passport!", "Clean your desktop!"), and they are quite possible to disable. Quote:
I'm not even going to address your bizarre conspiracy theory about MS owning your documents because of a naming decision, except to say that when you look at another user's directory, it calls them "Sue's Documents" or "Bob's Documents", not "Microsoft's Documents". I too hate the phrase "My Documents" (probably for different reasons to you - I hated having to deal with "Progra~1" and "Mydocu~1"), that is why my 'documents' directory is called "W:\Docs" and my "Program Files" is "C:\Apps". I understand your point about MS and their unethical behaviour. I have despised many of their past actions myself. But the OS world is changing. I've seen posts on LQ from users who can barely tell a partition from a mouse pointer! Pure computer illiterates, using Linux, a system designed by geeks for geeks! And others are helping them, and they are enjoying the new system. It says a lot when someone at that level of (in)experience has even HEARD of linux, much less has it installed on their system. Linux is on the move, getting more popular every day, and Microsoft knows this. Their immoral actions in the past have cost them dearly, and they are finally beginning to wake up act in a competitive manner again. Every time they place artificial restrictions on users, two or three more people become fed up with it, and move to another system, and they are changing their attitude, slowly but surely. There is still the PR side, spewing lies and deceit, as all marketing departments do, but on the technical side, the system is improving at a rapid pace. Quote:
|
Quote:
Exactly what I ment. Led into using. Kinda forcing in a way. But if you go all technical, then forcing is the wrong word in principal. Of course I can supress it, BUT i get constantly annoyed with it. :rolleyes: And others will be led into using it, by default. Its the first they see so they use it. MS has the OS and programs on it and as every company would probably do, lead you to use them. Absolutely understandable from their perspective. But from my perspective, I see a company thats too big and overshoots the mark. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 PM. |