Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Apr 2006 16:48 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Microsoft Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, the Linux world's very own Thurrot-before-he-lost-his-faith, writes: "People tell me I bash Microsoft too much; that Microsoft's products really are great. OK, so I won't bash Microsoft this time around. I'll let Microsoft's own friends do it."
Permalink for comment 117558
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nothing new
by atsureki on Mon 24th Apr 2006 01:35 UTC in reply to "Nothing new"
Member since:

Why the hell is he speaking about security of unpatched WinXP?

Because patching Windows is constant, repetitive, frought with downtime, and prone to the occasional new "feature" being shoved in a user's face, like SP2 harassing people about their choice of antivirus and firewall. Companies can't just drop that in and consider what will come out of it later like home users can. It doesn't have to be the version that comes right off the CD, though it usually will be, but just any point where the system goes static for any amount of time. And what if everything's automatically updated with BITS? Any new machine install is going to sit, exposed to the Internet for hours and hours, while Microsoft trickles a patch at it. You need the Internet to get the patch to protect you from the Internet. Catch-22.

Plz I beg you guys, tell that guy that even a Linux/MacOS are vulnerable without constant update...

Vulnerable, maybe, but that doesn't mean they're at risk. The exploits simply don't exist. Also, "constant" is just ridiculous. I have huge volumes of updates under Gentoo, but I'm getting new versions with new features of every single program on the system. Most MacOS updates are also new versions, and they're pretty infrequent anyway. In both cases, most of the updating has little or nothing to do with security.

Reply Parent Score: 2