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
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!!!!
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!
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.
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.
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.
-
"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.
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...
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,
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.
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 ...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I fail to see how Opera is a viable choice considering that Mozilla and Safari are free (as in beer).
I'm being completely serious here mind you. Opera will fill a niche market, but that is how Netscape "died". Internet Explorer was free, and un-bundled in the beginning. Being a Microsoft product it was favored by the masses.
Now that Mozilla is gaining word of mouth marketshare it will again be the standard. Opera will not last long, all IMHO.
After all, how many people want ads IN their browser.
Get your Unix fortune now!
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
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
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.)
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.
Heh... I *just* saw that episode again last night. Classic.
Really, how can ppl buy MS if they know that in the future they may not recieve any support for their insecure software?
Let's compare Microsoft vs. OSS. The browser is one component (integrated into the core OS in Windows, yes, and that should NEVER have happened) but there's countless other bits of software that make up an operating system and its applications. I am still running a copy of Windows 2000 on one box, and I still get updates for various flaws from time to time, about four years after purchasing it. I'm pretty pleased about that.
By contrast, I can't keep a Linux distro on a box for longer than about two years. I can modify a spec file and rebuild a RPM with (the second cousin of) the best of them, but at some point things just stop building properly. The solution? Upgrade to a new distro. Just went through this on my mail/web server a couple of months ago; damn but it's hard to make the new versions of all the software play nicely together. But I digress...
Overall, I'd say MS is up there with the best of them in terms of shipping updates that are compatible with a fairly old version of their software, their broken security model notwithstanding. I'm a lot less concerned about broken components like IE that I can (happily) replace than core OS components needing an update that I am stuck with... thankfully those are rare enough in my case.
Anyway, I'm a flip-flopper on the subject of the OS I use; both Windows and Linux (oh yeah, Solaris too) on a daily basis and have both a use for, and issues with, all of them. C'est la vie.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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!
"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."
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.
...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.
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?
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.
Only for XP systems that are upgraded to SP2. They know that there is _no_ way to secure (applications on) older operating systems.
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.
I agree with your basic point, but a new Mac can be had for $800 these days. Sorry to gripe, but as a Mac user I get tired of hearing about how overpriced Macs are. Yeah, the top Power Mac is expensive. But a high end Dell workstation (which is what a Power Mac is, a workstation) is as expensive with similar components.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)