Here is A link to A article on the Windows 7 beta Code

Windows 7 beta code News

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Here is A link to A article on the Windows 7 beta Code

Windows 7 beta code News

There is interestingly nothing said about the Windows 7 features. There is only the implication of "better than Vista"...

One comment:

Microsoft is bullish about Windows 7's prospects, claiming the company "has never been in such great shape prior to a release of Windows".

However, it admits that Vista caused both customers and OEMS too much pain, but promised that they would now reap the benefits in Windows 7. "The ecosystem wasn't ready for the release of Windows Vista," said Windows senior vice president, Steve Sinofksy.

... which is quite a bad line to work up from.


See also from a little earlier:

Ballmer Says Windows 7 is Vista but Improved

Is that all a game of "Management of User Expectations"?


My first question is that of when Microsoft OS viruses and trojans will be eliminated or at least rendered non-propagating...

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Here is A link to A article on the Windows 7 beta Code

Windows 7 beta code News

There is interestingly nothing said about the Windows 7 features. There is only the implication of "better than Vista"...

One comment:

Microsoft is bullish about Windows 7's prospects, claiming the company "has never been in such great shape prior to a release of Windows".

However, it admits that Vista caused both customers and OEMS too much pain, but promised that they would now reap the benefits in Windows 7. "The ecosystem wasn't ready for the release of Windows Vista," said Windows senior vice president, Steve Sinofksy.

... which is quite a bad line to work up from.


See also from a little earlier:

Ballmer Says Windows 7 is Vista but Improved

Is that all a game of "Management of User Expectations"?


My first question is that of when Microsoft OS viruses and trojans will be eliminated or at least rendered non-propagating...

Happy crunchin',
Martin

On the original link on that website it lists these topics

Click below for in-depth guides to:

The user interface

Multitouch controls

Networking

Device management

Tools for IT departments

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

On the original link on that website it lists these topics

Click below for in-depth guides to:

The user interface ...

Indeed they are links.

Not often you see a magazine article structured like that. (Or am I too used to the Toms Hardware site? :-o )

Thanks,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Thanks for the links Matthew. Just finished reading all of them. It looks like Microsoft has taken Vista & Windows Home Server and combined them, for example, Homegroup?

My take on what info provided so far, is that Microsoft will be returning to their original marketing structure - Home & Business.

Home - integrated networking/streaming/HTPC?

Business - Windows Azure(Cloud Computing) - not sure if this is a wise decision as they are already implementing this with $5 million spent on 10 datacenters so far - What happens to the world's business'es if a 9/11-7/7 event takes those centers out?

---

Here's my problem with new and improved Winblows OSes. they are constantly making it prettier. Xp is probably all anyone really needs. Vista is a bloated goat that tries to mimic a Linux OS. For my purposes XP is fine

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Here's my problem with new and improved Winblows OSes. they are constantly making it prettier. Xp is probably all anyone really needs. Vista is a bloated goat that tries to mimic a Linux OS. For my purposes XP is fine

I guess that's just a matter if you actually know what has changed under the hood. That's like saying, "what's the point of driving a Corvette which is just pretty and bloated but you're still limited to driving the speed limit so you may as well buy a Cavalier instead".

And that argument is quite tired. The same thing was said when XP came out. Who needs XP when Windows 98 is faster on games and less bloated than the NT architecture? Who needs Windows 95 when most of the advanced performance features can be found in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and without the bloat? (fyi - Windows 95 could be slimmed down to 30MB or so, WfW could be slimmed down to 12MB or so.) Is it really 'bloat', or is it there for a reason?

I would argue that Vista is more than just a pretty face lift (one that I definitely prefer over XP's), and has a heck of a lot more going for it under the hood than XP. Is "mimicing" a Linux OS on some of its best aspects really a bad thing?

Macs are very user friendly, but horrendously closed. *nix is very stable, solid and configurable, but not user friendly at all. Windows combines the best of both and as such as created the largest market of all, and there's a good reason for that.

I'll take Vista and ask for more! :)

I have high hopes for Windows 7 and I hope they offer the beta on Microsoft's TechNet program so that I can give it a try myself.

I have high hopes for Windows 7 and I hope they offer the beta on Microsoft's TechNet program so that I can give it a try myself.

Let's make Windows 7 better.

---

Manned mission to Mars in 2019 Petition <-- Sign this, please.

[...]
Macs are very user friendly, but horrendously closed. *nix is very stable, solid and configurable, but not user friendly at all. Windows combines the best of both and as such as created the largest market of all, and there's a good reason for that.

I'll take Vista and ask for more! :) ...

You get a very nice and pretty choice of GUIs (desktops) to use on top of the *nix. All with various features now apparently being copied by Microsoft (just as Microsoft has a long history of doing...).

So you're crying out for more of the Microsoft lock-in, broken standards, DRM, WGA, and their (euphemistically named) "Trusted Computing" or Palladium? Add black leather, dog collar, studs and whips?...

And with an added game of Monopoly?


But then, that is just my view/Vista as ever...


Note: The issue is more that of what is 'levered' with the OS rather than specifically the OS itself. Viruses and other such malware are still uniquely a continuing live experience for only one supplier's OSes...

Keep searchin',
Martin

(All just my personal view and opinion. It's up to you to form your own ideas!)

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Macs are very user friendly, but horrendously closed. *nix is very stable, solid and configurable, but not user friendly at all.

Macs closed?!! Somehow I don't think Microsoft is making the commented source code available as Apple is. http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ I just can't see how you can call Mac closed today.

Calling raw Unix (R) unfriendly is somewhat true. Apple however has made it very friendly as you point out. Many *nix vendors have seen what can be done and if their user base wants friendly they are very busy making GUI versions of their tools.

---

[...]
Macs are very user friendly, but horrendously closed. *nix is very stable, solid and configurable, but not user friendly at all. Windows combines the best of both and as such as created the largest market of all, and there's a good reason for that.

I'll take Vista and ask for more! :) ...

You get a very nice and pretty choice of GUIs (desktops) to use on top of the *nix. All with various features now apparently being copied by Microsoft (just as Microsoft has a long history of doing...).

Apparently you missed the part about Linux being difficult to use. And don't try to tell me it isn't - I've used it. Its not user friendly. I don't care who's aunt was secretly switched from Foldgers coffee to Linux or what 5 year old prefers Ubuntu over G.I. Joe.

So you're crying out for more of the Microsoft lock-in, broken standards, DRM, WGA, and their (euphemistically named) "Trusted Computing" or Palladium? Add black leather, dog collar, studs and whips?...

Yes! Give me more lock-in. That is exactly what I'm saying.

And with an added game of Monopoly?

I haven't lost a game of Monopoly in years. I'm also unbeaten in Stratego since I was 7.

But then, that is just my view/Vista as ever...

Just as drab as ever too.

Note: The issue is more that of what is 'levered' with the OS rather than specifically the OS itself. Viruses and other such malware are still uniquely a continuing live experience for only one supplier's OSes...

And yet it all seems to work better than *nix. Perhaps if *nix wasn't so difficult to use and had a larger base of users, it would be targeted for viruses too. Oh right, it won't happen because someone says it won't because Linux is impenetrable to such things. Keep believing in such lies. Such thinking is naive and gullible.

Macs are very user friendly, but horrendously closed. *nix is very stable, solid and configurable, but not user friendly at all.

Macs closed?!! Somehow I don't think Microsoft is making the commented source code available as Apple is. http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ I just can't see how you can call Mac closed today.

Can I build my own Mac? Can I officially run Mac OS on my custom built Mac clone?

Calling raw Unix (R) unfriendly is somewhat true. Apple however has made it very friendly as you point out. Many *nix vendors have seen what can be done and if their user base wants friendly they are very busy making GUI versions of their tools.

..and when they're done, it will resemble something similar in use-abilty to Windows or Mac. Why not just run Windows or Mac OS instead? You don't have to run emulators or WINE, and you don't have to worry about software compatibility between different Windows vendors (because there's just one) or Mac vendors like you do for the *nix community.

making Vista like linux only poorly delivered. my dad bought a vista box. I spent several hours turning "security" measures off. It gets annoying to have to hit a password for every other operation. That and my general distrust of DRM and Microsofts bending over backward for MPAA and RIAA. It seems to me that its not their business what the people are doing while using their OS.

I agree that Linux is difficult to learn. The main reason for that is Microsoft. People are spoon fed an OS and arent required to know how it works. Much like most people and their vehicles. They know how to turn it on but little else about it other than its name. I like Linux. I use Mandrake. Of course its a bit more difficult to use than M$. It is however surprisingly easy to install Linux. I use Mandriva. As an OS it automatically detects your Hardware. I've had Hardware detected where the OS couldnt figure out what I had. The OSes generic processes work dandy. I can't say the same for all M$ generic drivers.

The things that I see improved from 98 to XP: NTFS, end of hung RAM, repeated routine crashes, simpler driver install.
what still bothers me is the repetitive update/reboot cycle Linux doesnt do that often and usually only when the kernel is updated/upgraded. Most often its a log off and login and you are back in business. Thats what compartmentalization does for you.

YOu are aware that M$ OSes are current using grossly more RAM for each new OS. This doesnt bode well for the next OS.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

making Vista like linux only poorly delivered. my dad bought a vista box. I spent several hours turning "security" measures off. It gets annoying to have to hit a password for every other operation. That and my general distrust of DRM and Microsofts bending over backward for MPAA and RIAA. It seems to me that its not their business what the people are doing while using their OS.

So you made his Vista less secure just because of an annoyance. I took care of a similar annoyance with Linux by formating my drive and putting Windows on it.

... and several hours to turn off security measures? It should take a few minutes at most!

I agree that Linux is difficult to learn. The main reason for that is Microsoft. People are spoon fed an OS and arent required to know how it works. Much like most people and their vehicles. They know how to turn it on but little else about it other than its name. I like Linux. I use Mandrake. Of course its a bit more difficult to use than M$. It is however surprisingly easy to install Linux. I use Mandriva. As an OS it automatically detects your Hardware. I've had Hardware detected where the OS couldnt figure out what I had. The OSes generic processes work dandy. I can't say the same for all M$ generic drivers.

Not everyone cares to learn the minute details of their OS. What does a Insurance Salesman care about how is OS runs? What does a house-wife who cares more about taking care of her kids care about how her OS runs? What does a 10 year old care about how his OS runs?

Microsoft made computing easy so that everyday people can use their computers. I can't say the same thing for the *nix community. The problem isn't Microsoft, the problem is the *nix community and elitists thinking that the computer should remain in their hands and difficult to use while resenting every casual person who screws up their computer because they don't know how it works or what they did to screw it up.

... and generally, I don't use MS's generic drivers. I prefer to use the official ones, but the generic are nice to have when the official ones can't be located. If the generic driver from MS doesn't work... well then the machine is no less functional than a Linux machine.

The things that I see improved from 98 to XP: NTFS, end of hung RAM, repeated routine crashes, simpler driver install.

Bet you weren't saying that when it came out. ;) I knew quite a few people that hated XP and said they'd stick with 98 until they were "forced" to upgrade. They upgraded before 98's official support ended from Microsoft. :)

Same song and dance, different OS. That's all I'm saying.

what still bothers me is the repetitive update/reboot cycle Linux doesnt do that often and usually only when the kernel is updated/upgraded. Most often its a log off and login and you are back in business. Thats what compartmentalization does for you.

OK, I'll agree with you here. The constant reboot crap annoys me too when I'm doing a new build and I have to install all the updates, or updates after installing device drivers and such. Meh. At least its not Linux.

YOu are aware that M$ OSes are current using grossly more RAM for each new OS. This doesnt bode well for the next OS.

You are aware that the average computer comes packed with more RAM each generation. I wonder what will happen in the next generation of computers? [cranky old man voice] "2GB of RAM? Why, in my day we ran Linux in 64MB of RAM and we liked it!!!" [/voice]

Macs are very user friendly, but horrendously closed. *nix is very stable, solid and configurable, but not user friendly at all.

Macs closed?!! Somehow I don't think Microsoft is making the commented source code available as Apple is. http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ I just can't see how you can call Mac closed today.

Can I build my own Mac? Can I officially run Mac OS on my custom built Mac clone?

Sure can. But you may have a problem running the application program Finder.

Calling raw Unix (R) unfriendly is somewhat true. Apple however has made it very friendly as you point out. Many *nix vendors have seen what can be done and if their user base wants friendly they are very busy making GUI versions of their tools.

..and when they're done, it will resemble something similar in use-abilty to Windows or Mac. Why not just run Windows or Mac OS instead? You don't have to run emulators or WINE, and you don't have to worry about software compatibility between different Windows vendors (because there's just one) or Mac vendors like you do for the *nix community.

I agree that Linux is difficult to learn. The main reason for that is Microsoft. People are spoon fed an OS and arent required to know how it works. Much like most people and their vehicles. They know how to turn it on but little else about it other than its name. I like Linux. I use Mandrake. Of course its a bit more difficult to use than M$. It is however surprisingly easy to install Linux. I use Mandriva. As an OS it automatically detects your Hardware. I've had Hardware detected where the OS couldnt figure out what I had. The OSes generic processes work dandy. I can't say the same for all M$ generic drivers.

Not everyone cares to learn the minute details of their OS

Then they shouldn't have the administrator password. Just like the electric appliance that says in large bold print: No User Serviceable Parts Inside!

YOu are aware that M$ OSes are current using grossly more RAM for each new OS. This doesnt bode well for the next OS.

You are aware that the average computer comes packed with more RAM each generation. I wonder what will happen in the next generation of computers? [cranky old man voice] "2GB of RAM? Why, in my day we ran Linux in 64MB of RAM and we liked it!!!" [/voice]

Why back in the day on the IBM 1130 we ran the O/S in 4k words (8k bytes) of core and it was quicker, faster and more responsive on a machine with an instruction cycle time of less than 1MHz. Back then computer coding was an art form and every bit of resource was squeezed out. You counted the machine cycles! Today you have computers running 16000+ times faster (quad core), with 1,000,000+ times more RAM but taking ten times longer to respond to the user. Bloat. Work expands to fill the time and space available. The expansion of work introduces many more places and ways of errors and undesirable results being introduced. We have met the enemy and he's the guy in the mirror.

As for that Unix back in the day, I believe it was more like 64k words or 128k bytes of core. Off by a factor of 500. Would have died and gone to heaven for 64Mb!

[ hush]Anyone remember the swapping drum?

Man landed on the moon using a 4 bit micro computer!

---

Macs are very user friendly, but horrendously closed. *nix is very stable, solid and configurable, but not user friendly at all.

Macs closed?!! Somehow I don't think Microsoft is making the commented source code available as Apple is. http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ I just can't see how you can call Mac closed today.

Can I build my own Mac? Can I officially run Mac OS on my custom built Mac clone?

Sure can. But you may have a problem running the application program Finder.

If it doesn't run flawlessly like a Mac would, then its not the same thing.

I agree that Linux is difficult to learn. The main reason for that is Microsoft. People are spoon fed an OS and arent required to know how it works. Much like most people and their vehicles. They know how to turn it on but little else about it other than its name. I like Linux. I use Mandrake. Of course its a bit more difficult to use than M$. It is however surprisingly easy to install Linux. I use Mandriva. As an OS it automatically detects your Hardware. I've had Hardware detected where the OS couldnt figure out what I had. The OSes generic processes work dandy. I can't say the same for all M$ generic drivers.

Not everyone cares to learn the minute details of their OS

Then they shouldn't have the administrator password. Just like the electric appliance that says in large bold print: No User Serviceable Parts Inside!

These people aren't trying to get under the hood of their cars, nor are they trying to get inside electrical appliances. They're simply trying to use their computers. Telling them that they cannot have administrative level access to their own computer is not going to fly at all (though isn't this what Microsoft's UAC is trying to do anyway?).

Your statement misses the entire point. The point is that Microsoft helped give the industry a much needed boost. Saying that Microsoft "spoon fed" people an OS and "aren't required to know how it works" doesn't mean that Microsoft was/is the problem. Microsoft tried to make it easy for everyone, and they succeeded whether people want to admit that or not.

Not everyone specializes in using computers or their inner workings, and expecting people to have computer science degrees to operate them is not the answer. These aren't necessarily dumb people, they simply have different interests than learning how an OS works.

Computer are supposed to be easy - turn on and go, just like a car. Not everyone needs to be a mechanic to be able to drive a car. Microsoft made the computer easy, and they made it compatible with nearly every piece of hardware out there, or have worked with companies to provide such compatible support as much as necessary, plain and simple.

As for that Unix back in the day, I believe it was more like 64k words or 128k bytes of core. Off by a factor of 500. Would have died and gone to heaven for 64Mb!

Man landed on the moon using a 4 bit micro computer!

Yes, so now we've established that computers have come a long way. And more advanced computers need more advanced, easy to use operating systems that do not require someone to have a SysAdmin's level of education just to operate it. Microsoft has been doing that for years, while the *nix community balks at them for doing so while clutching onto their OSes with white knuckles, trying to convince everyone that their OS is user friendly, but a geek's idea of user friendly doesn't exactly fit with the general population's description of 'user friendly'.

These are intelligent people that simply haven't the time, nor the interest to dedicate to learning what makes an OS tick, they just need something that works and that they can buy any software off the shelf and load it into their system and make it run. *nix is far cry from all of that. I've been hearing about how Linux is making great strides in being 'user friendly' since the late 90s and yet they're still not there yet! Makes you think they just don't get "it", and as long as they blame the user for not being more knowledgeable, the more they really aren't ever going to get "it". The answer is 'ease of use' and 'simplicity'. Windows has been winning that game for years.

I agree that Linux is difficult to learn. The main reason for that is Microsoft. People are spoon fed an OS and arent required to know how it works. Much like most people and their vehicles. They know how to turn it on but little else about it other than its name. I like Linux. I use Mandrake. Of course its a bit more difficult to use than M$. It is however surprisingly easy to install Linux. I use Mandriva. As an OS it automatically detects your Hardware. I've had Hardware detected where the OS couldnt figure out what I had. The OSes generic processes work dandy. I can't say the same for all M$ generic drivers.

Not everyone cares to learn the minute details of their OS

Then they shouldn't have the administrator password. Just like the electric appliance that says in large bold print: No User Serviceable Parts Inside!

These people aren't trying to get under the hood of their cars, nor are they trying to get inside electrical appliances. They're simply trying to use their computers. Telling them that they cannot have administrative level access to their own computer is not going to fly at all (though isn't this what Microsoft's UAC is trying to do anyway?).

They are getting under the hood of their car/computer. A lot of them want to do things like take their GM transmission out of their car and install a Ford transmission in place of it. (Remove IE and install Firefox) The problem is the expectation on the part of the user of the car/computer that they can do this kind of service work themselves. That is the fault of M/S.

Your statement misses the entire point. The point is that Microsoft helped give the industry a much needed boost. Saying that Microsoft "spoon fed" people an OS and "aren't required to know how it works" doesn't mean that Microsoft was/is the problem. Microsoft tried to make it easy for everyone, and they succeeded whether people want to admit that or not.

Not everyone specializes in using computers or their inner workings, and expecting people to have computer science degrees to operate them is not the answer. These aren't necessarily dumb people, they simply have different interests than learning how an OS works.

Computer are supposed to be easy - turn on and go, just like a car. Not everyone needs to be a mechanic to be able to drive a car. Microsoft made the computer easy, and they made it compatible with nearly every piece of hardware out there, or have worked with companies to provide such compatible support as much as necessary, plain and simple.

I think you missed my point. It is only the setup of a computer O/S that requires knowelege. Forbid the user to screw with that and there won't be any problems. They will loose some options but they will gain stability.

If they have the administrator's password, the hood lock, they will get under it and tinker with every knob, screw and dial there. MS has just been better at hiding all those knobs than *nix. I'm not saying they don't get it to put in a safe, but in an envelope that says if you open this envelope not under the direction of our service tech, you void the warranty.

Since you like car analogy's, want to pimp your ride with fancy new rims and tires, you go to a service center. Want to pimp your computer, same thing.

What M/S has done is make people think they can mount 16 inch tires on 14 inch rims and make their car go faster.

As for that Unix back in the day, I believe it was more like 64k words or 128k bytes of core. Off by a factor of 500. Would have died and gone to heaven for 64Mb!

Man landed on the moon using a 4 bit micro computer!

Yes, so now we've established that computers have come a long way. And more advanced computers need more advanced, easy to use operating systems that do not require someone to have a SysAdmin's level of education just to operate it. Microsoft has been doing that for years, while the *nix community balks at them for doing so while clutching onto their OSes with white knuckles, trying to convince everyone that their OS is user friendly, but a geek's idea of user friendly doesn't exactly fit with the general population's description of 'user friendly'.

These are intelligent people that simply haven't the time, nor the interest to dedicate to learning what makes an OS tick, they just need something that works and that they can buy any software off the shelf and load it into their system and make it run. *nix is far cry from all of that. I've been hearing about how Linux is making great strides in being 'user friendly' since the late 90s and yet they're still not there yet! Makes you think they just don't get "it", and as long as they blame the user for not being more knowledgeable, the more they really aren't ever going to get "it". The answer is 'ease of use' and 'simplicity'. Windows has been winning that game for years.

Last time I checked, once set up *nix systems have a passion for not needing to be rebooted for years (yes plural) at a time. Simply not an option on a windows system. As for a system being easy to use how about all the boxes out there, like the one between your computer and the internet? Bet you didn't realize it is a *nix box. Just what is hard to use about a power switch? Wait a second, it is so easy to use it doesn't even have a keyboard, mouse or monitor! Sure if you have the administrator's password you can screw it up.

Yes being able to go to the store and buy a *nix software box and load it on every flavor needs some work. There are a few too many versions floating out there for vendors to support all of them. But that is more a market penetration thing not making economic sense to spend the money to build 500 install versions than any technical issue.

The issue with O/S's is they need to be less complicated, have less options. The more complex a system the more things that can go wrong and the greater the number of humans each with a special area of knowledge that is needed to keep it going and the less time it will be up between needed service. Since you like cars, in 1960 any backyard mechanic could work on any system in the car. Today the backyard mechanic can work on very few systems in the car; even a factory trained and factory dealer equipped mechanic can't work on all the systems, large hunks are swap black box items. That is what complexity gets you.

In 1960 these are some of the systems that didn't fail on cars. Power windows. Power door locks. Power seats. Seat heaters. Fuel Injection. Electronic ignition. I could go on, but you get the idea. More complexity means more ways to fail.

Maybe every O/S needs that recessed red reset button that is on stand alone boxes. The I really screwed it up, now please make it work again button.

Apparently you missed the part about Linux being difficult to use. And don't try to tell me it isn't - I've used it. Its not user friendly. ...

Maybe so for you.

But then, you seem to have been fully indoctrinated in the "Microsoft" way of doing things. That's fine for your isolated world. The rest of the world can work differently.

One especially successful ploy of the Microsoft Marketing has been their very successful push of their products (and lock-in) into schools and collages. The tax-payer pays for Microsoft training! Many years of it!!

Other systems/OSes are NOT Microsoft. However, there is a lot of intuitive commonality for all GUIs across all the systems.

So you're crying out for more of the Microsoft lock-in, broken standards, DRM, WGA, and their (euphemistically named) "Trusted Computing" or Palladium? Add black leather, dog collar, studs and whips?...

Yes! Give me more lock-in. That is exactly what I'm saying.

Really? You really want greater restrictions and unrestricted costs imposed upon you by the RIAA (and others) and Microsoft and all facilitated by Microsoft?

I haven't lost a game of Monopoly in years. I'm also unbeaten in Strategy since I was 7.

Shame that Microsoft only gives away Mines for 'free'!

But then, that is just my view/Vista as ever...

Just as drab as ever too.

Hardly. I have a choice of different desktops from lean and mean through to eye-candy 3d luxurious.

Note: The issue is more that of what is 'levered' with the OS rather than specifically the OS itself. Viruses and other such malware are still uniquely a continuing live experience for only one supplier's OSes...

And yet it all seems to work better than *nix. Perhaps if *nix wasn't so difficult to use and had a larger base of users, it would be targeted for viruses too. Oh right, it won't happen because someone says it won't because Linux is impenetrable to such things. Keep believing in such lies. Such thinking is naive and gullible.

Interesting line there...

So...

Please list ANY current live viruses/trojans/worms for ANY (of the many hundreds) of the *nix OSes. Are there any?

Now please try listing the (many) current live viruses/trojans/worms for the various (handful of) Windows OSes.

Oh... And Microsoft sells anti-virus software as a paid-for 'extra' does it not?

By your logic, you'd expect there to be more malware for *nix being as that is one of the most long-standing OSes in use. Also, it is used on the most high-value systems. Is that not a more important and valuable target?


So why hasn't Microsoft fixed the virus (and spam) problem?

Regards,
Martin


(Just all my own personal views and opinions. Please form your own!)

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)