|September 24th to November
| Okay, now, this
is just strange. After fred booted me off of his lame Gruntose site, he (of all people)
to write a rant. Since I have done nothing furthur to further the
of world harmonica, bringing all nations under sway of the mastermind
of APE (motto: do nothing at all), as exhibited here at Rantose-COM,
with so many amazingly corrupt corporate fish to fry, and with run-on
to curdle any fourth-grade English teacher's non-dairy soy beverage, I
decided, conditionally, to let him. The conditions being: (1)
a rant is produced. That Is All.
-- Abel Plunkett
my feculent journey with windows
by fred t. hamster
not sure how much i need to elucidate here...
this is a folder named "crap" which i would like to delete:
please excuse my color scheme. i know it exhibits some out-of-kilter aesthetics, if any.
back to our story, i am now hitting the shift-delete key on the junk folder, since that deletes without saving an "oops" copy in the recycle bin. boom, i get the following message from windose:
i get the same results with regular delete and even from the explorer application.
finally, something is clear--this operating system needs its crap. i guess i won't try to delete it again (i'm not convinced i would be able to; i think it might be an integrated feature).
let's just see the DOJ and congress try to separate this function from windows! we won't let them! taking the crap out of windows would be like taking the corruption out of politics--it's here to stay and/or back bigger than ever.
note that i have not altered these bitmaps besides cropping them; ms-w2k really gave me that special message. (this is easily reproducible, write me for details and include $27.38 USD plus a self-addressed, stamped, homing pigeon in a vat of venusian churl butter.)
well, a footnote on my sad story is this bizarre control panel i got from that same w2k system. this was days later and reboots aplenty in-between...
this is genuine windoze nerve rot. we all know it happens. the dirty little secret of the registry, which is that it's an ever-decomposing single point of failure. sure, it sounds like a great idea,.. let's put all our configs in one basket, they won't break that way, even if we go traipsing along the gnarled lane of random applications crashing, falling down around our ears, and noses, and pinky fingers.
can you disprove the statement: "since no programs ever go crazy on windows, the registry never gets corrupted"..? i can, i can! and then we all go WHEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
"your table for one is ready, mr. clue."
it took abel so long to post even a pre-written rant that i've started using windborg-XP, which i think stands for eXtra Problems. i am really glad that the DOJ has protected our god-given right to run wingows, complete with all features. they have in fact utterly failed to force microsoft to remove the C.R.A.P. (Constantly Repeated Advertising Pap? i still don't know what it stands for). were it gone, oh, what a different world it would be. i just don't even want to think about it.
(^^^ New feature! Hoo hah! Now I can feel guilty about how long it's been since an update. D'uhhh... maybe... erm. Whatever. Maybe I can get fred to write some more. *Ow*, quit it! Damned biting rodents.
Like your rant made any damn sense. Are you talking about a bridal registry? And you gave up your editorial control willingly... HAHAHAHAHAAA... What a bonehead. -- Abel)
(Okay, okay, he's threatened not to do a Rantose logo. Fine, I apologize sincerely from the bottom of my feet and promise I will never ever ever touch or alter these scintillating pearly drops of divine wisdom that you deign to emit in textual form here. Much. I want that logo soon though. -- Abel)
(Great, the editing never ends. As an alert reader has pointed out, the posting date feature above is _not_ a new feature. You all have the right to a free refund. That's right, no money back, free of charge or lien or encumbrance. In fact, from this moment on, your mind is entirely free, no charges apply. Thanks to your mental powers, no shackles hold your consciousness down and it functions perfectly--exactly as you intend it to. No, don't thank me, you did it all. Free everythings for everyone, party in your own mind, my treat. -- Abel)
|January 26th 2002 to June 19th
Can you believe that fred has let me back on this pulpit to pump it, partly formed ideas slopping over onto this page, just because I was brimming over with things to say about Microsoft's new security initiative?
Hmmm, how to keep it real while yet maintaining my edge, diving straight into the heart of the hypocrisy without being touched by the slime molds and the itchy trolls, gently wanking while singing to the moon of things unknown?
Okay, let me paint you an analogy here, by way of illustrative word smithereens:
It is the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The city is still massively embroiled in flame, with much melting and burning and charring, hoy! Acrid smoke is what you'll breathe should you visit the beautiful City of Chicago (on fire)!
Roswell B. Mason, the mayor, is standing in the very middle of the incandescing Bigelow House (which had been slated for opening the day after after the fire started)... He furrows his brow and proposes to his aide Chester, who is ducking and skipping around various red-hot embers and falling beams, that "It might just be time, dear lad, to propose to the City Council that we have some regulations for management of lamps in cow stalls. Yes, a good idea indeed!"
Okay, I note that there is some dispute as to whether Mrs. O'Leary's cow really started that fire or not, but there's really not too much dispute about this:
Microsoft's Security Sucks.
If their default installations were actually capable of anything at all, then Microsoft security could suck very large cows through very narrow urethras. I've seen it done.
And in yet another way (thanks to frequent reader Bart Simpson for pointing this out):
Microsoft's Security Blows.
Microsoft's security blows armadas of galleons and dreadnoughts carved from rhino dung backwards from its sulfate-encrusted intestinal hoses, up through its bloated gas bag of a stomach (hey look, there's a piece of Netscape stuck on that refulgent purple ulcer!), and washes these feculent ocean-going vessels down on a veritable Niagara of spewage erupting from its falsehood gibbering, pyorrhea infested, slanty-toothed, forked-tongued, pucker of a gobby mouth.
"Hey, but we've solved all our past and future problems this time with Windoze QP! It stands for 'the QuacksPerience'. And now with all new and improved Security Consciousness (TM) !"
Gip... Brp... Bwahhhahahahaaahahahahahahaa! Hahhahahheehehehhehhahhahaha...! Hrfffff... HOOOhhahahahoeeeeehaaa...! Ooohhhg... Heh heh. Wow, that's a good one, Bill. Tell us another, please... please?
April 6th to April 23rd 2001
Abel Plunkett's therapeutic invectives are apparently nearly complete. She is presenting the following rant as a grab bag of theories that could lead to many interesting possibilities, but none of which fattened into ripe, sweet and juicy rants of their own... As always, believe anything at your own risk--of becoming confused. And certainly disbelieve anything at your own risk--of missing the theories that are actually factual.
Microsoft Is the "Big" in "Big Brother".
[Gruntose guest editor Abel Plunkett delivers the next steam-driven, turbo-powered expulsion of chatter in her series...]
Now look people, I wouldn't want anyone to consider me as wholly negative towards Microsoft. It's more like how a burning itchy spot in the small of the back where one cannot reach it is not wholly negative. Sometimes it just feels good to rub against the door frame of your co-worker's office to scratch it.
With their participation in the development of the SOAP protocol, Microsoft is supposedly trying to turn a new leaf. Gone supposedly are the days of rampant monopoly exploitation to crush competitors, and supposedly gone are the efforts to divide standards which Microsoft dislikes because they imply the existence of a world of computing beyond Microsoft's proprietary realm. Supposedly. We are watching this carefully.
The "new" Microsoft has contributed to the SOAP standard as a simple method for XML data exchange over the web, and as a rallying point around which web services can be developed. Now, that's a pretty good thing. Even IBM is playing along with this standard, since it is now administrated by a standards body and should be set in stone so that everyone can use it and no participant can be excluded. That's all fine and laudable. But it's laudanum you're on if you think that's all there is to it...
One might wonder how long will it be before the standard Microsoft policy of "embrace," "extend," "extinguish" is carried out on SOAP? Well, maybe never. They are relying on this standard also, so they probably will not try to extinguish it... But will they extend it in ways that require use of Windows? Jury is still out on that... But are they going to be bound by the specification so that any vendor can interoperate with Microsoft software delivered via SOAP? Nope, not at all.
If Microsoft wants to, it can still prevent the riff-raff (read, "you and me") from using SOAP based services. In fact, it becomes a whole lot easier for them to restrict who can play with their tools than before, because there are more ways to do it... SOAP may have authentication built into it in the next version, possibly via certificates. This means that one could easily be required to provide a certificate to a SOAP service before one will be allowed to use any of the functions it provides. The managers of the web site in question can choose which certificate authorities to accept authentication from. Once this is the case, a site could easily choose to honor only Microsoft based certificates. Or only Verisign. Or whomever. Thus, the general public can be kept out of the service at the whim of the web site owners. Maybe only Microsoft-friendly companies will be included in the default, shipped set of certificate vendors who are permitted to provide authentication. Fragmentation of the web via certificates could be the result...
All Microsoft has really done is give us part of a still unreliable product which they are going to deliver in a year or two (and have mostly working within five). SOAP is just part of their planned ".NET" system. Another part is the hope that their services will dominate the web and afford them yet another monopoly opportunity. Another part is ensuring that web services are most easily developed on the Microsoft platform. This will draw some of the same developers who thought MFC was just dandy to the MS fold, but that's not such a big loss.
However, it is almost certain that they will require clients of the ".NET" framework to be running the approved Microsoft code, regardless of the platform. Thus they extend their licensing grasps into the Linux arena as well, since one will not be able to speak DotNet without the netted dollars that Microsoft extracts for licensing fees. Since they are offering Linux ports of their ".NET" system, no one can claim that they are trying to keep us out of the game. But an obvious anticipated slight to the Open Source community might be that we will be prohibited from developing services for this new baldgame without forking up the green to the cashivorous MS dinosaur.
How can we be excluded from ".NET"? Step one: certificates (see above). Step two: SOAP-based protocols that require users to be running Microsoft-specifc Win32 services on their machine, such as Win32 security (which is already an option provided in their IIS product... why not over SOAP as well?). Step three--litigation, based on the provisions of the DMCA, against people who try to develop open versions of those protocols. Voila, the web has been gradually spooged into becoming property of Microsoft.
And seriously, could they have chosen a worse name for this new product? At least when they were pushing the COM product, one could look for Distributed COM (DCOM) at the search engines. But searching for just "COM" itself matches, well..., every commercial web site out there. Golly, is this just stupidity in the marketing department or is it a nasty comment on how user-friendly they want to be today? Perhaps it's because they want to force people to search for these products only in Microsoft's MSDN, where the only company you'll hear about is Microsoft.COM anyway. But now with ".NET", they've helpfully included a period character in the name to snarl things up even worse. Be prepared to see the names of lots of random ISPs and other network sites at your search engine when you're trying to look up Microsoft's newest ".NET" bunkware (or go to Microsoft's MSDN web site knowing that you are right where they want you to be (today)). Choosing those names (in apparent disregard for the two top-level domain names) was so very nice of you wannabe-slacker geeks up there in Redmond... Now here's a view of my exposed backside hardware, including that metaphor for your arrogance.
March 10th to 16th 2001
February 20th to March 3rd 2001
February 13th to 14th 2001
February 4th to 12th 2001