Slashdot Mirror
Evaluating Windows XP Service Pack 2 RC2
dncsky1530 writes "Information Week has a good evaluation of Windows XP SP2, excerpt: "The code for release candidate 2 finally looks like a real release candidate. And sure enough, it will help you big-time with security. But what sorts of headaches will the eventual final version mean for IT shops? We'll take it piece by piece... Remember when Microsoft said service packs wouldn't deliver any new functionality? That lasted for about six months back in 1997. Windows XP Service Pack 2 is jammed-packed with both invisible and visible improvements to Windows XP. The biggest boon is that the free update, which will probably ship some time in September, does in fact make Windows XP far more secure""
But there's been quite a bit of reporting that there will be compatibility problems because of the security enhancements. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to spending less time cleaning up spyware infections on relatives' machines.
Happily however, windows XP searches for and installs the latest updates without any user input whatsoever, a situation I agree with completely.I know that most home users will rarely go into control panel and almost never run windows update. I don't expect them too, neither does MS.However, I'm not sure if automatic updating applies to service packs. I sure hope it does.
Your right about the websites though. If the SP 'breaks' web sites, people will turn the security off. I've also seen people who've tried firefox recently, go back to IE as javascript,PDF and flash either don't work or don't work 'properly'. They liked tabbed browsing, but that wasn't enough to wean them off IE's integrated plugins unfortunatly. Couldn't mozilla offer a complete install with all the plugins as standard?
May the Maths Be with you!
This is only good for those with broadband. No one on a modem is going to download this. Service packs are great until you factor in the time to download and install. People who were too lazy to update once a week aren't going to install this service pack for the same reason. Windows, if you patch and use antivirus and a hardware firewall, can be pretty stable and secure. However, without all that you're asking for trouble. I still think the majority of problems stem from ignorant users, not the horribly evil company itself. And why do they charge for mailing these service pack CDs? If you paid $300 retail or even the $40 or so from an oem, you should be entitled to a free update CD with no shipping cost. If AOL can afford to send out millions of those discs, Microsoft can do the same. Hell, they already do it for MSN.
I do all development and most of my day to day work on linux, I play games on my windows laptop just so all you flamers know I do use both.
Anyway is linux or mozilla more secure? YES.
Why is it more secure? Open Source means better peer review.
Are the "margins" of security between windows and linux really so large? I would have to say NO.
Why you say? The machines being hacked and sending out 80% of the spam in the world are home machines, Why? In general the average user fails to keep there machine up to date, opens up email attachments, or does some other stupid action that causes there pc to get infected. This makes home machines open to direct attack. If a majority of the home machines where linux then you would hear more about linux worms and viruses.
Now due to the way linux is they may not be as bad, patches may be releases faster but with the worlds virus and script kiddies focusing on linux instead of windows there would be problems.
Linux users try to place themselves in such high praise, But they can't, You can't praise yourself until you have truly been subject to the same level of attack and focus as windows.
Personal Website
The solution is going to be to turn off the default security options and go back to browsing like they did before.
You're assuming that people actually know how to turn off the security settings. I'd say that most of the people who don't know any better will have no clue how to turn them off, and the people who do know better will, well, know better than to turn them off. Sure, there are a few people who know just enough to be dangerous, but they're a huge minority compared to the amount of people who don't even know what "right-click" means.
Any sites who actually care about having their users stay will fix their site instead of telling their users to "fix" their browser. People are REALLY lazy - if the site they're on doesn't work, they'll just say "screw it" and go to one of the other 5,000 sites on the web that can give them the same content rather than putting any effort towards changing settings.
Plus, I'd hope that people wouldn't trust any website that tells them to change their security settings, but that's probably putting too much faith in them.
It does, but you can choose to disable that at install time and enable everything yourself. I think it's a good feature for people who don't know what they're doing, because otherwise they will get used to seeing the authorisation window for every innocent program and will start giving permission without really thinking about it. My brother gave MSBlaster Internet Access this way...if permission popups were a less frequent occurence, he might have been more suspicious.
What he means is that on a production server you cant just pull the plug to reboot (even if it took 1 second flat) until the last workaholic leaves his beancounting or whatnot at 7pm. IT is an internal service within a company and you dance around others who do earn the actual revenue which you are blowing from the company's gazoo in general direction of Billy Gates.
That is still the part Microsoft doesnt get, insisting that IT is a princeling of corporate departaments which can at its whim bring the company up and down and spend all of its money on bullshit. Apparently you are also under this impression.