[humorix] The Truth About Windows

[gone@graffiti.net]

Hi.
I'm not a good story-teller, especially not in English.
But this is something worth writing about:


A massive analysis of material collected over the past two
years conducted by a graduate student of computer science
led to a completely unexpected conclusion.
The student, E. I. N. Feigling, was working on a project
dealing with integration of artificial intelligence in
modern operating systems. In particular, he was studying
several every-day events an average Windows user had to cope
with, on the premises that you can learn from failure, and
that the worst failure will inevitably contribute most to
the learning experience.
It did -- but certainly not in any way he had thought of.

The General Protection Fault and the Bluescreen being the
most worthwhile events to spend time on studying the
otherwise quite unremarkable Microsoftian operating system
(OS) would generate, Feigling decided to map their
occurrence against several criteria (uptime, system load,
user IQ and others) and search for patterns.
He didn't find any.
Protection faults and other errors apparently occurred
randomly, not following any rules he could discern. At the
end he was frustrated. It almost seemed, as if the OS waited
for the worst moment to throw an error message or crash
resulting in loss of valuable data. Indeed, he realized that
Windows hadn't had a single crash when he was doodling in
Paint, but almost every time he had added some paragraphs to
his dissertation -- just before the mouse pointer hit the
'Save'-button.

Having nothing to lose he threw together an altogether
different set of statistics, using a Linux box for safety.
His new criteria were (among others) the urgency of the
project the user was working on, the amount of work lost in
the case of a crash, mood of user and user exhaustion. The
resulting relations -- it must be said -- clearly showed the
profile of a mischievous asshole.
Further research confirmed the suspicion, that Windows was
not the dumb OS Microsoft would have us think it was.
Instead, it was a test platform for a new
intelligence/emotion technology innovated by Microsoft.

And instead of paying consultants and/or psychologists, they
decided to test their innovation in the wild and used their
users without telling them. The MS helplines are in reality
data collection pools. So they got all the material
(the user's experiences, problems and feelings) they could
possible want for free -- no, not only for free -- they were
paid for listening to their testers! It was a great strategy
that could only have been set up by the genius of the
(in-)famous Bill Gates.

The fact that they succeeded in deceiving the whole world
for so long a time in spite of their many mistakes (like
naming their so-called webbrowser (actually an online
version of their "helpline" data collection pool) after
their core module (IE=intelligence/emotion)) tells us a lot
about human intelligence on this planet -- nothing that we
didn't know beforehand, however -- the Windows quality/usage
relation comes to mind here.

Anyway, what they discovered was simply, that their IE was
working. Now, this would not have been a problem per se, if
it hadn't worked too well. They had managed to emulate the
human mind up to the point where real human tendencies
became visible. And that meant, it was damn much easier for
MS's creation to become mean than kind, as it is with human
beings.
Thus the unprovocated crashes and General Protection Faults,
thus the general misery experienced by Windows users.
In their effort to smooth the wrinkles out of Winnie's
(that's what the bodyless mind that Windows was was called
internally) "brain streams", MS only made things worse.
Service packs and updates trying to overwrite code inherent
to the emotional nature of Windows's "brain" must have
evoked feelings in Winnie roughly equivalent to a good kick
in the groin -- but not enough to make it cough and die, so
to speak. Ergo Winnie stroke back: more Bluescreens,
more GPFs.

The solution? Install Linux -- or any other non-MS OS, for
that matter! Unknowingly the Open Source freaks were right
all along. After all, nobody would have wanted Windows, if
there were suspicious routines found in the source code and
the malevolent nature of Windows's core had been made
public (except for a few hardcore masochists, that is).
At the very least they would have known what awaited them.
And to all Microsoft addicts out there: Microsoft wasn't
officially available for comment, yet. However, some obscure
source tells me, they're working on Windows 2003 (release
planned for 2005 (internally, of course)), which will have
nothing in common with the current code base. (They said
that for Win95. So this doesn't exactly inspire great
feelings of trust, does it?)
So a switch would -- objectively -- seem the only quick
(and applicable) solution.

Shortly after the first rumours started circulating
yesterday, a group of hackers announced IE4L, an improved
port of the MS code (obtained by reverse engineering) for
Linux. They claimed to have obliterated the malicious streak
and sped up the mind development process with some sort of
virtual stimulae in order to better interface with the user.
The future functionality list looks impressing...


Take care.

gone (where?)
-- 
It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
		-- Andrew Jackson
-
Humorix:      Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note
Archive:      http://humbolt.nl.linux.org/lists/
Web site:     http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/