Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft: Trust and Antitrust

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ironic-t-shirt-slogan dept.

Microsoft is in the news for two reasons today: the continuing saga of the antitrust cases, and Microsoft's public relations push for "trustworthy computing". A selection of links: Microsoft claims two months of code reviews and half-day seminars surpasses everything ever done by the open source community; Salon talks about the problems with a monoculture; SBC, an abusive telecom monopoly, complains about Microsoft's behavior, an abusive OS monopoly; and Microsoft responds, claiming that SBC is merely being self-serving.

4 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. The telling statement by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In a memo in January, Bill Gates, the chairman and co-founder, instructed Microsoft to shift its top priority from adding new features to ensuring that software is secure. Executives said that the memo was the most significant strategy paper from Mr. Gates since one in December 1995, "Internet Tidal Wave."
    In 1995, Microsoft couldn't care less about the Internet. Gates had said, publicly and repeatedly, that he didn't think it was going anywhere. Then he realized he was wrong. Within a year, the entire product line had Internet features. Now, 7 years later, people publicly lament that Microsoft has virtually taken the Internet over. Microsoft's greatest strengths have always been the ability to see which way the ship is headed, and when it turns out they're going in the wrong direction, to turn on a dime. Obviously, I'll nod politely at their words, and watch their actions. But the last time they made this big a deal about something, they delivered.
    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  2. Re:Bad Idea for Microsoft by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft really does brainwash their employees. I went to your site about the "myth" of open source software being more secure, and I see where you point to the Security Focus table to try and prove your point. For the *thousandth* time, that table takes into account every single application that ships with a distribution. Can we lump in all the vulnerabilities for MS Office/Outlook, MS Works, SQL Server, and Exchange into the NT/2000 group?

    And even with those misleading statistics, the only distro above NT/2000 (42) is Red Hat (54).

    Your lack of objectivity renders your entire article irrelevant.

  3. Re:Key to user security... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Before you feel all high and mighty I think I should point out that something likely 75% of all redhat boxes are rooted in the first 24 hours.

    I've seen you, and others, bandy about this type of statistic for some time. But I have not found a single reference to back it up. Can you back this statistic up with a valid reference?
  4. Re:Key to user security... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Keep in mind their past history, as well. The article mentions that this latest push - Gates' latest memo - is only one of three. Take a look at those last two.

    ...

    The first was to get Windows onto every desktop.

    ...

    The second memo? The Internet.

    One of the amazing things about Microsoft is its ability to turn on a dime. They almost missed the Internet. Then they played an amazing game of catch-up.


    But that does not mean they will be able to do it every time.


    There is a major difference in the nature of Microsoft's first two challenges (desktop and internet) and its current one (security). The first two were really exercises in marketing. The third is a technical challenge.