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.
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"
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.
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...
"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."
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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... .)
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 ;>
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.
More like protecting a snarling pack of wolves with a duck.
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.
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.