Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Raises Security Game, Notes Shortcomings Elsewhere
LMCBoy writes "Steve Ballmer recently told an industry conference that Microsoft software is more secure than Linux. PJ at Groklaw has a nice, thorough analysis of this dubious claim. She points out that not only are there vastly more Microsoft exploits reported, but that the exploits tend to be much more severe, involving remote administrator access." In related news, mhesseltine writes "According to an article from the Washington Post, in an unusually ironic twist, Microsoft has started talking smack about their own products, instead of those of their competitors. Bill Gates said of Office 'it's too hard to find things in e-mail' and described some features of Word as 'clunky.'"
Do you think it could POSSIBLE be due to the fact that Office 2003 just came out and the need to find a reason to get people to buy it?
"Bill Gates said of Office 'it's too hard to find things in e-mail' and described some features of Word as 'clunky.'""
Even people that don't know anything about computers know that Linux is that "other thing" that's "more secure". I know which would be my chosen OS to run any kind of internetwork-connected services. And it's not Windows.
Get your own free personal location tracker
When the version of Linux is Lindows and it's adminstered by a monkey who leave it lying around a student lab logged in as root.
On a more serious note, securit depends more on the person administering it than the software itself up to a point. Sure you _can_ leave yourself wide open on Linux as well as on Windows, it's just that on Windows it's much easier (eg using OE or IE or not turning off messaging services or RPC) compared to Linux (installing something compromised or bad physical security).
Beep beep.
Microsoft has started talking smack about their own products, instead of those of their competitors
I guess when you are so proficient at talking smack you are likely to hit one of your own at some point.
Don't cream in your pants just yet... Gates actually "described early versions of the Word text-processing program as "clunky."
I've had to download 5 updates in the last 3 days, so it must be getting safer, but one assumes if you're constantly downloading security patches there's got to be something insecure about it...
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Of course the clunkiest feature of Office is the part where you have pay several hundred dollars for it. I wish they'd get that bug ironed out already.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 06:44 AM EDT
... disputed the notion that open-source code is more secure than Windows. 'The data doesn't jibe with that. In the first 150 days after the release of Windows 2000, there were 17 critical vulnerabilities. For Windows Server 2003 there were four. For Red Hat (Linux) 6, they were five to ten times higher,' he said.
...well, what would be the precise word here? You hate to say lying. It's so cold.
You know I couldn't resist covering this story. Microsoft's Steve Ballmer picked up his glove and slapped Linux across the face in a speech given at an industry conference thrown by...who else, Gartner?
In his speech, he said some peculiar things about security:
"Ballmer
"'The vulnerabilities are there. The fact that someone in China in the middle of the night patched it--there is nothing that says integrity will come out of that process. We have a process that will lead to sustainable level of quality. Not saying we are the cat's meow here--I'm saying it is absolutely not good reasoning to think you will get better quality out of Linux.'"
Ballmer's being a naughty boy again. China indeed. "In the middle of the night." Trying to frighten the children with overtones. And playing with numbers. What year is it again? Red Hat 6? Pardon me for pointing it out, but they are up to 9 now. He's choosing a 150-day period from back in the day -- and I wonder how long it took to pick the best segment of time to use -- and using that for comparison? There is a lot that can be said about this, but it's not really necessary to do any research on this sad subject, I don't think. Everyone on a Windows box just went through the worst summer and fall of security issues of all time. They already know he's just
However, let's do a little research, just for fun.
Judge for yourself which operating system is more vulnerable to security problems by going down the list on CERT's Incident Notes page. It goes back to 1998. And here is their Current Activity page. It's almost all Microsoft issues. Here's their Vulnerabilities Notes page. It's all Microsoft, except for one, which isn't Linux. Here is their most recent quarterly summary. And after you look at all the data, what do you think now? Was Mr. Ballmer accurate? The only way I could find Linux prominently on any list was to type it into the Customized Search engine by itself on this page , and then when you get to the list, it's a list for all vulnerabilities of all the distributions of Linux, not just Red Hat. I couldn't find anything equivalent to Microsoft announcing a vulnerability and then saying there was no patch and you should just shut that particular functionality down. Ballmer said there were 17 critical vulnerabilities in Windows 2000 in the 150-day period and that Red Hat had considerably more. But look at the list: it shows only 16 vulnerabilities for all flavors of Linux for the entire year of 2000. CERT only lists the big ones, but Ballmer did say "critical". It makes you wonder where he got his numbers from or how he defines "critical".
Funny he would choose such an old time period, don't you think, for his comparison? Maybe it's because looking at July through October of this year would be devastating? I see only two Linux vulnerabilities on the list for that time period, both buffer overflow vulnerabilities, so evidently there has been considerable improvement on the Linux side.
Look at what could happen to you on a Windows box in the first two weeks of September 2003, though, just using a handful of the many recent vulnerabilities here and here and here and here and here and here and here. I didn't include July and August or October or the rest of September, out of kindness. Now, what Mr. Ballmer needs to do is show me anything like that kind of news coverage of security vulnerabilities in GNU/Linux, for any two week period. And speaking of critical, look at what the results could be from the Windows security issues:
"'An att
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Since the sources to windows are not open, it would be most likely to have the fewest discovered security holes. Programs like OpenSSH and the Linux kernel itself (and many others) has sources available which makes it easier to locate the security holes but then again they are fixed quicker.
Now, since this isn't even true (according to PJ at Groklaw), we can only imaging how much more there is in Microsoft Windows.
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
Apparently Bill G. just ran MS Office for the first time, to just now be coming out and saying that sort of stuff... which makes my other point.
People at MS apparently dont use thier own stuff. If they did, IE wouldn't be the crap it is today.
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
Gates highlights improvements in Office 2003 over Office 2000 during the product launch!
It's arma-fucking-geddon!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The programs we sell right now are not any good!
So, as soon as the next version comes out, buy it! We will have everything fixed, honest!
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
Ballmer states that there's "nobody who has his rear end on the line" with Linux.
...
I posit that Linux developers have something rather important on the line; their reputations, professional and personal. When you ship open-source code, you are showing the world how good, or how bad, you are. Your reputation can be made or broken by the code you release.
Contrast that with all too many developers in commercial shops, whose code is read by nobody but their immediate co-workers and nobody takes responsibility for bugs.
If Microsoft employees' asses are on the line, show me a firing or two every time a security hole shows up. And not just the line programmers; bring me the heads of the designers who designed things badly, the project managers who made hitting deadline more important than getting it right, and the managers who let it all happen.
I would say that in the vast majority of cases, commercial programmers' asses are NOT on the line, in terms of security problems. As long as you crank out code fast enough to keep up with your co-workers
Funny, I've never had a problem with this. I just type a couple of words describing what i'm looking for into the finding pane, and it gives me a sorted list of all the e-mails i have based on probable relevance where those words show up. It works just like in iTunes.
Of course, this is because i am using Apple Mail for Mac OS X.
Of Course Windows is more secure than linux, once you disconnect it from the network...
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Ballsack^H^H^H^Hmer said: "The data doesn't jibe with that. In the first 150 days after the release of Windows 2000, there were 17 critical vulnerabilities. For Windows Server 2003 there were four. For Red Hat (Linux) 6, they were five to ten times higher"
Why don't we compare Windows Server 2003 to RedHat Enterprise v3? Or Windows 2000 to RedHat 9? RedHat 6? That's what, 3-4 years old now!
And don't make me bring up WinME, Steverino.
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line. We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we provide a road map, indemnify customers. They know where to send e-mail." Steve Ballmer said. He neglected to add "It's not like we read that email, but at least you know where they can stick it - sorry, I mean send it", but was clearly thinking it.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
No, no and no.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is geared at the technologically inert investors. If an investor reads an article that says "Microsoft is more secure," how would they know the validity of the claim? I'd wager most don't read Slashdot, nor are concerned with any more objective tech site, and will happily sink their money into whatever marketing tells them. Of course Microsoft is the most secure thing out there if you don't look at or ignore figures presented by those who know better.
Please explain to me how this obvious marketing technique (giving reason to why an upgrade to an word processor is needed so often) is "Ironic".
Pretty please.
"Steve Ballmer recently told an industry conference that Microsoft software is more secure than Linux. "
Steve really needs to ease up on the old crack pipe!
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
unusually ironic twist, Microsoft has started talking smack about their own products,
When you get into the big leagues, a league of your own, a world of your own, then the only critic you can accept is yourself.
Because, after all, everyone else is incompetent, a sniping dog of a rival, etc., or they wouldn't be as successful as us!
A consistent attitude from a company that brings us Innovation through embrace, extend and extinguish.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
... Gabe Newel thinks of this...
Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
War is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Windows Is Good
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I'll bet a few bucks that it does not allow customers to "indemnify" MS in any manner that the agreement could possibly defend against in a court of law, and a few that it couldn't, just for good measure.
"Neque enim lex est aequior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua."
All microsoft has to do is say that their software is secure! People will just believe it and continue to pay up.
What is slashdot?
"It's too hard to find things in e-mail." translation: "We're going to start the murmurings now for a proprietary database-backed email system, from back end to user interface."
By making comments like this now, Bill will have leverage against the DoJ when they bring up the spectre of the anti-trust settlement. "It's a necessary feature--we recognised that back in 2003."
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
1. Microsoft now has to spend as much of its time competing against itself as it does everyone else. (Quote: "With each version of Office it gets harder for Microsoft to move customers up," said Michael A. Silver, vice president and research director at the research and advisory firm Gartner Inc.)
DUH. Pretty much everyone admits this. If they never EOL'd anything, people would probably just stay on NT4 with Office 97 (assuming it works for them).
2. Microsoft thinks it offers more advanced, and usually better products, and offers metrics to prove those points.
DUH. In other news, Linux organizations (along with "grass-roots" sites like Slashdot) offer counter-points and different metrics of performance, value, and success.
In 10 words or less, "Microsoft practices marketing, others offer rebuttal."
How's the new Office if you're a home user with small email volume? Is it a compelling upgrade?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I guess that's what happens when you bloat Office up with pinball games, flight simluators and 3D Doom clones.
So, yet another new release that barely resembles the previous releases that we are all used to using.
How much productivity is lost every time they release a new OS or piece of software that behaves very unlike the current version?
He seems to have lost all the loving emails darling Darl sent him :'(
My heart cries out for him *sniff*
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally? Why is its pedigree better than code done in a controlled fashion? I don't get that,"
I can see that: random security modules being submitted by guys at NSA. I mean really, what does the NSA know about computer security? Clearly the MS campus is streets ahead of those unprofessional losers...
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Ballmer did make a questionable claim, but the submitter of this story made it more general than it really was.
In other words, he didn't say Microsoft Software (people start imagining IE, Outlook, etc...) in general is more secure than Linux, he said Windows 2000 and 2003 had fewer 'critical vulernabilities' than Redhat 6.
Now, I'm not defending Ballmer here, but I do wish story submitters would chill on the flame-bait headlines.
Now, with that aside, here's a few things wrong with that statement:
- One of those 'critical vulnerabilities' in Windows 2000 facilitated a very wide spread attack, something that hasn't happened with Linux.
- Redhat is up to what.. 9 now? Redhat 6 is going back at least a couple of years. It's disappointing that he didn't pick a more recent version of Redhat. Something tells me that their numbers for critical issues wasn't so interesting.
- The number of security issues is not a very good measure of security. Though it sounds great for the PHB's out there, but it is well documented that Microsoft's foundation is, in general not very secure. Those critical vulnerabilities are going to do more damage on a Microsoft Platform than a Linux based one.
So, to summarize: Ballmer's full of shit and the authors need to be more responsible in their reporting, especially when sites can be Slashdotted.
"Derp de derp."
One of the biggest issues is that rarely do these claims stack up comparable products. I was just reading the claim by Balmer saying Win2K is more secure (i.e., less patches) than RedHat 6.2, IIRC. Compare the kinds of vulnerabilities Balmer was referring to: in MS, there were a ton of holes that were rooted into the OS, making the whole system vulnerable (in general). In RH, many of the patches were for apps and tools that aren't installed automatically. Sure, your SSL-secured dildo-plus-IM app might have a hole in it, but it's probably not installed by default. Compare that to everyone's favorite RPC hole, or IE hole, found in EVERY version of Windows 2000.
Fuck it, not worth my time. I'm not a anti-MS zealot by any means, but it's time to /ignore what some of the annoying corporate PR trolls are screaming. If you want to get my attention, get an independent 3rd party (no, Gartner DOESN'T count) to show me some results and back them up with meaningful data.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
sPh
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line."
Quick, alert Linus and the rest of the kernel maintainers and planners. Also, better not spread around the road map for Linux so Ballmer won't look like a fool.
" We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we provide a road map, indemnify customers."
ROFL! Indemnify?! Ever read a Microsoft EULA? You're on your own, buddy. How stupid does he think people are? Never mind, don't answer that...
" They know where to send e-mail. "
Oh, puleeeze! Ever try to complain to Microsoft about a bug in their software? Now, take that to the next level. Ever try to complain to one of their software developers about a bug in the particular software they wrote? What's that? You have no idea who wrote that piece of software? And you have no way of finding out? So tell me again where the accountability is.
"None of that is true in the other world. "
Uh, precisely the opposite of what you said, but thanks for playing anyway. Tell Steve what he's won. Seriously, it really is just the opposite. Linux code comes with people's name on it. You want accountability? Put your name on software used by millions and put it out into the world to be dissected.
"So far, I think our model works pretty well,"
(Wiping the tears from my face while I shake with laughter) If the current mess of the state of Windows is his idea of things working "pretty well," oh never mind...This speech sure wasn't directed at the cluefull.
That means, of course, that most reporters will report it verbatim and at face value. *sigh*
If you do a lookup of Linux versus Microsoft, the numbers tend toward what he is saying. Does it count against MS if a third party vendor's product is compromised? No. But it does appear to count against Linux.
However, the fact that it is a very misleading statement gives Steve his sound bite "Linux less secure." Well, they cannot claim it if it isn't true and if it is true then we can be sure we want MS products right? Yeah!
Except, this is not what he said. He lead everyone down the path and then to save himself from an outright lie, he told everyone to go look at the data and decide for themselves. Do you really think 99.9999% of the people are going to go CERN and search? Nope.
It reminds me of the the "Sale" signs you see in a store window. Do you know what they mean? Items are for sale. Not for less money, just for sale. Or the infamous "quantities may be limited". What does that mean? Most likely it means they have one in each store if you are the lucky one to be first in line. After that, sorry.
Salesmanship, and FUD a wonderful combination and lets face it...who is better at it than MS?
Now, if only he would admit that Microsoft is making too much money. Or perhaps Bill could say that MS has been unfair to consumers. THAT would be newsworthy.
things in e-mail'
Imagine how much spam is in his inbox???
And this is different than closed source software, how?
in an unusually ironic twist, Microsoft has started talking smack about their own products
finally microsoft does something innovative.
my pet machine
Ah, but you missed my point. So many people here love to claim that MS Word sucks ass, and Outlook blows donkey dicks. In fact, they don't. They do what they're supposed to do, and they do it well.
Problems with one aspect of an application does not a shitty application make.
But even doing that, one get's into endless arguments about vulnerabilities in an OS vs. a distribution, severity of vulnerabilities, and whether they are exploitable at the time of the fix.
Also, the author rhetorically asks about a period in Linux as bad as last month for vulnerabilities. I don't admin Windows, but I remember having to update OpenSSH twice in as many days and turn off access to all my users for a few hours because of rumors of an exploit.
So while I think Balmer is full of hot air, let's not paint Linux as a panacea either.
Microsoft=evil aside,
I think on the whole he made some very good points.
For example:
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally?"
A very valid question. I have been extremely pleased with how far the Windows platform has come between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. I also believe that Microsoft has been increasingly more proactive with regards to security and patches and creating as rock solid a platform as possible.
Further:
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line."
I have had a problem with this as well when it comes to Linux. The biggest problem affecting Linux development lies in there not being a central vision, a "road map", for the platform.
--
om Shanti
I came across this company, who claim in their FAQ:
"Which Operating Systems are most vulnerable to digital attacks?"
"Based on the information garnered through SIPS in August 2003 for twelve trailing months, Linux is the most breached operating system followed by Microsoft Windows."
"For the twelve trailing months as of September 2003, 59.2% of all overt digital attacks were on systems running Linux and 20.8% were on systems running Windows."
They define 'overt digital attacks' as active hacks conducted by a person or a group, as opposed to a virus spreading through a network...
So, is it a worldwide PR campaign, perhaps?
"For every right, an equal responsibility..."
Indemnity, right - nice word. From what, and for who? The EULA on pretty much all software disclaims any responsibility on the part of the vendor for damages suffered as a result of using the software. Plenty of MS customers have suffered damage from MS software and so far as I know Microsoft did nothing to indemnify any of them.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
not only are there vastly more Microsoft exploits reported, but that the exploits tend to be much more severe, involving remote administrator access."
And most MS patches require a reboot after patching, making mass patching of production servers an agonizing experinece. Most of the Linux vulns are in programs where you just replace the progam files and maybe stop and restart a service.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Bill Gates said of Office 'it's too hard to find things in e-mail' and described some features of Word as 'clunky.'"
Welcome to Windows, with the new E-Mail security feature, where its extremely difficult for you to locate anything in any E-Mail, this feature also makes it extremely difficult for anyone else not authorized, to find anything in your E-Mail also.
New feature for office software from our upgrades dept:
This year we are adding the ability to print documents, stayed tuned next year for only $99 we will enhance our office suite software with the color black being added to the font selection screen. Scheduled for Release later on at $99 each is The final letters to the Alphabet added (w, i, n, d, o, & s) (we didn't want anyone to write bad things about Windows, so we omitted those letters so no one could make a Document that spoke bad about us. If by chance you have those letters available we shall be contacting you, to sue you for Reverse engineering our proprietary software)
(Note: This was just a joke, please do not take it literally)
If firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?
Doesn't he realize that taking all that smack will just ruin his dancing career?
Ballmer proceeded to point at the thin air next to him for three minutes while muttering what sounded like 'their little pig eyes they bore into my soul like dirty knives' and scanning the audience.
"What about the security issues?" asked Jayson Blair, cub reporter for D-Cup Magazine.
"And those button bars with the sometimes incomprehensible tiny icons. Those are works of art!" cried Ballmer. "If you can't understand what one means, you are nothing more than an animal. An animal, I tell you! Do you hear? An animal who sleeps in his own wastes and eats his own children! Die!"
"Do you have any data to back up your claim of being more secure than Linux?" asked Asian reporter Trish Takinawa of Channel 104 Public Access in Parumph, Nevada.
"Data!" thundered Ballmer. "We're freaking Microsoft, toots! We don't need any stinking dat-"
Ha ha! This has gone far enough!" said a swarthy man in ninja clothing from the back of the crowd as he leapt up onto a dusty platform festooned with tattered remnants of long dead happiness.
"So! Phil Schiller. Head of Marketing at Apple Computer," Ballmer said. "I wondered when we'd meet again."
"And it is as I said, ha-ha, at a time and place of my design, ha-ha!" heckled Schiller has he drew his adamantine katana from it's sheath. Gold plated depleted uranium throwing stars twinkled and glistened with righteousness in his other hand.
Strange alien devices began to scuttle threatingly from Ballmer's massive pores. They dripped with sweat. The sweat hit the floor and burned little holes.
Reporters scattered in a storm of makeup and microphone cable. Somewhere, a bird of prey cried out. A baby cried. Someone broke Godwin's law for the 5000th time that day. An charmed quark spontaneously appeared, but only briefly.
Schiller's bright eyes started down the angry monkey eyes of his eternal nemesis, and the world held it's breath...
--- Ban humanity.
Enter Steve Ballmer standing in front of a black background:
"Windows Server 2003...It's how the last place you'd go for an OS will be come the first."
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
The safest way to run windows is by putting it behind a linux or freebsd based firewall. In addition, don't run Internet Explorer or ANY version of OUTLOOK..
Am I still allowed to print the e-mail and forward it to someone else via the U.S. Postal Service? Or will I violate Micro$oft's End User License by doing so?
Hmmm...Digital Rights Management for e-mail...I don't know if I like that...
Maybe if they spent as much time fixing their products as they did FUDing opensource there wouldn't be so many "Worms of the Week".
Christ what kind of messages do they think this sends? The more they talk about linux and opensource the more companies become aware as a viable option and realize that Microsoft is seriously shitting its pants. From a PR standpoint this is a disaster. This isn't 1996 when there was no Google and you couldn't do your own research. Anyone with half a brain and five minutes can easily find out that all the FUD is just flat out wrong.
In a way I actually feel bad for Balmer et al. I mean it must not be fun to live in fear which its pretty obvious they are. Kinda sad really. Their entire business is based on the assumption that users and companies don't realize that they have a choice. Now that you can't go a week without having MS bring up Linux even the average Joe knows about it. Sure he may not switch his laptop, but chances are at his business he may realize that Linux is a real alternative on the server.
Poor Microsoft if they don't stop stalking Linux at every turn Tux is going to have to take out a restraining order.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Windows is closed. If it were open, someone would have fixed the security holes by now.
Here are more thoughts from a friend of mine and security expert.
From Groklaw:
Ballmer said there were 17 critical vulnerabilities in Windows 2000 in the 150-day period and that Red Hat had considerably more. But look at the list: it shows only 16 vulnerabilities for all flavors of Linux for the entire year of 2000. CERT only lists the big ones, but Ballmer did say "critical". It makes you wonder where he got his numbers from or how he defines "critical".
My guess is that "critical" for Windows is anything that allows a remote root via core windows stuff. "Critical" for RedHat probably meant counting anything that showed up in RedHat Errata during the time period, which usually includes minor problems in programs I don't even have installed.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I know you're trolling, but for others who might actually be feeling this way, you can always go into prefs and turn Microsoft stories off.
But that would be a reasonable solution to your problem, wouldn't it? Sorry.
in an unusually ironic twist, Microsoft has started talking smack
How many other people read that as "Microsoft has started TAKING smack"? That would explain most of their press releases...
We've heard M$ say they're getting their security act together so many times now that I really doubt if there is anybody who actually believes them anymore (except the Gartner Group). Due to the evolvolution development approach that M$ has used for the on-going Windoze environment, the product is, by design, insecure. It may be easier for them to start over, from scratch, than to fix what appears to be unfixable.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
This part is essentially standard BusinessThink spin. It depends on a fundamental difference between how techies and management view support and services.
For the technical types who largely make up the Linux community, 'support' is largely a question of information-gathering. It's a question of 'where do I find the information necessary to fix the current problem?'. We don't particularly care where is comes from, as long as we can get it. That's why we're comfortable digging through web sites, posting to newsgroups and mailing lists - generally dealing with our peers to gather information.
For management types (and probably particularly for upper management in larger companies), the question of service and support is dealt with more in terms of business structures. The question is 'what business structure is available to take responsibility for fixing problems?'. It doesn't really matter (or doesn't really sink in) that newsgroups and mailing lists and other 'non-business' resources can often be more effective at gathering the necessary information than the 'tech support' you find in a lot of companies - the business mentality tends to focus on finding some business structure that can be assigned the responsibility. In a sense, perhaps they're more comfortable with a situation where they can deal with their peers.
Ballmer is simply trying to spin this in a way that makes Microsoft fit in better with standard BusinessThink. "We have a business structure to take responsibility for this, the Linux crowd only has an amorphous 'community', ergo (to BusinessThink) we're the ones who show responsibility". I'm not sure how we can counter that, but I think you need to understand where he's going with his spin before you can.
These threads invariably involve, at the top mod levels, derogatory comments about the quality of Microsoft code and products, conspiracy theories about the true motives behind Microsofts intentions (always), sarcastic jokes agreeing with the action in question, a sad reflection on how new users, PHBs and/or the world at large is accepting this action, and an impressively-inventive-if-completely unneccesary variety of miscellaneous other anti-Microsoft rhetoric.
I am not going to rehash the old and tired arguments about Microsoft, or even say I disagree with much of it. That is beside the point.
What is important is that open source in general and slashdot in particular should be different, and they are utterly NOT. Steve Ballmer comes out and spreads some FUD on Linux. Ya, it's FUD, and it's not true, and he's fundamentally wrong about quality and open source, and besides Microsoft just this and that and blah blah blah. So what.
I can see how the first two or three or ten times you hear this shit from Microsoft you want to scream from the mountaintops how wrong it is. What I utterly will never ever understand is how you can get off, get this big rhetorical hard on, four and five times a day week in and week out over the SAME BULLSHIT. It's FUD now just like it was FUD last year and FUD the year before that and, as far as the slashdot crowd is concerned at least, FUD in 1976 when Bill Gates wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists.
It would seem to me that, confronted with all of this disagreeable stuff coming out of Microsoft, the slashdot crowd would eventually learn the productive and elevated response is to
A> Shrug.
B>Take the high road and acknowledge every sliver of truth in every criticism, ignoring the juvenile manner in which it may have been delivered, and use this reflection to further improve open source. Parse FUD for constructive crisiticism. If there is none to be gleaned see A>. Is there *anything* about Linux's patching model or security that could be improved? Is there the slightest kernel of truth in what Ballmer says?
But when I think about it I realize the benefit of anti-Microsoft jihad posts filled with propagandist comments isn't to convey any new information or spark new insights but to further reinforce and perpetuate the community formed around slashdot. Read Clay Shirky's brilliant A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. External enemy, religious veneration, it's all here. It's here to perpetuate the group, as human groups naturally want to do -- even when such patterns are against the interest of the original or stated goal of the group. A choice excerpt:
I'm sick of it, so what, everyone seems to love it, I'll just go now and click a preference and never look at the borg crap again. I just hope in time there is enough other content to read.
Nothing but the damn liar. That's what Ballmer is. However, there's not much left for them but lies. They know they're in trouble and they know exactly how many bilions of dollars are they going to be short in revenues over the next 2-5 years.
"Thank you for your "insight", Captain Obvious! "
and
"Thank you for explaining your "insight", Captain Obvious. "
I think I'm stuck in a Turing test. Are you a human or a chatbot?
You are a regular laugh riot. RTFM. There is a preferences setting if you don't want to read about MS. Use it or shut up about the number of MS stories. It's really that simple. The quantity of different types of stories on Slashdot is probably directly related to the number of submissions on those topics made by readers.
.sig) of MS and Linux security issues.
I'm not even going to get into the logical fallacies going on with your comparison (via
I do not have a signature
MS : Our software is more secure
Open source community : No, Linux is more secure
MS : No, we are
Open source community : No we are!
MS : Liars!
Come on, let's be a little more objective than that. I feel i'm in the presence of 2 children.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
-matt
in an unusually ironic twist, Microsoft has started talking smack about their own products, instead of those of their competitors.
It's not ironic, because Microsoft stands to suffer nothing by pointing out problems with Outlook. And that is because 1) it is still probably the most widely used email program, 2) there are no real significant challenges or competitors to Outlook (or Excel, or Word) out there, and 3) the problems BG is pointing out are relatively trivial and plague every other email program anyways. So MS can make these kinds of knocks on their products as much as they want...they just can't knock Windows.
And, as someone else has already pointed out, it always helps to sell new product. Doesn't almost every new feature set in any product imply there was something wrong with the previous versions ?
This article is about as well considered as Ballmer's - showing "proof" that doesn't correspond to the evidence doesn't help. Look, Groklaw is right, Bawlmore is wrong, but this article certainly doesn't help prove it. ALWAYS TAKE THE DAMN HIGH ROAD ON THESE THINGS PEOPLE.
"if there are problems and people do have security issues, I'm SteveB@microsoft.com. They know where to send e-mail and give somebody a hard time about it."
;)
Well, now we all know where to send our emails
my blog
"The fact that someone in China in the middle of the night patched it -- there is nothing that says integrity will come out of that process."
Here's a good one. "Me no likee patchee." He's just pissed because the Chinese have yet to kowtow like good little subjects. I assume M$ doesn't have anyone in China working on security. China's timezone would make the middle of the night our workday. Etc, etc.
It'd be insulting if it weren't delivered by such a laughingstock of a monkeyboy messenger.
"We have a process that will lead to sustainable level of quality."
I suppose 'minimal' qualifies as sustainable?
And who's surprised this outburst came out during a Gartner circle jerk? This is the functional equivalent of that ass Mahathir's comments at the OIC.. Preaching to the short-bus choir...
Uh, maybe... doing it for pride, pleasure, or just because you love doing it, versus crack-of-the-whip-get-the-most-profit-out-of-your
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
In addition, Microsoft spends about $6.9 billion a year in R&D to improve its software, an effort that could not be funded under an open-source model, Ballmer said. "Most people who are putting their software under open source are doing so because it hasn't been very successful when it was sold. Why not make it free?"
That's right, $6.9 million dollars spent by your company in R&D that would multiply your security holes exponentially. Now that's money very well spent.
You're talking about software not being successful? The entire Concordia University's EE labs run either unix or linux. Openoffice, (surprise, surprise!) is opensource and everyone's been able to hand in their project reports and papers. Software that hadnt been successful... what kind of bullshit is that. You have a guy like this as an exec at Microsoft... we now know what kind of products you guys spit out.
my blog
thats not so ironic. In sales and marketing, you never talk about your competitors unless you have to. You would much rather discuss how your new product is improved over your old product. You don't want to give credibility to your competitors by mentioning them, and on the off chance your customer hasn't heard about them at all.
Since Office has such an overwhelming market share, they pretty much don't have to talk about Open Office/StarOffice at all except in cases where the customers ask about them.
repeat after me.
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
Microsoft DOES NOT INDEMNIFY YOU - other than for the price of their software - THE SAME AS LINUX
How they (and SCO) get away with saying this is sheer madness. It is false advertising. There should be a lawsuit against Microsoft for making fraudulent claims. Fraudlent claims are not protected speech.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I'd start by pointing out that even if Microsoft perhaps should be in trouble for shoddy software, it's not as if they don't get away with it. Consider what you actually get if you complain to Microsoft or request a new feature. Normally it's nothing. Microsoft has effectively avoided most public criticism about recent security exploits by simply saying "Sorry, that's just how computers are." Because most people simply don't comprehend a "computer" as anything other than running Windows software, they get away with it.
That said, open source software shouldn't need to make up excuses or reasons about being responsible for software. It just works... or sometimes it doesn't. but how is that different from other products?
If it doesn't work then stop using it if there's a better alternative. But more often than not any reasonable evaluation by a potential customer would reveal that the developers behind the majority of major open source products are much more reponsive and communicative about bugs and issues and how they're dealing (or not dealing) with things than Microsoft, or many similar big corporates.
If OSS is to be justified, there shouldn't be a need to try to invent strategies for countering Microsoft's FUD. It's already not fact, OSS already has responsible people behind it and (IMHO) they do a much better job than the majority of their closed source commercial counterparts. Just point this out.
If it were open, 5 different people would have made 5 different fixes, which would in the future break other fixes related to these files. Ever heard of standards? Didn't think so.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
Do we really need another bash-Microsoft article obsessively dissecting one sentence Bill Gates made at some promotional speech or interview or whatever?
Um, it was the Washington Post reporting on the "sentence" (although it was probably more on the orders of a paragraph or two), not Slashdot. We're not dissecting the sentence here. It's pretty clear that MS is going to have to make the sale based on overhyping the features of the new version and badmouthing the old. This sort of thing happens in companies all the time -- Clorox bleach had a big promo for powdered Bleach by badmouthing liquid bleach, their #1 product.
Just like a site focusing on Green Party politics would be crazy not talking about news concerning the Bush administration, it's important to talk about Microsoft here because for the forseeable future it will be that 800-lb gorilla that affects everything else in the tech industry.
If you really want to complain about excessive coverage, it seems like Apple has gotten more than its fair share of articles in the past week, too. Gee, maybe that's because there are a lot of newsworthy events going on with that company.
Things are happening with both Microsoft and Apple this week; big news items ( horrible security exploits patched followed by big talk from Balmer, iTunes for Windows, a Mac-based cluster possibly making #4 or #5 of the top 500 supercomputers). Maybe some things are happening on the Linux front; maybe not. But Linux is based around a community of nerds, not on a corporation with a snazzy PR department.
In a sense, this is exactly what makes Linux an ideal server platform: it's not "features" focused, and it's more into substance than style. It's also why it's less likely to break into the home desktop market any time soon (although it stands a chance in large-volume corporation and school environments).
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
So many people here love to claim that MS Word sucks ass, and Outlook blows donkey dicks. In fact, they don't. They do what they're supposed to do, and they do it well.
Yes! Your quite right!
It's Word that blows donkey dicks, not Outlook.
Outlook just looses your emails after 2 megs of data - oh, and it fucks you in the eye if you don't feed it.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Microsoft's greatest value to customers is building these features into the core operating system, he contended. "We essentially take cost and complexity out of the system ... as opposed to having to force our customers to cobble them together themselves," he said. "That is part of the open source world, the customer puts things together. We think part of our value proposition has to be we have to take a lot of that effort out. N
Wrong. You take the "cost and complexity" out of 3rd party software, so instead of the money going into other company's accounts, it goes into your own pockets.
As for 'putting things together' in the open source world, doing apt-get isnt harder than popping CDs in and doing installations. We do the putting together because we like to customize rather than being forced stuff down our throats. People order from a menu at the restaurant because they want to choose what they eat.
my blog
It's hard not to laugh at the bully when he complains about being picked on.
Anyways, I'm ready to keep bashing Microsoft until they get their bloody act toghether and no amount of whimpering will change my mind.
Open source is about calling things the way they are: saying as loud as possible when something important sucks and need to be re-written. In Linux, thats what happens: when it sucks badly, it gets re-written. This is a concept most corporations often have a hard time digesting because it's too expensive for them.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Excluding browser-related errors... a lot of these would be solved by having a linux box between a windows box and the net. It's not a final solution, as obviously we'd want to find a way to migrate users... but at the cheap costs of a NAT-ready PC it's at least a way to get people used to the idea of linux.
"Poll: 75% of Palestinians support Haifa restaurant attack: "
Next time you're gonna quote a poll result, please use the original article rather than the paraphrasing found in american newspapers.
The actual poll results were that 75% of palestinians saw the Haifa restaurant attack as justifiable revenge for the attacks they endured. It sounds the same but there's a HUGE difference. This is a perfect example of how word spin can affect the angle at which something is viewed, and why americans exposed to their biased media automatically assume the Israelis are the good guys (as if there were any good guys in this bullshit).
Btw, 85% of the same people polled want a mutual ceasefire and an end to the violence. But I guess anything that puts the pals in a good light isn't something you'd be interested in sigging.
Just thought you should know.
Actually, she goes by "Trisha", and she is based in Quahog, Rhode Island.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
you know, the one from the IBM ad. It aired during the playoffs, so even joe-six pack knows who Linux is now.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
I checked your link and I have this question for you. Since when did NetBSD become a Linux distro? And how can Sendmail be considered a Linux distro? Since most OEMs pack AOL with Windows installations, is AOL a part of Windows now?
I didn't come here to watch a moron who can't tell the difference.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Besides, even if they don't know where to send the email, I'm sure SoBig does.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
yeap... the average and nowadays normal M$ BS that M$ software is more secure than linux... yeah right... ;)
Did you notice how every time he mentioned some "random unknown hacker working on Open Source" they were in China?
What is that deal with that?
First, where would he get such an idea? How many Open Source hackers are in China that are working on the Kernel (for instance)? I am sure that there could be some.
More likely he is consciously or subconsciously choosing that location... in some ways trying to put across a subtextual message.
What is it?
Maybe the real reason for Microsoft keeping their source code closed is that they are ashamed of how bloated and inefficient their code is ?
Maybe they don't want to be compared to the open source code base where every line of code is picked on by everyone ?
try the students and teachers edition. if you have anyone in your household in school, you qualify. you can setup on upto three machines. that brings down the cost to about $50/pc if you have three pcs.
Here's the number of updates for various Windows according to the MS SUS (Software Update Services) server.
Name Number of Updates
IE 5.0X 295
IE 5.5X 268
IE 6.X 567
Windows 2000 1476
Windows 2003 250
SUS server software is a free download from MS for non-domain controller Windows 2000/2003 server OS. If you don't believe my figures, download it and see for yourself.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
What sort of roadmap does Ballmer have in mind? Where does he want us to go today?
FOUND IT!
Okay, to be fair, they're also planning even more ways to lock their products together so tightly that no competitor can fit between them, and working on DRM to ensure maximum profitability for starving boy bands. I'm sure there are at least a couple of points on the roadmap with big red X's, signifying where they can drive another herd of consumers over a cliff.
Cranky? Me?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
This guy is funnier than Billy Crystal. Funnier than Robin Williams.
But people laugh with them, not at them.
Remember Steve: you couldn't buy your way into Munich.
On the other hand, when I contribute stuff to Apache projects, I write tons of comments about why a particular approach was chosen and how the code might be extended. Plus I can do all the testing I want before I check it in. I don't about others, but I tend to write a piece of code, let it sit for a couple of days and review it. I try to be as brutal as I can and see where it's stupid or sucks. then once I am happy with the quality of the actual code, I test the hell out of it. That includes profiling, benchmarking and writing good documentation. How can MS compete against programming done correctly in the long run? I don't think they can change their culture over night or in a couple of years.
Bill Gates can say things like that because he's a great guy and he's a CHIEF SOFTWARE ARCHITECT and he knows a lot more about programming than anyone else in the whole wide universe.
But I'm still glad I'm not playing poker against him.
Doesn't mean that I can't do things on the box. I just can't remotely screw the security on the box.
And Guess what? The Users can work on the box just fine. Maybe you should try SELinux before you shoot your mouth off and look like a total ass.
Sometimes it is better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to post AC and remove all doubt!
I think they could port filter ssh, though.
I run a college net, but fortunately for SSH users I view my job as enabling stuff. I block what I have to that the stuff we need will be possible.
Actually, Windows 2003 Server only has 13 updates (including IE 6 updates for 2003 Server).
What you're seeing is the count of all updates for all versions for a given product (i.e. Server, Advanced Server, Datacenter, etc).
Same is true for the other numbers.
Dan
It's ironic to be called a windbag by an Anonymous Coward tossing up tired cliches to help defend the Balmer Hot Air Machine (TM).
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I do know that but since the parent was counting all the Linux distros (even NetBSD) and other open source programs, it's fair, although those numbers do not include SQL or Exchange Server updates.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally? Why is its pedigree better than code done in a controlled fashion? I don't get that," he said.
So, Linus Torvalds, Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman et. al. are not professional software engineers?? hat'll be news to them and a lot of other folks that I know!
Arf!
Something's wrong in Redmond.
we have this, them bashing their own products, then linux, also, copyrighting misc random stuff..
doesnt add up unless there's been some internal affairs, or it's just a ploy to confuse everyone and catch them off guard.. knowing microsoft, god only knows.
Open source is about calling things the way they are: saying as loud as possible when something important sucks and need to be re-written. In Linux, thats what happens: when it sucks badly, it gets re-written.
;)
Well, the Game Theater XP driver sucks badly... and it hasn't been rewritten
But I bet that is one of the very lowest priorities for them right now.
In the not too distant past I had a problem with a M$ product (no, really, honest, I did!). Received a bizarre error code while installing Win 2k. Went to the ms knowledge base to find an answer, nothing. Called M$ tech support - "go read the knowledge base". Thought maybe I had missed something. Nope...nothing there relating to this error code. Called back to tell them that there was no such error code / message in the knowledge base - reply "go read the knowledge base" .."but...its not there"..."go read the knowledge base" :/
Yes, GREAT accountability towards paying customers!
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
Depends. While it is correct to say that Exchange is a MS bug, it is not correct to say Exchange is a Windows bug. I, for one, never said that SQL or Exchange bugs are Windows bugs.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
And what kind of road map did they provide? Win95, OSR2, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, all in parallel with nt 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000, xp, 2003, longhorn. All have to be tested on separately. All with bizarre half-breedisms depending on what version of IE you have. Yech. How many times did they announce the merging of the consumer and business os's? To me, it's a similar road the Japanese offered U.S. troops when Corregidor fell.
I was a contract tester on SMS for 6 months (before I got a real job) and the SMS team didn't even know within 1 year (!) when win2k was coming out. Seriously: they chopped a massive set of features for SMS 2.0 so they could release and not get lost in the turmoil of the win2k release. Which didn't happen for close to a year after they thought it was coming.
The whole roadmap thing is so wrong headed anyway. Linux has a decent architecture, scales from embedded devices to supercomputers, and supports the current toys. Basically: it's in a good place now, and you can run it for years. You can write something for the current state of the kernel and figure it will probably compile and run in the future. Can you say that for windows apps? How many vendors have pulled support for win98? Lots.
Who is this 'them' that you speak of? In open source there is only 'us'.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
During the campaign, Davis spent much of his time pointing out the flaws of Arnold Schwarzenegger while trying to appear more suitable to remain in office. However, there was, arguably, much more evidence that showed Davis' inability to function correctly and without corruption. In the end, Davis was just defending his status while condemning his opponent. Obviously, this is expected in any similar debate between conflicting parties. However, the (apparent) blaring inadequacy of Davis was enough to nullify most of his defense.
Similarly, Microsoft has been putting forth a supreme effort to make Windows appear more secure than Linux despite a plethora of data to the contrary. (As long as the study wasn't put forth by Microsoft or someone affiliated with Microsoft.)
While I'm not trying to convince anyone that the quality of Windows and Davis or Linux and Schwarzenegger is the same (I don't have anything to say about which candidate was better suited to serve as Governor), the arguments seem very similar, specifically on the Windows and Davis side. Also, it should be noted that Windows is nowhere near the crisis that Davis faced.
Just figured someone my have something else to say about this.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
# of high and medium vulnerabilities, last 3 months:
Windows2000 = 11
RedHat -- Linux = 4
# of high and medium vulnerabilities, last 6 months:
Windows2000 = 13
RedHat -- Linux =11
# of high and medium vulnerabilities, last year:
Windows2000 = 24
RedHat -- Linux = 11
It's really that stupid. You can't kill the GPL without gutting copyright law. The GPL is a license that is much less restrictive than ordinary copyright. Ordinary copyright forbids copy without the permision of the owner. The GPL has conditions of copy so that permision does not have to be asked. The strength of the GPL is based on the strength of copyright. You can't kill one without the other.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Rumors? One or two root exploits for OpenBSD in seven years and you would compare that to Windoze? What kind of computers do you "admin" again? There is no panicea, but free software is way better then windoze.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
XP does nothing, buddy...
XP comes with NO software. All you can do is browse the internet (Internet Exploder) and do email with outhouse express.
Nothing else.
Unless you count that AWESOME word processor, notepad and that fantastic graphics program, MS-Paint. WOW! What features!
Of course you really are referring to all the WAREZ and APPZ that you can download and PIRATE with Internet Exploder, and all the VIRUSES you can get for FREE and share with family, friends and others, all for FREE!!
WOW! XP really rocks dude! It just slays my Linux and OpenOffice 1.1 all to hell. And man, nothing beats burning CD's with a PIRATED copy of Roxio or Nero after downloading all those PIRATED MP3z with Kazaa.
WOW! I love it the more I think about all the fun I'm missing out on. Oh the thrill of breaking the law in secret (or so you think) as you download and install all your WAREZ. The rush must be awesome dude!!
Yep, XP sure is feature packed... Of course if you don't play the WAREZ scene you could always spend several thousand dollars for all the features that come FREE on any Linux distro..
Yep, think I'll convert to XP tomorrow..
Not....
Is Microsoft's goal to make better software? No.
Is OSS development / Linux goal to maintain a large unweildly cash-factory? No.
What is a corporate software "road map"? The shiny feature-lure for the software treadmill hook.
Is Microsoft going to fire a few random statements in the dark to keep the industry looking at them? You bet.
This article is a troll and sucks a little life out of everyone who reads it.
crazy dynamite monkey
So many of MS's directions are responses to the market. Internet wasn't on the roadmap until Netscape became a threat. Secure computing wasn't on the roadmap until it became painfully obvious that they couldn't keep the riff-raff out. I recall roadmap presentations for NT that assured me that investments in Alpha and PPC hardware was a good idea. If the "roadmap" serves a purpose, it is to show you how far things have deviated from where you thought you were going. This is not a bad thing, markets are suppose to evolve businesses and products, but a roadmap doesn't offer that much more insight than you can make yourself. I think understanding the market terrain is going to be more productive than drawing lines on blank maps.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
The fact that Microsoft as we all know has tried to bribe many of its corporate associations to show what capabilities of Microsoft's products are.
I'd like to point out that the expert thinking that Windows straight out of box can have more security than linux altogether should be shot in the head... really.
The fact that Microsoft's strategy before was NOT to concentrate on security (so there goes the security, down the list of priorities) and that it tries to 'father' the internet. Shame...
Because of a few big corporate connections are complaining about Microsoft's lack of security, it seems as though now they are trying to refocus rather than concentrating on both the internet and user domination.
For someone to believe what that expert says and keeps considering windows to be far superior in security against linux, should also be shot in the head.
The fact that there are lazy administrators who cannot be bothered to update on things and the fact that they can't be bothered to write scripts if need be. I'm not having a hard punt at those real hard working net admins who actually do make their security tough.
To be quite frank and sweet to the point, experts supporting Microsoft, from my point of view are biased, and it always sounds like they are bribed. Furthermore, underestimating linux is pure stupidity considering a few countries are already putting linux onto real powerful mainframes.
I leave you with the opinions.
Obviously, when you're a monopoly and you want people to believe in your company you're going to say, "We know all of our shortcomings and our only goal is fixing them".
However, if you're the _underdog_, you're NOT going to put the focus on your flaws. But, if you're the only bully on the block and everyone hates you for it, you're going to play the symphathy role: "My parents beat me into beating you".
Yeah right.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
From the Groklaw article, quoting Steve Ballmer:
..."
...and how many people working under H-1B visas does your company employ, Mr. Ballmer?
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally?
I get two reactions from this quote:
1)
2) It sounds like Ballmer is saying people who don't work for a good, market-loving American company can't write good code, and that only people who work for companies and program to pay the mortgage/rent can program well.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the dancing king's quote, but I think he needs to remove his head from his ass. Then again, he's probably rich enough to be set for life once he leaves M$/gets heaved over the side, so what does reality matter to him? That's for little people...
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The job of a reporter is to report...the facts. Now if a subject tells obvious falsehoods, the job of a reporter is to interview someone else who can correct the falsehoods. It is a dereliction of duty for a reporter to just quote someone spouting well-known lies.
I'll make it easy for you: Let's take an obvious example. A spokesperson for the government makes a speech in which he claims that an asteroid is going to destroy the earth in 24 hours. Should the reporter just print those words, just report, as you claim? Or should the reporter see if there is another side to the story?
You mean like Outlook and Exchange? Already done, my friend.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Nope, I mean the next step. Email servers that won't accept standard SMTP mail ("it's because of the spammers!"), nor send it. Take outlook running on from an exchange server, add 'features,' and then cut the compatability ties to the rest of the world.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
you're the one who posted the article in the first place?
Yes, I provided the text for everyone to read, not for the karma points ( which mean dick anyway ).
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think the reporter would be more interested in enjoying his last few hours than chasing second opinions on this one :)
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
on the anti MS threads right?
./ from the very beginning. Anti MS is a good healthy thing that brings complete warmth to my soul.
/. and other sites like it. They showcase
Personally, I like it. That is why I have read
Open Source is good, GPL is good, Linux is great, and computing is fun again! Stories of hacks, people doing interesting things with their own machines, super computers, embedded software, games, programming, scripting and many other cool things are really where Linux and Open Source / Free Software is at.
When people have the freedom to create, lo and behold, they do! The last couple of years have seen a level of creation simply unmatched by the Beast and I love it!
Why? Because I understand how to make use of all that Open Source / Free software Linuxy stuff. Was it easy? No. Am I done? No. Is it worth i? Hell yes!
Every last one of these stories remindes me why I do what I do and why I work hard at being able to continue to do it. Learning about Windows is like learning how to do what you are told exactly. Learning about Open Source is all about learning to do exactly what you want!
Once one realizes this, the stories all become good entertainment. (Which they are.)
I would rather pay sombody I have never met a bit to continue working on free software than pay one more red cent to Microsoft.
Am I crazy? Maybe, but let me tell you this:
Where I work, it is all Microsoft. Rah Rah lead the charge. Nothing else makes any sense. Why? Because everybody is running it, the big company execs are running it, the sales drones are running it and so are the technical field support people. I have to run it pretty often. (gotta hate that)
BTW, that is a big part of the problem. Hard to sell something you are not able to show or use right? Linux? sure we might support that if enough people ask. Would you run it? interesting, now let me show you the latest version on windows which I have here with me...
Once you latch onto the nipple of Windows, you are well on your way to sucking the tit for life! Nothing seems as good or easy or modern anymore. All you have to do is spin the update CD's once a year and things get better, or at least different in a way that somehow seems worth it.
Ahh, the path of least resistance. Shoddy products become the subject of office jokes, product problems are easy to dismiss as "computer problems". Hell, mistakes are easy to catagorize as computer problems. Why not, everyone else does it!
The support people really can only do a few things, so their job is easy too. Blame it on Bill, but lets make sure he gets paid so we can get that next update toward computing nirvana done quick.
The truth really hurts, but once you get over it, it's not so bad really.
Truth is simple. Hard things are hard, no matter what interface you put on them. One can either just bend over and "trust Bill and friends" to "help" you get things done, or one can take a few steps toward actually knowing how to get things done a little more directly.
Microsoft and friends send out an awful lot of information. The truth is mixed in nicely with th usual FUD bullshit and smooth security lies topped with a sprinkle of executive authority that somehow lends just enough creedence to the thing so people end up nicely confused.
All of this noise is really important because it keeps the conversation directed toward Microsoft. They have something to say about most anything most of the time. You would think they are the authority on computing if you did not know better right? Trust them, it's on the roadmap, just get ready for it.
With most of the people in the company that matter all looking north for their "what's new and cool in computing news" that next update gets pretty important. Without it, they are stuck running the same old boring stuff they were yesterday.
Wash, rinse --repeat...
Then we have
Blogging because I can...
"With each version of Office it gets harder for Microsoft to move customers up," said Michael A. Silver, vice president and research director at the research and advisory firm Gartner Inc.
Therein lies the devil, ladies and gentlemen. Microsoft had the victory, but has no other business model than to sell Windows and Office (all other products fail to generate enough revenue to sustain the company). They have failed to move people over to a continuing license model, and with Linux slowly moving across the landscape like a juggernaut, Linux and products like Open Office will be "good enough" for Joe User and Ma & Pa Small Business. If Microsoft cannot come up with other solid revenues other than Windows and Office, they will lose.
Torvalds was right: "We want to take over the world but we don't have to do it by tomorrow - its OK to do it by next week, or even next month"
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I like to develop on Windows but for anyone to claim that Windows networking is easier is obviously smoking crack.
.NET either corrects or masks some of those deficiencies, except, most notably, in socket and file handle and process support. However, even in the case of .NET, "hard" problems of sockets are traded for make work for admins dragging and dropping and touching configuration files, with no clue.
Sockets are much easier to develop in Unix because Unix does the right thing with them. You can easily pass file handles between processes in Unix and it works quite well. All programming languages in Unix have convenient mechanisms that make it straightforward to pack and unpack data from streams, fairly easily. The whole concept of "rolling a protocol" that seems so mysterious on Windows is mysterious because the tools suck for that task on that platform!
Imagine, on Unix, you've been able to printf across a network [via a socket] for at least 10 years. What's up with Windows where even binding a socket to a c style file handle has to even take place?
Needless to say, Windows and Windows development tools have traditionally lacked in the networking department. Prior to the above, the official MS networking solution was DCOM, the languages were weak, the O/S APIs unfathomable, and the string handling facilities sucked and file handling was abyssmal.
Sockets and files themselves have not gotten fundamentally better in Windows since Windows NT 3.5. The only way this socket sharing across apps [ a prerequisite for stable web services ] is the kludgey HTTP.SYS driver that is in the next go around of Windows 2003 Server. Processes are still fundamentally peered, not owned, and killing an application still strands DLLs, and, the tools, while much better, generally either wrap an expansive library around an anemic O/S that by all rights should do it, or, write mountains of "wizard" generated code.
For thousands of dollars, you can go ahead and buy yourself a crappy version of what Linux has done since 1992 for free, and then spend thousands of dollars more on the tools required to program it.
Just keep in mind that if networking was so easy on Windows, then, Web Browsers, Web Servers, Email, Chat and virtually every other application that uses internet protocols in general and networking in particular was invented on UNIX, AND NOT WINDOWS.
I have 38GB on a new hard drive on my machine, and it's going to be partitioned for Linux.
This is my sig.
GAH! M1CR0$0FT IS T3H 3V1L! LINUX 15 t3h c00l3st! Workers should own the means of production!
:D
Nah. I'm getting too old for this.
It's been a long time.
In a sense, this is exactly what makes Linux an ideal server platform: it's not "features" focused, and it's more into substance than style.
No, that's BSD. I mean come on... Linux is as much about hype as anything else.
-a
They said that they were half-way into a 2 year security project. Do people expect that to only be more patching? I fully expect for MS to emphasise pervasive DRM as a selling point to consumers *and* content providers. When that ball lands, they stand to create an enclave of users and content.
People are more likely to pay to live in your gated community if you can show how bad the real world is.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Bill Gates said of Office 'it's too hard to find things in e-mail' and described some features of Word as 'clunky.'"
My respect for Microsoft has doubled, its now 0.
No, you're right. We should leave poor MS alone. They're obviously confused. After all, this is the same company who during the antitrust trial, said they couldn't share their source code with anyone due to national security concerns if the code got into the wrong hands.
Then later (2002) they told a federal court that sharing information with competitors could damage national security. And even said the code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed.
Then in early 2003, they agreed to share the source code with China.
So it seems clear to me that they are confused and just need our sympathy. After all I'm sure they wouldn't intentionally risk our national security nor lie about the risks of sharing their source on the stand in federal court.
I like OSS as much as the next guy(well so long as the next guy isn't a slashdotter), but even KDE, which is IMHO the most attractive piece of OSS I've ever seen, has some clunky aspects to it's GUI.
Some would of course argue that a good GUI isn't the same thing as a good program, but those people aren't going to see office workers or home users using their product any time soon. Ever been to a cube farm? You think the kind of people who decorate their office to the point of madness are going to put up with staring at something unecessarily ugly all day if they don't have to?
We make fun of grammar too!
These threads invariably involve, at the top mod levels, derogatory comments about the quality of Microsoft code and products, conspiracy theories about the true motives behind Microsofts intentions (always), sarcastic jokes agreeing with the action in question, a sad reflection on how new users, PHBs and/or the world at large is accepting this action, and an impressively-inventive-if-completely unneccesary variety of miscellaneous other anti-Microsoft rhetoric.
I think you have yourself a run-on sentence.
you forgot a </a>
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
Try this (it's from real life):
I've got this car, a $20,000 car maybe (don't know, bought it used for half that in '96). Guy I do some consulting for has a Jag. $60,000 car, he got it used for $20K, with a big ol' grin on his face about what a sweet ride it was.
I drive my car just about every day. It's the most trouble-free automobile I've ever owned. The Jag has sat in the parking lot since the first time I saw it, never moved. Electrics, I believe...Sir Lucas, Prince of Darkness. And my chance encounters with people who have my make of car correlate with my experience. They all rave about reliability, etc.
So yes, something can be expensive and shit at the same time. And something inexpensive but well-engineered can be a real joy. Simplicity and standards (talking about code, not UI here) lead to more security, not less.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
Microsoft doesn't put their ass on the line, either.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Microsoft security is better? Hmm, I've been sitting here listening to my roommate curse for two days straight as he's been reformatting his computer, reinstalling windows and installing security patches... only to have the torrents of worms on the net infect his computer before he can download the patches.
It might be amusing if I wasn't trying to sleep right now.
" Claiming you "defeated a master troll" is quite silly though. "
;)
:)
That's because I did.
Let's be serious for a moment, if you had 'won' like you think you had, you wouldn't be up at all hours of the day trying to gain a rematch.
Incidently, the post you referred to here flies right in the face of your claim that I'm an "MS Apologist". Really kind of takes the wind out of your sails for your previous attempts to troll, now doesn't it?
Nice try.
"Derp de derp."
Microsoft bashing office so people will upgrade to 2003 made me ROFL! they really are desparate to get people into 2003 all at the same time otherwise the DRM crap they've stuck in there will be useless. Good thing i upgraded months ago.. to OpenOffice ;) Just make sure that if your sent any DRM'd office docs or emails that you pass them through the latest crack tool and convert them to old office, im just going to refuse to work with any DRM'd files.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Yes, the missing "a" was a typo, and, what, she's not allowed to follow her dreams of a career in public access?? Huh? Huh? Communist!
--- Ban humanity.
I can't believe the number of replies that think you are trolling and have never heard of SE-Linux.
Yes, that is a National Security Agency link I just put there.
Sure, but BSD is dying. *rimshot*
Seriously, good point. I'd say that once you enter the Open Source arena, Linux is definitely the most hyped of the OSes, but it still trails far behind Apple and MS in hypeability. Still, it's the only OS that lay articles on technology talk about. It'd be interesting to know how and why it is that Linux is so well known and BSD is not. Is it just because there are a lot of corporately-overseen distros of linux, while that isn't the case for BSD?
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
"Ballmer Says Commercial Software is Better Because Someone's Rear End is on the Line" Whose would that be? Have you ever looked at the Windows license? They disclaim everything! You have more recourse with the open-source software. The only asses on the line are from the IT department when everything crashed from the lastest virus/bug/patch.
"In the first 150 days after the release of Windows 2000, there were 17 critical vulnerabilities. For Windows Server 2003 there were four. For Red Hat (Linux) 6, they were five to ten times higher"
;)
Two can play that game...
During the last 150 days, there were 24 critical updates for Windows 2000. For Red Hat (Linux) 6, there were none.
Therefore, Linux MUST be more secure.
-- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
> Is it just because there are a lot of corporately-overseen distros of linux, while that isn't the case for BSD?
I believe that the distros are in fact why it has become more popular. No one (outside of geeks, of course) knew that Linux existed until well after Red Hat started its distro. Add into that, the fact that there are many more people working on Linux than there are for BSD, so new features can be implemented quicker. AFAIK, Linux has had more supporters than BSD since Red Hat (or whoever was first to make a distro -- not slackware) came along, but I do not know if this is true. Before knowing about Linux, the only BSD version I knew of was BSDi, and I thought that was the only one there was (and I sure as hell couldn't afford it back then).
Nowadays, a lot of Linux attention comes via MS bashing it so much.
Ever heard of standards? Didn't think so.
Yes, I have been programming since 1981, and the projects I work on, both open and closed source, follow standards that I was taught in college as well as ones that I have learned and/or adopted over the years.
Your argument is fallacious, the 5 fixes would be submitted to the maintainer, just as they would be in a closed system, who would then be able to pick the best one, and implement it. The difference is that in a closed system, there would probably only be one, and in an open system there would be (in a project as big as this) many.
Don't for a second think that just because a bunch of people all over the world work on an open source project that it doesn't follow standard programming principles. The only difference between the two sets of programmers is that open source programmers get paid in different ways than spendable cash. Both are just as likely to develop crappy code. But when you have more developers developing code, the likelyhood that they produce a piece of quality code increases. Since the maintainer is able to pick the pieces they want (in both types of development) the code is almost certainly going to be better when there are more choices to pick from. (Note, I said almost certainly, this does not mean it will always be the case.)
Heh. Too bad he gave up, I could have given him a few pointers.
I think it's the license and the hype. From a hobbyist's perspective, BSD and Linux are equally good. But Linux is more appealing to people who want to make a political statment (who also tend to be loud).
On top of that, BSD code can often be incorporated into Linux, but not vice-versa. Linux is usually more cutting edge, so it draws more interest. It's a snowball effect.
-a
Why is Linux so well known? Probably largely because of the dot com bubble. Back then, you didn't need a business case to be successful, and actually if you were losing money, that would earn you bragging rights.
I remember watching an interview with the CEO of Yorkton Securities on CNBC right at the peak of the bubble. He said something (now) laughable like "We are recommending 6 companies to our customers that are worth a total of $300 million. None of them have ever turned a profit but they would still be undervalued at $800 million.
-a
> I think it's the license and the hype
/., web pages, etc. If it had a license similar to BSD, it might have exactly the same popularity.
Hype, I agree with. As soon as it started becoming popular, Linux became a new buzzword; popularity breeds popularity.
The License, I'm not so sure about. Yes, GPL is a big deal, but I'm fairly confident that the majority of linux users have never read all of it. Most know what it is from discussions on
Of course, if by "license," you mean the spirit of the license, i.e. free, "Open," software, then yes, you are probably correct. But if you mean the GPL itself, then no.
> Linux is more appealing to people who want to make a political statment
This may be true, but I don't see it; at least not in anyone I have met in person. The reason I started running Linux was because I wanted a UNIX-workalike to teach myself such things. It sure helped that it was free, but if it was not I (to be honest) would have pirated/stolen some real UNIX version. So I was happy to find a free one that I didn't have to search forever to get.
I'm a pretty politically opinionated person, but that has never been an issue in my using Linux. It has been an issue in my supporting the Linux developers/community, most notably against lies & FUD from corporations and crappy legislation, whether it is bought or just arisen through the ignorance of congress.
Look at it this way. To people who don't care that much about the license, either option is equally appealing. But Linux has lots of people hyping it and contributing *because* of the license, so Linux gets more popular.
After that, it's a snowball effect. People start using Linux because of the hype, so Linux gets a bigger userbase. And because of the bigger userbase, they get more developers, more publicity, and more hype.
-a