Slashdot Mirror

Considering the Windows Help system was exploitable for 7 years I'd say they're improving, although they still are usually too slow. Today there's no way to know how long they're aware of any bug. They may know about an exploit for years and just never publicly notify anyone. Or they may not know until a few days before they acknowledge it. Being a closed system that they work under (both software and business) we'll never really know.

They may have underachieved, but they've had a significant influence. They've had offices raided by armed marshals and who knows how many disgruntled employees report their employers. They've put millions of dollars into advertising campaigns. The BSA has an office in Washington, D.C. I'm sure it's not just to be near the famous attractions. There's definitely a lot going on. You just don't hear much about it.

Does anyone know how many patents google has? And how many patent applications they've filed? How many are hardware and how many software? I tried googling for it and (ironically?) found no answers.

We know how many patents Microsoft has and that they apply for an average of 10 per week (at last count). So I'm curious how Google compares.

http://www.msversus.org/node/234

This article is along the same lines but gives a few more real world examples. It was actually a presentation given to Microsoft.

God have mercy on your soul if you try to do anything non-standard with a Datagrid, because asp.net won't...

I found that to be the case with anything not in Microsoft's anemic samples. It seems if you don't fit into the specific profiles Microsoft planned for you're in for a hell of a time. The fact there are so many web pages about how to get around .NET's limitations is testament to that fact.

I just noticed we have god, hell, and testament all in one post, yet the post is about .NET. I don't know what that means but it scares me.

I'm as anti-Microsoft as you can get but you're just plain wrong. Check the public research and also the incidence reports within your own company. The vast majority of security failures are social, not technical. Bot net activity is a thorn in the side of security workers but it's not causing the most security breaches.

Still just a slap on the wrist until they actually get Microsoft to end its anti-competitive practices. The day a government actually gets Microsoft to change its corporate conduct is the day I'll applaud.

Just ask Microsoft.

Or an ex-customer like me.

Perception of course matters to many people. But hopefully reality matters to many more people.

Apple, please... just please... do everything you can to keep your customers' computers safe. That's all I ask. Appoint a CSO or don't, I don't care.

Microsoft's .NET - Why you shouldn't use it.

Windows runs the hard drive far more intensely than Unix/Linux on a standard desktop. Unix usually uses free memory for disk caching much more than Windows. So in another swipe at Windows I suggest you ditch it.

For many years the NSA had keys embedded in Microsoft Windows. Remember that the US government is the single biggest Microsoft customer. Also realize if they do it voluntarily they wouldn't expect any public outcry. With closed source code it's tough to find. Plus the government wouldn't do anything about it anyway since it's in their favor.

For at least Windows 95 OSR2, 98, NT, and 2000 Microsoft has included a secret cryptographic key owned by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). It's most likely that the NSA's key exists within Windows so U.S. government users of Windows can run classified cryptosystems on their computers. But it has been kept secret and it does provide the potential for abuse. "According to Fernandez of Cryptonym, the result of having the secret key inside your Windows operating system 'is that it is tremendously easier for the NSA to load unauthorized security services on all copies of Microsoft Windows, and once these security services are loaded, they can effectively compromise your entire operating system.'" Users of Windows outside the U.S. should be especially concerned that the U.S. government can possibly gain security control over their computers. Users within the U.S. should also be concerned that Microsoft has provided the government with a secret back door that they can exploit. (Campbell, Duncan. "How NSA access was built into Windows." Heise Online 4 Sept 1999)

I'll tell you why it's "a must upgrade for Windows users." Because Microsoft will stop fixing bugs in your current version of Windows. There are many thousands of bugs listed in their "knowledge base" which state "we know this is an issue but we're not going to fix it in this version." I've been part of a development team which spoke directly with Microsoft representatives on many occasions and when we mentioned Windows 2000 bugs their answer was "buy XP." I quit.

Thanks. But no thanks.

A mouthful of integration. Some people have literally made careers out of helping people manage Microsoft's complicated combination of software. Microsoft brands every little piece. Then the IT departments of every big corporation spend a rediculous number of hours figuring out what it all means and ways to leverage it. It's exactly what Microsoft wants. I just don't understand why corporations haven't yet figured out they're waisting a LOT of money just thinking about these rediculous things without much payoff.

I buy a new Powerbook every ten months, and because I always order the new models the day they're announced, I get a lot of lemons from Apple. That means that I hit Apple's three-iTunes-authorized-computers limit pretty early on and found myself unable to play the hundreds of dollars' worth of iTunes songs I'd bought because one of my authorized machines was a lemon that Apple had broken up for parts, one was in the shop getting fixed by Apple, and one was my mom's computer, 3,000 miles away in Toronto.

If I had been a less good customer for Apple's hardware, I would have been fine. If I had been a less enthusiastic evangelist for Apple's products -- if I hadn't shown my mom how iTunes Music Store worked -- I would have been fine. If I hadn't bought so much iTunes music that burning it to CD and re-ripping it and re-keying all my metadata was too daunting a task to consider, I would have been fine.

As it was Apple rewarded my trust, evangelism and out-of-control spending by treating me like a crook and locking me out of my own music, at a time when my Powerbook was in the shop -- i.e., at a time when I was hardly disposed to feel charitable to Apple.

designed to change gamer perceptions of Microsoft's console

And that's the problem. Instead of focusing on public perception a game designer should focus on a great gaming experience. Again it's marketing and greed driving a game instead of artists.

Back in '04 Cory Doctorow gave an interesting speech about DRM to the Microsoft Research department. He released it into the public domain, so share it with your friends (and DRM enemies).

That is generally true. But Microsoft's most fundamental security problem is average users running with admin privileges. I do agree that on all systems we need a more modern security model.

According to the Reg the OS X security exploits are largely academic and not serious threats.

For the foreseable future Microsoft Windows will remain a huge security risk.

Is Microsoft doing everything they can to crush competitors? That's certainly nothing new.

I has nothing at all to do with my hatred of Microsoft. My complaint is that pure rumor and zero facts are being turned into a /. story.

This certainly isn't the first time Microsoft has attempted to influence governments.

Read this site. Read *all* of it, end to end.

MS and a competitive market where quality software can be successful are direct opposites. MS could *not* be successfull in a truly competitive market, and a truly competitive market cannot be truly be had until MS no longer has a monopoly over it. MS is far better at making money than they are at making software.

http://www.msversus.org/book/print/1

Microsoft market share myths versus user base

Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations...

Challenges to the Company's Business Model. Since its inception, the Company's business model has been based upon customers agreeing to pay a fee to license software developed and distributed by Microsoft. Under this commercial software development ("CSD") model, software developers bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenues received from the distribution of their products. The Company believes that the CSD model has had substantial benefits for users of software, allowing them to rely on the expertise of the Company and other software developers that have powerful incentives to develop innovative software that is useful, reliable and compatible with other software and hardware. In recent years, there has been a growing challenge to the CSD model, often referred to as the Open Source movement... The popularization of the Open Source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to the Company's business model, including recent efforts by proponents of the Open Source model to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of Open Source software in their purchase and deployment of software products. To the extent the Open Source model gains increasing market acceptance, sales of the Company's products may decline, the Company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and operating margins may consequently decline.

Ever wonder why they have a problem with their public perception?

"On the desktop, we have a strategic win today (monopoly). We must keep the desktop." - Presentation, Microsoft Executive Staff Retreat, May 10, 1990

"We are engaged in a FUD campaign to let the press know about some of the bugs. We'll provide info a few bugs at a time to stretch it out." - Brad Silverberg, July 22, 1991

"Objectives: FUD DR DOS with every editorial contact made." - MS-DOS 6 PR Plan, November 1992

"look what znix is doing! cut those fuckers off." - Brad Silverberg, May 19, 1992

"Five minutes after any agreement is signed with Microsoft, they'll be thinking of how to violate the agreement. They're predators. They crush their competition. They crush new ideas. They stifle innovation. That's what they do." - Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, Quoted by Matthew Szulik at a U.S. Senate Hearing, Dec 12, 2001

Could be their corporate conduct.

Perception of Microsoft: "There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't like PCs. But there's no one who likes the PC who doesn't like Microsoft." - Bill Gates

"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, 'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" - Bill Gates in The Seattle Weekly, April 30, 1998

There are a few ways Microsoft restricts free and fair use.

Microsoft promotional ad-- "One World, One Web, One Program"
Adolf H.-- "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"

That's great you're considering switching. There are many non-software related reasons for switching away from Microsoft as well.

There are many more than 10 reasons to NOT BUY ANYTHING from Microsoft.

Considering the copyright notice on Windows XP is from 1985 to present finding security vulnerabilities in their old software may not be such a bad idea. At least some of the old code still resides in current versions of Windows. They've never performed a complete rewrite.

so that far more people can enjoy the benefits.

No, it's so that far more people upgrade.

Other options

No thanks. I don't trust Microsoft.

Microsoft already had a universal password system fail: Passport. The majority of web site owners simply didn't trust Microsoft enough to integrate their security in any way.

Part of me wishes he left publicly complaining about what a terrible company Microsoft is. But he probably did the right thing going the professional route and only saying the job didn't fit his interests.

Yes, but Microsoft's business strategy can't last forever. We all know that only two software products financially support the rest of the company. Their stock has been stagnant for a long time. Eventually they'll be spread so thin that they'll have to go through a major overhaul. Their only hope for growth in the short term is large sales of Windows and Office in developing nations.

Microsoft's late to the game as usual. The idea is so obvious is should have come out many years ago. But Microsoft can never sit back. They can't stand to let any segment of the computer market go untouched. But rather than innovate they don't think of what customers want most until some other company has already filled the void successfully. This will definitely be another second-rate product losing revenue. That definitely won't help their stagnant stock price either.

Microsoft's late to the game as usual. The idea is so obvious is should have come out many years ago. But Microsoft can never sit back. They can't stand to let any segment of the computer market go untouched. But rather than innovate they don't think of what customers want most until some other company has already filled the void successfully. This will definitely be another second-rate product losing revenue. That definitely won't help their stagnant stock price either.

From my anti-Microsoft site: "There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory. (Granneman, Scott. "Linux vs. Windows Viruses." The Register 6 Oct 2003)

This goes back to a fundamental mistake made by many people... a company's purpose should not be to make money at any cost, legal or otherwise. Companies are not mindless entities that must suck as much money as possible from people to add value to its stock price. Companies wouldn't exist without the people that run and own them. Those people have basic moral obligations to society. And I believe those should translate into the corporations they own and run.

In fact, corporations that follow basic morals can make as much or more than companies that do not, in the long run. And that's one of the problems... they often don't care about long term costs of acting unethically. Take Microsoft as an example. If they acted better they'd have more community and corporate support long term. They'd have a much better image and not have to be so reactive to every threat to their bottom line.

Ethics in corporations matter. And more people need to realize that.

If you read his book or my own online book you'll learn the many reasons to not use their software. It's not just about how bad their software is. They hurt the IT industry and therefore indirectly hurt you as users. They influence the creation of laws and who gets elected. They have a say in international policies.

I've found that most people say they're happy with MS software... until they try something else. When they learn what they've been missing they realize just how bad they have it.

In case anyone needs a refresher or summary of Microsoft's other anti-competitive practices:

http://www.msversus.org/node/68

"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software... Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." - Bill Gates

http://www.msversus.org/node/117

1. No. The person who caught it first just happened to be a nice guy and reported it. In fact Microsoft wouldn't even respond to his initial notifications.

2. AFAIK the emails were being sold without users being informed. It wasn't in the privacy statement or license agreement. It's only after it went to press that MS temporarily stopped.

3. Really? I don't make stuff up. I back up every statement with information from good sources: http://www.msversus.org/node/8 (includes links to sources) Packet sniffers have proven multiple times that MS apps send more information than is disclosed to users.

Sure bias clouds /. discussions. But not any of my statements.

From MS Versus:
"According to an ABC News 1/22/99 article by Michael Martinez, Microsoft's own internal auditor, a respected 30 year veteran and former partner of Deloitte and Touche, was fired in 1996 after informing management that their earnings manipulations were illegal and violations of the SEC and FASB laws. He was given the option to resign or be fired and later settled for $4 million after suing under the Federal Whistle Blowers Act."

"The single most lucrative product Microsoft sells is its own stock. Microsoft receives almost as much cash inflow from the stock market as it does by selling goods and services... Basically, Microsoft receives cash by issuing employee stock options, after which the company then receives billions of dollars in tax deductions from the IRS for doing so. Add in the warrants it sells on its own stock, and the company made over $5 billion off the stock market [for the] fiscal year end[ing] July 1999, tax-free. For comparison, its after-tax net income was only $7.8 billion. Microsoft may not be much in the programming department, but its accountants are impressive." (Landley, Rob. "Why Microsoft's Stock Options Scare Me." The Motley Fool 17 Feb 2000)

Grandma will need dual-core processors if she wants to check her e-mail and browse with the next version of Windows. And most likely grandma will only ever use Windows because that's what she got from the store.

This is different performance here, though. Apples and apple trees. With monolithic kernels like Linux there's a modest gain with multiple processors. There's significant overhead from switching tasks among them. With microkernels, each component of the kernel can run more independantly in each processor, providing better gains (at least potentially). So holding out for GNU/Hurd (I hear the laughter) and dual-core processors will likely provide huge performance gains.

This is not GHz vs. RAM. This is your computer literally doing 2 things at the same time as opposed to current context switching between tasks. That's a big difference.

If Firefox is using documented APIs for its behavior, any change that MS made to break one of those APIs would be noticed by lots of other ISVs, and the breakage would extend far beyond Firefox.

With every release of Windows and service packs there is a change to the documented Win32 API. Many apps break with every release. Microsoft doesn't care because it doesn't seem to annoy ISVs or others enough to defect.

And if MS breaks something that a fortune 500 company relies on they are going to be under immense pressure to fix it.

Every release of Office breaks some compatibility with prior versions of Office documents. Microsoft removes support, forcing upgrades. Has that stopped customers from using their software? No. Every single patch from every single Microsoft application requires immense testing of every application at every fortune 500 company. Customers are not putting enough pressure on Microsoft for them to fix what they break. Microsoft goes along breaking things and customers feel forced to comply since switching away usually costs more. I've been in the meetings. I've heard from the sys admins, DBAs, and my fellow developers. No one's happy. Yet Microsoft isn't pressured to fix much.

If MS put code in that detected Firefox running and introduced breakage in only that case, they run the risk of a huge downside in publicity and potential legal remedies if they got caught.

Apparently bad publicity and legal actions aren't big concerns. They've been caught breaking the law numerous times, but always settle before they're found guilty. And how much more bad publicity can one company get? I document many cases as www.msversus.org. They have always denied all wrong-doing. They pay to get out of rough situations. Security holes, monopoly hearings on 3 continents, using patents without license, restrictive EULAs... How much more do you need to believe they will do whatever they have to. As long as they don't lose too many customers, they just don't care.

I think MS reaction to Firefox is going to be to put a team back together to upgrade IE before the defection gets out of hand. Oh wait, they've already done that.

So a 2007 release of minor IE features is a solution? How about adding features not already in all the competition. How about releasing it for XP users? Oh wait, they refuse to do that.