Personally I'd much rather they get around to releasing XP SP3.
I have to laugh, when I see things like these here on Slashdot now. Before Vista was released, that sentence would have been: "Personally I'd much rather they get around to releasing Windows 2000 SP6."
You forgot to address this: "And yes, even NOW, 6 years after Windows XP was released, this OS gets more security fixes per month than Vista, which is only 1 year old."
And yes, even NOW, 6 years after Windows XP was released, this OS gets more security fixes per month than Vista, which is only 1 year old. Go figure, troll.
however the improvement is only incremental over XP
All I see is hand waving and downplaying without any factual knowledge. Vista is marginally more secure than XP?
1) Code layout randomization 2) Users don't run as administrators by default (this is impossible to achieve from the usability point of view). 3) Kernel patch protection 4) Managed code 5) Code rewritten from scratch while being constantly subject to unprecedented security audits (something you can't achieve with XP, unless you want them to rewrite it) 6) Etc., etc.
And the result is? Significantly less vulnerabilities (criticial and non-critical) and therefore significantly less possible exploits.
PS - I don't run Vista, but I'm watching it. And as my eyes are open, I will move to it soon.
Dude, I seriously doubt you know what you're talking about. I'll simplify it:
You have two systems n months after the release:
1) OS A with 10 vulnerabilities (and therefore potential for 10 types of exploits). 2) OS B With 50 vulnerabilities (and therefore potential for 50 types of exploits).
And you're telling me it's not compelling enough to choose 2?
I guess it's the old conservative thing. You know, learning new things or new ways of doing things decreases productivity. Well, if the business world was conservative like that, they would still be using MS-DOS or Windows 3.11 at best. Fortunately, they have common sense.
businesses are unlikley to be comparing un-patched Vista vs un-patched XP.
Huh? The study did compare patched systems. And the number of vulnerabilities and exploits are the only figures you can possibly compare. What was your point again?
Piece of astroturf shit anybody? Since when OS that REQUIRES antivirus software is safer that one that doesn't?
There are Linux AV programs too -- free like Clamwin, commercial like NOD32, etc. What was your point again? (I know, the market share which makes Windows the biggest target, unlike OS X or Linux).
Why in the @#$%! should we pay a boatload of money to slash our workers' productivity?
Easy one: Significantly improved security.
When the first n-month periods after initial release of each OS are compared, the number of vulnerabilities and exploits found in Vista is significantly lower than it was in Windows XP. We also know why that is (Microsoft finally hired security professionals and imposed rigorous internal pre-release and in-development security audits).
As much as the Slashdhot would like to deny it, according to an analysis, these Vista results are even better than OS X and various Linux distro results (again for respective comparable after-release periods).
There you have a major reason for upgrade -- security. You won't have to ask that question again.
It is not illegal to become a natural monopoly by chance. However, it is forbidden to buy out your competitors in order to become a monopoly "artificially". THAT can be a reason to forbid the merger or acquisition.
Who were the idiots who modded that as flamebait and troll? I'm going to take care of you when I have meta-mod points. Hopefully, you won't moderate again.
If you fully trust a security consultant company and let their employees play with your OS, you think that they wouldn't be able to plant custom malware on your Linux or whatever OS "not designed for grandmothers"? You know sir, you're a stupid troll.
> That basically means it becomes commented C-like code, not machine code.
Oh, and I forgot: That would surely include beautiful and meaningful names of functions, such as a11_b20244 (int a231242). I tell you it would be a nightmare. It would be worse than deliberately obfuscated source code.
I'm not sure why I've got the feeling that copyright is considered to be the evil around here. Let's not forget that without copyright and its enforceability the GPL and other FOSS licenses would not work. Copyright is good for FOSS.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I'd much rather they get around to releasing XP SP3.
I have to laugh, when I see things like these here on Slashdot now. Before Vista was released, that sentence would have been: "Personally I'd much rather they get around to releasing Windows 2000 SP6."
Ill address both posts at once shall I?
You forgot to address this: "And yes, even NOW, 6 years after Windows XP was released, this OS gets more security fixes per month than Vista, which is only 1 year old."
Your deliberate downplaying of the security improvements makes me quite certain that you indeed are a troll.
And yes, even NOW, 6 years after Windows XP was released, this OS gets more security fixes per month than Vista, which is only 1 year old. Go figure, troll.
Correction:
(this is impossible to achieve from the usability point of view).
That was supposed to say "impossible to achieve in XP".
however the improvement is only incremental over XP
All I see is hand waving and downplaying without any factual knowledge. Vista is marginally more secure than XP?
1) Code layout randomization
2) Users don't run as administrators by default (this is impossible to achieve from the usability point of view).
3) Kernel patch protection
4) Managed code
5) Code rewritten from scratch while being constantly subject to unprecedented security audits (something you can't achieve with XP, unless you want them to rewrite it)
6) Etc., etc.
And the result is? Significantly less vulnerabilities (criticial and non-critical) and therefore significantly less possible exploits.
PS - I don't run Vista, but I'm watching it. And as my eyes are open, I will move to it soon.
Dude, I seriously doubt you know what you're talking about. I'll simplify it:
You have two systems n months after the release:
1) OS A with 10 vulnerabilities (and therefore potential for 10 types of exploits).
2) OS B With 50 vulnerabilities (and therefore potential for 50 types of exploits).
And you're telling me it's not compelling enough to choose 2?
I guess it's the old conservative thing. You know, learning new things or new ways of doing things decreases productivity. Well, if the business world was conservative like that, they would still be using MS-DOS or Windows 3.11 at best. Fortunately, they have common sense.
Piece of astroturf shit anybody?
It's funny when some people see something they don't like, they start posting as Anonymous Cowards and babbling something about astroturfing...
Please, just go to your corner and STFU.
Dude, if you have no arguments, you STFU.
businesses are unlikley to be comparing un-patched Vista vs un-patched XP.
Huh? The study did compare patched systems. And the number of vulnerabilities and exploits are the only figures you can possibly compare. What was your point again?
Piece of astroturf shit anybody? Since when OS that REQUIRES antivirus software is safer that one that doesn't?
There are Linux AV programs too -- free like Clamwin, commercial like NOD32, etc. What was your point again? (I know, the market share which makes Windows the biggest target, unlike OS X or Linux).
6. Requires re-training of end-users, which is expensive.
With such conservative attitude, most users would still use MS-DOS, which is what they were "trained for" in the past.
I looked at that list and found the following line:
"ESET NOD32 v2.51 or earlier (32/64-bit) - will not install, upgrade to v2.70 or higher for Vista compatibility"
Why is NOD32 included on the list if NOD32 v2.70 runs on Vista? That conveniently inflates the list, doesn't it.
Vista is not a total failure, but its not a success either.
8% market share in 9 months (since the Home/Ultimate editions release) sounds like a success to me, rather than anything. Source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
Why in the @#$%! should we pay a boatload of money to slash our workers' productivity?
Easy one: Significantly improved security.
When the first n-month periods after initial release of each OS are compared, the number of vulnerabilities and exploits found in Vista is significantly lower than it was in Windows XP. We also know why that is (Microsoft finally hired security professionals and imposed rigorous internal pre-release and in-development security audits).
As much as the Slashdhot would like to deny it, according to an analysis, these Vista results are even better than OS X and various Linux distro results (again for respective comparable after-release periods).
There you have a major reason for upgrade -- security. You won't have to ask that question again.
It is not illegal to become a natural monopoly by chance. However, it is forbidden to buy out your competitors in order to become a monopoly "artificially". THAT can be a reason to forbid the merger or acquisition.
Who were the idiots who modded that as flamebait and troll? I'm going to take care of you when I have meta-mod points. Hopefully, you won't moderate again.
things like pinch and stretch (which are unique).
You're wrong. These things are not unique. I have a few year old device that has such features.
If you fully trust a security consultant company and let their employees play with your OS, you think that they wouldn't be able to plant custom malware on your Linux or whatever OS "not designed for grandmothers"? You know sir, you're a stupid troll.
> So i just imagined that you don't like the proposal because it 'weakens' copyright?
Yes, sir. I wasn't talking about the proposal at all.
> That basically means it becomes commented C-like code, not machine code.
Oh, and I forgot: That would surely include beautiful and meaningful names of functions, such as a11_b20244 (int a231242). I tell you it would be a nightmare. It would be worse than deliberately obfuscated source code.
> That basically means it becomes commented C-like code, not machine code.
Oh, and what will the comments say? Something meaningful, like, um, "increase i by 1"?
> and those who didn't would have their binaries decompiled and stuff.
That made me laugh. There aren't many people who would be able to edit uncommented machine code... Maybe 1 in 1000 developers.
How about you actually read and understand what I wrote... You are replying to something you imagined.
I'm not sure why I've got the feeling that copyright is considered to be the evil around here. Let's not forget that without copyright and its enforceability the GPL and other FOSS licenses would not work. Copyright is good for FOSS.