To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
not trying to be flamish, but whats the point of even writing spyware for a mac. it may be different where you live, but where I am its easier to find a nuclear warhead in someones house than a mac (ok exaggeration, but you get the point), and malware writers know this. Not to say thier security isnt better, it has an excellent bsd-ish base to go by AFAIK, but people go for what they can target, and chances are, windows pcs are the easiest to find.
Windows suffers from years of ignoring that allowing its user total access for general computing is utter stupidity, and let everybody else base thier products around that model before deciding it might be a good idea to keep a lock on what programs can and cant do in userspace.
Yeah, its 14 years and counting for me with no anti-virus on my Mac. I'm sure that there have been plenty of vulnerabilities since MacOS 7 but it hasn't caused me any heartache.
On an article related note though; my biggest problem is not that MS doesn't patch there systems, they do. But what I see happening in my corporate environment is that our WSUS server is doing a really bad job of actually getting the patches out to the workstations.
That is not correct. Apple got flamed a few days ago. And several linux distributions have been flamed by linux users - heck, some have even flamed OpenBSD because of two (2) holes in the default installation.
Nobody complains about Microsoft releasing patches.
People are complaining about the sheer number of patches, the nature of the security holes, the release policy and of course the amount of years many of these bugs have been around.
Of course Microsoft have a terrible public image - and they deserve it. They have delivered piss products for decades (ever since their basic (an illegal rip-off) in the 70'es). People (especially geeks) despise Microsoft for having delivered shit to users for decades (old Basic, DOS (illegal rip off again), Windows until Win2K - not counting the the beating MS has taken over security issues) - and most despise Microsoft for its behaviour and rightfully so. A company that behaves like Microsoft does not deserve any better. Microsoft products has been quite alright technically since Win2K (forget all about good products before '00/'01). Microsoft likes to steal IP from other persons. The old MS Basic (stolen), DOS (BIOS code stolen from CP/M), patenting of grouped taskbar button despite this having existed years before Microsoft suddenly invented it, and of course Microsoft patenting BlueJ. MS did some damage control but fact is that no news has come out afterwards. It was a deliberate attempt to yet again steal IP.
Such a company deserves nothing but contempt.
Very well said. I am always amazed at how so many Windows and Office exploits get glossed over that are variants on old issues. The recent 'ANI patch that took so long to fix a resurfaced older exploit. Then there are the recent RINBOT, DELBOT, VANBOT, Mdropper.W problems tath are so reminiscent of W97M/Melissa.
Erm... no.
Microsoft BASIC was written by hand. MS-DOS was based on QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System); Microsoft outright purchased the rights from the original developers for something on the order of $60,000 (not bad for a single-tasking command-line-only OS), and hired the original developer to work at Microsoft for a total of ten years (about one million dollars, plus nonmonetary bonuses). If paying for something is stealing, then what isn't stealing?
The facts about the early years of Microsoft aren't that hard to get...
People are complaining about the sheer number of patches, the nature of the security holes, the release policy and of course the amount of years many of these bugs have been around.
Which merely proves that there are a lot of whiners in this world with too much time on their hands -- or too many axes to grind.
Microsoft doesn't need to be aspersed: its marketing policy has always been malicious enough to smear its own name. It's ok if you do business just thinking money, but credit and respect have to be deserved: they can't be bought or extorted.
That said, every OS and piece of software needs patches for one reason or another. If it's not because of security issues, it's because of other flaws. I was never scandalised when IBM released FP's for OS/2, so I think it's good MS patches up its own products. It's just that IBM, for instance, used to release fixes oftener and its OSes didn't die so prematurely (EOL). I never heard about IBM adopting some obscure strategy about when and how to release fixes. I can't say the same about MS, though.
When you're forced to buy something you may not want or need from a monopolist you have every right to be outraged if it isn't even half as good as promised. There's no denying you do pay good bucks to get a MS product and when you find out there's a big hole in it you're entitled to protest some way. Verbally bashing MS is a form of protest and the Redmond folks should take it seriously, before it's too late. I don't love MS, but I feel its demise isn't going to mean all fun.
I do use Windows and I'm ok with those who use it exclusively. Yet, basically, I don't have the same degree of respect for Microsoft as I have for others and I don't think I, or anybody else sharing my views, can be criticised for that.







Member since:
2006-05-23
When Microsoft releases a security patch, everybody complain.
When Apple (or any other company) releases a security patch, almost nobody says anything against the company.
It´s amazing how terrible is Microsoft´s public image today. That will probably be one of the causes of its demise.