OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>>Linux has a much more primitive security model than Windows.
>
>
> Oh my god! Don't make me laugh... The whole user account fumble on Windows
> makes it insecure. When users have to run their applications as
> administrator, it defeats having user accounts at all for security reasons.

Except the premise is false. Users do not "have to run their applications
as administrator."

And a similar complaint can be made about Linux tasks that change
themselves to root during execution, or simply execute with root
privileges. Not to mention it's probably one of the most popular 'fixes'
users do for an access problem: change it to root.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> Ruel Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Linux has a much more primitive security model than Windows.
>>
>>Oh my god! Don't make me laugh... The whole user account fumble on Windows
>>makes it insecure. When users have to run their applications as
>>administrator, it defeats having user accounts at all for security
>>reasons.
>
>
> I wanted to add, that the fact that it promotes users running in full blown
> administrator mode at all, which is what 99% of all users do anyway,
> demonstrates that security pretty much wasn't even a consideration at all
> when it was developed.

That's nonsense. Windows does not 'promote' running as Administrator.

Users do it because they're lazy, don't understand user privileges anyway,
and don't realize the vulnerability it creates.

And to conclude that "security pretty much wasn't even a consideration"
from users abusing it is absurd.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:

>> Forget [the command line interface], I tell my computer what to
>> do, with my voice.

> Must be tough when you're entering regular expressions.

Give me your favorite regular expression and I will show you how
it's done.

I won't live in the past. My goal has always been to make my
personal computer do anything and everything it can do. User
interfaces will continue to progress as technology progresses. That
is a fact that anyone should be able to see. Even if you live in the
Third World, your technology improves over time.

Besides typing which I mostly no longer have to do (yeah!), one of
my favorite applications for speech is opening programs. It seems
simple, but it is fun. I no longer have to reserve space for an
icon, I just say "open notes" or "open data folder" or "open
browser". Anything I would have to hunt for or spell out is now
instantly accessible. It is similar to the difference between
hunting and pecking on a typewriter versus touch typing.

Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner or later
it will be usable by most people.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Matt writes:

>>> Oh, there's a falsehood.
>>
>> I've seen the code for both. Windows is more secure, by orders of
>> magnitude.
>
> Now I know your full of it...

Apparently. He's trolling both sides.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> Except the premise is false. Users do not "have to run their applications
> as administrator."
>
> And a similar complaint can be made about Linux tasks that change
> themselves to root during execution, or simply execute with root
> privileges. Not to mention it's probably one of the most popular 'fixes'
> users do for an access problem: change it to root.

Try again. First of all, there are many applications that have to be run as
administrator or they simply don't run in the user account.

Secondly, yes, you can be so stupid as to change an application to run in
root mode, but it's not necessary and pretty stupid to do so. All Linux
applications are designed to be run in user mode. An idiot can make his
Linux system insecure, and nothing is stopping him. However, by design,
it's not nearly as insecure as Windows.

Getting root privileges is temporary in Linux. You simply turn it on for the
task you need to take care of, and when you exit the application, such as a
control panel type of application where you need to make system wide
changes, or exit your superuser (su) status, it's gone. You are not left
vulnerable.

Regardless of how you spin this, it's true, and reinforces my position
contrary to Mxsmanic's claim that "Linux has a much more primitive security
model than Windows."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:1170mtl3eb58m88@corp.supernews.com...

> That's nonsense. Windows does not 'promote' running as Administrator.
>
> Users do it because they're lazy, don't understand user privileges anyway,
> and don't realize the vulnerability it creates.
>
> And to conclude that "security pretty much wasn't even a consideration"
> from users abusing it is absurd.

I have been running as a non-privileged user on windows xp pro for a few
years now. It generally works fine except, for example, programs like
Quicken and Norton anti-virus. Quicken insists on putting user state in its
program files directory. NAV wants you to log in as an admistrator to run
full system scans, you can't schedule a service to do this. The point is WXP
has good security, a lot of application programs don't run properly unless
you are an admistrator and most users are not willing, like I am, to hack
directory and file protections, and investigate which files need protection
changes, to get them to work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Harlo Peterson wrote:
> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:1170mtl3eb58m88@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>That's nonsense. Windows does not 'promote' running as Administrator.
>>
>>Users do it because they're lazy, don't understand user privileges anyway,
>>and don't realize the vulnerability it creates.
>>
>>And to conclude that "security pretty much wasn't even a consideration"
>>from users abusing it is absurd.
>
>
> I have been running as a non-privileged user on windows xp pro for a few
> years now. It generally works fine except, for example, programs like
> Quicken and Norton anti-virus. Quicken insists on putting user state in its
> program files directory. NAV wants you to log in as an admistrator to run
> full system scans, you can't schedule a service to do this. The point is WXP
> has good security, a lot of application programs don't run properly unless
> you are an admistrator and most users are not willing, like I am, to hack
> directory and file protections, and investigate which files need protection
> changes, to get them to work.
>
>

Well, I don't know how you set your system up but I have no problems
running full NAV virus scans as a user.

I couldn't say for sure about Quicken as I don't use it but from what I've
seen on other systems it doesn't look to me like it properly supports
Windows 2000/XP security.

Your description, though, sounds a lot like a rather common Linux issue
where a program needs root privileges to be installed and sets up the user
data files it creates as root owned so the user can't change his personal
program preferences till their permissions are changed. In Quicken's case
it sounds like they're storing user data in a place that users aren't
supposed to be putting data in.

That, btw, is one of the things the MS XP program 'certification' is about:
making sure applications use the security features properly, like placing
user data in accessible folders in the Documents and Settings area under
their user name. If they do then security is essentially 'automatic'
because they've developed a consistent schema for implementing it.

You'd probably have no problem using it as a power user, though, as power
users have write privileges to the Program Files area.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> Oh my god! Don't make me laugh... The whole user account fumble on Windows
> makes it insecure.

What "user account fumble"?

> When users have to run their applications as administrator, it defeats
> having user accounts at all for security reasons.

Perhaps, but applications are distinct from the operating system. If an
application is so poorly designed that it cannot run without
administrative privileges, that's a defect in the application, and
there's nothing that any operating system can do about it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Oh my god! Don't make me laugh... The whole user account fumble on
>> Windows makes it insecure.
>
> What "user account fumble"?

On Windows, on the desktop, if you create user accounts for everyone in your
house, certain applications still require to be run as administrator (they
are numerous, too). So, in those accounts, they have to be setup to run as
administrator to run at all in the user accounts. This is a major security
vulnerability. A security breach in one of those applications enables them
to compromise the entire operating system.

In Linux, applications are run in the user space in the user accounts. Any
vulnerabilities are restricted to destroying the user account, but not the
system itself.

Worst of all, most Windows users do not create user accounts at all, and
simply operate as administrator 24/7. Talk about vulnerable...

This is a fumble. Why have user accounts at all, if they are not secure?

>> When users have to run their applications as administrator, it defeats
>> having user accounts at all for security reasons.
>
> Perhaps, but applications are distinct from the operating system. If an
> application is so poorly designed that it cannot run without
> administrative privileges, that's a defect in the application, and
> there's nothing that any operating system can do about it.

Wrong. That's a defect in the operating system that it allows the
application to run in administrator mode at all from a user account.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> I wanted to add, that the fact that it promotes users running in full blown
> administrator mode at all, which is what 99% of all users do anyway,
> demonstrates that security pretty much wasn't even a consideration at all
> when it was developed.

Security was a key feature of Windows NT, the predecessor of all modern
versions of Windows (NT, XP, 200x). When the OS is run as a server,
it's rare for users to log in as administrators (even among sysadmins).

When Windows or any OS is run as a desktop, the end user typically has
direct physical access to the machine. There isn't any way to secure a
machine to which the user has direct physical access, and so not much is
lost if he logs in as an administrator. Most desktops are far less
mission-critical than servers, anyway, so a compromise of a desktop has
less far-reaching effects than a compromise of a server.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> Yes, but you said Unix didn't get anything from Linux, didn't you?

I don't recall what I said.

> Are we comparing NetBSD or AIX vs. Linux desktop systems? I thought we were
> comparing a typical desktop Unix, like FreeBSD vs. Linux.

I was comparing all versions of UNIX to Linux, IIRC.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner or later
> it will be usable by most people.

Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain problems,
not all. I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>> After all, the concepts of 'user' and file ownership are retrofitted
>>> to Windows and My Computer.
>>
>>
>>
>> You apparently don't know nearly as much about 'Windows' as you think.
>> The 'NT' platforms were designed from the ground up with user and file
>> security and with more security features/flexibilty than either UNIX
>> or Linux..
>
>
> Somebody please give me and other Linux bigots a reading assignment
> covering the basics of NT/XP file protections. Something lucid and
> authoritative, maybe between five and twenty pages, hopefully free.

I don't know where to find a 'simple synopsis', partly because there's so
many things involved.

Here's a place to start.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/windows_security_default_settings.mspx

You'll also have to get into active directory and domain management though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Harlo Peterson writes:

> I have been running as a non-privileged user on windows xp pro for a few
> years now. It generally works fine except, for example, programs like
> Quicken and Norton anti-virus. Quicken insists on putting user state in its
> program files directory. NAV wants you to log in as an admistrator to run
> full system scans, you can't schedule a service to do this. The point is WXP
> has good security, a lot of application programs don't run properly unless
> you are an admistrator and most users are not willing, like I am, to hack
> directory and file protections, and investigate which files need protection
> changes, to get them to work.

What advantages have you obtained in exchange for your efforts to make
things work with only user privileges?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>> Besides that, a hypothetical internet that is only half Windows would
>>> have its non-Windows side divided among Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, BSD,
>>> Mac, and other Unixes and Linuxes. So the monoculturalism would
>>> still be almost all on the Windows side.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is just speculation and without any basis. For example, the
>> ability to infect cross platform, both Linux and Windows with the same
>> virus, has already been demonstrated.
>
>
> Then the possibility of cross-platform attacks means it doesn't matter
> that Windows is predominant? Linux is vulnerable despite being
> uncommon? It would seem that such cross-platform attacks would be the
> most virulent, since Linux is so common on servers. But have such
> attacks had any practical impact? I hope you will name one if you can.

I'm sure you think that all makes sense but you make bounding leaps of
unsupported assumptions. I said a cross platform virus had been
demonstrated. I did not say it was as 'easy' to accomplish as a single
platform target nor did I say it was in the wild or that the creators went
loopy and handed it out to every nut on the planet. Or that the
vulnerability wasn't plugged at the same time they demonstrated it.

As far as "Linux is vulnerable despite being uncommon?" That was already
true regardless of whether a cross platform virus works or not. The only
question is 'how vulnerable', and how many people will try and when.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Your description, though, sounds a lot like a rather common Linux
>> issue where a program needs root privileges to be installed and sets
>> up the user data files it creates as root owned so the user can't
>> change his personal program preferences till their permissions are
>> changed.
>
>
> I've been using Linux for years and I don't believe I've ever had that
> problem. I don't know why you claimed that it is rather common.

I only say so because I heard lots of Linux users say so. The complaint was
usually manifested as "it won't save my settings."


> I believe that typically the user data files are set up by the
> application the first time a user runs it (witness: the gimp). The
> program prompts for the path to a directory for which the user has write
> permission.

I'd be cautious about using the word 'typical' in conjunction with Linux
applications.

Hell, the last time I installed blackbox (2 days ago on the webpal) it
placed the operating config files in a location not even mentioned in the
doc files, not even in the "they might be here, or they might be there, or
they might even be over thar, depending on which version of Linux you're
running" section. Nor the 'typical' place in the user's directory (although
you can manually put some there, but you have to find the others first).
Which wouldn't have been too bad because FIND can find them, except they
weren't the NAME given either. But that became clear after editing my
preferences into the one with the listed NAME had no effect whatsoever.

But that's Debian Potato from 2000-2003 (Sarge became 'stable' in 2003) so
one doesn't expect Windows style 'user friendly' and I can't run KDE in 32
meg of RAM on a 50Mhz Arm.

icewm went a little smoother.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> But that's Debian Potato from 2000-2003 (Sarge became 'stable' in 2003) so
> one doesn't expect Windows style 'user friendly' and I can't run KDE in 32
> meg of RAM on a 50Mhz Arm.

Umm, last I looked, Sarge is "testing", and Woody is "stable".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:

>> Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner or
>> later it will be usable by most people.
>
> Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain
> problems, not all.

It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer. Highly
likely it will be the way most computers and computer-based
machines will be operated in the future.

> I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.

That is very unusual.



>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
>
>
> Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:52:38 -0500
> From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: OEM vs Retail XP Pro
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:52:37 +0200
> Organization: None
> Message-ID: <b021711tplahr34if0fpgmv8lhqlucpqbm 4ax.com>
> References: <Xns9642F09962EA2wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <tduo615s48ptfae0updm7aj70gqpchk566@4ax.com> <Xns9643E6408CD3wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <n8vp61t0c5tt8fkof3mt8tdrks3877gtdq@4ax.com> <645fc$426d587e$4275e3c2$12429@FUSE.NET> <116rl3at5l11d68@corp.supernews.com> <9a70$426ea5a7$4275e271$9282@FUSE.NET> <2r3u61phe0i8jj96pdleplrmh8qtlhu198@4ax.com> <Xns9644F127A66B2wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <osmv61dbj1stjjnd8qp8lrkdafqh6ceq6j@4ax.com> <Xns9645DA92C4FE5wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 10
> X-Trace: sv3-cPA1EXfVQ5zV8RJCucbeAr2MCekmoJmKItDLmwjQt1NoXEk0yUTtqW9FiMN2EbW6htdxTMGkuCQP5LD!7EvdrMxQ8rY6yDB1NcaCauaaVEE7tnmFiKAc7ogz0NfvuK1nMsh8CGUmYcqIFEHaow==
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:434445
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>John Doe writes:
>
>
>>>Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner or
>>>later it will be usable by most people.
>>
>>Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain
>>problems, not all.
>
>
> It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer. Highly
> likely it will be the way most computers and computer-based
> machines will be operated in the future.
>
>
>>I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.
>
>
> That is very unusual.

Not really. You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.

He's being rather subtle about it but the point he's making is that
computers can be used for lots of things and not all of them are simple
text nor things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.

For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs packet size:

echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot -persist

Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that command but those skilled
in the art are and it doesn't lend itself to verbalization very well
(unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue of typing it
to begin with in order to read it back), and a lot of complex math doesn't.
Neither do compiler command lines.

Now, some day we might be able to tell the computer to "plot FastE packet
rate vs packet size for me" but that's way past simple 'voice recognition'
and gets into advanced artificial intelligence.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Matt wrote:
>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Besides that, a hypothetical internet that is only half Windows
>>>>> would have its non-Windows side divided among Red Hat, Suse,
>>>>> Mandrake, BSD, Mac, and other Unixes and Linuxes. So the
>>>>> monoculturalism would still be almost all on the Windows side.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is just speculation and without any basis. For example, the
>>>> ability to infect cross platform, both Linux and Windows with the
>>>> same virus, has already been demonstrated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then the possibility of cross-platform attacks means it doesn't
>>> matter that Windows is predominant? Linux is vulnerable despite
>>> being uncommon? It would seem that such cross-platform attacks would
>>> be the most virulent, since Linux is so common on servers. But have
>>> such attacks had any practical impact? I hope you will name one if
>>> you can.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure you think that all makes sense but you make bounding leaps of
>> unsupported assumptions. I said a cross platform virus had been
>> demonstrated. I did not say it was as 'easy' to accomplish as a single
>> platform target nor did I say it was in the wild or that the creators
>> went loopy and handed it out to every nut on the planet. Or that the
>> vulnerability wasn't plugged at the same time they demonstrated it.
>
>
> I expect that if Linux is a bottleneck in virus transmission, it isn't
> because the cross-platform approach hasn't been tried---it is because it
> isn't practical and basically isn't doable. Do you disagree that those
> targeting MS systems would be happy to break through Linux firewalls and
> servers so as to spread their MS infections better? Ah, maybe the virus
> writers are all anti-MS Linux partisans who don't want to make Linux
> look bad even though it would help them make MS look bad.

You just keep on making wild unsupported assumptions one after the other
with no end in sight.

No one said Linux was a 'bottleneck' to anything, virus or not.

As for the rest, it's been gone over ad nausium and if you haven't grasped
it by now it's not worth wasting the typing to go over it again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <2fb1b$42701a18$4275e29a$5555@FUSE.NET>, Ruel Smith says...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Microsoft has spent a lot more time studying ergonomics than anyone
> > working on Linux ever has (apparently).
>
> Actually, they get by on the cheap ripping off Apple...
>
Apple who in turn got by on the cheap by ripping off Xerox...

What goes around comes around and all that.

--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>
>> In article <2fb1b$42701a18$4275e29a$5555@FUSE.NET>, Ruel Smith says...
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Microsoft has spent a lot more time studying ergonomics than anyone
>>>> working on Linux ever has (apparently).
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, they get by on the cheap ripping off Apple...
>>>
>>
>> Apple who in turn got by on the cheap by ripping off Xerox...
>>
>> What goes around comes around and all that.
>>
>
> ... the difference being that MS didn't have the guts or vision to build
> it until they saw that somebody else was making money on the idea.

I guess that would go doubly so for Linux then, eh? They cloned an entire O.S.

It's true in any field that people build on what went before.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <Q%1ce.14$8g.13@news01.roc.ny>, Matt says...
> Al Smith wrote:
>
> > Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common hardware, it
> > isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what Linux apologists
> > say.
>
> True. That's where Brazil, Korea, China, and others come into the picture.
>
China has done a complete 180 on Linux and gone back to Windows.

> Those giants are adopting Linux en masse, which means that hardware
> makers will be at a significant disadvantage if they don't provide
> drivers for Linux. Can a hardware maker ignore 5% to 10% of the world
> market and still outdo their competitors? No. We in the West don't see
> huge Linux growth yet, but its growth in the East (especially among
> small businesses) will bring it to that critical mass.
>
In the third world they're using recycled hardware. They can't afford
to buy the latest gear hence there's no point in even bothering with a
market like that.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <3v2ce.21$bJ7.7@news02.roc.ny>, Matt says...

> Somebody please give me and other Linux bigots a reading assignment
> covering the basics of NT/XP file protections. Something lucid and
> authoritative, maybe between five and twenty pages, hopefully free.
>
You're obviously a clueless idiot so here's a list of the dummies
guides available.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesTitle/productCd-0764503413.html

--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>John Doe writes:

>>>>Speech recognition can be extremely frustrating, but sooner or
>>>>later it will be usable by most people.
>>>
>>>Speech recognition, like a GUI, is only a solution to certain
>>>problems, not all.
>>
>>
>> It's a user interface. It's a way to operate a computer. Highly
>> likely it will be the way most computers and computer-based
>> machines will be operated in the future.
>>
>>
>>>I can type faster and more accurately than I can speak.
>>
>>
>> That is very unusual.
>
> Not really.

In your opinion.

> You're probably thinking of 'text' vs speaking the same text.

I'm thinking of what Mxsmanic said.

> He's being rather subtle

Doonesbury includes some comedy based on ideas like that. A
Chinese dictator was so disabled that no one could understand what
he was saying. His aid was running the country.

> about it but the point he's making is that computers can be used
> for lots of things and not all of them are simple text nor
> things that lend themselves to easy verbalization.

My reply was based on what Mxsmanic said.

Now we will argue what you want to argue. At least while there is
any point to it.

> For example, this linux command line plot FastE packet rate vs
> packet size:
>
> echo 'pad=20; plot [64:1518] (100*10**6)/((pad+x)*8)' | gnuplot
> -persist Now you and I might not be 'quick' to create that
> command but those skilled in the art are and it doesn't lend
> itself to verbalization very well

Speech recognition doesn't mean that characters have to be
enunciated one at a time.

> (unless you're simply reading it back but that begs the issue of
> typing it to begin with in order to read it back),

Typing it to begin with in order to read it back?

> and a lot of complex math doesn't. Neither do compiler command
> lines.

I do not know what you're trying to say.

> Now, some day we might be able to tell the computer to "plot
> FastE packet rate vs packet size for me" but that's way past
> simple 'voice recognition' and gets into advanced artificial
> intelligence.

That isn't necessary for verbal control. Speech control does not
necessarily mean the computer has to understand like a human
understands. The objective is to do what you could do by hand, and
there are many ways to efficiently enable that. A noticeable
difference is like not having to enter keystrokes on a command
line, even though the computer might receive the input as if you
did.

What experience do you have with speech recognition? What
experience do have with entering/processing/outputting ordinary
keystrokes?


>
>
>
> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!sjc-c01.usenetserver.com!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
> From: David Maynard <nospam private.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: OEM vs Retail XP Pro
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:42:08 -0500
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <1171j0g82q4ur3a corp.supernews.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> References: <Xns9642F09962EA2wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <tduo615s48ptfae0updm7aj70gqpchk566@4ax.com> <Xns9643E6408CD3wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <n8vp61t0c5tt8fkof3mt8tdrks3877gtdq@4ax.com> <645fc$426d587e$4275e3c2$12429@FUSE.NET> <116rl3at5l11d68@corp.supernews.com> <9a70$426ea5a7$4275e271$9282@FUSE.NET> <2r3u61phe0i8jj96pdleplrmh8qtlhu198@4ax.com> <Xns9644F127A66B2wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <osmv61dbj1stjjnd8qp8lrkdafqh6ceq6j@4ax.com> <Xns9645DA92C4FE5wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <b021711tplahr34if0fpgmv8lhqlucpqbm@4ax.com> <Xns9646409DD1E56wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> In-Reply-To: <Xns9646409DD1E56wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
> Lines: 43
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:434471
>