What does "Costs $99 per license" have to do with being open-source? Just because something is open source it does not mean that someone can't charge fees for it.
"Support" is a need as is "ability to support". So what you are saying is superfluous.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
I do not see your connection between coercing update and having no interest in being secure. There is no "upgrade" to fix ALL security problems in IE for example. Furthermore, people still use Win2K as opposed to XP and end up with virtually the same problem. There is NO incentive to upgrade to the next OS to gaurantee security.... In the context of security your argument is yet again worthless.... And who said anything about me? What I choose to use is irrelevant to the case in point.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
No, Microsoft does not take security any more seriously than in the past. They have to be kicked and dragged into continuing to provide security fixes for NT, claiming "sorry, its 5 years old - we don't support it any more". Would you take that from any other manufacturer of any other product? Like, say, your car? Or your fridge? Or your toilet?
Your comparison is very weak. First of all those products don't compare to software. Software requires every changing support for newer features and applications. Consumer products such as you mention work pretty much the same over time (fridge needs electricity, car needs gas, toilet needs water). If one of those dependancies changes, then yes you will need "updated support".
Furthermore, ending support for an outdated product is standard business practice. As markets change if there is a need to support it then someone or something will step up (legacy support, etc.). I mean does anyone check for security bugs on the 2.0 kernel?
If they REALLY wanted to concentrate on security in any meaningful way, they wouldn't continually fragment their own resources and create even more maintenance problems (7 versions of Vista? Fucking idiots - they can't even maintain what they've got now - this is a company that doesn't care about quality, or customer needs. Its ALL marketing, all the time).
Your fragmentation example also is terrible. First of all on the OS's MS has been consolidating their systems. The 9x series was dropped in favor or NT kernels. XP works virtually identical to 2K and Vista will undoubtedly use that same core. Heck, viruses affected XP/2K/2003 almost identically. And having 7 versions is not technically fragmenting, as you have seen in technical articles in the past sometimes differences in revisions in Windows is merely a few files or registry changes.... Your connection makes no sense, each of the 7 could have different security problems (however unlikely) or they could all have the exact same problems. How do you know which way it will be.... And what about dozens of distros with different patches, different libraries and apps. Could you manage tracking all those potential security problems.
If they really cared about security, then they'd stop producing standards-breaking stuff (Internet Exploder) that requires web app developers to work 10x as hard to achieve cross-browser functionality, at the expense of resources that these same developers could be devoting to verifying the rest of their code.
What does standards have to do with security. I could write the most std compliant webbrowser with 100's of faults, or the most secure proprietary extension-of-HTML app. They are mutually exclusive.... Their inclination to writing things their own way has to with self interest and perhaps laziness. If they had created std based IE, I seriously doubt their engineers would have spent any MORE or LESS time on security.
It's not in their economic interest to write secure apps.
Another idiotic notion. You don't think it costs money to fix security holes? Have you read anything about the process of regression testing and version testing against countless versions of IE and regional and language specifics versions. That costs time and money. It is in everyone's interest to write secure apps. However it may not have been properly prioritized. MS is gigantic huge enormous. They have so much code all over the place, obviously they have not managed security well, but EVERYTHING you write sounds like a screaming child who doesn't have a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
Does code being open or closed imply anything about its merchantability or its quality for that matter?
So what's your point? What is informative?
What does "Costs $99 per license" have to do with being open-source? Just because something is open source it does not mean that someone can't charge fees for it.
"Support" is a need as is "ability to support". So what you are saying is superfluous.
I do not see your connection between coercing update and having no interest in being secure. There is no "upgrade" to fix ALL security problems in IE for example. Furthermore, people still use Win2K as opposed to XP and end up with virtually the same problem. There is NO incentive to upgrade to the next OS to gaurantee security. ... In the context of security your argument is yet again worthless. ... And who said anything about me? What I choose to use is irrelevant to the case in point.
Your comparison is very weak. First of all those products don't compare to software. Software requires every changing support for newer features and applications. Consumer products such as you mention work pretty much the same over time (fridge needs electricity, car needs gas, toilet needs water). If one of those dependancies changes, then yes you will need "updated support".
Furthermore, ending support for an outdated product is standard business practice. As markets change if there is a need to support it then someone or something will step up (legacy support, etc.). I mean does anyone check for security bugs on the 2.0 kernel?
Your fragmentation example also is terrible. First of all on the OS's MS has been consolidating their systems. The 9x series was dropped in favor or NT kernels. XP works virtually identical to 2K and Vista will undoubtedly use that same core. Heck, viruses affected XP/2K/2003 almost identically. And having 7 versions is not technically fragmenting, as you have seen in technical articles in the past sometimes differences in revisions in Windows is merely a few files or registry changes.
What does standards have to do with security. I could write the most std compliant webbrowser with 100's of faults, or the most secure proprietary extension-of-HTML app. They are mutually exclusive.
Another idiotic notion. You don't think it costs money to fix security holes? Have you read anything about the process of regression testing and version testing against countless versions of IE and regional and language specifics versions. That costs time and money. It is in everyone's interest to write secure apps. However it may not have been properly prioritized. MS is gigantic huge enormous. They have so much code all over the place, obviously they have not managed security well, but EVERYTHING you write sounds like a screaming child who doesn't have a clue.