From: Earle Martin
Date: 23:55 on 05 Jul 2006
Subject: Windows XP
The software you are installing for this hardware
$SOFTWARE_NAME
has not passed Windows Logo testing to verify its
compatibility with Windows XP. Continuing your
installation of this software may impair or
destabilize the correct operation of your system
either immediately or in the future. Microsoft
strongly recommends that you stop this
installation now and contact the hardware vendor
for software that has passed Windows Logo testing.
[ Continue Anyway ] [ STOP Installation ]
...and repeat TWO DOZEN FUCKING TIMES. Because Microsoft is TOO FUCKING
RETARDED TO PROVIDE A "DON'T ASK ME AGAIN" button. And it's a modal fucking
dialog, so I can't do anything else until the install has finished.
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the message sounds like it was written by
an amateur lawyer. "Destabilize the correct operation of your system"?
"Either immediately *or* in the future"? WTF? And add to that the FUD factor
of what the message is implying.
Hate. Hate. Hate.
From: Foofy Date: 23:59 on 05 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:55:10 -0400, Earle Martin <hates-software@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > ...and repeat TWO DOZEN FUCKING TIMES. Because Microsoft is TOO FUCKING > RETARDED TO PROVIDE A "DON'T ASK ME AGAIN" button. System Properties->Hardware tab->Driver Signing-> "Ignore - Install the software anyway and don't ask for my approval."
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 00:04 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP That's a funny way to click the "don't ask me again during this install" button on the dialog. It's not like you don't want it to come up NEXT time when it's not you but an email worm that's kicked off the install.
From: Foofy Date: 00:30 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:04:08 -0400, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > It's not like you don't want it to come up NEXT time when it's not you > but an email worm that's kicked off the install. Well, if it comes up two dozen times it's because you're installing two dozen different drivers. There's no reliable (or safe) way to determine they're coming in a batch.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 01:34 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP If you're running WinDD/Citrix/Winframe/Terminal Server you can base it on when you switch into and out of install mode. Does XP Fast User Switching support that?
From: demerphq Date: 08:14 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On 7/6/06, Earle Martin <hates-software@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > The software you are installing for this hardware > > $SOFTWARE_NAME > > has not passed Windows Logo testing to verify its > compatibility with Windows XP. Continuing your > installation of this software may impair or > destabilize the correct operation of your system > either immediately or in the future. Microsoft > strongly recommends that you stop this > installation now and contact the hardware vendor > for software that has passed Windows Logo testing. > > [ Continue Anyway ] [ STOP Installation ] > > > ...and repeat TWO DOZEN FUCKING TIMES. Because Microsoft is TOO FUCKING > RETARDED TO PROVIDE A "DON'T ASK ME AGAIN" button. And it's a modal fucking > dialog, so I can't do anything else until the install has finished. > > As if that wasn't moronic enough, the message sounds like it was written by > an amateur lawyer. "Destabilize the correct operation of your system"? > "Either immediately *or* in the future"? WTF? And add to that the FUD factor > of what the message is implying. > > Hate. Hate. Hate. XP is hateful as a general rule. It always boggles my mind about MS, somehow they manage to take a fairly decent product (by MS standards) like Win2k and turn it into something hateful like XP. Its not the first time either. yves
From: David Cantrell Date: 11:20 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:55:10PM +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > The software you are installing for this hardware > $SOFTWARE_NAME > has not passed Windows Logo testing to verify its > compatibility with Windows XP. Continuing your > installation of this software may impair or > destabilize the correct operation of your system > either immediately or in the future. Microsoft > strongly recommends that you stop this > installation now and contact the hardware vendor > for software that has passed Windows Logo testing. Translated into English ... " We at Microsoft are too fucking stupid to prevent applications from fucking with our OS. We recommend switching to OS X. Or Linux. Or OS/400. Anything but Windows. "
From: Matt McLeod Date: 13:07 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On 7/6/06, David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: > Translated into English ... > > " We at Microsoft are too fucking stupid to prevent applications from > fucking with our OS. We recommend switching to OS X. Or Linux. Or > OS/400. Anything but Windows. " Well, no, because this is about drivers not apps. Crap drivers on any platform are going to create havoc. It's more of an advertisement for their driver "certification" process. It's a message to driver developers: "pay us a boatload of money for your driver to be certified, or we'll make it look like your software is shonky so people will go buy hardware from someone else". Matt
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 15:26 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-07-06 12:25]: > Translated into English ... > > " We at Microsoft are too fucking stupid to prevent > applications from fucking with our OS. We recommend > switching to OS X. Or Linux. Or OS/400. Anything but > Windows. " Are you telling me that OS X or Linux or OS/400 stop any and all apps from fucking with the OS? If so, can you explain to me how their developers solved the halting problem? (Yes, I know that they do make it harder to screw things up. Nevertheless, root exploits exist everywhere. The sort of *guarantee* that you're saying Microsoft are "too stupid" to give is impossible to give.) And of course, this is about drivers, not apps. However, * Matt McLeod <matt@xxxxxx.xxx> [2006-07-06 14:10]: > It's more of an advertisement for their driver "certification" > process. It's a message to driver developers: "pay us a > boatload of money for your driver to be certified, or we'll > make it look like your software is shonky so people will go buy > hardware from someone else". Ding ding ding ding ding ding! Exactly. "Developers, developers, developers! Developers, developers!",
From: David Cantrell Date: 15:52 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 04:26:32PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-07-06 12:25]: > > Translated into English ... > > " We at Microsoft are too fucking stupid to prevent > > applications from fucking with our OS. We recommend > > switching to OS X. Or Linux. Or OS/400. Anything but > > Windows. " > Are you telling me that OS X or Linux or OS/400 stop any and all > apps from fucking with the OS? As you well know, operating systems and hardware have the concept of privelege seperation. Certain instructions are not available to user programs, and certain operating system interfaces likewise without first becoming a priveleged user. Trouble is, in Windows you pretty much have to be a priveleged user. > If so, can you explain to me how > their developers solved the halting problem? They used Acme::HaltingProblem, which is written in the magic language "StrawMan". > (Yes, I know that they do make it harder to screw things up. > Nevertheless, root exploits exist everywhere. The sort of > *guarantee* that you're saying Microsoft are "too stupid" to give > is impossible to give.) It's good that I didn't say it then. > And of course, this is about drivers, not apps. That was not clear in the message I was replying to.
From: Jan Martin Mathiassen Date: 18:55 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 04:26:32PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > As you well know, operating systems and hardware have the concept of > privelege seperation. Certain instructions are not available to user > programs, and certain operating system interfaces likewise without first > becoming a priveleged user. Trouble is, in Windows you pretty much have > to be a priveleged user. That's odd, I'm living happily in XP as a non-privileged user. This has positive side-effects such as thwarting starforce from installing its drivers. And with XP's method of changing users without having to log out completely, this really isn't much of a problem, I just log on as admin and fix whatever I need, while knowing that if I were to get fucked, I would have absolutely no excuses, because whatever I did, I'd judged as safe enough to do as admin. Actually, about the only thing I had to do to make XP liveable as a normal user, instead of admin, was make windows stop insisting I be an admin to change the clock. Why? Because I occasionally doubleclick the clock to see the calendar. That's it. The rest of the time I just work as I used to, and occasionally start installation programs (XP detects that on its own, most of the time) as admin (like sudo, but different).
From: Aaron J. Grier Date: 18:12 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 10:07:17PM +1000, Matt McLeod wrote: > Crap drivers on any platform are going to create havoc. I've heard the VMS is plenty hateful, but didn't it run device drivers in a separate protected context from the core OS and user-space? ISTR that NT 3.5 used a similar technique (thanks Mr. Cutler) but it was dropped in NT 4 due to speed issues.
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 18:20 on 06 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP Aaron J. Grier wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 10:07:17PM +1000, Matt McLeod wrote: >> Crap drivers on any platform are going to create havoc. > > I've heard the VMS is plenty hateful, but didn't it run device drivers > in a separate protected context from the core OS and user-space? ISTR > that NT 3.5 used a similar technique (thanks Mr. Cutler) but it was > dropped in NT 4 due to speed issues. I often wonder how Cutler feels these days, after having seen his design being raped, mutilated, and tortured by the gnolls of Redmond. Then again, he probably got paid well, and he doesn't have to work for HP these days...
From: Guy Thornley Date: 00:11 on 07 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP > It's more of an advertisement for their driver "certification" > process. It's a message to driver developers: "pay us a boatload of > money for your driver to be certified, or we'll make it look like your > software is shonky so people will go buy hardware from someone else". Personally, I suspect something slightly more malevolent: content protection. I will *not* be surprised if, sometime in the future, you will not be able to use copy-protected content (you know, all that protected WMA stuff, HD-DVD, etc) unless all the drivers in the driver chain are "certified". Why? So it is much harder to make a driver that spits out the raw unencrypted (or whatever) content. - Guy
From: jrodman Date: 00:28 on 07 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:11:20AM +1200, Guy Thornley wrote: > > It's more of an advertisement for their driver "certification" > > process. It's a message to driver developers: "pay us a boatload of > > money for your driver to be certified, or we'll make it look like your > > software is shonky so people will go buy hardware from someone else". > > Personally, I suspect something slightly more malevolent: content > protection. I will *not* be surprised if, sometime in the future, you will > not be able to use copy-protected content (you know, all that protected WMA > stuff, HD-DVD, etc) unless all the drivers in the driver chain are > "certified". > > Why? So it is much harder to make a driver that spits out the raw > unencrypted (or whatever) content. I thought this hate already existed. Certainly the default drivers for Creative cards with high quality digital out refuse to produce digital out when sourced from "encrypted" sources and the like. You know, because who wants high quality output from high quality sources. Isn't high quality on one end enough? More is just redundant. I think this hatefulness is already on the march, and will be deployed in addition to the "Logo Certification" hatefulness. Maybe you are right that they will (already?) relate to each other in the manner you suggest. In the old days when I would run windows, my video card vendor always provided two driver options: the logo certified one, and the one with fewer bugs. I'm sure the program works the same way now. -josh
From: Matt McLeod Date: 02:46 on 07 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP On 7/7/06, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx <jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > In the old days when I would run windows, my video card vendor always > provided two driver options: the logo certified one, and the one with > fewer bugs. I'm sure the program works the same way now. Nah, now you just get certified drivers with lots of bugs and third-party hacked ones that have fewer. The latest nVidia drivers are just brilliant: they make the C++ runtime crash. As to this whole "trusted chain" thingo, they "need" to get the output devices into the picture before it's worth finishing. I'd like to think that people wouldn't buy into it, but it's bound to have lots of marketing dollars behind it. It's already started (HD DVD/etc downscaling if you aren't using a HDCP display) even if the content providers are currently being all nicey-nicey about it. I would throw in some hate here for Nero products, except that it's really the support rather than the actual software I'm hating right now. Matt
From: Massimo DZ8 Date: 09:05 on 07 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Windows XP --=-8/6FILheB5Z20ZZdbCsa Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Il giorno ven, 07/07/2006 alle 11.46 +1000, Matt McLeod ha scritto: > Nah, now you just get certified drivers with lots of bugs and > third-party hacked ones that have fewer. The latest nVidia drivers > are just brilliant: they make the C++ runtime crash. Last time it happened to me (crash calling GenBuffersARB) I fixed this by reinstalling drivers. Obviously, I had to spend an awful amount of time searching for bugs before trying this solution. How they manage to do a buggy installation process after all those years is more than weird... and hateful by sure means. Massimo --=-8/6FILheB5Z20ZZdbCsa Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.6.2"> </HEAD> <BODY> Il giorno ven, 07/07/2006 alle 11.46 +1000, Matt McLeod ha scritto: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> <FONT COLOR="#000000">Nah, now you just get certified drivers with lots of bugs and</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">third-party hacked ones that have fewer. The latest nVidia drivers</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">are just brilliant: they make the C++ runtime crash.</FONT> </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> Last time it happened to me (crash calling GenBuffersARB) I fixed this by reinstalling drivers. Obviously, I had to spend an awful amount of time searching for bugs before trying this solution.<BR> <BR> How they manage to do a buggy installation process after all those years is more than weird... and hateful by sure means.<BR> <BR> Massimo </BODY> </HTML> --=-8/6FILheB5Z20ZZdbCsa--
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi