Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft on Security: We'll Break Your Apps
jointm1k writes "Wired.com is running a story about how Microsoft is trying to act responsible and all by fixing (or trying to fix?) many (if not all) security holes in Windows. Not only new versions of Windows will be patched or improved, but as I understood they also plan to force security updates for older versions of Windows down peoples throats. Even if that means that some applications will mallfunction.
Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows."
Brian-"There's just no pleasing some people"
Beggar-"That's what Jesus said, sir"
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Is that the new niche for software designed for teenage girls?
Assuming Microsoft does actually want to clean up their act, which I'm highly skeptical about, it seems that they'd be criticized for forcing updates just as much as they would for not trying to make adoption of the updates widespread.
Yeah, your right. Microsoft should have written every line perfectly like every line of code you ever have written.
Well it looks like they might actually finally have the right idea as to how to compete with Linux,,, although they might have a few details a little skewed from what I would consider ideal, they seem to be heading in the right direction. Good to see that Microsoft might actually be listening to their customers finally.
.Net developer so this is of a much greater importance to me than it is to most.
Disclamer: Yes, I do love Linux, no I do not hate Microsoft, as a matter of a fact I am a
they really should have done so when they designed Windows
Bugs (*aheam* features) and Security flaws are not intended to be part of the package. They happen because of bad design and bad coding practices and bad decisions. And no matter how hard you try (and try as you may even in the case of Linux) its impossible to do so during the design or coding time.
I would applaud this effort to force it down the throats of customers (atleast it would reduce the number of vulnerable servers sitting out in the open), but it goes only as far as any user would want to.
Rapid Nirvana
I read the same story at The Register
/. attacking them
The editiorial is innacurate and opinionated.
They are actually giving up on trying to secure older products.
And they are stating that for new security fixes on current products they are now putting security as a higher priority than not breaking the apps.
So rather than provide the security turned off, in the hope that some MCSE will turn it one once the app has been patched, the security is on even if the app breaks.
Now, regardless of the anti M$ feelings, this has got to be a good approach.
Yes you can read it as "Hear comes DRM, suck it down" or you can read it as "Secure by default really does matter, becasue we know 95% of users never change from the default settings" - the latter approach is taken by Suse in 8.1 and I don't see
There is a bigger problem out there -- laziness. Microsoft and others have made security patches available that admins simply do not install. If they did, the world would be a better place. I mean, I still get tons of Code Red hits on my web server. Patches have been available for that for....how long?!?!?!
Click here or here.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
but they really should have done so when they designed Windows
What os didn't need security fixes after it was released?
love is just extroverted narcissism
but they really should have done so when they designed Windows.
I think you have to remember that Microsoft used to put functionality before security. There is a tradeoff between functionality and security. For example, do you allow mailing functionality within the VBS language and the macro language? There is a reason why there are over 20 worms that can spread using MSN messenger, and none that can spread using Yahoo messenger.
However, times change, and people change. Now people put security before functionality. Microsoft is just going with the times...
I think it's a noble effort on Microsoft's part, but if you've ever developed large applications you know that security cannot be an after thought. It's been my experience that unless you design security in from the very begining, it's almost impossible to make it truely secure. Security has to be part of the foundation not a layer higher level layer.
Let's roll.(tm)(r)(c)
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Microsoft: We'll break your apps!
App developers: And just exactly how is this different from Windows as it stands now?
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
I am so sick of this revisionist, 20/20 hindsight, why-isn't-microsoft-perfect bullshit! Do you know how many applications written by blithering idiots they've had to keep working? I've heard tons of horror stories directly from friends at MS about the hoops they go through to keep COMPETING SOFTWARE from breaking. Yes, MS employees really do sit around figuring out how to keep Wordperfect from crashing.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
My take on this "impractical". A new version of OS comes out in every couple of years, and in near future I can expect it to be every year. Now that means shelling out money on new, improved version of apps and systems. Let me tell you there are people still using win95 and very happy with it coz it still works. Tell them to upgrade every year and shell out $500 a year on system. They'll just smile at you and say -"boy are you out of your mind, no way"
Windows XP sp1 locked out WinXP installations using stolen keys from using WindowsUpdate or applying patches.
Will this new initiative reverse that practice?
Remember, it won't matter to most people if a Windows installation was pirated or not when it's the one being used as a DDoS zombie, spewing out viruses over SMTP, or something similar ... just that it is Windows.
(Btw: Plz 2 mod as +1 Insightful)
Yes, and of course he is talking about free software. So if something breaks, just download the new version.
But if the apps are purchased, that is a bit much to swallow. Of course, if MS has service packs that fix the broken apps, then I guess it would not be so bad.
There is another side-effect: Just think of an update that does not only fix two recent security flaws, but also implements incompatible changes to the CIFS/SMB protocol. All users of MS Software are forced to upgrade, so there won't be any interoperability issues. But all those Samba File/Print/PDC installations across the world are suddenly broken.
And Samba is just a randomly picked example.
That windows just doesnt seem like it was designed to take on improvements. It seems like every new "security" update only brings more problems. What they should be doing is sending out more release clients to testers before they release the next completed version of software to the public. Before they make their next release they need to DEBUG DEBUG DEBUG and grab a much wider variety of people willing to test their stuff. If their aim is really to "protect" the end user, then this is what they should have been doing all along.
The Blade Itself
One of the main arguments buisnesses have been using against looking for Linux solutions is that legacy applications (of the windowsNT/95 variety) must be runnable. Now with Microsoft saying that they may not support all legacy code this is removing one of the last barriers stopping some companies from looking at Linux.
If a company is looking at redoing an application for the windows base it may just be easier for them to make it work with WINE than with the new windows code base.
I am sure Microsoft is aware of this. There must be some really big holes they are going to close with action or they would not consider dropping the support for legacy applications.
Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows.
Next you'll be criticizing the quality of the beef at McDonald's.
Most Americans want to surf the web, download MP3s, and spend $2500 to watch the Matrix DVD on a two hour flight, and they'll pay the same amount for Windows whether Microsoft makes it secure, or not.
Bill Gates is a smart business man. Microsoft is a successful business. As such, the $ is the bottom line. Analzying their products from any other perspective is a waste of time.
Microsoft is doing the right thing.
n dept." -- GIVE ME A BREAK. If that were the goal, Microsoft would quickly be driving itself out of business. "... but they really should have done so when they designed Windows" -- again, who are you trying to fool here?? The same argument could be said for every operating system in mass production use today.
Every vendor Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Red Hat, Debian can create an incident where a patch breaks a vendors application.
I've personally seen it happen with 4 out of the 5 vendors already. Deal with it. AFAIK there is still no forced patching. Your OS doesn't just up and DIE if you decide not to patch your OS because you are aware that patching will create problems for you.
On another note - Certainly Slashdot leans a little left politically and leans a lot toward "open solution" computing but everything about this story just reaks. "windows-ain't-done-while-competing-apps-still-ru
Give it a rest. Your just starting to look foolish now.
http://windows.scares.us
Hopefully we can look forward to more posts containing phrases like "I reckon" and "Y'all" to appear on Slashdot soon. Not to mention that there isn't even anything new in this post at all that has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot already.
First of all, one of the big selling points of Wintel is that you have a wide choice of software. In the future, however, Mundie says that you can expect your old apps to be broken.
"We have decided that we will begrudgingly forsake certain app compatibility things when, in fact, they don't allow us to have a default configuration that opts for more security. In the past, the biggest thing that happened to us was IT managers would come to the company and say, hey, all those new features, they're great, all that new security stuff, that's great, but whatever you do don't break my app. So just turn it all off and trust me, we'll fix the apps and then we'll turn it all on. And the reality is that never happened.
And so we're going to tell people that even if it means we're going to break some of your apps we're going to make these things more secure and you're just going to have to go back and pay the price."
Notice that they're breaking your old apps not so they can sell you new ones, but purely in the interest of your security, and furthermore it's your fault they have to do this.
The other point Mundie makes is that, even after they sell you the new OS and the new apps, any security needed will be your responsibility, at your expense.
"And the other thing is that the customers, whether they're individuals or corporations, are going to have to make a decision about when and how much they spend to get these machines to be more secure. And to some extent you can do it by insulating them, to some extent you can do it by putting things around them or in front of them that protect them, you know, firewalls in some sense. And then in some cases, you can just replace them when you get new machines or new software or both that have intrinsically better capabilities."
Thanks, Microsoft, I'm glad you're looking out for my interests.
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
Why do people running older versions of windows need to upgrade, other than planned (or just enforced) obsolesence?
I've got a box still running a 2.0 linux kernel, and two running 2.2 - and my vendors still support me. When they stop, I can support myself, because I have all of the tools necessary.
Why doesn't MS support it's customers? Even if that means they have to fix the damned problems with Windows 3.1.
They're sitting on 40 billion in cash. They can afford and should support the customers who stupidly gave them that money.
"We didn't just fall off the turnip truck a year ago and realize we needed to do this, We started thinking about this three years ago."
Microsoft didn't start thinking about security until Windows 2000 was a release candidate?
Software Engineer: Uh, Craiggers... I just heard some disturbing news.
Craig Mundie: Don't bother me now, I almost beat Bill's fastest time on Minesweeper.
SE: Well, it's just that Joe apparently didn't design any security infrastructure into Windows.
CM: Security what?
SE: Well, remember when I was telling you about how "hackers" can very easily get information on your computer?
CM: What, like that Stellman fellow and his hippie freedom shit?
SE: Not really.
CM: Well, if you think it's important, I'll have Bill send a memo out about it.
"Trustworthy Computing, a sweeping overhaul of Microsoft's software, business models and programming practices, was publicized in January [of this year] by a company-wide memo from Microsoft chairman Bill Gates."
In that way, I would say Bill and Linus are very alike. In his quest to bring his users what they want Bill often breaks backwards compatability during the upgrade cycle (win 2k). However I have to say that Bill is very professional about these compatability breaks only making them every major release, whereas sometimes Linus' behavior makes me wonder. Doesn't anyone remember the disaster called the 2.4.x series?
?-|||-----x<*))))><
AAAARRRRRGGGGHHH! You know, people went DOWN in that freaking airplane, went down and smashed into the ground and died and burned up. And I am SICK TO DEATH of now hearing the phrase used to hawk and shuck and promote every kind of consumeristic bullshit and political jingo. Can we pass a consititutional provision to the First Amendment that you aren't allowed to use the phrase "Let's Roll" in public unless you're actually about to confront terrorists on a hijacked plane?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Well I guess it is implied, don't you think?
``Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows.''
I agree. They really should have designed Windows better. Or maybe they shouldn't have designed it at all, but just followed POSIX. _That_ would have made programming so much easier (especially cross-platform, but also just for Windows - win32 API is cruft)! Plus they would have gotten all the good security they are now still trying to get with Windows NT and XP. And it's not like they don't know that stealing well is better than inventing badly.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I hope everyone realizes that they're doing this for PR purposes. Right now there are lots of government that are trying to get away from MS products so that they don't put all their information in the hands of an American Company. Also, this is one of the main selling points of OSS vs. MS. As soon as they feel people aren't paying that much attention to security, they'll back away from "cumbersome nuances" like security
I'll buy it that they really care about this stuff when they start building software over previous security-related experience, and I'm not talking patches here, I'm talking OS re-writes based on what works and doesn't security wise.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
>but they really should have done so when they designed Windows.
No they shouldn't have. Can you imagine the problems with Windows 95, if they would have put tight security on it.
Inexperienced computers users would have throw their hands up in frustration(why can't i install this program!, why won't the printer install! I forgot my password) why do i have to add a new user).
Most people just want to get e-mail, surf the web, run quicken. As users starting demanding more(functionality, security, stability) they will switch to a different OS, or MS will have to improve. Which it seems they are trying.
Windows has plenty of room for improvement, but statement seems a bit of a reach.
He *never* says "screw the userland apps". Modules yes.. system utils yes.. general apps NO.
In fact, you can still run your old a.out apps from 5 years ago provided you have the right libraries installed.
Hey! Look on the bright side, it gives us sys admins/IT/IS/techie guys job security!! :-D
;-)
Boss: I hate to say this to you, but due to the recent economical slump.. I'm gonna have to let you go..
Worker: Boss! Boss! Something happened to all the computers! The database client isn't opening up!
Sys Admin being laid off: You were saying..
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
that got slashdotted yesterday
With that new law, companies would have to report hacks of systems. If MS fixes as many holes as they can before this new law can get swung around, the public won't find out how vunerable they are by using their OS.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
What are you, nuts? Referring to actual sources of information in your comments??? :)
I think his use of begrudgingly is mildly amusing. The word suggests envy or ill-will towards another person, in its common usage.
By contrast, I was impressed by Apple's maintenance of backwards compatibility for the longest periods. My 15 y.o. dumb little CS apps still run fine without any sense of "emulation" going on, and as they went from 16-bit to 32-bit and other advances,, for the most part the only apps that broke were the ones that flouted the programming rule set out in Apple's detailed manuals re API and such. Now they seem to be honoring this a little less (OS X obviously is a big step), but I thought that was cool. Maybe the little fish just has to be more polite.
I thought the most interesting quote from the article was near the end:
"... slides also showed the surprising results of automated crash reports from Windows users. A mere 1 percent of Windows bugs account for half of the crashes reported from the field."
... is whot bwings os tugevza tsuzay.
Um, 2.4 works VERY well. Every major distro uses it. Are you thinking of the initial release back in 2.4.0? and .1? It's the same in MS land which is why no IT guy in their right mind migrates to a new version of windows until there are at least 2 service packs out. When a major new version of the Linux kernel is released, anyone in their right mind waits a few months as settles down.
Frankly, this is the way pretty much ANY major software product is. Deal with it dude.
Bill (as in Bill Gates) actually has very little to do with Microsoft these days. He gave up control of the company to Ballmer years ago. Sure, he's still chairman of the board, but I really doubt the board has much say in technical matters. Linus on the other hand, has an active role in OS development and even codes stuff. I doubt Gates has touched a compiler in ten years. Contrary to popular belief, Gates didn't make his money because he was a super-smart computer geek. He made his money because he was a super-smart businessman. He then hired super-smart computer geeks to do all the work for him, and made them all very rich as well.
This is the same mentality where I work. We have users still using Lotus 2.4, WordPerfect 5.1, and other crazy applications because the IS people refuse to **MAKE** the users do their own work. The users want the IS departments to migrate and test all the spreadsheets and documents for them because we have Office '97 or Office 2000 installed on the machines. Now 10 years ago when Lotus 2.4 and WordPerfect were introduced we didn't go around making macros and cell calculations for them did we? But we try to introduce new products to keep up with the times and they act stupid on us and say we are killing business because we **WON'T** migrate their stupid macros.
We can't even get the users to try and open the spreadsheets in Excel or Word. They just refuse to do it. My recommendation in the last meeting was to just turn off Lotus 2.4 and WordPerfect (apps run on server) and tell the user either to use Microsoft Excel and Word or find a new job.
My point being, Microsoft is doing exactly what should be done. You want everything to be stable and secure, well you better be ready to upgrade or patch whatever doesn't work after we do our fixes.
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Broken Windows apps? *shock* *horror*
;-)
How is this possibly considered news?
-psy
Actually I HAVE read Linus's post on LKML and that is far from true. In most cases he is willing to break the internals of the kernel but he loaths to break something in userland (but will do it if there is a really really good reason). That is why most programs written for 2.0 still work for 2.4.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Actually MS just dumped the next server version after .NET, so it looks like they are headed towards longer release cycles. Since Liscense 6 gives you support for the last 5 years of os's it would not behoov MS to come out with a new OS every year, that would mean supporting 5 OS's for corp customers and testing all their apps against 5 OS's, not cheap. Instead it looks like MS is going the opposite way, look at the next version of Office, it won't run on any OS's other than win2k with SP3+, or winXP. MS is trying to dump the old kruft to reduce problems and hence support costs both external and internal.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"I might be threatening to write code."
I think I'll stop here.
People are still using stuff that depends on pre-MSDOS 2.0 features? It's hard to imagine how such a machine would get on the network to be 0wn3d in the first place without some serious social engineering: "Take this program, copy it to a 320k 5.25" floppy..."
Yeah, I know what he means, and he's right, but that 20 year figure was pulled out of his .. hat.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I guess the submitter has never read anything by Linus on the Linux mailing list. He is constantlymaking changes to the kernel and saying "screw stupid userland apps, this is the right way to do things". Even about non-security issues. And he's right, the only way to avoid massive layers of backwards-compatible cruft is to just slough off the existing infrastructure and create the OS anew for every release.
And as a bonus, developers are trained to properly code to the API instead of relying on MSDOS-style quickie kludge hacks. A moving target is harder to hit when you aren't using the "official" tools to line up the shot. (Not that anyone does that anymore, right? Remember the 80's?)
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
No, he's implying that the 2.4.x had some very major VM changes made to it when it was supposedly "stable". You knew full well what he was refering too.
Actually, in addition to being Chairman, Bill is Chief Software Architect (or something like that) so he has everything to do with the technical aspects of MS software.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The story never mentions *how* they plan to force users of older systems to patch and upgrade their security. As has been the topic of many a comment, the biggest problem in security is an admin/user who doesn't patch. If they haven't been able to get people to patch in the past, how do they think they can force a win95 user to patch their box now?
The best they can hope to do as far as *forcing* upgrades is making the automatic "microsoft update" manditory and non-removable. Imagine the uproar...
Second, a reality check...you will never squash all bugs. Software is a dynamic beast, especially when it comes to operating environments. As the systems grow and functionality increases, so do the chances for bugs. It's a simple fact that the more lines of code you have, the more bugs you have. Microsoft is as able to squash all bugs in all their software as any *nix system is to fix every single bug in theirs. It just isn't going to happen...no system is perfect.
"Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows"
I particularly liked that part...as the current incarnation of the internet did NOT exist when the first versions of DOS came out. Heck, most people didn't know what a dialup was when 3.1 came out. Early MS systems were never designed to be multi-tasking, let alone multi user, and therefore never needed security...it simply wasn't thought necisary. If the computer is going to be used by one person and not connected to the net (such was the case in the early 80's), then why include extra usless security code? The same design base was used and simply extended to maintain backward compatability as time progressed. Thus MS saying that their design is fundamentaly insecure...because it didn't HAVE to be secure in the early days. After all, it's easier to expand than re-write...especially if you do want to backward compatability.
As I see it, the sins of the past are more about business practice (which is abhorent), than it is about software design. After all, they have migrated their new OS's to a fundamentaly NT based system, and have increased security and stability in the process. I'm not saying they don't have a ways to go, I'm just saying that it is better than it was.
In anycase...I'm happy with debian, so I don't care what they do for my sake. I hope that something good comes of this so that my parents can get a more stable and more secure OS...
-Frozen
I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
"Windows isn't designed for security."
"We'll provide security when customers start paying for it."
"All your apps are belong to us."
Of course, there's always the braying antics of the Em-Ballmer. Who told you to sit down?!?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows
Well, their focus on security wasn't the same when there wasn't even a WWW, so now they're doing their best to fix their mistakes.
There's a lot you "should" do if you could predict the future. Windows worked fine and had few attacks in the 80's. Why should they spend time and effort on something that would become a problem in a decade later?
I'm sure there's a lot many operating systems should do today that might become a problem in another 10 years.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I was not going to comment at all about the stupidness of the poster going on about Microsoft should have fixed this from the start and all that crap only a non-programmer could say. So many others already said it so well.
Then I looked at the nick and emailaddress of the submitter: jointm1k and jointm1k@dajoint.nl, and suddenly it all became very clear to me just how you could, with a straight face, submit something like that.
Microsoft's reputation for intentionally breaking competing applications is based on well-documented incidents where Microsoft added code specifically for this purpose.
Most recently (about two years ago) Microsoft added a "Security Update" for Outlook supposedly to protect users against viruses. It also broke a lot of applications that did things like synchronize with a PDA, at a time when Microsoft was focused on competing with Palm. The security update could easily have been designed to prevent this side effect.
Based on its ruthless history, it is entirely reasonable to expect that Microsoft will once again use its control of Windows to sabotage competitors products. It is not Microsoft-bashing to judge a company based on its past behavior. Microsoft has only itself to blame for developers' suspicion and hostility. A company that plays nice 95% of the time and plays dirty tricks 5% of the time is still going to be mistrusted *all* of the time, and rightly so.
There are *months* before it goes mainstream -- more than enough time for userland apps to adapt.
Maybe simple, small apps, but I'm sure there are companies that would NOT be able to port over large, custom software in "months." Even if they could, that would be damned expensive. I'd hate to have to choose between tanking my software or not getting the new kernel. Not an acceptable situation.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
It's not a matter of smart or not smart. Its a matter of ignorance.
MS has spent decades numbing and dumbing the user. Now, they see a "dos window" and they get all panicky. It takes me days to make them understand that often, typing is so much easier than all that gui crap...
True, it will suck to have things break, but if this is an honest attempt at fixing the OS, then its a good thing.
If its only a ploy to make low level changes in order to obsolete existing software and hardware, forcing upgrades and providing new pathways into the new EULA's/DRM world ( and revenue ), then its NOT a good thing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Okay,let's be serious for a moment, guys. There was this week when you had 10 stories from new planets being discovered that probably would lead everyone to "rethink what they know about the universe". Then you had the week of nonsense "ask slashdot" questions. Now we're getting to a point where Slashdot is ceasing to be "News for nerds" go turn into a MS bashing forum. I mean, from "News for nerds" to Linux advocacy to MS bashing, what is this turning into?
Can't you guys be scientificaly honest? These are complex subjects and it's not a question of "wanting" to design a good OS, it's a question of complexity in designing a good OS. Or are you guys just trying to look cool to your friends with that 'anty-MS' stance? Take a look ate the usage logs on Slashdot visitors' OSes. Then come back to tell me that the vast majority is at work and is forced to use Windows. I'll just laugh
I would gladly pay a disuation fee to discuss on slashdot. Wasn't there an ideia like that sometime?
Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon
Most recently (about two years ago) Microsoft added a "Security Update" for Outlook supposedly to protect users against viruses.
Supposedly?
The security update DOES do that. When you install it, it does two big things: blocks all access to executable attachments, and requires permission before an external program can gain access to your Address Book or use Outlook to send email.
Palm can still sync with Outlook, it just requires permission from the user.
This is also the default behavior in Outlook XP. (Good!)
Now if we could just get every Outlook user to install the patch or upgrade.
"And like that
So now all the people that put out software packages 8 years ago for win98 are being told their apps are collateral damage.
Now all users on win98 will be FORCED to upgrade if they did not turn off garbage auto update.
See, just like homeland security, automatic patching starts out with a clean purpose, then they change it on you.
Recall how many "tricks" were necessary to get around M$ BS. Now their going back to erase those. Yea I can see WordPerfect 7 blowing up now. But I can't see Corel having the resources to fix it.
This will basically ensure that nothing runs on old "patched" OSes.
I call this XP strategy #2.
And he's right, the only way to avoid massive layers of backwards-compatible cruft is to just slough off the existing infrastructure and create the OS anew for every release.
True. However, if the userland apps are written properly using a sufficiently high-level language, even C, and using standards-based and/or portable APIs, then kernel changes should break only the invervening abstraction layers. Download the updated API or whatever (not much effort), and the huge amount of effort that went in to the userland app is preserved.
This is why I feel so sorry for people who write applications using Windows-only or UNIX-only or whatever-only APIs, when there are portable ways of doing things. Taking standards documents and black-lining the parts that aren't implemented on all the target platforms (thus achieving the lowest-common-denominator) goes a long way towards producing an application that will tolerate volatility at the operating system level. And, really, it isn't much effort for an important piece of software (and a week or two sifting through documentation will only improve the end product, trust me).
And guess what: even the lowest-common-denominator is usually very useful and sufficient to meet the requirements for the software. People who whine otherwise are usually the eye-candy babies who demand using all the nifty Internet Explorer extensions to make dancing mouse trailers and other garbage (for example).
The only excusable applications are those written before truly portable APIs came around. For example, old UNIX apps written with Motif should be forgiven, because Qt, Java Swing, and other fairly recent APIs weren't available. But new applications? No excuse at all.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Craig: Hi, Homer.
Homer: Hi. Who are you?
Craig: I help run a big computer company.
Homer: Oh. Hi! Do you have donuts?
Craig: Listen, I know you are a typical user and I want to share with you some very important details about your future personal computing experience.
Homer: Huh?
Craig: You have a computer. You bought it from us in 1996.
Homer: I did?
Craig: Well, your son did. He didn't buy it either.
Homer: Oh.
Craig: Anyhow, we let him keep it. We found out its insecure and in the next day or so, you will need to buy a shiny new one.
Homer: Why?
Craig: Because its insecure.
Homer: Why?
Craig: Because. So the old stuff won't work anymore.
(pause)
Craig: That's bad.
Homer: Doh!
Craig: But you have the chance to buy all new stuff. That's good.
Homer: I'm getting bored. Do you have donuts?
Craig: No. I'm off now. By the way, can you tell Mr. Burns that the software at his nuclear plant won't work on Monday, provided it isn't hijacked by terrorists after we roll out the new version?
Homer: Why did I let him in my house? How *did* he get in my house?
This space for rent.
I'm sure that when they provide the next "security release" it will be for your own good. I'm sure that it won't involve any new and more restrictive licensing options. I'm sure...
I'm sure that a vaporware press release is totally trustworthy.
Aren't you?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But this story reminds me of that great Chris Rock routine. (paraphrasing, and substituting the N word)
People always want credit for something they're supposed to do.
I ain't never been to jail. What do you want, a cookie?!
I take care of my kids. You're supposed to you dumb motherfucker!
So yes, while it is good that MS is doing this, I think that it is no big deal - they should do it. I am not going to praise them for it, this is what they should have done long before now. I am not going to rail on them either, because they are making some kind of effort. Assuming that they actually do what they say they are going to do. Sorry, but they have a bad track record, I am not going to believe it until I see it. Why am I skeptical? Among other things, I have seen the Win2kSP2 EULA. I wonder what the EULA on these new security patches will look like...
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Microsoft lives on the income from OS/Office upgrades at least as much as from new installs.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
It is true that hindsight is 20/20 and noone ever codes software such that it works exactly perfectly the first time out. HOWEVER, it can also be said that Microsoft had a habit of pushing whatever out the door, regardless of known bugs, poor security, or otherwise (Windows ME comes to mind). That they are now requiring the customers to pay for upgrades and such should be a message to the customer as to the type of software supplier they're dealing with -- a fly-by-nighter clothed in its own weight and self-importance.
The good is that Microsoft is finally going to fix their problems. It's about damn time. The bad is that Microsoft is spinning this thing as if they weren't greatly responsible for the mess they are about to inflict. IMHO, and it is only that, if Microsoft spent more time and resources on testing their crap in the first place instead of pushing it out the door then perhaps so MANY holes wouldn't need to be patched now. There will always be bugs and security flaws but Microsoft as made releasing filth and spinning it as if it were a good thing an art form in itself.
As always, this is just my opinion. Your milage may vary.
This'll be great if they don't charge for ServicePack SecurityPatch 101. Sure I believe that! ;p -- i.e., I bet this is gonna cost somebody big time. BAHA!...Hey, wait, that somebody will probably be ME! (and you and you and you...)
should work on atleast 2.x.
From what i've heard (and i've experianced) most of the kernal brekages are poorly planned, i.e. If your going to break things, break quite a lot of things at once and get the design good enough that your not going to have to break them again for quite some time.
Breaking modules once or twice ok, but if you break them more often you should really re-design the interface layers to allow for better backwards compatibility. (I think this is being done in 2.5 and about time!)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Yea I can see WordPerfect 7 blowing up now. But I can't see Corel having the resources to fix it.
Then maybe Corel will profit when folks start upgrading to Corel 8, or 9. Corel doesn't make any money supporting old versions. The industry can't always wait around supporting really old software. I mean come on, I had version 8 five years ago! Most companies and people like to upgrade their computers at least every five years (and especially over the 1999-2001 tech boom, there's no excuse to still be running computers made so long ago).
$8.95/mo web hosting
for them, but they wouldn't listen. My boss has no love on any OS, but he just hate it when MS sales call him from time to time "Windows XX is about to be desupported on XXYY, would you like us to perform a system audit for your company, for free?"
We're pretty sure we don't want to run mission critical systems on anything that has only 3 years maintenance period.
There is a difference between writing a security patch that happens to break an application, and a security patch that is designed to break an application.
A security patch on any OS could potentially cause problems with software that runs on it. However, it wouldn't put it past me for Microsoft to purposefully make sure that competing products are broken.
At best case, MS isn't going to purposefully break anything. This is a legitimate attempt to fix security.
At worst case, this might Microsoft's first step in "testing" the strength of the court to see if they'll notice/tolerate them purposefully breaking applications and then claiming they can't release the fixes to the application maker because it is part of Windows "security."
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
So, <paranoid disclaimer>whatever Microsoft is implying when they say that they will break applications</paraoind disclaimer>, it is always "Give me convenience or give me security" (Kudos to these fine guys), otherwise we wouldn't use passwords, encrypted authentication and other inconvenient stuff etc. "Why not just skip all these logins? They make my brain hurt from all the stuff I need to remember..."
So again, either you demand more knowledge, responsibility and work from the user, or you leave all the necessary security decisions to the software... There is a lot of reason for criticizing Microsoft in many ways, but I think its quite unrealistic to ask for ultimately convenient, ultimately secure software simultaneously... Consequently, either bash them for being insecure or for giving up convenience, please don't do both at the same time, because that doesn't seem to make much Sense(TM) to me... .)
the more user-friendly Linux appears to Joe Luser.
It's hard to trust Microsoft. They've made it their business to be duplicitous. Whether they are honestly concerned about security for its own sake or as a new tool for furthering their goals of profit and dominance, its not easy to look at them and not keep into the shadows and see if anyone is sneaking up to blackjack you in the back of the head.
All this talk of breaking apps and seemingly shoving things at people is justifiably worrying to many.
And now that the real wolf has come, its hard to decide if Microsoft is really pointing it out or if they're trying to fool us all again. This is what they have sewn and so they reap it now. Many distrust them and will continue to mistrust them until they show that they are trustworthy once more.
This is their chance to show everyone that they can be, if not perfect, a moderately upstanding company rather than a domineering bully. I'll be watching them. And I'm sure many more will be as well to see if they can woo back the skeptical.
Kalen D'arrie
Granted, I'm not a user of Linux and most of my computing is done on the Windows platforms but I have to ask what of end-user responsibility when it comes to computer security? I realize there are (and will always be) security issues that end users simply aren't aware of until they're exploited but given the software/application development cycle, the overall complexity of our modern-day computing systems, and the propensity of some to do little but find these security holes, I feel that developers do a fairly decent job in addressing them. Of course they *should* never be there in the first place but it's unreasonable and irrational to expect that with millions of lines of code and hundreds of developers (if not more), human error and simple oversight will be a factor in any application. Windows bashing is entertaining and a good way to get a crowd stirred up but in reality, aren't we in some way responsibile here as well? How many uninformed and ill-prepared users are there out there that don't so much as use anti-virus software? or free and easy-to-use firewall protection? or apply the latest service packs, patches, and updates? After all, would we blame Ford or Chrysler if we left the doors to our car unlocked and were robbed? Of course not. Or maybe we would ;>
Our company admins computer networks for scores of companies, school districts and government agencies; often as a backstop for an on-staff semi-technical person who handles the day-to-day stuff (adding users, etc.). We've always thought that our job was to support them so that their computers make they're more efficient and their work more productive. If someone is competent at WP5.1 and Lotus 2.4 and the applications run fine and the data is safe, why force them to change? Just to make the IT job easier?
We'd love to move people to Linux and OpenOffice but we face the same issues: people don't want to change and they don't want to lose their macros. So we support them and the applications and utilities *they* choose.
We learn Oracle for those who use Oracle, and we learn MSSQL for those who use that. We support NT file server, Linux file servers and MAC OS-X file servers depending on which systems the clients and their workers want. We have clients that use Corel Office. We have clients that use MS Office. We even have clients that use DOS workstations and Novell 3.1 to access data running on DB-4!
We think that a focus on the user is better than a focus on the technology. Sometimes users are forced to upgrade to a newer OS (often because of changes in some core application and reduction in support for the older versions... many of which worked just fine) but we never demand that our customers change unless it's for *their* good, not ours.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Example: See latest EULA changes introduced in service pack which is (or was) supposed to plug security holes.
So to add some speculations: This other stuff will be things which will be good for Microsoft, not users (or good also to users, as side-effect). Like DRM, auto-updates, spyware, slow-this-machine-down-on-demand-so-this-luser-buy s-new-machine(TM), etc. :)
hany
I'm all for security updates as long as they don't force Digital Restrictions Management or their usual abusive EULAs upon those who install the updates. I want my windows box to be secure, but not at the cost of limiting what I can use it for and what control M$ would gain over my system.
Yes, a very good point. Why didn't Microsoft make everything perfect when they designed Windows? Why don't everyone only make perfect software?
Get a grip. I think that it is a very good thing that Microsoft now wants to take more responsibility for the product they sell. Just as a car manufacturer should call in cars if they find a problem with them. Of course there are problems when developing software on the scale that Microsoft does, just look at any project that large and involving that many people and you will see that it is hard.
And yes, windows doesn't have the best design, and no they won't change it because for the majority of their users that would be a bad thing, old software would stop working etc. This is not a free OS given away that you don't have to take any responsibilites with and that you can gladly fuck up things for anyone as much as you want.
Be on M$ back when they do something stupid, but not when they do something nice. Be consistent please.
The trouble is when a number of other people upgrade to a version with incompatable formats. *baaa*baaa*! The newer versions can save to older formats, but how many people do that? In a business environment, you have to upgrade everyone to keep in sync. (Invariably the company president upgrades first.)
The whole idea of Office was that you could send files to other people, and they could use them. Microsoft might add features in each release, but don't say that they don't add hooks to encourage an upgrade.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
That's a bit of a sick attitude. Why should I have to re-buy something every five years? Shouldn't something I buy continue to work, as long as it doesn't wear out from use? Companies like Microsoft design in obsolescence, because they know it will sell more software, when they fix bugs, add new features, etc. This is part of the inherent conflict of interest in commercial software.
Of course they won't write code perfectly.
Nobody's asking them to write code perfectly.
People ARE asking them to write NEW code to the current environment. MS continues to simply slap functionality on top of the NT code base. (2000 and XP are still built on top of the initial NT code base.)
Microsoft knows that they have some serious security problems in their code. MS SVP Brian Valentine has admitted that Windows wasn't designed with security in mind.
Fine. We'll accept all that.
The thing is for us to accept that MS is serious about security they're going to have to throw out Windows and start again from the ground up. (Just look at Apple and the OS X line.) You can even code in backwards compatibility, just sandbox it.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
More like protecting a snarling pack of wolves with a duck.
Good points. And keep in mind that a lot of security fixes that break non-MS apps are due to lousy implementations by the third-party vendor. Microsoft makes the rules for how to code something (for example, an app that hooks the TCP/IP stack). They say, if you follow these rules, your app will not break in the future. Third-party vendors then go and hook the TCP/IP stack in some totally unpredictable way, which should be a bug/broken implementation, except it happens to work at the time. And then it becomes popular. And Microsoft gets in this position where if they want to make changes, they have to convince the vendor to recode their stupid app, or risk having a bunch of people going around saying "I installed XX patch and then my broken-app stopped working!"
If someone found a way to solve this problem (and stay profitable), I'm sure they'd listen...
Hmm. Perhaps you should show us your design for an RGB printer. Perhaps you should demonstrate which combinations of Red, Green, and Blue ink produce Yellows. Perhaps you should further demonstrate how you manage to produce blacks cheaply and without misalignment.
> What OS didn't need security fixes after it was released.
...
I can't resist:
CPM, Multics, MVS, System-40,
(i.e. any OS that died before the Internet)
hahahaha!
Yea, we should replace our million dollar printing presses because someone developed some software to work with monitors.
Y'know, in the MS/RIAA/MPAA/etc. newspeak, the word "security" can mean many different things.
One of the things it means, especially in the Palladium/DRM context, is "security for our software to run and do whatever it wants without you, stupid user, being able to do anything about it". The whole idea of Palladium/"secure computing" is trying to secure my computer against me.
Now, if you think about "security" this way, Mundy's promise to break old apps in the name of security starts to look fairly omnious...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Cool.
I've always wanted my Window$ apps to work while I was shopping at the mall...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
That's not the case we're talking about here. Also, people are compelled to upgrade to keep their existing system working, because of bugs and security. Some of this is unavoidable, but...
Not at all. MS certainly has the resources to make a product that is more reliable, more secure, and nearly bug-free. They make a choice not to do so, and admit that this is the case, because a product fitting the above description would impede sales of future "upgrades." The fact that MS dominates the market makes it easier for them to get away with this.
You haven't checked out the cost of Microsoft licensing lately, have you?
"Software Assurance" is making a lot of people pretty upset. As is the per seat cost of programs like Windows servers, Exchange and Outlook.
D
Accually, in a lot of cases all M$ needs to do is flip a bunch of the defaults to the more secure setting and a whole bunch of applications won't install or run properly. I run as a non administrative user in 2000, and I'm always hitting applications that want to modify a HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE registry entry or some system specific file. Its completly uncalled for 99% of the time. Why does a cheezy 3rd party email client need to change the global settings, instead of my local user prefrences. Its like web pages, change your security settings to a little more restrictive and suddenly some cheezy web page refuses to work instead of running in a degraded mode.
licensing fees
These are almost always trivial relative to the developers' wages and the project management overhead. A thousand dollars or whatever for Qt, for example, or even ten or twenty thousand dollars for a portable 3D kernel, will be worth it when people start thinking differently in the future. Business requirements change, and the software should be able to change with them. The only applications that themselves are cheaper than the licensing are trivial one-day apps that meet what is sometimes a short-sighted immediate need.
If performance is a requirement for the software, extra abstraction layers just get in the way.
Then optimize the 1% to 5% of code that performs inadequately. This takes much less time than migrating a whole code base to a new operating system API.
For example, if your program needs to clean up on forcible termination, a portable API probably isn't going to solve this on Windows because the app doesn't receive a signal; it just gets killed.
I don't see any option fixing this, unless separate processes keep watch on eachother. This sort of stuff can be partitioned off into a module called "Platform-specific Module". It will be a very small part of the application.
New applications will be written in Motif if the spec says they are written in Motif.
Who wrote that spec? That person is either tied to a legacy code base (a legitimate cause) or is living in the distant past. I don't see any good reason to keep Motif around for new applications.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Microsoft: We're releasing this, but you'll probably find bugs.
Slashdot: Damn them and their bugs!!!
Microsoft: Okay, we've created the patches, but you may lose a little functionality.
Slashdot: Damn the patches!!! Admins can fix this themselves!!!
Anybody see something wrong with this picture?
Microsoft may prohibit self-modifying code and code on the stack. You don't get any performance gain with either technique any more, since processors went superscalar.
And maybe Microsoft will delete the 16-bit compatibilty engine. It's time. In NT 3.5x, the 16-bit engine was optional, the system ran fine without it, and it should have stayed that way.
Microsoft will probably do something to break Word 97, and blame it on "security". They need the revenue. But there's a problem:
Plugging those holes, he said, would require not just rolling out new versions of Windows, but forcing security fixes onto users of older Windows versions, which he claimed was 30 to 40 times larger than the installed base of current versions.
XP sales must be lower than Microsoft admits. Microsoft has to make sure that their pressure forces people to upgrade to XP, rather than locking people into the legacy OS. Expect something on the server side that makes Internet usage difficult for legacy users.
Bitch and moan all you want about MS breaking apps with each upgrade.
Apple does that too.
Anyone running Jaguar yet?
Even 10.1 broke some things.
7.5 to 8.0 broke a whole buttload of things, IIRC.
And the worst transition was to 9.0. I remember that almost every single shareware app I had broke for 9. I stuck with 8.6 for 2 years because of that.
That's why it's so profitable to be a Mac developer. Your users have to upgrade every 12 months because the OS breaks it.
And no, I'm not talking about the Classic->X upgrade, that's a whole different enchilada. Doesn't count in my book.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Um, bashing MS is not new. MS prommising to fix security is also not new. MS continually putting out shoddy insecurly designed and configured is also not new.
Instead of focusing on real basics like securing the design of outlook so it's not so prone to viruses and worms, changing the defaults in windows so that c:\windows isn't world-writable, not installing and running virtually every service by default, etc., etc., etc., MS is deciding to break things forcing people to upgrade ($$$) thinly shrouded in a disguise of "security".
When MS REALLY AND TRUELY gets serious on security, stops behaving badly (horrible invasive EULA's, stops the practice of embrace and extend, abusing competitors with the power of their monopoly, opens proprietary file formats and protocols, etc.), THEN I may stop bashing them. History proves that MS is NOT doing anything in your best interest but rather only what is the best interest of their bank account.
Oh yeah: Disclosure alert - Rossalina works for MS. Check her user info.
The trade rags may be sycophantic pole-smokers, but I'd like to think the Slashdot population is more fair than that. We have been kicking Microsoft square in the nuts about their lack of security for years now, so does it make sense to flipflop and start kicking them for taking security seriously?
Now if the article was more like "Microsoft breaks apps to implement security, offers expensive upgrades" then we could continue kicking M$'s family jewels guilt-free.
Why then should Billy and his thugs be able to just come in and render everything useless?
Why should they let these vulnerabilities, some of which can be used for massive digital attacks, continue to exist in a product with their name on it? And it's not going to "render everything useless," Mr. Hyperbole.
When you have your computer connected to the internet, it is your responsibility to make sure you don't do any damage with it - intentional or not. Too many people have ignored that moral/social obligation.
Think of it as a Digital Emissions Inspection. If your old car can't pass modern emissions regulations, but you want to still drive it, you'll need to replace some old parts with new parts, and those repairs aren't guaranteed to be cheap.
What if people had a wireless phone that, due to age and poor initial programming, started jamming all other wireless signals within 500 feet. Is it fair to let these phones continue operating, just cause they were able to many years ago? Of course not. The FCC or some agency would recall/outlaw these phones. Well, computers are approaching that level of potential for damage, in that compromised systems can easily be used for massive DoS attacks that can seriously disrupt large networks. Software developers and users have a responsibility to do their best to make sure this does not happen.
Everyone complains about the security problems in Windows, and have derided them for it for years. So when Microsoft trys to own up and fix the problems, 3rd party application developers should do their part and follow suit.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Recall that long ago, Microsoft wanted to move away from 16bit code by going to Windows9X and also with NT, they wanted to grow in the server and professional side. Ultimately, they hoped to merge their products and so far, I don't feel they've been all that successful.
The biggest problem with NT is that it attempted to maintain compatibility with older stuff. It was important at that time they do it like this. (Personally, I think they should have thrown compatibility to the wind long ago to focus on stability and security... it's a SERVER after all, not a game machine or a workstation... make a separate workstation product with compatibility modules... but that's history now anyway...)
Now, with intense focus on security, they are proving themselves as serious players in sacrificing "performance and compatibility" by closing serious holes even at the expense of current software compatibility. I say BRAVO Microsoft for making such a bold and courageous move. Only a company with monopoly force can really afford to pull that move off and if you ask me, it's a decision late in coming.
Many people have me labelled as anti-microsoft and a Linux pusher but actually I'm not. While I agree with most of the anti-microsoft commentary and just about all of the pro-linux and open source stuff, I'm not religious about it. If I like it or see value in it, I'll use it. It's that simple. I appreciate what I interpret as a mature direction Microsoft is about to undertake.
I think it's a bit unfair for jointm1k to tack on the bit about "shoulda done it before they designed Windows..." In an industry that changes as often with technology as it does with "fashion" (consider shifts to and from client-server) It's tough for any company to keep up with current times let alone predict the future of computing 10 years down the road... even a company that, at times, sets the standards of industrial computing.
Microsoft has lost a lot of respect in the industry -- not only in the eyes of IT professionals, but also in the eyes of blue/grey-suited business people. I think it's important for Microsoft's future to do that. I'm also a little afraid of what would happen to computing in general if there were a mass shift away from Microsoft. I wish it were, but I don't think Linux based business solutions are ready for prime-time. (* brace for impact! *)
Long live Linux and all it stands for. Peace out.
they need to stay incompatible.
All through the years, they had gnarly cruft in their API's for backward compatability and to maintain incompatability with competitors.
Now that they have sold us a bill (hic) of goods for a while, they now want to do a 180 and sell the "fixed" OS to us again with all new "fixed" Apps. Those people who don't upgrade? They aren't Microsoft customers. They are not playing MS's game of constant upgrade cycles. They must be made to pay and dearly.
Also, wine, with it's emulation of the cruft, is becoming very usable now and high profile. Time to break it!
No doubt that finally "fixing" things is the Right Thing(tm) to do but... I don't for one minute believe they are doing it for the Right Reason(tm).
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Oracle. I cannot get it to install on newer systems without installing lots of backwards compatibility stuff.
What you are talking about has nothing to do with the Linux kernel but everything to do with your Linux distributor who did not do the right thing and provide compatibility by default. Oracle claims to only run on Redhat and I am surprised if Redhat messed this one up but since I don't run Oracle, I really don't know the details. However, glibc breakage has nothing to do with kernel breakage.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Nobody's writing bugs for win95 anymore. That stopped in well...95 ;)
As for viruses. Most hackers have upgraded to XP anyway.
Any changes which stop an interference are acceptable because it's a basic part of the system design. Apps have to work within the system's design. Usually there is only one app affected because well-behaved programs avoid banging against all the walls of their cage. (Indeed, Unix changes which will affect several apps...or even only a few specialized users of unusual device drivers... get much discussion and adjustment so as to break as little as possible while not leaving any weaknesses)
READ first, post later. Especially when you dont even have to leave /. to find the EULA in question.
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
Now, if you read the posts, and the links to the stories and EULA, you notice what you find?
1 - these EULA's give MS the rights to FORCE their updates on you.
2 - these updates, fixes, security fixes, etc, focus on DRM more than true security issues.
So... anyone STILL falling for this "Gee, we finally realized that security is a big deal... took us 3 years since that turnip truck - dunno why we were on a turnip truck 3 years ago, but we were... but anyway, this time we really mean what we say about security being important. Before when we said it was and did nothing, that was different - but the same as the time before that, which was also different than this time... oh - and this has nothing to do with DRM - so dont read your EULAs that come with these 'fixes' since they tell you it does have to do with DRM and give us permission to full access to your machine, as well as rights to update, add or delete files as we see fit..."
So... who's buying this latest round of bull? Show of hands anyone?
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
Microsoft is the Evil Empire. Threfore, it's only natural that people hate them. You are right though--people shouldn't simply bash M$--at least they shouldn't all the time. :-) Instead, they should continually remind people of their past history of destroying all who stand in their way by buying them, or copying their stuff and running them out of business. Whenever Bill Gates talks of Microsoft's "freedom to innovate", what he really means is "freedom to steal". (or if you want to me to be more accurate and less dramatic: "freedom to use other peoples' ideas unconditionally without having to pay them or give them credit or be indebted to them in anyway". This would not be so bad except that MS doesn't want to extend that same, uh, courtesy to anyone who does the same to them. They want it all. All the time. They don't want to share.
Btw, did you actually read the article? It's not good at all. It tries to make the implicit assertion: "computer security problems" == "potential for cyberterrorism". Not a good thing for people to get in their heads. The article even makes reference to 9/11! This is the worst part:
Not good for us geeks, not good at all.
Furry cows moo and decompress.