Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Provide IE Patches for Windows XP Only
Fortunato_NC writes "Microsoft has decided that future IE updates, including those related to security, will only be available to customers using Windows XP. This news.com article has the complete scoop. A choice quote: 'Microsoft may be turning the lemons of its browser's security reputation into the lemonade of a powerful upgrade selling point.' This should provide a huge boost to Mozilla and other alternative browser backers."
Then they'll come back in a couple of days/weeks and say that "our business customers are unhappy with this decision" and decide to extend the patches through the end of 2006.
What do they mean ?
No update for Win2000 which is still used by my 50000-employees company ?
Or do they mean they will not update IE/Solaris and IE/OS[9X] ???
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Just my $.02
I don't see this as anything but GOOD news for the alt browser market.
;)
I have already moved all my customers off IE and onto firefox and have received NO complaints as of yet, actually they are like wow I don't seem to get any more of those pop up ads, you're a great admin...
Microsoft continues to shoot them selves in the foot in the area of security. I thought they wanted to keep their market share, I guess the greed is getting to them.
-=Linsys=-
http://www.intrusionsec.com
The article mentions nothing about servers... Does this mean that Windows 2000 Server users will have to upgrade to Windows Server 2003? That'd be especially low, considering how many businesses won't have had time to upgrade that far yet. Heck, most of the places I've worked in still have NT servers running...
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
This sounds like microsoft. But you know they'll just say they are going to do give them out anyway until 2007 or something like they always do.
/. rendering left side.
The summary says that it will boost browsers like Firefox, but I highly doubt it. I don't know that many people who aren't already on Windows xp, but the plain fact is, plenty of people browse websites that can ONLY be viewed properly in IE. I hate it. You hate it. But the fact is, people need to put more pressure on webmasters to create standards-compliant websites.(AHEM SLASHDOT) COUGH COUGH
Chris
Though I must admit, there is some trepidation at the alternative browser approach. Just because the browser isn't used to, say, view webpages, doesn't mean a downloaded jpg (for example) won't be automatically opened in IE (for various reasons). Unless IE can actually be physically uninstalled easily and quickly, the threat still remains.
Not that I'm saying you shouldn't use an alternative browser, it's just that the potential for harm is still there as long as the security hole remains present. And it worries me.
This article tries to turn the sow's ear of an overstretched metaphor into the silk purse of a pithy comment, but winds up counting it's chickens in a castle built on sand as the skeletons in the closet come home to roost.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Really, how many reasons do people need to switch to another browser before they do it?
I know a LOT of really intelligent, well educated people, many of whom are programmers or use linux in a server environment, who still use IE / Outlook [Express] on their desktops.
That is just begging for it.
I tell them over and over again the risks, and they still stay where they are. Ironically, complete neophites switch over as soon as I tell them about Firefox / Thunderbird.
I guess the meek really will inherit the earth.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
... when corporate america backlashes and tells microsoft that this kind of upgrade will just not fly!
First fucking line of the article.
Microsoft this week reiterated that it would keep the new version of Microsoft's IE Web browser available only as part of the recently released Windows XP operating system, Service Pack 2.
Only the new version of the browser is available under XP Service Pack 2, for architectural reasons the other OS's lack (NoExecute and whatever else).
It says nowhere they won't provide patches for the most current IE's available under 2000.
The new IE only runs under XP SP 2. You also need to upgrade if you want true HT support, BTW.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
if they don't I can only imagine the increasing quantity of tech support requests they'll get from pwn3d users. If the volume gets high enough the "just upgrade" mantra will cause a backlash.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
This should provide a huge boost to Mozilla and other alternative browser backers.
Even if people switch to a different browser IE is still installed on the machine and vulnerable to attacks without the security 'updates' in SP2.
So even though you've installed a much more secure 'door' (Firefox, etc) your backdoor is still just as wide open.
Since MS decided to 'combine' the browser into the OS they should be required to support ALL of the OS with their security fixes.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
But I thought IE was heavily "integrated" into the OS, so they are basically saying they will not upgrade/patch the OS anymore?
We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows
Seeing as IE isn't apart of windows (wasn't that part of the anti-trust agreement?), shouldn't I be able to D/L the latest and greatest version of IE (with patches already included) from MS??
When asked about IE's origin as a free, standalone product, the representative said, "You're talking in software terms that might be considered ancient history."
Oh, I see... the settlement is ancient history....
I can see them only including it in windows update for XP only, but not giving out the latest and greatest as a standalone product? Bad move.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
While Redmond may be able to extort^H^H^H^H^H^Hleverage user-adoption of Windows XP this way, it will cause many more problems than it solves.
Why deny users of older boxes the ability to protect themselves? And by extension, why then increase the ability of viruses et al to propagate through the Internet via those older boxes?
I think this is going to come back and bite Gates & Co. big-time.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
So, if there's a safety problem with my 1998 Ford Contour, do I have to upgrade to a 2004 Ford in order to have it corrected?
This sounds more like a marketing move combined with laziness.
Considering they still provide support for and updates for other versions of Windows, and also the fact that IE is so tightly integrated into all Windows OS's, I think it is safe to say that if yo continue to run updates from Windows Update you will be fine.
In fact, it seems like every time I visit windows update, I am forced to upgrade IE in order to run the updates. If it is indeed true, I think thet the previous poster is correct in assuming that once they get the uproar from the busniess (Win2000) users they will change the story...
with all those old win2k machines out there still being used by big business who don't need to upgrade because it still works I can't see why Microsoft wouldn't provide updates to these people. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that there will still be IE updates available to the corporate users who aren't going to upgrade to XP.
This sig has no nutritional value...
M$ has gotten so big, they need to start functioning as the government for the internet. (I know that sounds scary, but seeing as how they control the software that controls the majority of PCs, they are in the drivers seat) and they need to start acting like one... If the US government said that it was no longer going to support states that were not as beneficial tothe whole as others, I'm pretty sure we'd be pretty pissed as a country... or maybe they are doing this, I don't know.
Are you sure it's wise to point people to a browser that's A:) radically out of date B:) slow and C:) no longer supported in any way?
If you're looking for an alternate browser besides Mozilla, Opera, and Safari, there are plenty of better choices such as Konqueror or Omniweb.
According to the article, there will still be security updates for all supported versions of IE and Windows. What they're saying is that Win2k and older will not get the pop-up blocker or any other such enhancements.
Still sucks for the Win2k users though... Its clearly nothing more than a ploy to make them upgrade.
The article says that Windows XP SP2 enhancements will not be delivered to Windows 2000. This says nothing about security patches. This slashdot posting is FUD.
Oh, wait a minute ...
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
... what, no firefox link? here you go you lazy slashdot editors:
Firefox, the greatest browser EVER!
What I mean is this: no one believes that you can get something for nothing any longer. Case in point, I just installed Firefox (and Spybot/AdAware/SpywareBlaster) for my next-door neighbor who had a slew of popup-generating malware on his PC. As I installed Firefox, he kept asking "And it's free? Why? What's their business model?" As a salesman, he just couldn't swallow that it could be a full-featured application AND available for free.
The good news is that he's happily using it now and he's starting to understand that IE was how the malware was getting onto his system. But I tell you, if I have to spend as long convincing/educating others as I did with him, it's going to become a full-time job pretty damned fast.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
No patch for you!
Really, how can ppl buy MS if they know that in the future they may not recieve any support for their insecure software?
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
-
"Microsoft is not using security issues or any security situation to try to drive upgrades," said a company representative. "But it only makes sense that the latest products are the most secure."
Well yes that's true but it's also true that a large portion of the zombie PCs out there spewing spam, viruses, worms and DDoS attacks are NOT running the latest product from Microsoft. Effectivly Microsoft's saying "well we'll concentrate on security only in a future sense." Bet that once Longhorn finally arrives XP will stop getting security patches shortly thereafter.Frankly we can only hope that there's enough big business clients that have "legacy" Windows OSs that will raise holy hell with Microsoft on this. Otherwise we can expect the situation with compromised machines to not get any better. It seems most of the people with badly compromised PCs don't even try to get them fixed until they finally grind to a halt, they're not likely to be upgrading to XP anytime soon.
The article states that "Microsoft promised "ongoing security updates" for all supported versions of Windows and IE."
All MS are doing is stating that the pop-up blocking and other new features in XP SP2 won't be made available to old OSs.
It's kind of like democracy. It has the built-in mechanism to get rid of the leaders of a project. Microsoft would never want to admit that people would want other leadership, and their closed-source position makes it relatively difficult for people to complain. This gives them a false sense of security to think that people are really happy with what they're doing, when in effect, they would much rather something else if given a true alternative. There are, of course, obstacles (artificial) to providing such an alternative, and thus people are held against their will by market inertia. A true free market would respond much more quickly, which is why free software is necessary for a free market.
That said, sometimes free software provides a positive incentive to fork, rather than just providing a positive incentive not to. This is what needs to be addressed. How can you provide a positive incentive to stay within a direction without it becoming a negative incentive against switching.
The assumption is always that all the security lapses in IE are just bugs and that, eventually, MS will get all the bugs fixed and that IE will be secure.
The reality is that inherent design (or lack thereof) flaws have led to these security problems and I don't think that IE will ever be secure.
IE: unsafe on any OS!
If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... checkmate. - Zapp Brannigan
Seems a little misleading. What i gathered from it was that they would still provide security patches, just not the security enhancements that was offered with IE in SP2. Just my 2cents.
Even the news.com article talks about Firefox, as if to say,
Time for a t-shirt. :-)
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Seriously, most users are switching to some form of mozilla (NS or FF). I'm soaking in it right now...
eat shiat and bark at the moon
going to be the same as when they said no more support for Win98: Suddendly they will realize how many people out there still use something other than XP and reverse their decision.
My penguin ate my sig
The quotes from Microsoft seem to indicate that they won't be releasing the XP2 enhancements. It doesn't necessarily mean that IE won't be patched anymore.
Even Firefox (which I am using) doesn't offer an integrated firewall. Anyway, it would probably make little sense to integrate this kind of applications into browsers... It would be as strange as integrating the browser into the OS!
There has already been articles about the fact that XP2 wouldn't be released for W2K, W98, W95, etc. This is just a new spin on it...
IMHO, security patches, for a web browser of all things, should NOT be a selling point for spending like $200.00 on an OS upgrade. A company should always provide security updates to all of their users for free. It should be a criminal action not to.
Honestly though, why spend like 200 dollars just for access to updates for a browser that's behind the times anyway? If I wanted to spend money on a browser I could spend a lot less and just get Opera, which doesn't suffer from the same issues as IE. Assuming I don't just install firefox for free...
Squatting on your old customers and letting a burst of yellow water go.
Why? Because IE upgrades themselves drive other upgrades for Microsoft products. For the vast majority of people, nonIE choices simply aren't an option, particularly for users wanting to use the Windows Update site. (Yes, I know that you can use the Mozilla Firefox extension for Windows Update, but my point is that many people don't)
Windows Update is actually usable now -- something I never thought I would have seen only a few years ago.
I understand that MS has to draw the line somewhere; I understand that MS has to support a huge array of old code; I just wish they would be a touch more responsible about it.
I have been dealing with this exact issue all this week for various clients, and I really wish I could just simply get them all to move off Windows permanently. Wishful thinking...
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
I see its the last alt browser mentioned.
Does anybody use it. Does it have something that other browsers don't. Its it written in Java?
When you license (not "buy") an MS product, you waive any claim on them for anything. Put another way: whatever problems you have are none of their worry.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
...because they're going to have their hands busy with Microsoft.
You know, it's not the users that are the problem (IMHO)- it's the web designers and companies that employ them. I'm constantly trying to get everyone here on Mozilla or Opera, but we have too many vendors and customers who have web sites we have to deal with in order to do business with them, and those websites will only work with IE. I just can't have these people coming into my office every 5 minutes asking why they can't use IgnorantCo's website, and then going and complaining to the owners that they can't do their job because I won't let them have IE.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Everything is eventually motivated by money: MS figures that this calculated move will cause 1) fence-walkers to take the plunge and upgrade to XP and/or 2) allow them to focus their efforts on IE on one platform only. However, there still are many corporations that are trying to hold back due to the time and expense needed to upgrade. For most people, this is a way to get alternative browsers like the recently released Firefox 1.0pr in the door. As long as Firefox remains popular, the OSS community won't abandon it - one leg up that it has on MS. All we need to de is bide our time and wait for the masses to come onboard.
Underware Gnomes
Phase 1 - Collect Underware
Phase 2 - ?
Phase 3 - Profit
Microsoft
Phase 1 - Alienate Customers and treat them like Crap
Phase 2 - ?
Phase 3 - Profit
Makes sense to me...
Here is a link to a page that contains the website for all Attorney General's offices. I encourage you to continue to complain about such behavior...http://www.thecomplaintstation.com/stat eattorneys.htm
Let the 200 million non-XP users speak out. Heck, speak out even if you don't use windows. Unpatched machines can cost you your bandwith.
My guess is that the vast majority of home computers never get patched. My kid is an example. Load the computer up with spyware and viruses until it actually doesn't work at all then re-install Win98 and start over. (I gave him a Linux box which he doesn't use.) Microsoft will still be a gaping security hole as long as it is on most home computers.
That many? :) And I like Dave's blog's subtitle ... "Internet Explorer moving forward!". Looks like this bugger might have some competition ...
"Current death toll from Amnesty International's actions in Nepal: 9000"
I'm with AC on this one - please, provide a link...
Whooops. Let's try this again:
Fixed link
And I finally got him to switch to Firefox full time. Next up: Putting Thunderbird on his system.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Billy - "We don't have enough people to fix all the bugs in all our products. What can we do?" Well if our corporate customers complain then, hire a city in China to handle all products other than XP.
Ok, so let's say that all the biggest car manufacturers in the world (that would be Microsoft) welded their hoods shut (closed source).
I have my very nice 1969 Mustang soupped up and taking me every place _I_ need to go. Then we find out that the fuel pump has a problem with it that could cause a tremendous fire or explosion.
Now I have to go to the dealer as they're the only one that can do work on the car, purchase a 2004 Mustang to prevent my car from potentially exploding and causing serious damage to myself and others _and_ I have to pay them for the new car?
I don't think so.
Michael, did you even read the FIRST LINE of the article??
Looking past that sensational bullshit, Microsoft is NOT halting security patches on non-XP versions of IE. Just the new features, like the popup blocker.
How many times do people accuse "M$" of spreading FUD, when they are only too eager to do it themselves?
I work in the medical field, and plenty of sites for reading X-rays, checking patient labs seem to be only usuable by IE(active-X issues, etc). It's the only reason I keep Windows on my Linux boxes.
..........FULL STOP.
When you agreed to the EULA, you agreed not to sue M$.
Odd that this is one of their biggest FUD weapons against OSS, "There's no one to sue.". Well, there's no one to sue with M$ software either.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Shit, I can't install GTA3 on my win95 box...
The story, if you read it, states the XP SP2 improvements to IE will only be available to XP SP2 customers. THESE imporovements will only be able to XP SP2.
./
The article DOES NOT state no more IE patches for 2000/NT 4.0
Very very misleading title to this story on
That is not what the story says. From the news.com article:
Microsoft promised "ongoing security updates" for all supported versions of Windows and IE.
The specific security improvements to IE in XP SP2 will not be available to other versions of Windows, but security updates will be. I don't think Microsoft is stupid enought to stop security updates to IE for everyone.
Dear Microsoft,
Damn you! You shot me!
Sincerely,
Your Foot
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
The problem for Microsoft with patching their products to support users, is that they don't do it until it's necessary. If perhaps, laws were created to force Microsoft to expedite patches that breached security, then it would do a lot better in getting end-users protected. If Microsoft were given only a certain timeframe to patch a bug, else to face fines, then it would become more business savvy to fix those bugs. I would however, implement a certain timeline that could be judged based on severity and how widespread/fast infecting the issue is. That, and Microsoft can't just abandon Windows 2000 users to force upgrades on the customers. There are many companies that run Windows 2000 as a base OS because it is not much different from XP and also, they have already bought licenses for those machines. If a car has a defect that can cause damage, then it gets fixed via a recall -- which is also why cars are better and safer nowadays, more than they have ever been. However, if a product forces your company to lose money, then the product maker should be held liable for losses incurred by that defect. If you give them a timeframe they have to complete it in, then it will be fixed. Microsoft is not one needing of resources, and they have plenty of cash lying around, so they could easily put together a specialized patching team that would work to roll out patches as soon as they are needed.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
So, since IE is an unseperable part of the OS, as stated by MSFT, that tells me that MSFT just dropped support for all of their OS's except XP.
Right?
Firefox.
Enough said.
Slashdot renders like crap in Mozilla 1.7.x
/. has been HORRIBLY broken in Mozilla.
Specifically, the "left side" menus and the main page overlap most of the time. (That's what the original poster meant by "Slashdot left side".)
Half the time ONLY the left side menu and nothing else renders.
For the past month or two,
www.geocaching.com's front page is also broken in Mozilla.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Those who saw this coming have already migrated off Windows. I for one wouldn't want my business to stop because Bill's WPA thought I had a bogus copy of XP. And yes, I have seen it happen in small businesses with legitimate copies.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Bummer for users of Win2K, which is supported for a few years yet. If the browser is an inextricable part of the OS as MS keep telling us, Win2K is NOT supported any more, is it?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
here
..........FULL STOP.
I'm a little annoyed (But not exactly surprised) that there's so much fuss about this.
I can understand companies needing time to upgrade to a new version of the OS in particular, and software in general.
But XP is the newest major version of the desktop OS. There is, AND SHOULD BE, and end-of-life for the older versions. Who's still running a 1.x kernel of Linux? What percentage are even running 2.2x? Does Apple still patch Mac OS 8 or 9 (I'm asking, I don't actually know the answer)?
I see all this "MS forcing you to upgrade" talk - well they're HARDLY the only company out there that does this, how else will a company that makes software for profit stay alive? This includes every gaming company out there, Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc. etc., in addition to the other OS vendors (Apple, Sun, RED HAT...you get the drift).
I guess maybe the sentiment is that 2000 isn't old enough "yet" to be back-burnered like this? That's at least debatable. But the notion that MS is wrong to wean people off of the older versions over time is folly.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Microsoft is gonna start providing fixes for IE...
This coming from the same company who said they would let XP users with invalid keys upgrade to SP2, because they care about security "so much". Evidently consitancy isn't Microsoft's strong suit
Such a BIG shame for microsoft ! Complete no-sense !!!
But that's not their last joke ! Carrefourtechno.com
I'm a programmer through and through. The company I work for is fairly standardized on Windows 2000 workstations, and I'm completely happy with it. Like many have mentioned, there are plenty of programmers that are content sticking with IE/Outlook, and I'm one of them.
I've never once had a virus, or security related issue. Most folks in my company are smart-users, so accidentally getting a virus is something that simply doesn't happen, it hasn't happened period.
I've toyed around with just about every browser out there, but I'm just one of those folks that doesn't like the idea of installing a bunch of different 3rd-party applications. I like my workstation as bare-bones as possible..."clutter-free" as I see it.
So for me, this is a non-issue.
All I see is this gives Google even more incentive to roll out their Gbrowser even sooner. M$ great job at shooting yourself in the foot... again... "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981
Put another way, I'm a happy, year-on Firefox user, but I worry that I'm still at risk because the IE files are still there and still used by the OS?
Right, wrong or just naive?
People will have to learn that if they are going to rely on software that they know is buggy and not secure out of the box, then they have to understand that this kind of thing can happen. Microsoft can stop issuing updates and fixes at any time and screw everybody. If you don't like it, download Firefox for free.
I never understood why software can't just work right out of the box. Why does software require updates? Poor quality control? My refrigerator doesn't require updates. My car doesn't require updates. It works years later as well as it did right out of the box. Why can't software be as reliable? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm asking a question here. I just returned to college to study CS, and I guess I haven't got to the "how to write half-assed, incomplete software" courses yet.
I wonder if we could pool enough money to get an ad out there. Just one spot in a primetime TV show (even a low-rated one) could drastically change the browser market-share. It could be a combo spot, 10-second intro ("The internet isn't the problem, it's your gateway. Believe it or not, there are several companies with better solutions, and they offer them for free.") then 5 seconds for Mozilla/Firebird/Thunderbird, 5 for Opera, etc. A 30 second ad (yes, I know they're ridiculously expensive) could probably take IE down to 50% in a week as word spread.
G
https://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-b0ab39f1a8-517235 8b19-6f45f145ca c 0563-18969179a8 1 50e2-0bef3ba2a4 2 cd83-e0644e7ef5 6 9d32-22621daaff 7 c84e-b9e70ce4cd
https://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-b0ab39f1a8-13556
https://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-b0ab39f1a8-bc9b1
https://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-b0ab39f1a8-d6f30
https://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-b0ab39f1a8-62e3c
https://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-b0ab39f1a8-6c3f0
Non WindowXP user will switch to other browser, causing IE's market share to drop further. This is a very good news to Mozilla.
... by Microsoft? Obviously not many...
looks like microsoft finally found an incentive strong enough to keep people upgrading.
for people stupid enough to NOT upgrade to firefox.
i dont mind a stupidity tax. hell, even if it is going to microsoft's pockets.
it was XP's restrictive EULA and product activation that drove me to abandoning Windows and move to Linux in the first place, tell those insensitive clods in Redmond to make a coaster out of the WinXP CD they wanted to sell me...
Read The Fraggin Article BEFORE you POST!
And yes, i'm grousing cuz i've got a 0% success rate when it comes to posting articles.
AND this joker posts a half-baked jobber that MISINFORMS the public!
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Timing couldn't be better. Until the end of the year, we'll have Firefox 1.0 ready. A Brazilian Portuguese version should be ready not long after. I'm happy with this, because I work as a network admin in a public school in Brazil, and this situation will enable me to mandate a no-IE policy in our LAN. We only have licenses for Windows 2000, therefore we aren't eligible for IE updates. IE6, by itself, is already dangerous, despite the fact SP2 is a step in the right direction. But an unmaintained IE6 is nothing but trouble, and I think it will be easy to convince the school's principal of this. I foresee this happening in many other places, now.
Thunderbird is my next target, I'm eagerly waiting for a full-feature, almost-no-bugs release. I had some trouble this week with some recalcitrant Outlook Express users and viruses, and I already managed to convince them to change the e-mail client. You can use good arguments to convince them, but downtime can usually be even stronger than your arguments. ^^
My neighbor's
Yeah this should be a huge boost to Apple's Safari browser. Think of all the Windows users who will want to install that now that IE won't be updated for non-XP browsers. I can't wait to download Safari for my Windows 2000 machine.
I don't really want to sound harsh, but being a CS freshman, you *inherently* write "half-assed, incomplete software". The problem is that you will probably never have the "how NOT to write half-assed, incomplete software" course. You will have to self-teach you this.
Microsoft developers are not complete ass. In fact, most of them are pretty good. Don't think that as a CS freshman, you are better than them.
perception is reality
This seems like one of those classic support scare statements. I'll bet that within a few months they will do a 180 and offer support at least as far back as 2K.
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Now that IE patches are going to stop users of outlook (aka enterprise) on win2k will have to switch unless they want to get 'auto infected' by viruses. While people may switch to foxfire for browsing, switching away from outlook will be very difficult for enterprise users. Note: You will always have the idiot who will click on an attachment.
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
If you read the actual article, you'll see that what it says is that the new features provided in SP2 for IE (the popup blocker and the notification bar at the top) are not going to be back-ported to older operating systems. That's not the same as saying that "Microsoft To Provide IE Patches for Windows XP Only". In the article, Microsoft commits to continue patching IE for older versions, particularly for security bugs.
(And don't tell me that the submittor picks the title. The editors pick the title -- in this case, the title doesn't even match the submission, much less the article.)
Thanks a lot for the helpful links provided in the article, both firefox and hotjava seem really cool, but I couldn't install safari on my machine.
;)
Does Safari require XP as well or can I make it work under 2000 ?
Zealots... Sometimes I think they are pushing it a little too far
your logic isn't 100%. Microsoft has a share of the market that affects users to a much higher degree than does Linux or Macs. Macs are rarely used for internet edge type applications like web servers, and let's be honest -- if Linux ran as an internet edge with 1.x versions... they would be just as bad as MS is now.
A *lot* of companies still run NT4 as their web servers and I agree, there should be an end of life for those servers entirely, as IT has an evolving cost and also helps to increase innovation in areas inside IT, by using more cutting edge technology. However, the example of Windows 2000 being pushed out is ludicrus, because many companies still use it widely since the difference between that and XP are few and far between.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
When someone asks me that I explain that it is not being generous, it is being greedy.
When I add changes to an existing project, it is because I want those changes in, and if it becomes part of it I don't have to maintain compatibility with other releases.
I also get my name in the list of contributors.
Am I being generous? Well, yes but I am also gaining from it.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will. I work for a small business (a Microsoft partner) which provides IT services for other small to medium sized businesses. We provide both solutions and support. If we chose to use a non-microsoft product, we loose tens of thousands of dollars in support. No viruses, worms, spyware, hijacked browsers == no money.
It seriously bothers me, but I would argue that the strength Microsoft has is not in providing well written software, but providing poorly written software prone to exploits.
The pop-up blocker is an enhancement.
To a non-naive user, pop-ups are an annoyance, even a temporarily crippling one, but nothing that can't be stopped by rebooting. They do no lasting damage to the computer itself, assuming the user ctrl-alt-deletes rather than hitting the Big Red Switch. I can't say I blame MS for not making that available on pre-XP-compatible versions of IE.
Changing ActiveX is another matter. That's a design flaw or an outright bug, take your pick. Not changing it is irresponsible. Microsoft needs to take a lesson from the Kryptonite lock people, who are offering trade-ins on bicycle locks that were recently discovered to have a poor design.
As for the other changes to IE for XP SP2, some are bugs, some are design flaws, and others are enhancements. Microsoft is morally obligated to give the 1st two to anyone using a supported version of IE.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
To give them credit, they were under no obligation to support 98 this long..
Just because more home users have 98, than XP or 2000 isnt their problem ( well it is financially as they want the upgrade revenue, but you understand what i meant )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
>Having a functional browser on your server is not completely insane, especially in a small shop.
Don't you really mean for servers that have to be configured by GUI clients on the system console? Aren't we talking primarily Windows servers, then? I guess you could be talking a very small Unix/Linux colocation, where you don't have the space for an admin system.
That said, I'm looking forward to Xorg splitting the X client libs from the server. While I can administer my servers from a command line, sometimes I just prefer GUI clients. It's also tempting to just install X, and then damage the server so it can't start.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You're new here, aren't you?
Yeah, right.
Last I heard they were up to Firefox 1.0 PR.
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
Implementing features already found in other browsers is not "innovation".
They'll pry my Win98SE cd from the cold, dead hands of my K6-2 433!!!
BASTARDS!!!
You have a very good point about hot java, but what about Safari?
Safari is only an option on Macs and considering that its the default browser that comes with the system, I would hardly call it "alternative". Its not an option for those affected by this latest news.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
If there were a Buzzword Bingo for general metaphors instead of technobabble, you'd have a winner, here.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I am using opera right now on an old computer. It has some key features for me :
1. small download size 3-4 MB without java
2. small memory footprint, nice for old computers
3. built-in email client, again nice for old computers as you don't need to load another program
4. keyboard shortcuts : everything can be binded to any key
5. many useful tools like notes taking etc.
In fact, it has *more* tools than firefox/mozilla .
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
... gotta love a story abour alternate browsers for IE that links to hotJava ... that thing has been dead for years ... even the link in the abstract states that Sun has washed their hands of this tripe ...
It's like they want people to move to firefox. Really, there's not a whole lot that makes IE better except the advanced technology that allows malicious programs to install themselves, and the great option for when it crashes, it takes your entire desktop with it.
I know I'm going to be modded up on this
Apple aggressively and routinely drops support (including high profile security and bug fixes) of older releases. Within a year or two (or less) of an Apple dot release support, support and bug fix are no longer available.
Get with the program. XP really is a better OS than earlier Microsoft attempts (with perhaps the exception of W2K). Consumers would complain less about crashes and incompatibilities (and security holes) if they were running XP Home on their PCs. (And as a side benefit, reformatting and re-installing everything would get rid of the spy ware, virus and other stuff on their hard drive. (OK, the virus and spy ware would be back soon...).
Remember the highly critical flaw
9 /22/opt-out_ex ploit/
:
Microsoft Internet Explorer Drag and Drop Vulnerability that also affects Windows XP SP2.
http://secunia.com/advisories/12321/
There is still no patch from it.
What is worse is there is a Proof of Concept code for it.
Now there are websites exploiting this flaw.
Click here to become infected
MessageLabs is blocking spam linking to the domains www. xcelent.biz (space deliberately inserted) which, if users click on the remove link and scroll down the page triggers a DragDrop JavaScript exploit. This uses an IE bug to download and run an EXE file, currently been analysed by MessageLabs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/0
I just check out that website www. xcelent.biz (space deliberately inserted) under extremely safe Mozilla under Linux and found the malware payload hiding as ~/o/windows-update32.exe by revealing the page source. It is not windows-update.exe as reported in www.theregister.co.uk.
Warning: Don't scroll down and click on email message such as the following:
Email Address Remove
To Remove your email address.
Kindly Scroll to the bottom of the page.
In the meanwhile please take note.
1) We Honour all remove request's. ---> You will never receive a email from us again.
blah-blah-blah-blah
blah-blah-blah-blah
Scroll to the bottom
WE ARE TRUE TO OUR PROMISE!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
REMOVE ME BELOW.
Please enter your email address below and we will remove your email address from our databases!
Email Addr
*** WARNING WARNING WARNING: Don't Click on SUBMIT Button with Internet Explorer, you will be infected with a bogus windows-update32.exe ****
"Microsoft affirmed that its recent security improvements to IE would be made available only to XP users."
... limited.
What part of that statement implies that other version of there OS will get security improvements?
then this:
"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement.
then this:
"By refusing to offer IE's security upgrades to users of older operating systems except through paid upgrades to XP"
If you had bothered to follow the links that where in the line you quoted, you would have relised that "Internet Explorer 6 SP1 Windows 2000 SP4 is a different product" (to MS) then "Internet Explorer 6 SP1 on Windows XP Professional SP1"
If it wasn't for the quoted line, I would assume you posted your post based on the assumption the headline was incorrect.
Since you do have a quote, I'll just have to assume you ability to understand and read complete articles is a tad
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The more stories I read about Microsoft's wild ways, the more I'm reminded how bad Apple is. I guess it doesnt matter when you have 10% of the market - making hardware and software, not supporting older (2 years) hardware and software, etc. Msoft is just trying to cut costs, like every other business.
let him 'sell' the concept to his friemds and co-workers. What does he sell? could he spin some su=ynergy betwen his product and firefox? even if it's just giving away a CD.
See, you install 2 copies, then they install 2 copies..and so on and so on...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Posted by michael"
That should tell you all you need to know.
Microsoft has announced that security updates will be available to users of pirate copies of XP, but not to users of old versions of Windows...
It looks like they are keen to keep even pirates in the update cycle. Maybe they would rather those who won't pay pirate Windows than use an alternative?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
In a completely unrelated, yet somehow similar manner, I have an issue with Flash (under Linux). Specifically, because of the lack of Windows' fonts, I oft lack text from Flash content (effectively breaking many sites). Case and point? Macromedia's very own site. The top navigation menu, as well as the drop-downs from that, are lacking all text.
I hear that you can install the MSFT web fonts pack and have better luck. Perhaps I've done it improperly, but I'm still having such issues.
The moral of the story? We need some Free^2, good, cross-platform fonts specifically designed for the web. Especially useful is bundled with our OS, or browser, or something.
Yes, even proprietary web technologies needs to be accessable by anyone and everyone, regardless of browser/OS/available fonts.
And no, I'm not implying we should have ActiveX ported to Linux. Honestly, ActiveX is fine, but it needs to stay off the web entirely for the general good.
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
Natwest UK specifically support Mozilla (FF or suite). but not Opera..
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Well. They've finally done it. Obsoleting everything from Windows 2000 on back! What a concept. Frankly with as many holes as XP has compared to 2000, I think I'll stay where I am, and use good prudent judgement, a good firewall, and only enable java and javascript on known safe web pages. Not to mention using a browser that doesn't have as much holes in it as IE does. I have to admit that after using Firefox now on my XP Pro laptop, that browser ROCKS!!!!
:-)
Ladies and Gentlemen; It's time to bail on IE!!! Rescript your web sites to disallow IE browsers!
Yea!!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
"I just saved myself a major headache by switching to Firefox"
Insert Sig Here
The sky is falling! Wolf Wolf! Read the article. It says that the popup blocker and the activex handler will not be included in the updates to other versions.
The ongoing security updates do not, as Microsoft points out, include the latest security fixes with Service Pack 2, released last month. Those include a new pop-up blocker and a new system of handling ActiveX controls and downloaded content.
I just seems to me that people here are really quick to piont out things that they think MS is doinf wrong and misleading people purposely to get them to hate Microsoft. Listen, I don't like a lot of microsoft software and I didin't get there by people telling me lies or half truths. I simply used the crap and became frustrated with it. You don't need to overstate the faults to win converts. The faults themselves are at times large enough to win people over without amplifying them. Don't lose community credibility by doing this kind of stuff. It only serves as fuel to the other side to show why this community can't be trusted either.
Install Firefox and apply an IE-like skin - of course after testing that your webapps will still work. The security record of Firefox is not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than that of IE. If you prefer to pay money for security and support, you can always go for Opera instead.
Besides, if you're working in a company of 50 000, I'm sure you have a proper rollout-tool!
Stop the brainwash
This is like suicide; i haven't used IE for a couple of months now because of its security reasons; and now that people are going to see that it is a security threat and that Microsoft isn't going to patch the vast majority of the systems out there.... i bet that Mozilla is throwing a party.
They're just asking for their market share to go up, aren't they? */sarcasm*
They must still offer updates for Windows 2003, right? I mean it's almost completely based off XP and newer.
it states it 3 times for cryin' out loud.
"Microsoft this week reiterated that it would keep the new version of Microsoft's IE Web browser available only as part of the recently released Windows XP operating system, Service Pack 2."
"Microsoft affirmed that its recent security improvements to IE would be made available only to XP users."
""We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement. "The most secure version of Windows today is Windows XP with SP2. We recommend that customers upgrade to XP and SP2 as quickly as possible.""
"Microsoft promised "ongoing security updates" for all supported versions of Windows and IE."
this makes it sound like there not stopping, but if you follow the link, and then the next link you saa 'supported versions of Windows and IE' is misleading IE6 for 2000 is considered a different version from IE6 for XP.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Microsoft states:
"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement.
SlashDuh gurgles:
Microsoft has decided that future IE updates, including those related to security, will only be available to customers using Windows XP.
Slashdot generating it's own FUD now?
shoot in foot
Tell people how to remove it or replace it.
if i repeat that quote and butcher it even more, will it be modded +4 funny?
Replace a buggy product that will only be supported on XP with an obsolete product that's EOL? What kind of recommendation is that?
Besides a funny one...
Ok here is my view.. They are not going to be supporting an operating system that has NOT reached end of life..
Lets see another antitrust suit!
Thankfully i switched to linux 4 years ago.
Long Live Tux!
I don't recall any security patches for Linux 2.0 kernels lately.
I can't remember the last time someone tried to patch ipchains.
I don't see anyone backporting 2.6 kernel features into 2.2.
Microsoft is doing the same thing that the Linux community does every day. THAT'S A GOOD THING! Microsoft would do much better if they focused on making their current release work and less on trying to backwards compatible with everything.
http://www.vistaprint.com/ has all kinds of transactional and embedded preview stuff, and it only works in IE. A great place to order printing online, btw... you can upload Photoshop or other image formats, and they get printed and shipped fast and with little hassle if you know what you're doing.
You know, not everybody lives in the USA. It would not bring IE down to 50% by any means.
There are two different things that are being confused in the news.com article, the slashdot article and the slashdot comments: 'security patches' and 'security enhancements' lets call them.
'Security patches' are bug fixes to solve problems in the browser. These are needed to have a secure browser. They are not new features. The 'security patches' will continue for other versions of Windows.
news.com: Microsoft promised "ongoing security updates" for all supported versions of Windows and IE. and The ongoing security updates do not, as Microsoft points out, include the latest security fixes with Service Pack 2, released last month.
The 'security enhancements' are the new features added to IE in XP SP2 such as pop-up blockers. There are new useful features--nice to have, but the products still works without them. The security enhancements are only going to be available in XP.
from news.com: Microsoft this week reiterated that it would keep the new version of Microsoft's IE Web browser available only as part of the recently released Windows XP operating system, Service Pack 2.
The security enhancements are important though and there absence will be felt by those who use IE:
news.com: And it's those more substantial changes, rather than the bug fixes that come with routine upgrades for supported products, that security organizations have lauded for addressing IE's graver security concerns.
For me, it's all academic. I've been using Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix/Mozilla since Mozilla 1.2 and I used Netscape before that. I've never used IE as my main browser.
Many who use Windows 2000 quite reasonably do not see Windows XP as an improved operating system.
On a completely unrelated topic, I'm still freaking pissed at SP2 for making Enemy Territory crash every time I load a new map, amongst many other software products. Maybe I should go back to Win98/2k and thank MS for not "enhancing" them to the point where my other apps don't work.
Then don't try to educate them.
Put free software on CDs, sell them, and make money doing so.
With CD-Rs, you can make a nice profit with very low volume and very little investment.
Just make sure the particular free software license allows that.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
No, but not everybody is a shut-in. If something becomes big in the States, word usually spreads relatively quickly overseas.
G
... is the patch that removes IE from my computer all together.
Privacy is terrorism.
What part of THIS don't you get?
'Microsoft affirmed that its recent security improvements to IE would be made available only to XP users.
"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement. "The most secure version of Windows today is Windows XP with SP2. We recommend that customers upgrade to XP and SP2 as quickly as possible."'
Windows troll alert!!!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
...universally, is for developers to cease doing microsofts work for them. Firefox is a *patch* for a billionaire monopolist and all around corporate badguy. It's also a crutch and a false sense of security, and goes against free software ideals for the most part. IMO, big fat waste of time and resources..but.. people are quite free to do what they want. Their call of course but it's foolish and short sighted. I just think one day there's gonna be a super exploit that really borks firefox-just for one example- on windows and it will be a huge black eye to the FOSS community, and it's a constant erosion of resources as well.
Again, IMO, it's better to let microsoft in it's entirety, using just their own code, to crash and burn on the schedule that would be present if windows ports to them weren't being released as enabling crutches for continued deployment of their OS. It would force millions to take a much more critical eye towards the entire dominance of MS, both personally and in the corporate world. It would get PHB attention. It would get application developers all over attention. It would help to once and for all clarify the two opposing methods of development and business. Trying to make a bastardized blend of them is never going to work out as well as people think.
Let it crash and burn! Let MS and that whole business philsophy of "screw you, pay me!" crash and burn! You don't buy a six pack for someone you know has a serious alcohol problem. It's an analogy and as such not perfect, but I think you get my drift. Sometimes you need "tough love" to get someones attention when they have a problem, and the problem is in a ton of stories we see here all the time, vendor lock in, application lock in, wahh, we can't switch because xyz package is windows only, wah, it's still insecure and ye gads it never ends. It's called "enabling" when you help to perpetuate a basic chronic severe problem, so I say "stop enabling the further use and dominance of microsoft products". And I disagrtee with the concept that it will "lead to more adoption of Open source operating systems and other applications. All it's doing is letting MS off the hook time wise and money wise, and people won't be forced into consider what really needs to be changed, and that is the entire package of OS and applications.
Nowadays, it's a GUI world for vast majority of users. It's "there", it works. package management has been figured out with the various distros. Updates to the kernel are easy. It's move the mouse cursor around and mash on buttons, it's not rocket surgery anymore to run ANY modern OS. While no one was looking, FOSS OS and apps "got there". There is no need to keep propping up MS, they made their hundreds of billions, it's time for society to move on now to the better way of doing computer things, which means back to the real work of the world, and use computers for what they are as "tools", not the ultimate product. MS wants a check from you forever, whether you are joe home user or joe giant company, and there's no longer any *need* for that generally speaking.
It's time to retire the buggywhip manufacturers. No longer needed, it's an artificial skim on the entire economy, and it's become aggravating to deal with them, expensive and aggravating.
Microsoft finally admitted it. It's a feature!!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"The most secure version of Windows today is Windows XP with SP2."
The most secure version of Windows tomorrow will still be my unpatched NT4 Workstation with a few gizmo handlers neutered.
Be very scared. If this trial succeeds, you'll be forced into the Microsoft upgrade schedule for everything, instead of upgrading on your own schedule.
I don't upgrade operating systems because my old computer won't even run the modern OS well. WinXP would take nearly 2/3's of my maxed out 384MB just to load itself. I'm stuck with what my hardware can handle.
It is in the best interests of all of us that Microsoft does not succeed in this!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
IEView is what you need. Cheers!
-- CD
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Now you understand why OEMs push MS so hard. They don't get that kind of marketing support from Linux.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
... is one that changes the fucking colors of the IT section. Damn it /. fix it already, clearly it looks like total shit.
Remember those days, when MS said that IE was part of the OS?
So if they don't provide security fixes to IE, they don't provide security fixes to the OS?
Looks like MS is planning to leave the browser arena. They can't possibly think that people will upgrade just to get a reasonable secure browser.
Do I see a new class action law suit on the horizon?
Yes, there is a time window they should be supporting older versions, but there are limits..
... ( they might due to consumer demand, and feel the income is worth it, but taht's not my point )
I think the reasonable time to support for 98 has expired.. Or do you expect them to support 95 as well? How about 3.11?
Not supporting MS here, but we must be realistic.. nearly 10 years is pretty long to support an old product in an industry that yesterday is ancient technology..
Also comparing exploding cars that kill people to old BUSINESS software is ludicrous btw.. Its not even a close comparison..
If you want to compare cars to this type of software, then the support window that OEM's have to provide repair parts is fair game.. but its not forever.. Don't expect them to be required to have a wheel bearing for your 65 mustang.. its just not going to happen, nor should it
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In the US, state law determines what can be disclaimed.
In Texas companies can't hardly disclaim anything.
This should provide a huge boost to Mozilla and other alternative browser backers."
Since XP and OS X run on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HARDWARE, I don't see how MS not offering patches on Win98 is going to help Apple. I don't see anyone buying a Mac for $3000 when an upgrade to XP is free (thanks to the internet and friends with CD burners), or whatever BestBuy's charging right now (a few hundred bucks at most). When you switch, you lose ALL your purchased and downloaded software. As a fix for a buggy browser, buying a Mac is the WRONG fix. Mozilla is the RIGHT fix.
Sigh. Everyone always tries to get Apple mentioned in stories as if this insignificant piece of "news for nerds, stuff that matters" mattered to them and would help them increase their 1.7% marketshare. It doesn't help them. At all. But the poster has a nice way of linking to Apple's website and not to Mozilla's, the people who WILL benefit. If my IE needs to be upgraded to a different browser, this guy is basically saying "Buy a Mac to use Safari" instead of "take 5 minutes and grab open-source Mozilla".
Poster, your bias is showing.
Everyone is totally overreacting to this. Microsoft has basically said that Windows 2000 will not get a pop-up blocker or an Add-On Manager. Windows 2000 is still fully supported so if any security holes are found, microsoft will still patch them.
yes, but IE is "free" as well... if you don't have a price on the time you waste clearing up afterwards...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Umm, you can turn off services to make a system more secure on any OS - XP, 2000, NT 4, NT 3.5, ME, 98, 95, 3.1. So, it is misleading to say that NT 4 with services disabled is more secure. You are basically turning it into a stand alone box with very little networking functionality - of course it will be more secure.
That should be, "Nobody will ever need more than 640,000 patches."
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.
That's my point, a bad OS, is not a safety issue like an exploding car, or a failing brake module is.
If your business OS crashes, you have to re-enter your spreadsheet and didn't kill or hurt anyone....
Its no where near the same..( annoying yes, but not critical to life )
And I also specifically said BUSINESS software, not the stuff that runs in your ABS or medical devices..
We are also not talking about some fundamental flaws that cause problem on their own, they almost always
need outside help, such as viruses and worms.. written by other people.. Much as the thief that breaks your
car windows ( to keep with the car analogy ), or slashes your tires, its not the car maker's fault they built
your car with windows that could break if hit with a bat... it's the 'criminal's'....
Yes, the fact windows is full of holes and is exploitable is annoying, and frustrating, but it's the person
doing the actual exploit that needs to be blamed..
Microsoft products are *not* sold to run critical items, they sell business productivity software. Even deep within
the eula it mentions something to that effect.. ( actually most general commercial packages have disclaimers
like that. its your own dammed fault if you use it in an 'unapproved environment' and kill someone. )
Now if you purchased a custom application from a hospital vendor and it failed and killed the patient, yes..
you got a valid point, for THAT vendor... But that isn't business software that is the subject of my post, its specific
applications that ARE certified to be reliable under life threatening conditions.
So no, I don't agree they have an obligation to support things forever. I think 5 years in this market is enough.. Especially
now, that there are other options to upgrading...
Just a side note, how can you have a windows problem since dos? Dos was around a few years before the 'windows environment'
came out..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Given the incredibly misleading nature of this slashdot submission leads me to wonder why we can't moderate the main story.
Win 2k has extended support for security hot fixes till 2010 and the enhancements that won't be including are things like firewalls and popup blockers. Which is what everyone expected anyway.
So why, for so many years, has Windows shipped with services turned on and visible to the public?
How Microsoft is reconciling that with THIS:
"Microsoft remains committed to providing security updates to our customers for all supported Windows versions."
I suspect it means that the popup blocker, new download protector, IE plug in controls, window relocation blocker, e-mail screening, and e-mail bug blocker will not be made available for anything but XP-SP2. Which kinda sucks, but is mostly OK. If only it were possible to view the "Downloaded Program Files" folder without Windows Explorer filtering the contents; possibly the plug-in manager would improve that, but I doubt it. I've found the best blocker for these stupid add-ins and adware pieces is creating an empty NTFS folder where it wants to go... and then setting all permissions to "Everyone -- Deny".
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I'm not saying that Windows *should* ship with all services wide open, I'm simply saying that you can turn off those services in all Windows flavors and significantly increase your system's security. Personally, I think whoever decided to turn on IIS and messenger by default should be fired.
http://litepc.com/ is your answer.
...that Firefox and Thunderbird must overcome:
;-). Additionally, past experience with these folks is that you must either spend money on or pirate/"steal" software, because free==adware and spyware. They have been taught this by experiences with Kazza and other "free" P2P sharing software, comet cursors, custom smiley addons, Weatherbug, etc etc.
As I installed Firefox, he kept asking "And it's free? Why? What's their business model?" As a salesman, he just couldn't swallow that it could be a full-featured application AND available for free.
Almost *all* PC users who have never known anything but Microsoft Windows are suspicious of free software (and always confuse free/libre with free/gratis). People in sales/marketing are just extra slow learners in this respect
I have converted my parents, my girlfriend, some of her family and a few of our friends (all running some MS Windows variant) to Firefox (and Thunderbird in a couple cases) and all have been happy with the change. However, there is one person (whom I know only through chatting on Yahoo Messenger) that is totally convinced that Mozilla is a company with a business model built around distribution of adware. This stems from the fact that he claims to have tried Thunderbird late last winter/early spring and it coincided with an increase of pop-ups and system crashes while he used it to browse. He cleaned his system up (removing Firefox and a few other things) and it worked better again.
I told him that the crashes MAY have been due to the fact that he was using an earlier beta version (but not even guaranteed). I also told him it was ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for an install of genuine Firefox to be the source of the pop-up ads and that it has always been my experience that Firefox gets RID of them. There was no convincing him that it was another one of his "free" programs (he has all manner of Yahoo Messenger toys like YTunnel, replacement smileys, booters to get rid of the dirty old men hitting on his 15 year old daughters, boot stoppers, etc). I even edvanced the theory that he may have gotten a tainted/hacked version of Firefox and that you should get it right from Mozilla. He contends that that is where it came from.
He had the same kind of questions as your sales friend, and kept responding to my answers with more questions:
Him: "If they give all their programs away and there was no ad-ware, how does Mozilla make any money?"
Me: "They don't. Mozilla is a non-profit foundation. The programmers are volunteers or paid through donations"
Him: "Well that just means they don't make a profit. The companies that donate money to Mozilla are getting ads in return for their sponsorship"
Me: "Not all of the project sponsors are corporations and none of them want advertising. Some are individuals who give their time and/or money as well. Also, the idea is that the project is Open Source, so even though a company or person might only have/be one developer on the project they can reap the rewards of an entire team of people and see the code like everyone else"...etc etc
Him: "I dunno...sounds fishy to me. I'd really check out that Mozilla outfit to make sure they are legitimate. Right now, I don't trust their programs on my computer. It's not like they are just little toys...the web browser and email are important parts of the OS"
The lesson here: don't just tell doubters to download it and try it out. Actually be there to oversee the installation, and explain what is going on in ther PCs. If Firefox or any other software that is free is anywhere near their PC when bad things happen, it'll be the first think a sceptical convert that runs Windows will blame.
I currently run the following OSes at home:
SuSE Linux 9.0
Mac OS X.3.5
AIX 5.2
Windows 2000 Pro
Windows XP Pro
And they all run Firefox wonderfully!
It's nice to have a web browser that has such a wide variety of OS support rather than having a different browser with varying features for every system.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
I find that disgusting. They are still patching Windows XP like mad. By the time Win XP is stable (maybe when SP3 is released) there will be only a year or so until Microsoft declares it dead. Mr. Bill Gates is the world's leading software mortician.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
... there are still people out there using Monkeysoft [Microsoft] software?!? After the thousands of articles on the net explaining how bad and insecure MS software is?!? Hmm... that's hard to believe.
Oh well... anyone who is still running MS software deserves to be hacked/crippled just for their stupid actions.
Long live Linux!!!
I am considering downgrade my IE6 to IE4 seriously.
So that it will be easy for morons to get stuff working. Microsoft has fixed this somewhat with Windows Server 2003. It comes with much less turned on by default.
Phillip
Hmmm... I think you must be an ultra-lib because you paraphrased what he said by stating something that was vaugely like the originall statement but implying a fairly different meaning.
What the parent AC did was actually read the article and interpret the text of the article as it was instead of trying to read some sinister meaning into it.
Typical liberal mindset/actions.
Microsoft affirmed that its recent security improvements to IE would be made available only to XP users.
The parent should be modded down since regardless the source of this, it's incorrect. Microsoft has later clearly said that it's only restricting new features to IE, not security patches.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Back in the days when Mozilla wasn't a great performer, lots of /.'ers would say stuff like, "if IE's a free download, why should I use this crappy Mozilla stuff". Well, now you know why.
It was only a matter of time before MS decided to tie browser upgrades to OS upgrades. After all, for a large portion of users, the browser's the only app they use. With their ill-gotten browser semi-monopoly, why wouldn't MS force you to buy an OS upgrade to get a new browser. DOJ? Not this DOJ.
Sounds like as good a reason as any to separate the browser from the OS. After all, this side-effect of bundling can't possibly be regarded as beneficial to consumers, and consumer benefit was the only defense they could come up with for exempting their bundling from antitrust regulations.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Is MS going to let IE in the Win2k server series go unpatched then?
Sounds like a r00ting waiting to happen.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Much as I hate MS, they can't be THAT crazy.
Again, this shows the bigger issue of Slashdot editors not being unbiased when posting articles. They could simply have read the article before they posted it, rather than posting an outright *lie* in the title of the post.
Editors: Please look at articles before posting them. It makes Slashdot look unprofessional compared to some other news sites around.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Yes, I say good!
I'm sure M$ is going this route to screw all the unlicensed active copies of w2k/etc. forcing them to upgrade to WinXP where everything must be "activated" through M$.
Maybe this will slap everyone around developing sites and teach them a thing or two about web development. Most just don't take other browsers in account when creating websites. The ONLY reason I fire up IE anymore is when I run across a site that can't display properly due to bad code (putting aside the whole ActiveX mess). It's been awhile since I've been shoulders deep in web development, so I'm sure things have progressed quite a bit, but I never used IE as my primary testing browser; let alone use only one single browser to test with.
There's nothing more painful than browsing, hitting that point where the site won't properly function, and having to fire up IE.
Your comments are well-informed and pursuasive. However, I must emphasize one point you overlooked. About software liability - Mozilla does not SELL a product. It takes no MONEY for it. Mozilla does not provide a SERVICE. I think the monetary aspect of it is the key. Microsoft is a business. It has contractual obligations, and the software reliability could (arguably) be part of those obligations.
In contrast, Mozilla simply gives things away. It does not have a business relationship with its ``clients'' (i.e. those who download it). Therefore, Software Liability should not affect it.
Now, this being the wonderful US of A, where every other person is a laweyer, undoubtedly things would go just as you described. However, I believe the exchange (or lack thereof) of money is the key issue/difference.
Here's what you can tell them:
"Firefox is what you get when people get together for the purpose to write the best possible software, rather than to make money."
This usually conveys the message pretty well, I found.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Think about it for a moment. The only boost to Mozilla and others will be users who:
Now, I'm not saying it's zero because clearly it won't be. But it's equally clear to me that those first three are at least somewhat contradictory, so it certainly won't be a huge boost.
How does one use Safari on Windows?
Only for XP systems that are upgraded to SP2. They know that there is _no_ way to secure (applications on) older operating systems.
I would be more than happy to upgrade our Windows 2000 Pro machines to XP if Microsoft would release a tool to configure the Fisher Price (TM) gui so that it looks and works like the Windows 2000 Pro gui. I hate turning all that crap off on every machine by hand.
Oh, and I could use another 128MB per machine too.
Microsoft server crash nearly causes 800 plane pile-ups px?i=2304 7
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.a
If we are to use a car analogy, you will obviously get serious flaws in the car itself fixed.
However, you will not get airbags and other safety enhancements in newer model cars for free.
This is perfectly reasonable, and is what Microsoft is doing: Security fixes will obviously be available for older supported Windows versions, but security enhancements, such as the popup blocker, will not be available.
Clever signature text goes here.
"Personally, I think whoever decided to turn on IIS and messenger by default should be fired."
But he's the company's Chief Software Architect !!!
Please delete your Slashdot account immediately, and refrain from posting for the next nine(9) months. At the end of this period, you will need to write a five(5) paragraph essay in a standard twelve(12) point font on why you had to leave Slashdot, and what you've learned during your time away.
Refrain from using the internet in general for more than ninety(90) minutes, in a fourteen(14) day period. This time will not accumulate.
stratjakt, it's time to go.
OS/X & Apple for those who like it fun and sexy,
Linux for those who like to get down and dirty!
Here is the link5 0009562&f=174096756&x_id=1095956039&x_subject=SP2+ Internet+Explorer+enhancements+for+Windows+XP+only &x_link=http://arstechnica.com&x_ddp=Y
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=dl&s=
Umm, you can turn off services to make a system more secure on any OS - XP, 2000, NT 4, NT 3.5, ME, 98, 95, 3.1. So, it is misleading to say that NT 4 with services disabled is more secure. You are basically turning it into a stand alone box with very little networking functionality - of course it will be more secure.
Plausible assumptions maybe, but dead wrong. It's the Domain Controller's main workstation that's up and logged in as root 24/7. The only services disabled are messenger (Kill the Messenger) and Computer Browser (Gateway Computer - Kill the moo cow). It has Outlook running, with peview active. No anti-virus software, but a few folders named VIRUS. It's got a copy of Melissa on the Desktop from when Melissa was fresh. It's even got a VNC server running that I haven't accessed remotely in over a year. The only thigs done to ehance security are sticking a _ in front of the name of the executables for Windows Scripting Host and friends and of course unhiding filename extensions and such. Piss-poopr security really, but when the big one hits it will be standing and Microsoft's latest and greatest will be dead.
from Windows is the 'biggest beta test in history' - Gartner
"Victor Wheatman, Gartner security veep, told delegates at the IT Security Summit in London that the most secure organisations spend less than the average and that the lowest spending organisations are the most secure."
There's a message in that. I wonder if it's getting through. If you want gizmos instead of security you don't get security. This includes security gizmos.
wouldn't be any problem.
But I bought my IBM notebook with Windows 2000 so why should I take the risk and install Windows XP on it?
As the half of the space is used by Debian as a main system it's no problem but for normal windows users it's a time bomb if they don't receive any important improvements as long as their notebook are intact.
I'm finding myself using "I f**king hate IE" more and more recently. The reason being that I've been converting some rather complicated and detailed Web designs to HTML & CSS (sometimes using Javascript) and have found over and over that IE causes me hours and hours of headaches tweaking the CSS so that IE can render it correctly - meaning that the CSS (and HTML) is almost always way too overly complicated just to accomodate the way that IE breaks the standards etc. Stupid fucking IE. It's just as bad when people write IE specific Javascript when they could just as easily write browser-independant Javascript but are too fu**ing stupid to do so ... ARGH! I could rant for days on the stupidness of IE ... USE FIREFOX TODAY! PLEASE!
Funny you should mention this. He installed SpywareBlaster on his kids' PC first at my suggestion, and saw several popups show up. He immediately thought it was SpywareBlaster that caused it, and promptly removed it. I had to carefully explain that they occurred because he had used IE to download the proram, and by opening up IE he had started the malware. He was shocked that opening IE could open up other programs, as most people are. I got a word in at that point about monopolistic practices... embedding the browser... poor security model... that resonated a bit because of all of the press during the anti-trust trial. Good grief, that seems like eons ago, doesn't it?
People try to use their common sense to understand what's happening on their computer, but because of the complexity of the malware common sense fails them. My neighbor got the gist of what I was telling him, and he's a smart guy. But it's just damned hard to visualize this stuff, so at the end of the day he just trusted me and when I left he was popup free and happily browsing with Firefox 1.0PR.
But if some funny stuff starts happening on the machine he may start to waver again. We'll see.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
I don't see why people are up in arms over this.
Windows 2000 is a four year old operating system, and there are times when you have to move foward. If someone was still on RedHat6 and they were complaining about having to download and upgrade to Redhat9, we would give them a firm slap across the face. But when it's Windows and Microsoft, "NO ! no! unFAIR!"?
Sure, XP costs $125 on ebay. And? After four years I'm sure you could have saved that money up, and if you didn't prepare for future computer upgrades rather than playing it cheap to think that one particular version of anything is going to outlast and outpreform (even on gaming) a newer OS release... then it was your fault.
"We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
"Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
Since a lot of internal windows components rely on the IE Core, that would be the dumbest thing you could do. From Windows Updates to Event log troubles, things would go to hell.
If you enjoy being in hell, google for nlite on how to remove IE and IE core.
"We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
"Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
Mental illness alert: Anger problem.
The average end user doesn't even know that they're windows 9x/me still needs security patches and that their internet explorer is why their computer isn't acting right or is too slow to use. ms isn't going to make any upgrade dollars on this except from the windows zealots who think MS is the shiznit. And what percentage of windoze users is that, really? 10, maybe 15%?
[laughing] I'll see your NT4 system, and raise you my venerable Win95 box, which has staved off thousands of would-be assaults. In fact all I do with any of my WinBoxen (95/98/ME/XP, no patches) is run a good firewall, turn off stupid shit like Messenger, don't use IE/OE, and don't click every doodad that comes my way. Result: no infections or invasions of any description.
Tho my firewall logs are a sight to behold...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
feel like they should give opinions?
If you don't know about SMS or Group Policy, what are you doing administering windows machines?
Quick explanation:
"Don't ask how I got this, but try it out, and don't tell the Mozilla foundation about this!"
"Nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean?
Yeah, its the full version and everything!"
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
The real story here should be that Microsoft seems to be completely gutting all the "new features" of Longhorn by either pushing them into XP SP2+, delaying or scrapping them all together! So now that Longhorn is mearly a shadow of its former self, really what reason will anyone have to upgrade to it? Well, now you'll need at least XP just to get updates.
Same shit, different day...
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
C'mon Microsoft, it's your rancid semen that spawned every copy of windows out there that is being used to bring down businesses, interfere with Air Traffic control, and fuck up everyone's email. Your sorry hole is responsible for taking care of the problem.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
On the other hand, as a technological basis for Swing's HTML rendering/editing components, it's still around in much the same form as it always was. I know it's not up to much, feature-wise or quality-wise, but if you need HTML rendering in Swing, you can display it in just about any visual component, and you don't need to write any code to do it. Now, that is useful.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
I have tried firefox, and opera, and they did not work as well as IE. /. article by itslef)
Since I am (in a lake wobegon sense) an avg user, I assume that many people will also have problems. So, it is irrelevant that firefox is free; if it does not work, you still need IE. (note that I am NOT saying why they don't work, that is a whole
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/23/1 411217
The lesson here: don't just tell doubters to download it and try it out.
The lesson here: Fuck stupid people. You can only give your opinion, but it is they are accountable for their own decisions.
WinNT4.0 at least until early next year
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
1. Load Gun
2. Shoot foot
3. Profit
is the inability to uninstall it
As usual, everyone missed the point.
The point was that some people are saying that patches won't be applied anymore to IE on XP systems, and other people are saying that patches will be applied to such. The real statement was Microsoft saying EXPLICITLY that if you want the SAME sort of "security" that XP has, you should UPGRADE! Period!
I asked: "What part of that don't you Windows trolls get?"
And yet, another bunch of posters continue to bleat that MS will still supply patches for 2000, etc. Well, yes, they probably will - but you will NOT get BACK-PORTED security features - if you want the latest, you have to upgrade to XP.
RTFA! R-T-F-EXPLICIT-Quote-I-Reproduced!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
> updates will be released, just not the sp2 "security enhancements"
That's fine for today. What does it mean 3 months from now? "enhancement" might get a broader definition by then?
Take WIN98. I have a legal copy I got with a new PC I purchased in 1999 (P3 500MHz, perfectly good for my needs after memory+HD upgrade). When the OS was new M$ promised it includes automatic online updates. Then several years later M$ announced it stops supporting this OS, which is perfectly fine. Everyone else interpreted this to mean that no more fixes are made for the OS, and basically you are stuck with the 2003 functionality. WRONG! You lose the the entire patching mechanism!
In the past, When I reinstalled the OS (WIN98 needs clean reinstalls periodically) I just had to continue the installation with visiting the windows update site. I expected that after they stopped supporting the OS it would mean that I just get the same functionality, automatically downloading and installing all OS fixes up to 2003. But it didn't work this way. First it insisted that I need to install IE6 to access windows update. After installing IE6 I could finally access the windows update site that then informed me that this functionality is no longer available.
So you might say that removing support from the OS means removing the update site. That is clearly M$'s interpretation. I think differently. The automatic update was a feature included in the OS and was a main selling point back in 98-99. I remember people that recommended upgrading from WIN95 to WIN98 just for this feature. The point was that users with almost no technical skills can apply fixes themselves. M$ didn't "stop support" for this functionality. They REMOVED the functionality. It's not the same OS anymore. I would have expected them to leave the Windows update site in "as is" condition so that anyone that needs to reinstall the OS can at least apply existing features in teh way they promised it would work when they sold the OS. They could also pack all existing fixes into one download that would replace the "automatic update". It would still apply as an "automatic update" as it would serve the same functionality from the user's point of view: have all the existing fixes without having to dig them up one by one.
Of course, you still have access to all the patches and may download them one by one. the site is specifcally designed to make you do it manually and separately for each little fix. There is no way provided to download all the patches together (at least not that I've seen in the site, and M$ customer service specifically told me on the phone there is no such mechanism). So eventually I left the system as is, in 1998 "mint condition" (except the y2k patch that I saved back then). I don't have the time to go over all the little patches and try to decide which one I need and which one I don't. This might be fine for a company that employs a professional to maintain many PCs. Not for an individual.
Now that computer is stuck again, and needs a clean install. This time even upgrading to IE6 might not be available, so it's back to IE4.
Yes, I know, I should install LINUX instead. I already have downloaded a version long ago, and the only issue is time: not for the LINUX install, but for making some order in the HD and backing up. Still I would need the Windows98 installed for the kids and for some software I might want to run on that machine. So There will be a legal copy of WIN98 on that machine in "mint condition".
So, be careful when reading M$ announcements. Their lawyers probably made sure that it may mean anything they want. Today it refers to specific "enhancements". Tomorrow "enhancement" might mean fixes to malfunctions that make the OS/browser vulnerable to attack. And finally you might find out that all the fixes are available to you on older OS's but to get them you need first to upgrade to the latest IE, and to do this you need to upgrade to the latest OS. You'd claim the the fixes are not available to you. They would claim they are.
Well done mods - did you rate mongoloid funny for its perjorative upon Mongolions or down syndrome? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Mongoloid %20/
Actually, there are increasing numbers of services in newer versions of windows which CANT be turned off, such as RPC among other things.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Somehow I get the feeling of coming in second best. Good firewall, no IE/OE gives you a better hand. But I stand by my original assertion.
Question. Does Microsoft have a clue about security, or is this just another example of facade over substance?
R-T-F-Post-You-Replied-To. Nothing you say here contradicts the supposed "Windows troll", but it DOES contradict both the slashdot write-up and the news.com article. You're either inconsistent or illiterate. Choose wisely.
I replied to the entire list of entries following my post - which included exactly the sort of comments I referenced in my last post.
Nothing I said here contradicts the article. How is that possible when I DIRECTLY QUOTED the article?
Another Windows troll.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
[grin] Better yet, my antique WFWG (Win3.11) setup, which required neither a firewall nor any particular caution, and was used 5 years online without a single intrusion (finally retired after 7 rock-stable years of hard use). Security through braindeadness. :)
/. story about that yet?) which apparently was also in Win95. Was it the same TYPE of error, or was it an old chunk of Win95 codebase that happened to find the right conditions to resurface as a problem?
Sometimes you gotta wonder about M$... I think the coding teams probably DO care about security (and tear their hair out regularly as vulnerabilities are discovered despite their best efforts). But it's likely several things: M$ tries to evolve their software toward consumer demand, and that usually means the glitz that sells is more important, at least to the marketing types who drive business these days, than the back-end stuff only geeks know about (like weeding out every buffer overflow in 50 kazillion lines of code -- yeah, right!) Second, the codebase is just too big for ANYONE, no matter how good, to get everything right, and I suspect often suffers from both it's-still-half-baked-but-marketing-said-ship-it, and Too-Many-Cooks-who-never-met-one-another.
Frex, that major vulnerability in XP's SP2 (http://www.pcwelt.de/know-how/extras/103039/ -- has there been a
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
PS. Check out today's Cringely http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040923. html re why M$ is suddenly more interested in security. I think he's got a valid (and scary) point about how security can be misused.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I think he's got a valid (and scary) point about how security can be misused.
...
It's scary if Microsoft gets to have their way, but as media and PHBs begin to realise that they have been played as suckers, Microsoft will have a harder and harder time of it.
"Always Blame Microsoft" is becoming an effetive tactic. This is shoot first and ask questions second. Surprisingly and even annoyingly effective. Once you start looking for somethig vaguely related that Microsoft did wrong, you will find somethig. I've even seen our CEO use it effectvely where Microsoft has no possible involvment. It has the advantage of turning the "blame game" into "It's not your fault. It's not my fault. It's Microsoft's fault."
Cringely's point is valid and it's just one more in a long line of Microsoft trying to take over the joint.
There is a tendency of even the "good guys" to want to call the tune that everybody else dances to.
There is a tendency to point out the obvious anytime someone says everything is secure.
"Microsoft may be over-estimating their power and creating the very
environment that might allow a viable alternative (probably NOT Linux
my gut tells me) to emerge. If this change happens, it will come to
the USA last. At some point, the big emerging markets like China and
India will realize they have do do something.
So Microsoft's dream of total world domination may be riskier than
they think, but that doesn't mean they won't try."
Probably accurate. It's a two-step move not a one-step.
Somehow methinks that it's really a control issue rather than a security issue. And it's got got subtleties.
root versus Administrator. Only a geek would ever want to run as root.
Somehow I got smart enough to rename the domain administrator as root. The computers I normally use are logged on as root 24/7 and do not run screen savers. And nobody messes with my computers. If I've left a root login on their computers they log me off to get to their stuff.
When IBM "embraced" Linux, I think it was more the realization that you're much better off if you can extend your scope to what you cannot control. I think part of it is that the big customers with big iron have to be able to communicate with various riff-raff who cannot afford IBM and the whole mess has to work or the big iron just sits there looking pretty (useless).
Security through braindeadness. :)
Methinks the only way to actually achieve security is with something that is too stupid to do something wrong.
Military Intelligence is regarded as an oxymoron. That's the Military Intelligence of those who have won the wars.
There is a problem with being smart. Being smarter than other people isn't the real competition. You have to compete with Mother Nature.
The accurate form of Murphy's law is that Mother Nature sides with the hidden.
I didn't say flaw. But if that's what hidden then that's what Mother Nature is siding with. To see it in action, watch anything Road Runner and Wyle E. Coyote.
OR to rephrase it, "Always blame the current biggest target -- because no matter how good they are, anything that big is gonna overlook or screw up *something*!" And M$ has painted a target on themselves with their abuse-of-monopoly behaviour.
I think you're right that a lot of it is about control. M$'s notion of control is to make everyone use M$ stuff. IBM's notion of control is, as you say, to extend their scope. M$ tries to drain every pond other than their own; IBM tries to stock all the other ponds with their own fish. Both are about control, but the style is markedly different.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Methinks it runs deeper than that. The best I've been able to come up with is that Microsoft makes mediocrity an asperation. Which is of course very comforting to the mediocre.
but the style is markedly different
Very. I'd rather have IBM for an enemy than Microsoft for a friend.
IBM, methinks, wants to regain its position as King of the Hill. Which is of course a much better position if its a very good hill rather than a very poor hill. Which means IBM wants competition, very good competition.
Good point. Frex, a friend uses an ancient DOS-based router (which runs on any piece of crap) that only does one thing. There is no way to get it to do anything else, because the capability simply isn't there. It knows a handful of CLI commands and will only respond to extremely limited parameters (like yes/no). Trying to hack into it is an exercise in frustration -- at best you get a naked unresponsive prompt for your efforts. Conversely, if the thing was also a webserver and a locksmith and a VCR, there'd be all sorts of points where one could try to tease a vulnerability out of the interface.
:) The less you know, the less of a security risk you are. If you're a grunt who only knows the target is thataway, you're not worth "hacking into". So you can drop grunts anywhere and not worry about the enemy using their knowledge [vulnerabilities] against you, cuz there ain't none. At worst it might crash the system (kill 'em).
:)
Now that you mention it... military intelligence is largely about your need to know. If you don't NEED to know it, you don't GET to know it (unless the system fucks up, which would be a bug
Weird but insightful interpretation of Cartoon Physics
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Actually, I don't think M$ wants to be *seen* as anything other than good. But regardless of what they may want as a whole, I think their decisions about when to ship products too often reflects the old tagline:
"It compiles? the first screen came up?? Ship it!!"
IOW, grabbing market opportunity NOW in preference to getting things wholly right a little later. Of course, the short shelf life (natural or artificially generated) of many products exacerbates the problem.
I believe you're right re IBM's desire to regain the crown. And that they do indeed view a million ponds as a million opportunities to be jumped into. Whereas M$ would view 'em as a million competitors to be drained and disposed of; in their view, There Can Be Only One.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Actually, I don't think M$ wants to be *seen* as anything other than good.
Applies to any confidence man, don't you think?
Actually, I expect Microsoft actually believes it.
The logic is something like: I am good. This is the best I can do. Therefore it is good.
Methinks IBM is the company to watch, maybe moreso if you cannot afford IBM.
IBM has figured something out. I don't know what it is, but there's no way the ads that IBM runs would pass management review unless IBM was dealing from strength. Long term strength, not short term.