Slashdot Mirror
MS Exec: 'Our products just aren't engineered for security'
Various Microsoft news tidbits contributed by numerous readers: Phoebus0 notes that Microsoft's Vice-President in charge of Windows development states flat out that Microsoft products aren't engineered for security, absolutely guaranteeing he'll have tomorrow's Ditherati quote. Many readers submitted this Knowledge Base article stating that Microsoft is mystified by a wave of successful hacks on assorted versions of Windows (there's also a news report on this). Microsoft has another security bulletin out on the digital certificate spoofing bug that has caused them so many problems recently.
...has finally gotten through to them -- Security is something that starts from the ground up, not when you reach the top and back down.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The XFree86 team admits xfree86 is not engineered for speed and RMS admits that GNU is not engineered for user-friendlyness.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Brian Valentine, formally senior vice-president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development, looking for VP/management job with software company.
I have to use this cause I can't afford a real sig...
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Anybody want some more coffee!? *puffs on a cigarette* I'm gonna get some more coffee... *shakes and walks around of the room*
Why bother.
What does 'PSS' stand for in that Microsoft Knowledgebase article? [P]lease [s]top [s]niffing? ([s]poofing? '[s]ploiting?)
Saying they are "not engineered" is a statement of your naivity. Imagine designing and coding a huge prog. such as Windows or MS Office... Do you think they sit a big room and just piece code together like a puzzle? Please don't say that they are not engineered...
Hrm... sit in a big room and just piece together code like a puzzle? Yeah, that's exactly what it feels like, half the time. Counter-intuitive commands, shoddy execution, worse then useless help systems.... yup, yup, yup.
Now, was it done that way? Obviously not. But they definitely need some improvement between the design phase, the engineering phase, and the implementation phase.
And quite frankly, I don't want pretty. I want functional. I want an easy to use system, not one that sparkles and gleams. I don't want bells and whistles. I don't want little pop-up paperclip buddies (and how freaking long did it take to add that piece of feces?), and I don't want programs that think they know what I want to do and are wrong half the time.
I want a system that does what I tell it to, not what it thinks I want. I want something that is coded efficiently, smoothly, and takes up a minimum of space.
And I want it by Thursday.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Try changing the password.
My deviantArt site
Here's a more accurate analogy:
Billy Boy has a large lemonade stand which sells lemonade for five dollars a glass. He makes a lot of money and has a lot of customers despite his competition, which includes:
Steve Jobs: Sells lemonade for fifty cents a glass, but in order to buy his lemonade, you also have to buy a glass and straw from him for nine fifty. The glasses are available in lots of trendy colors, but they're smaller and more inefficient than standard glasses, so Stevey doesn't have very many customers.
Tux: Doesn't have a stand, but he has a lemon tree, some sugar cane and and old-fashioned pump well. You can make your own lemonade if you'd like, and its free, but it takes a couple of hours to pick and squeeze lemons, pump water and extract sugar from the cane in order to make the lemonade, and you're not always guaranteed of its quality. There are thirty or forty lemon trees, and some taste good, while others do not. A few enthusiasts drink Tux's lemonade and rave about how great it is, but most mainstream customers are willing to just pay the five bucks.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.