A professional OS?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Jan 02, 2006 11:29 PM EDT |
I simply can't see how any company can even consider running an OS that demonstrates this degree of insecurity, not once, but, over and over again. |
| Fritz Jan 02, 2006 11:51 PM EDT |
Here's my conspiracy theory of the day. Microsoft writes insecure buggy code on purpose. With Windows Vista coming out, all the analysts agree that the hardest thing for Microsoft to do will be to convince people to shell out the money for a new operating system. Especially considering such a large portion of their target market doesn't know or care what version of Windows it is running, nor would they know how to install a new version. Lucky for Microsoft, they can keep making license money from all the people who buy new computers. As the New York Times reported a few months ago, when a computer becomes overwhelmed with viruses and spyware, many users are likely just to toss it and spend the $400 on a new computer (Microsoft tax included) http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/16/180221&from=r... So keeping Windows insecure, causes it to become virus and spyware ridden, which causes idiots to toss out their computer, which means they have to buy a new one, which means Microsoft makes more money. IT'S (evil) GENIUS!!! -> Fritz |
| bdumm Jan 03, 2006 5:45 AM EDT |
Frtiz: Why do you think they call it "Windows Update" huh? :) |
| phsolide Jan 03, 2006 6:58 AM EDT |
Around the Windows 3.11 -> Windows 95 transition, a few friends of mine, who were entirely happy with Windows 3.11 and didn't want to buy new computers to support the (then massive) hardware requirements of W95, advanced the theory that computer viruses were deliberately released to force people to move to W95. The A-V companies (an arrogant, self-absorbed lot by any measure) dropped Windows 3.11 support early on. New Windows viruses, which at the time tended to be focused on the prevalent Windows 3.11, still got created at an alarming rate. No A-V updates means that viruses for W3.11 force an upgrade to W95. The problem with this theory is that it doesn't help you predict the problem. For instance, did A-V companies really need an excuse to drop W3.11 support? Did virus writers really need an excuse to write or hack out any more W3.11 viruses? A-V companies are notoriously secretive, so a little "encouragement" to drop W3.11 support might actually stay secret. Virus writers constitute a motley lot, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could get them to do anything on purpose. |
| omz Jan 03, 2006 7:53 AM EDT |
i think MS knew this potential threat for years. They designed WMF and the SetAbortProc ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/e... ) so they must know. They waited until this became public for strategic reasons, may be to direct his users to MS security products ( example: http://www.windowsonecare.com/secinfo/wmf1228.aspx ). |
| peragrin Jan 03, 2006 11:00 AM EDT |
MSFT also knew about te security holes in ActiveX and IE in 1999. Yet MSFT said don't worry what the "indepenant researchers" are saying that it's fine. Well years later we are suffering for being "fine" The fact is MSFT doesn't care aobut customers just maintianing that revune stream. Their products reflect that. Vista was supposed to be a completely new OS. Based off of technology of windows but not the source code. With the purchase of Virtual PC I assumed MSFT was taking the smart route and using VPC to sandbag run older windows apps. When I found out that they threw out a large chunk of legacy code recently to help "clean up" vista(at the end of 2004 I believe) I realized that MSFT was doing to vista what they did with XP. Just bolt on to the top of what they had. Apple did it smart. They built new(relative) and added a backward compatiblity layer for older apps. |
| bdumm Jan 03, 2006 11:13 AM EDT |
peragrin: for me apple's "smartness" is relative. They might have been smarter, but as one who has
dealt with both, their "new designs", and their backward compatibility, a lot still has to be said for it.... And
imho a lot of it is not positive.... :) But I do agree they were smarter than the party crew up at redmond. |
| jimf Jan 03, 2006 1:30 PM EDT |
I guess you all missed the point here. Corporations spend an obscene amount for an OS that will, 'supposedly', keep their data safe and secure. My original question was, How can any of these guys justify staying with MS, when Ms demonstrates again and again that they are anything but secure. MS 'does not' produce a professional OS. Your theory Fritz, works for the general population of users, most of them can always be fooled, but, Corporations have real money invested in this. It just makes no sense. |
| phsolide Jan 03, 2006 6:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:Your theory Fritz, works for the general population of users, most of them can always be fooled, but, Corporations have real money invested in this. It just makes no sense. If you assume that Corporations make rational decisions, you've said the truth. But let's face it, most corporations don't really make rational decisions. Think of Ken Lay, and Joe Nacchio and John Rigas and ... the list seems endless. There's the "same 10 people" theory (http://www.isen.com/blog/2004/03/three-big-lies-of-modern-co...) that has a "core group" in charge at any corporation. A lot of times the core group goes haywire and makes irrational decisions. It's just too easy to write off the Nacchios and Rigas and Lays and the haywire core groups as greedy, or unlucky or making poor decisions. If some entity pays off a core group, that entity can sway a whole corporation. And the pay off could amount to surprisingly little. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!