OSNews

Instead of modding me down, why not respond to explain why you disagree? I wasn't trying to troll; this is really the situation as it appears to me...

The goal of any corporation is to make money. It just so happens that bugs, viruses, and malware all come together to create a thriving economy that helps feed the Microsoft machine. Remember the villain in "Tomorrow Never Dies"? All corporations have leanings toward that - it's why they exist.

I don't believe that the directors of the company sit down and say "We need 10% more bugs in this release", I'm merely suggesting that the climate inside the company is such that they tend to have to push stuff out with lesser regard to quality, and more regard for shareholder happiness. They seem to be indicating that they'd like to put more effort into the quality of the software, which I commend them for, but the extent of their efforts is solely dictated by their shareholders and their revenue generating customers.

And at the moment, the same shareholders who are making money on MSFT are probably also making money on all the companies that clean up Microsoft's messes. And the revenue-generating customers aren't protesting loudly enough to be heard above all else.

I don't know why you were just modded down.

Makes total sense to me.

too late, there is five already according to http://bbc.co.uk/clickonline

So after much expense and effort in upgrading to XP SP2 we still have to patch the cr@p out of it, and then spend more money to make it safe and stable...gotta love all that innovation coming our way!!!?!!!

If you rely on the vendor to make your system secure, you are either doing it wrong or have the wrong vendor.

In the case of Microsoft, it is indeed possible to secure Windows. You do not need these patches or any others to do so. Microsoft, though, makes any serious security efforts a real PITA.

Your VERY wrong, most Windows users buy a computer and have not idea how to. You can secure any OS good but by default Windows is bad, very bad. Thats why Vista is finally using Unix like security, which shows just how bad the current setup is. Using sudo in Ubuntu is the best mix of security and ease of use, Microsoft just never seen the threat, then service pack 2 landed 5 years later, which helps alot.

do people actually believe guys like Steve Ballmer and Rob Enderle?

if yes, then it reflects extremely poorly on their judgment and education.



Nope, some people think Microsoft made their computers and Microsoft must supply all the programs that get put on their computers.

People used to think it was because Microsoft forced Windows on OEMs to include with all new PCs, but that is only part of the story....

The main culprit is a flawed education system. This is teaching children "computing" by training them in how to use Microsoft Office... What good is that to anyone ?

Imagine how much more money your kids schools would have to spend on the kids, if it did not have to send money to Microsoft... and even with a vast discount, it is still money that all schools need.

While reading your comment I was thinking, well, you have a point.

But after reading it I was like, sounds like socialism.

I wonder which part sounded like socialism?

I'm a libertarian and since IT is a part of education in schools (from 3rd grade) they might as well learn something useful rather than become educated to be another MS customer.

Education is about knowledge, so you can figure out the truth yourself.

So they shouldn't use proprietary products in schools, at the very least not in public schools.

Anyway, it'd be cheaper for the taxpayers meaning lower taxes so I'm all for it

Socialist ? Hardly

It is a simple fact that education authorities have better things to do with their money than to blindly give it by the barrow-load to Microsoft.

I take it you have no kids of your own ?

Fortunately, I run Linux, not Lunix.

go back to slashdot, or register a nickname, so we can give you some abuse.
we can still see your IP address - idiot

what is lunix o.O;
.....
can't even spell linux right...

I really should register..

2) when GNU/Linux get's patched, it's usually Linux that gets patched it's a component of the whole system thus you can't really blame it on Linux or the whole system. With Microsoft.. There's usually only Microsoft to blame

should read as

2) when GNU/Linux get's patched, it's not usually Linux that gets patched, it's a component of the whole system thus you can't really blame it on Linux or the whole system. With Microsoft.. There's usually only Microsoft to blame

when GNU/Linux get's patched, it's usually Linux that gets patched it's a component of the whole system thus you can't really blame it on Linux or the whole system. With Microsoft.. There's usually only Microsoft to blame.

Erm, yes you can blame Linux or the system. In the time I've been running Ubuntu I've had to patch the kernel and applications numerous times. I don't go blaming Linus every time I need to update the kernel! When I install a distro I'm not interested in the fact that it's been put together from software developed by hundreds of different groups of people, I just want it to work!

With Ubuntu for example, you are free to remove those which requires a lot of patching. Sure, it will probably mean that your system will be totally different what you wanted but atleast you have the freedom to do so.

It's not much use having a system that doesn't do what I want it to do, is it? Sure I've got freedom of choice, but is the system doesn't do what I want then what good is it to have that choice?

For one, you dont have to, Also it's nice of Ubuntu to give us free updates on a free OS with thosands of packages.

With MS Windows you pay for it, you expect security updates, but the amount of updates is aweful considering you only get IE and WMP, Outlook. It's worth saying that the Linux kernel because of it's nature has more security issues, much more code but gets fixed fast. On top of security patches with Windows you have service packs 1 & 2 & another, Office patches and service packs, need I go on?

Don't generalize all Linux distributions as being the same. First Linux is the kernel which developers such as Novell, Red Hat, Mandriva, etc obtain and tweak to suit their customers needs. Some just use the same vanilla kernel and others improve on it. Also some developers package their own additional security tools into the distribution. Novell for example has an integrated firewall and included security software such as AppArmour with SUSE Linux 10.0.

Unfortunately for Windows users when it comes to viruses, trojans and spyware they need to spend even more money on securing their network. Something which Microsoft appears to be trying to resolve. Though I'm sure third party security companies like Symantec and McAfee won't be impressed with their actions.

It should be clarified that the majority of security patches released by Linux developers are for issues they found, not ones that have been actually comprimised by a third party. This is typical for even Windows and OSX. The differance being that with Microsoft they are less forth coming with information regarding security holes. What tends to happen is a third party security firm will notify the public of a Windows hole which puts pressure on Microsoft to fix the issue in a timely manner. Novell's turn around for security related issues is usually 2-24 hours where as with Microsoft in the past was a week to several months.