Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista still Rife with Insecure Code
osxpetition writes "As noted in a News.com article, Symantec researchers have been testing the latest Microsoft Windows Vista build (Beta 2), and have found that the code is 'complete with new corner cases and defects' in the networking component. Symantec describes how Microsoft scrapped the old networking stack code from Windows XP in favour of newer, rewritten code. 'Microsoft has removed a large body of tried and tested code and replaced it with freshly written code.' Since January 2002, Microsoft has put a stronger emphasis on protecting PCs by attempting to implement stable, secure code into Windows XP and their new operating system. This latest report from Symantec brings attention to Microsoft's trustworthy computing campaign, and shows how it will be a long way before it is ready for the mainstream."
How does an article about how a new network stack could come with unknown security flaws and the fact that most security flaws that have been found in the beta builds have been fixed - as is to be expected - turn into "ZOMG M$ Winblows still rife with unsecure Hax!!" I'm not a Microsoft fan by any stretch and the world would possibly be a better place without them, but for Pete's sake stop acting like children. The article is "Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista," so at least use that as the slashdot title. If the same article was written about a new network stack for Apple's new OS, the slashdot title would certainly not be spinned as much. Actually, it probably would, but the other way. Maybe I didn't read the article well enough, but it just seems that the summary isn't talking about the same article.
I program professionaly and I've looked over some BSD & Linux code and quite frankly it is lot more involved than what I do. So I guess I shouldn't complain but jumping Jesus H. Christ if the BSD guys can do it with the resources they have, how is it that a company the size of Microsoft can't make this work?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Of course not! The 2.[Odd] version of the linux kernel would not be this unstable. The kernel devs are way too proud to let horrible code get released even when its a "unstable" version. Not to say they are perfect and never write bad code, just that they don't release half cobbled together code like MS does.
Oh...yea...penguins rule, and you suck!
If you must!
You should respect the fact that Microsoft is opening up its beta software to the general public. They're seeking feedback, and I feel that they're handling it quite well. Of course, no matter how good the "final" version is, I'm sure that many Slashdotters will continue to spread lies about experiencing a blue screen every ten minutes upon trying it out. Honestly, I haven't experienced a blue screen on my own computer in well over four years. Granted, I'm running a clean install of Windows that isn't littered with all of the "free" crap that comes pre-installed on many store-bought computers.
In either case, it's no big secret that the public beta for Windows Vista isn't all that great. If you happen to wander over to a site that actually posts Microsoft news on a regular basis and actually has a category specifically set aside for such news (You know, like...not Slashdot. And no, Slashdot's tagging beta, with its "duh" and "obvious" tags for anti-Microsoft posts honestly don't count. Grow up, subscribers.), you might actually realize that the newer builds of Vista are shaping up to be quite nice.
I didn't have any driver-related issues with the beta, honestly. Yes, the performance was lacking a bit, but I was expecting far worse. Linux users need to stop comparing their OS' state to that of a five-year-old version of Windows. Where was your beloved Linux at that point? Quite far from where it is now, that's where.