EDIT:July 9, 2004

I have tried this with Firefox .9 and have had success... I would ammend this entry to change the install directory for firefox to the internet explorer directory as it makes the over-writing process much cleaner... and some apps are fooled more easily that way.

Well, to anyone with a mind for history, the prevelance of IE security holes, and 0 day exploits is obvious. The reasons for moving to a more stable and feature rich, not to mention less used, browser are obvious to the security minded.

So, for me to find that no one else had tried to remove IE entirely from their XP pro system, to document it online anyways, was pretty astonishing.

Although I tried I was not able to remove IE entirely... but at least it is no longer call-able directly by tons of spyware/popupware applications.

First, I downloaded firefox 0.8. I have had more experience with it than .9, but I suppose it would work just as well.

After which through copying, pasting, and deleting I was able to discover the naming convention that M$ uses to self heal the iexplore.exe file. Upon deletion it copies the "good" iexplore.exe to iexplore.exe.new in the \%progfiles%\Internet explorer\ directory.

So now I had a name for a file I had to make windows unable to write. So I created an empty file with that name (iexplore.exe.new)(0 byte) and set the security so that no user had any permissions to read or write it.

After which I copied the firefox executable over the iexplore.exe and opened it up. I was still able to cause an explorer window to become an IE window (via typing a url in the location bar) but now 99% of the popup/spyware/adware BS can't call IE to open up.

There may be more to it, and the very nature of self healing is not obvious to me so I guarantee nothing.

On top of which I would reccommend making a backup copy of your internet explorer executable just in-case you screw something up horribly.

And if it still doesn't work... Don't fight it

I believe, that today and yesterday's results on ISC (internet storm center) will show that port 135 attacks have nearly halved as the Nachi worm drops off the face of the earth.

I am a little concerned. Pretty much every time I see the meta-moderate option on my home-page I click and try my best to meta-moderate effectively. Every once in a while I troll on some topic that ticks me off, but nothing overly offensive In fact, normally my trolls should be moderated "redundant" but whatever. What does bother me is that around the same time I ran out of my subscription ad-blocking page-views I trolled on a topic or two. Since then my steady flow (every week at least once) of moderator points have pretty much dried up.

Still, I have "excellent" karma because I constantly attempt to contribute to the community. Has anyone else experienced losing the moderate option while still having a good karma rating from either trolling or having their subscription wear up?

SCO's claim is broad. What is their original claim?

SCO:We believe that Linux is, in material part, an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. the open letter here.

What the hell is the point of all this insane lawsuits back and forth. I can understand if Linux were a licensed source app that actually made money in the sale of itself.... but Why would any media outlet with understanding of the OSS movement publish this rubbish.

Linus torvaldis has been indirectly threatened for *violating software patents.* Patents SCO doesn't own directly.

Not too long ago, you could even get a CD from SCO that contained linux code don't believe me? The Wayback machine doesn't lie. Not even considering the fact that they released Caldera linux, were a corporate sponsor of "Linux International" and were a proponent of Open Source.

They are now taking a backflip and pointing fingers at EVERY linux vendor, user, distributor, and coder. How can they even begin to imagine such a far leap from their original thinking?

They released OpenLinux (aka Caldera linux) under the caldera systems moniker as far back as 98. Who would even imagine they were going to implicate thousands of people in a worldwide conspiracy to undermine a patent on a technology they own. And then not even look at their own coporate history?

The GPL entitles someone to use code, only if they release anything that they modify for their, or anybody elses use. Caldera was a modified version of linux, whether or not they modified the linux kernel, they released the kernel on a cd with the source to the kernel included.

Now, as anyone who has sifted through the un-ending kernel knows, just like every other GNU project the GPL is attached to every part of it. Here's the funny part, SCO released cds that said they had no right to charge licensing for things. Then 1-2 years later they came out demanding IBM pay for the licenses they gave away via copyleft (aka gpl.)

Now the breach of contract is another issue, and was probably their *fallback* if a buyout did not occur. Why do I say this? Because from the stupidity and the rushed manner SCO has put their claims forth.

Anyone who has worked for IBM will tell you their run audits looking for exactly what SCO claimed was in existence: (obfuscated, copied, stolen, whatever) code in the Linux OS. Now, linux defines 1 thing, and 1 thing only: the kernel. The myriad of other programs released with linux are under many DIFFERENT licenses, some are GPL'd some are BSD'd some are *free* (as in free to do whatever you want, except sell.)

Depending on the distribution you have different *pieces* of the operating system which come from different places. Some Linux operating systems (such as RHLinux) are 100% open source, if you even think of *tainting* your kernel with non-OSS code, it warns you first. Others are not so strict, and include what they believe are the best options for their audience.

Some operating systems based upon the linux kernel (linux like, or true linux) are so small, they can fit in 16mb (perfect example being the ever popular sharp zaurus) some are even smaller still, and nearly re-written completely for optimization on the various processors that are available for Embedded systems.

I can't begin to explain my outrage at the SCO group for their dangerous, slanderous finger pointing. Why do I say slanderous? SCO claims that if the Linux community were to know of the offending code in Linux, that it would be removed. Before I go bald from all this stupidity lets break this down:

• 1) Caldera was a Linux release from SCO group.
  2) SCO claims 20 years of Unix & Linux experience.
  3) SCO WAS a corporate sponser of "Linux International"
  4) SCO doesn't own anything, except the right to skim off the top of Novells licenses.
  5) SCO is defaming linux with unbacked claims.
  6) SCO has changed their claims more than twice.

Now, I can understand why SCO doesn't want "offending" code removed, (so they can start shoving licenses down the throats of institutions already using *their* code.) But what it does mean, is SCO group does NOT STAND FOR FREE SOFTWARE. NEVER HAS, NEVER WILL.

Someone, PLEASE, PLEASE pick up on the Caldera OpenLinux angle and publish the SCO stupidity, and liabel.

This may seem like old news, since there's an article just about every 8 hours, but within one of the numerous spatterings of misinformation on the internet regarding this case I stumbled upon this *apparent* quote from Darl McBride (SCO's CEO.) "McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement." the full article here

I have seen every one of the so far released animatrix films (all two of them) and I think they are both great pieces of work. I had the assumption that they were going to give them out as PR for the new sequels. However, they have included original film in a video game, and on the upcoming 180 minute 9 part series DVD. According to this E-online article here. If ever there was a better way to sell a video game, than giving junkies unseen footage, I couldn't think of it.