Slashdot Mirror

BP is just as american as British Aerospace

foreign ownership of BAE SYSTEMS is limited by law to 29.5%

Lets just get this straight, Airbus is partially owned by France.

To learn more about who owns Airbus just follow this link:

http://www.eads.com/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF000 00000400004/6/03/31000036.html

EADS are one of Airbus parent companies owning 75%. They are then in turn partially owned by the french state( 29% joint share with Legardiere(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagard%C3% A8re_Group)).

The other 25% is owned by BAE systems who, as far as I can tell in 5 mins rudimentary research, are entirely owned by other commercial interests. None of whom have a controlling share.

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=183#significant %20shareholders

If anyone finds any of this to be incorrect please post some links so I may learn more.

First ActiveX exploit released: 1993. Latest ActiveX exploit: in the wild currently and unpatched. That's 13 years that Microsoft has ignored your security and refused to correct a huge, gaping security hole.

Care to give details on the lastest one? ActiveX (in a browser, I have to assume thats what you're talking about) gives security prompts on any attempt to install software. If you click No or do not install or whatever, it doesn't.

We won't even talk about the RPC processes (accessible through ports left open by default) that have traditionally been running in Windows (up until just a few months ago), with full Admin privileges, every time you log in, no matter how you log in.

Windows Server 2003 ships with RPC network access disabled by default. XPSP2 has network access to RPC shut off by default (indeed, it will just disable it, even if you wanted it open).. that was released almost 2 years ago. Not sure how you get 'up until just a few months ago.'

The real reason Windows has more security problems: the head-in-the-sand, we'll-bend-over-and-take-more-of-this-same-old-cra p attitude of Microsoft customers.

I think a lot of security problems stem from needing to support DOS for so long. It wasn't until XP that home users had access to the NT kernel, which is much more secure.

More to the point though, MS was doing what its customers wanted, and they weren't saying they wanted security. They wanted backward compatability and more ease of use. It wasn't until relatively recently that they wanted security. And MS is reponding; server 2003 comes out of the box pretty secure. Firewall that is on by default, minimal services installed by default.

But here, I'll let the Microsoft folks themselves tell you:
"Our products just aren't engineered for security," said Brian Valentine, Microsoft senior vice president for Windows development. Another Microsoft executive recently explained they never paid attention to security "Because customers wouldn't pay for it until recently."

Article (2003) quote from http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/microso ft/microsoft1.htm#Crapsoftware

Wow, way to quote a 3 year old article. But it proves my point; are you, as a company, going to go with the vendor that gives you what you want, or something you didn't ask for? Again, I'd also like to point out that server 2003 is pretty secure by default, and it wasn't long until SP2 for XP came out, which fixes a bunch of security issues and other enhancements.

Right. The fact that Gates, Ballmer & Company decided to ignore practically every reputable security expert on the planet and release ActiveX, a completely unsandboxed tool for crackers, had nothing to do with it. Right-o, Matey.

First ActiveX exploit released: 1993. Latest ActiveX exploit: in the wild currently and unpatched. That's 13 years that Microsoft has ignored your security and refused to correct a huge, gaping security hole.

We won't even talk about the RPC processes (accessible through ports left open by default) that have traditionally been running in Windows (up until just a few months ago), with full Admin privileges, every time you log in, no matter how you log in.

The real reason Windows has more security problems: the head-in-the-sand, we'll-bend-over-and-take-more-of-this-same-old-cra p attitude of Microsoft customers.

But here, I'll let the Microsoft folks themselves tell you:
"Our products just aren't engineered for security," said Brian Valentine, Microsoft senior vice president for Windows development. Another Microsoft executive recently explained they never paid attention to security "Because customers wouldn't pay for it until recently."

Article (2003) quote from http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/microso ft/microsoft1.htm#Crapsoftware

Here is what I found so far...

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/microso ft/microsoft.pdf
http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/03/dis liking_micro.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/special/microsoft/
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1995.E2.80. 9399:_foray_into_the_Internet_and_other_venues
http://uk-linux.news-view.co.uk/topic-6268.html

Unfortunately, I didn't find a comprehensive timeline of Microsoft's misdeeds.

We already know Wal-Mart is bad for small business, merchant exploitation, competition, and even larger suppliers, so I am in favor of anything that might allow good companies like Vlasic retain their ability to meet profit margins and pay their workers. I personally abhor and refuse to visit any of the Wally World constructs (or any of the other Mega-Lo-Marts) in favor of internet shopping and my wife's constant pursuit of the 1/2 price grocery store trip via coupon and sale shopping (not there yet, but getting closer). I also encourage anyone I work with or hang with to do the same, pointing out the examples above and following with the straight-forward explanation of how our family manages to avoid the ninth level of Hell.

Be disgusted, read: about Ken Saro Wiwa and Shell's recent record