Why Can't Microsoft Just Patch Everything?

Posted by Zonk on Thursday December 1, 2005 @03:45AM from the they-need-more-cookies dept.

paneraboy writes "If smaller software companies can patch all of their bugs serious or minor, ZDNet's George Ou asks, why can't Microsoft -- with its massive army of programmers and massive budget -- patch all of its vulnerabilities? Had Microsoft fixed a low risk browser vulnerability six months ago, perhaps we could have avoided last week's zero-day exploit. Currently, more than two dozen Windows XP issues remain unpatched. Ou thinks Microsoft ought to fix them all." From the article: "Almost 4 years after the launch of Trustworthy Computing, I found myself wondering why am I staying up till 4:00 AM to deliver an emergency set of instructions (Home and Enterprise) to my readers because Microsoft felt it unnecessary to patch a flaw six months ago that was originally low risk but mutated in to something extremely dangerous."

3 of 640 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Good ole' 2002 by Doc+Ruby · 2005-12-01 04:20 · Score: -1, Redundant

Moderation +1
100% Funny

Your joke isn't funny, even if some mods think so :P.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Seems like some people don't understand coding by nutrock69 · 2005-12-01 05:13 · Score: 0, Redundant

- 2. Give it a snappy name - words ending in an "x" always sound cool.

I got one! How about Windows-X?

As a bonus, it will give MS the perfect opportunity to sue x-windows into oblivion for having a similar name well before MS took it!!! :)
Re:patch the leaky boat by jonfelder · 2005-12-01 05:23 · Score: 1, Redundant

There has got to be room in this metaphor somewhere for pirates.

Aaarrrr matey!