Microsoft strikes again...

****ing Microsoft. How I hate thee and thy works.

I correspond daily with a friend in Spain using what was MSN Messenger,
now Windows Live Messenger. I'm teaching him English and he is teaching
me Spanish. As part of this we occasionally send each other links to
items of interest on the web. Those links appear in the conversation
window as blue clickable hyperlinks which open in a browser.

So far, so good.

Today those links stopped working in that they no longer appear in the
conversation window as hyperlinks, just plain text.

Checked the options: "Allow links in conversation window" is checked,
OK. Restart Messenger, nada. Restart Windows, nada. Check Windows
Live Help using a variety of search terms such as "broken links" etc.,
nada.

Resort to Google and I find this:

<http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_l...hive/2010/11/1
2/security-alert-active-links-in-messenger-2009-temporarily-turned-off-
to-prevent-a-malicious-worm.aspx>

So M$ has taken it upon themselves to deliberately break a feature in
their bug-ridden, vuln-strewn crapware WITHOUT WARNING THEIR ****ING
USERS OR PUTTING ANYTHING RELEVANT IN THE ****ING ONLINE HELP!

What planet are those people on?

Microsoft, may you and all your employees' 'nads turn black and drop
off. I hate each and every one of you. Thank Christ I don't work on a
Windows helldesk.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

SteveH wrote:

> Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft, may you and all your employees' 'nads turn black and drop
>> off. I hate each and every one of you. Thank Christ I don't work on
>> a Windows helldesk.
>
> Can't you copy and paste weblinks for some reason then?
>

Which is soooo much easier

Well, another "feature" linux users will be missing, I am sure
--
Micro$oft. What's broken today?

Mike Tomlinson pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Today those links stopped working in that they no longer appear in the
> conversation window as hyperlinks, just plain text.
>
> Checked the options: "Allow links in conversation window" is checked,
> OK. Restart Messenger, nada. Restart Windows, nada. Check Windows
> Live Help using a variety of search terms such as "broken links" etc.,
> nada.
>
> Resort to Google and I find this:
>
> <http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_live/b/windowslive/archive/2010/11/12/security-alert-active-links-in-messenger-2009-temporarily-turned-off-to-prevent-a-malicious-worm.aspx>
>
> So M$ has taken it upon themselves to deliberately break a feature in
> their bug-ridden, vuln-strewn crapware WITHOUT WARNING THEIR ****ING
> USERS OR PUTTING ANYTHING RELEVANT IN THE ****ING ONLINE HELP!
>
> What planet are those people on?

From a commentor at that link:

Everyone stop using really old Windows XP and switch to Windows 7! Then
you can use the safest and latest version of Messenger - Windows Live
Messenger 2011!

and

PS: I use Windows 7 and still use 2009 because it's far better (I forgot
this in my last post)

and

I get the reasoning behind this move and i appreciate it as an MSN user.
But let me explain why i dislike what you just did. I use the 2009
version due to being more user friendly and easier to use. . . .
So let me ask you this, if you read what i just wrote, why should i still
be interested to staying a loyal MSN user when everything i use it for,
has just been turned off?

--
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

In article <Pf7Fo.119323$2>, SteveH <steve.houghRE
> writes

>Can't you copy and paste weblinks for some reason then?

That's not the point I was making, but you knew that anyway.

Microsoft withdrew a useful feature in their software without any prior
warning and without putting any useful information in the Help pages for
those searching for an answer. The only resource I could find regarding
this was a posting on the Windows Team blog and that was via a competing
search engine. That shows total contempt for their users.

I don't know about others, but I for one don't expect to have to
slavishly follow the vapid witterings of the blogosphere to find out
about material changes to the software I am using.

With the likes of Microsoft and Google strongly encouraging us to
entrust our data to "the cloud", dare we trust firms like them with the
security and privacy of our personal data, when they can withdraw
features at their whim?

Microsoft has already demonstrated without doubt that they don't have
the first ****ing clue about writing secure software, otherwise they
wouldn't have had to hurriedly remove the hyperlink feature from Live
Messenger.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 18-11-10 13:21:
> In article<Pf7Fo.119323$2>, SteveH<steve.houghRE
> > writes
>
>> Can't you copy and paste weblinks for some reason then?
>
> That's not the point I was making, but you knew that anyway.
>
> Microsoft withdrew a useful feature in their software without any prior
> warning and without putting any useful information in the Help pages for
> those searching for an answer.

This seems normal for MS. Look at what it did with MSWorks! The
so-called "Millenium Editon" (version 5) was severely crippled compared
to version 4. With mail-merge the formatting of numbers in the database
or spreadsheet was no longer carried over to the letters sent. Fast
formatting was also removed. What we got instead, was a useless toy, a
"wizard" to help us make fancy letters. There were many complaints in
the newsgroup, but MS did not care. When in version 8.5 the word art and
drawing features were removed "for security reasons" instead of updated
to 32-bits without warning, I did away with Works. I installed
MandrakeLinux with Openoffice and never looked back to anything
Microsoft or Windows. You must not forget that endusers are not MS
customers. The OEMs are. What we think or need does not matte to MS.

Greetings

Erik Jan

In article <ic3akg$lns$>, Erik_jan
<> writes

>When in version 8.5 the word art and
>drawing features were removed "for security reasons" instead of updated
>to 32-bits without warning, I did away with Works. I installed
>MandrakeLinux with Openoffice and never looked back to anything
>Microsoft or Windows.

Nice one. :-) We use Linux exclusively in our uni department, and QNX
for real-time process control. For my sins, I still use Windows at
home, only 'cos it does what I want. I'm not interested in OS advocacy,
just choosing the best tool for the job.

> You must not forget that endusers are not MS
>customers. The OEMs are. What we think or need does not matte to MS.

Indeed. Hadn't thought of it like that.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

In article <ac540f7c-0aec-40c5-9041-
s.com>, Rex Ballard <> writes

[snip a beautiful indictment of Microsoft - articulated much better than
I ever could have done. Thank you]

>And yet, you seem willing to continue to use Windows.

Not that I do say in another post that I believe in choosing the tool
for the job. ToyOS, aka Windows, does what I want it to do at home,
which is mostly surf the net and play the odd game, and...

>If you knew that you would have to deal with similar issues 4-8 times
>per year, for the next 10-15 years, would you be so eager to stay with
>Windows?

I have been doing so since the days of Windows 3.0. I'd rather not be
reminded of the pain, thanks.

>If you could switch to Linux or Unix(Mac)

.... I/we do use Linux and OS X at work. Definitely a Windows-free zone
(except for the admins, who need to connect to the uni's back office
systems, and for the one solitary Winbox needed to program a PLC
controller).

>would you
>consider the transition?

I did, and we did :-) We transited from DEC OSF/1 to Tru64 UNIX on
Alphas, to Linux on PCs. We also use QNX for real-time process control.

One of the Linux boxen that I admin is getting close to a 1000-day
uptime (no, it's not visible from the internet for those about to pounce
and say it should be patched.) Try that with Windows!

>If you could make that transition gradually, with the ability to run
>Windows applications when you absolutely needed them, but with the
>ability to run Linux, with the same kind of reliability you see on Web
>Servers, Google, telephones, cable TV networks, railroads, and
>airplanes - would you consider the transition?

See above.

Perhaps you didn't realise that I just needed to rant? :-)

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:21:12 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

> In article <Pf7Fo.119323$2>, SteveH <steve.houghRE
> > writes
>
>>Can't you copy and paste weblinks for some reason then?
>
> That's not the point I was making, but you knew that anyway.
>
> Microsoft withdrew a useful feature in their software without any prior
> warning and without putting any useful information in the Help pages for
> those searching for an answer. The only resource I could find regarding
> this was a posting on the Windows Team blog and that was via a competing
> search engine. That shows total contempt for their users.
>
> I don't know about others, but I for one don't expect to have to
> slavishly follow the vapid witterings of the blogosphere to find out
> about material changes to the software I am using.
>
> With the likes of Microsoft and Google strongly encouraging us to
> entrust our data to "the cloud", dare we trust firms like them with the
> security and privacy of our personal data, when they can withdraw
> features at their whim?
>
> Microsoft has already demonstrated without doubt that they don't have
> the first ****ing clue about writing secure software, otherwise they
> wouldn't have had to hurriedly remove the hyperlink feature from Live
> Messenger.

Then dump Windows and go to another OS! If it caused me so much agina, I
would switch instead of bitching in a public forum. Vote with your
money, get something else.

.... Rex Ballard @ 2010-11-18 15:35 >

> * long long text *

Wow, I'd buy the book



--
MJO

sctvguy1 pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Then dump Windows and go to another OS! If it caused me so much agina...

Oops -------------------------------------------------------------^

--
Of all the words of witch's doom
There's none so bad as which and whom.
The man who kills both which and whom
Will be enshrined in our Who's Whom.
-- Fletcher Knebel