XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of us

[Guy Macon]

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


-------------------------------------------------------------------

In an interview for German weekly magazine FOCUS (nr.43, October
23,1995, pages 206-212), Microsoft`s Mr. Bill Gates has made some
statements about software quality of MS products. [See executive
summary, below.] After lengthy inquiries about how PCs should
and could be used (including some angry comments on some questions
which Mr. Gates evidently did not like), the interviewer comes to
storage requirements of MS products; it ends with the following
dispute:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

FOCUS:
Every new release of a software which has less bugs than the older
one is also more complex and has more features...

Gates:
No, only if that is what'll sell!

FOCUS:
But...

Gates:
Only if that is what'll sell! We've never done a piece of software
unless we thought it would sell. That's why everything we do in
software ... it's really amazing: We do it because we think that's
what customers want. That's why we do what we do.

FOCUS:
But on the other hand - you would say: Okay, folks, if you don't
like these new features, stay with the old version, and keep the
bugs?

Gates:
No! We have lots and lots of competitors. The new version - it's
not there to fix bugs. That's not the reason we come up with a new
version.

FOCUS:
But there are bugs an any version which people would really like
to have fixed.

Gates:
No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that
any significant number of users want fixed.

FOCUS:
Oh, my God. I always get mad at my computer if MS Word swallows
the page numbers of a document which I printed a couple of times
with page numbers. If I complain to anybody they say "Well, upgrade
from version 5.11 to 6.0".

Gates:
No! If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug.
Maybe you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that?

FOCUS:
Yeah, I did...

Gates:
It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly,
so you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new
versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the
stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard. When we
do a new version we put in lots of new things that people are
asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move
to a new version. It's never a reason.

FOCUS:
How come I keep being told by computer vendors "Well, we know
about this bug, wait till the next version is there, it'll be
fixed"? I hear this all the time. How come? If you're telling
me there are no significant bugs in software and there is no
reason to do a new version?

Gates:
No. I'm saying: We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't.
Not enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people
using Microsoft Word. Call them up and say "Would you buy a new
version because of bugs?" You won't get a single person to say
they'd buy a new version because of bugs. We'd never be able to
sell a release on that basis.

FOCUS:
Probably you have other contacts to your software developers.
But if Mister Anybody, like me, calls up a store or a support
line and says, "Hey listen, there's a bug" ... 90 percent of the
time I get the answer "Oh, well, yeah, that's not too bad, wait
to the next version and it'll be fixed". That's how the system
works.

Gates:
Guess how much we spend on phone calls every year.

FOCUS:
Hm, a couple of million dollars?

Gates:
500 million dollars a year. We take every one of these phone calls
and classify them. That's the input we use to do the next version.
So it's like the worlds biggest feedback loop. People call in - we
decide what to do on it. Do you want to know what percentage of
those phonecalls relates to bugs in the software? Less than one
percent.

FOCUS:
So people call in to say "Hey listen, I would love to have this
and that feature"?

Gates:
Actually, that's about five percent. Most of them call to get
advice on how to do a certain thing with the software. That's
the primary thing. We could have you sit and listen to these
phone calls. There are millions and millions of them. It really
isn't statistically significant. Sit in and listen to Win 95
calls, sit in and listen to Word calls, and wait, just wait for
weeks and weeks for someone to call in and say "Oh, I found a
bug in this thing". ...

FOCUS:
So where does this common feeling of frustration come from that
unites all the PC users? Everybody experiences it every day that
these things simply don't work like they should.

Gates:
Because it's cool. It's like, "Yeah, been there done that - oh,
yeah, I know that bug." - I can understand that phenomenon
sociologically, not technically.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary:

So...

Bug reports are statistically, therefore actually, unimportant;

If you want a bug fixed, you are (by definition) in the minority;

Microsoft doesn't care about bugs because bug fixes are not a
significant source of revenue;

If you think you found a bug, it really only means you're
incompetent;

Anyway, people only complain about bugs to show how cool they
are, not because bugs cause any real problems.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

(Not all software is as unreliable as Microsoft's. For example,
PCs running Linux often run for many months without need to
reboot for any reason.)

Text for this page is extracted from the RISKS archive:
<http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.44.html>

This is the raw interview transcript (from which the magazine
article was transcribed in German) kindly provided by the
interviewer, Dr. Jürgen Scriba.

The introductory text at the top is from Klaus Brunnstein, as
found in <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.43.html>.

This page is also available in Italiano, Espańol, and Japanese.

(A big Thank You to Drs. Scriba, Brunnstein, Neumann, and
Marshall for making this material available, to Michele
Beltrame for the Italian translation, to Ińaky Peréz Gonzáles
for the castellano translation, and SHINYAMA Yusuke
<euske@cl.cs.titech.ac.jp> for the Japanese translation.)

If you maintain a web page, you are encouraged to make a link
to this one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Send email: ncm@cantrip.org
Copyright Š1996 by Nathan Myers. All Rights Reserved.
URL: <http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html>

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Luddites don't know how to use software properly" -Bill Gates

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[John Larkin]

That's correct. To Microsoft, neither bugs nor users are significant.

John

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in message
news:115sqq25avpgh3b@corp.supernews.com...

FOCUS:
So where does this common feeling of frustration come from that
unites all the PC users? Everybody experiences it every day that
these things simply don't work like they should.

Gates:
Because it's cool. It's like, "Yeah, been there done that - oh,
yeah, I know that bug." - I can understand that phenomenon
sociologically, not technically.

Well Bill Gates does have a point here. It has become "cool" to criticize a
number of things in our society somewhat regardless of the current reality.
For example most people in school, often even at the university level, will
complain with each other about how much school sucks. People at the college
level aren't forced to go to school, so if it really sucked so much overall
they would stop doing it (or change majors if that was the problem).
Similarly people like to criticize the government. They criticize them
about everything and are super suspicious about what they say or anything
they ever do. Seeing as how the government is theoretically "for the
people, by the people," then this means that ordinary people that criticize
should do something about it to fix the problem. Yet they don't. A
substantial fraction of these complainers never vote nor do they pay
anywhere near close enough attention to current events to even make comments
about the way the government is handling things.

As for Microsoft... I've have personally observed that Bill Gates is very
accurate in claiming it is "cool" to criticize MS products for bugs. In the
case of Win95 and Win98, the criticism was fully justified. Those were just
plain buggy products. Released versions of the NT core products (NT 4.0,
Win2000, XP) have never been very buggy, indeed all of those products can
run for weeks or months at a time without need for reboot. Some may
disagree with this idea. Almost all problems that you might encounter that
seemingly need rebooting to be fixed can be fixed without a reboot if you
know how.

Currently the biggest source of frustration comes from things like viruses,
worms, adware, spam, etc. These aren't exactly Microsoft's fault. In the
case of the bugs in Win95/98, those were clearly Microsoft's sole
responsibility. They created them and they should have been the ones to fix
them. In the case of things like viruses, adware, spam, etc. the problem
isn't caused by Microsoft. The problem is caused by degenerate elements of
society that have obtained excessively high levels of technological
sophistication. Granted Microsoft is the only single entity in the world
that has the power to make a difference in this problem, but they weren't
the cause of these problems, and to blame them isn't exactly fair.

I contend that any software products as complicated as those produced by
Microsoft are bound to have security issues. Partly security is a tradeoff
between ease of use and functionality. Increasing the built in security of
a product often results in the product being harder to use and not as
functional. If the makers of these viruses/worms/adware/etc. were to target
other operating systems such as Linux, I'm confident that they would
successfully be able to find plenty of exploitable security holes in those
as well (especially since they have source code to look at). The reason
these problems don't seem so relevant with regards to Linux is because the
makers of these exploits don't design for Linux. Partly Linux is an
operating system that is fond to them personally, so many of them might not
ever even conceive of something so malicious. Additionally there just
aren't enough users of Linux to be as juicy a target as MS products. And
then we go back to the "coolness" factor.

If wouldn't be very "cool" for a hacker to brag to his fellow cronies about
how he made an exploit for Linux. It is however socially acceptable and
cool to make MS look bad by making exploits for their products. And so the
net result is MS products are targeted, other are not, and it furthers the
idea that MS products aren't stable/reliable/secure/etc.

One more thing about coolness. You posted this article to this newsgroup.
Might this have something to do with you trying to be "cool" or otherwise
socially acceptable?

 

[Joerg]

Hello Guy,

"Gates: No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that
any significant number of users want fixed. "

LOL. If he realized how important it is to listen they could sell so
much more.

"Luddites don't know how to use software properly" -Bill Gates

Problem is, he doesn't seem to understand what people really expect from
software. Meaning the kind of people willing to plunk down serious money.

Thus my philosophy is never to upgrade SW or an OS unless there is a
show-stopper reason for it. When I can buy an older version with a
proven track record versus a glitzy new version, I will buy the older
version.

The only OS from Microsoft that is high quality by my standards is MS-DOS.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

"Fritz Schlunder" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:d3mkma$9s4$1@domitilla.aioe.org...

Currently the biggest source of frustration comes from things like
viruses,
worms, adware, spam, etc. These aren't exactly Microsoft's fault. In the
case of the bugs in Win95/98, those were clearly Microsoft's sole
responsibility. They created them and they should have been the ones to
fix
them. In the case of things like viruses, adware, spam, etc. the problem
isn't caused by Microsoft. The problem is caused by degenerate elements
of
society that have obtained excessively high levels of technological
sophistication. Granted Microsoft is the only single entity in the world
that has the power to make a difference in this problem, but they weren't
the cause of these problems, and to blame them isn't exactly fair.

Oh, one more thing about security. Microsoft does care about security, and
they are doing things to actively combat these problems. They are
constantly releasing large quantities of security updates and other fixes on
a very regular basis. They have also made it much easier for regular people
to apply them by making the update Windows feature. To a certain extent
they are already doing pretty much all that is reasonably within their
power.

I do have one complaint though. I assume they still currently do this,
though I don't know for certain. I know in the past Microsoft has released
security bulletins which detail the possible security loopholes alongside
with the fixes. Since the fixes take some time to distribute, they in
effect alert hackers of the weakness before immunity has reach the general
computer populace. Several very significant and effective exploits have
been made specifically as a consequence of these security bulletins released
by Microsoft. Obviously Microsoft should bear some responsibility in these
cases since they themselves played a role in helping out the degenerate
elements of society. Still, no company or decision making process is
perfect. The important part is if they learn from past mistakes and change
their policies for the future. I don't know if they have or not.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Fritz Schlunder" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:d3ml9h$ama$1@domitilla.aioe.org...

I know in the past Microsoft has released
security bulletins which detail the possible security loopholes alongside
with the fixes.

They're in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" scenario here. If
they just tell you, "Hey, here's a new patch that increases security, but
we're not going to tell you exactly what it fixes," people will accuse them
of installing spyware or something equally bad.

 

[Charles Schuler]

Well Bill Gates does have a point here. It has become "cool" to criticize
a
number of things in our society somewhat regardless of the current
reality.
For example most people in school, often even at the university level,
will
complain with each other about how much school sucks. People at the
college
level aren't forced to go to school, so if it really sucked so much
overall
they would stop doing it (or change majors if that was the problem).

Gee, you struck a nerve there. I taught college for 33 years. Later in my
career, I noticed that everything sucked for many of those
wet-behind-the-ears critics ... the professors, the food, the lab equipment,
the textbooks, and just about everything but them!

Similarly people like to criticize the government. They criticize them
about everything and are super suspicious about what they say or anything
they ever do. Seeing as how the government is theoretically "for the
people, by the people," then this means that ordinary people that
criticize
should do something about it to fix the problem. Yet they don't. A
substantial fraction of these complainers never vote nor do they pay
anywhere near close enough attention to current events to even make
comments
about the way the government is handling things.

Sigh! How true. I can barely tolerate the bitchers after I find out that
they don't vote at all or vote a mindless partly line. A pox on them.

As for Microsoft... I've have personally observed that Bill Gates is very
accurate in claiming it is "cool" to criticize MS products for bugs. In
the
case of Win95 and Win98, the criticism was fully justified. Those were
just
plain buggy products. Released versions of the NT core products (NT 4.0,
Win2000, XP) have never been very buggy, indeed all of those products can
run for weeks or months at a time without need for reboot. Some may
disagree with this idea. Almost all problems that you might encounter
that
seemingly need rebooting to be fixed can be fixed without a reboot if you
know how.

Bill Gates is just a human being. His big mistake was in becoming too
successful. America (don't know about other cultures) applauds a little
success but boos too much of it.

Currently the biggest source of frustration comes from things like
viruses,
worms, adware, spam, etc. These aren't exactly Microsoft's fault. In the
case of the bugs in Win95/98, those were clearly Microsoft's sole
responsibility. They created them and they should have been the ones to
fix
them. In the case of things like viruses, adware, spam, etc. the problem
isn't caused by Microsoft. The problem is caused by degenerate elements
of
society that have obtained excessively high levels of technological
sophistication. Granted Microsoft is the only single entity in the world
that has the power to make a difference in this problem, but they weren't
the cause of these problems, and to blame them isn't exactly fair.

And when Linux becomes as popular, the virus writers will go after that OS
and bring it to it's knees. Damned unfortunate that some folks can't
understand that the biggest kid is the target.

I contend that any software products as complicated as those produced by
Microsoft are bound to have security issues. Partly security is a
tradeoff
between ease of use and functionality. Increasing the built in security
of
a product often results in the product being harder to use and not as
functional. If the makers of these viruses/worms/adware/etc. were to
target
other operating systems such as Linux, I'm confident that they would
successfully be able to find plenty of exploitable security holes in those
as well (especially since they have source code to look at). The reason
these problems don't seem so relevant with regards to Linux is because the
makers of these exploits don't design for Linux. Partly Linux is an
operating system that is fond to them personally, so many of them might
not
ever even conceive of something so malicious. Additionally there just
aren't enough users of Linux to be as juicy a target as MS products. And
then we go back to the "coolness" factor.

Microsoft has "stepped up to the plate" when it comes to security. And
Linux would/could do the same?

If wouldn't be very "cool" for a hacker to brag to his fellow cronies
about
how he made an exploit for Linux. It is however socially acceptable and
cool to make MS look bad by making exploits for their products. And so
the
net result is MS products are targeted, other are not, and it furthers the
idea that MS products aren't stable/reliable/secure/etc.

Topple, bruise, embarrass the big guy ... it's just that Microsoft is an
attractive target.

Coolness is a fleeting psychological phenomenon.

Microsoft products are a good buy. Flame away. I'll keep buying,
regardless of what "cool" detractors have to say. I'll quit buying when
better stuff is out there at the same price. Disclaimer: HAVE NEVER WORKED
FOR MICROSOFT OR OWNED THEIR STOCK OR BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THEM IN ANY
REMUNERATIVE WAY.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:54:09 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

The only OS from Microsoft that is high quality by my standards is MS-DOS.

That's because IBM debugged it for them.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Charles Schuler
<charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote (in
<KOedneLLgbjmf8PfRVn-vQ@comcast.com&gt about 'XP has no significant bugs
that any significant number of users want fixed', on Thu, 14 Apr 2005:

Later in my career, I noticed that everything sucked for many of those
wet-behind-the-ears critics ... the professors, the food, the lab
equipment, the textbooks, and just about everything but them!

Well, that's what they are supposed, as students, to do! Challenge the
established order, in order to change it for the better. But their
appalling incoherence disguises this. If they were to say 'This, that
AND the other are in considerable need of improvement.', you might not
be so dismayed by their attitude.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

Currently the biggest source of frustration comes from things like
viruses,
worms, adware, spam, etc. These aren't exactly Microsoft's fault. The problem is caused by degenerate elements
of
society that have obtained excessively high levels of technological
sophistication.

It does not take a Harvard Graduate to create and propagate a virus. Its
really rather easy, so don't be giving kudos to hackers who are still in
high school. Windows is the only OS on earth that allows a virus to take
it over, run programs, and send itself off to every port on the internet.
You can infect a MAC, or OS/2 and Linux, but you cannot make them
propagate the virus over the network.

It is okay to say its not M$'s fault. Their goal has never been security,
or virus free computers. On the other hand, if we bought cars that didn't
have windshields, and our faces were pockmarked from all the rocks flying
about at 75MPH, we may blame the rocks, but we turn to the car maker to
fix the obvious problem and protect our faces. The car makers don't wait
till a lot of people get their heads smashed before seeing and fixing the
problem.

When there is a design flaw found in car seats that can injure a child if
the car turns over during a crash, we might say its the driver's fault for
crashing the car and flipping it over, but we look to the car seat
manufacturer to defend against the problem of crashes. The car seat makers
are responsible enough to not wait for thousands of children to die before
taking responsibility and fixing the problem.

When someone creates software that deliberately lays itself open to attack
from hackers, then let us blame the hackers, but look to the software
maker to FIX the problem. Microsoft does not fix security issues, the
offer updates after the fact. That is akin to waiting till your eyes are
crushed from lack of a windshield, and then Ford gives you a coupon for
safety glasses, or your child is killed in a crash, and you get a discount
on the funeral.

True, there is a difference between life and death, and software, but the
attitude of "its not their fault" flies in the face of the way we deal
with every other manufacturer of products.

The inherent design of windows software is flawed because bg wants every
program to have access to every other program, he wants emails to open
automatically, movies to pop up and run, and he wants his web site to be
able to access your machine through IE.

That is his privilege, but if we want security, and fewer viruses and
spyware, we ought to go back to the guy who makes the software and say
"hey, patches after the fact are nice, but we want something more secure
than that to begin with" and they ought to provide it.

IE and Outlook are the "criminals" in much of this. It does not take much
of a brain to write a virus, and ask windows to propogate it by launching
itself out over IP port based on the address book in Outlook.

Oh, one more thing about security. Microsoft does care about security,
and they are doing things to actively combat these problems. They are
constantly releasing large quantities of security updates and other fixes
on a very regular basis.

These all happen after the fact tho. Viruses hit, people suffer the
consequences, and then there is a patch. Big deal, ..... by then, several
vendors already have a fix on the street.

Auto updates are wonderful for those with broadband, but don't pat bill on
the head for giving dialup customers a 135M download to get updated
and don't talk to people I know who get the auto updates, and their system
becomes unstable, or crashes even more. Stores are full of AOL, and other
ISP software, but if you want SP2 because the software you just paid a
hundred bucks for is exposed to all the world to infect, just send bg $15
and in two to three weeks, M$ will send you a CD. Brilliant marketing
scheme, but hardly defensible to the average user.

They have also made it much easier for regular
people to apply them by making the update Windows feature. To a certain
extent they are already doing pretty much all that is reasonably within
their power.

It is within their power to fix 90% (I made that number up) of the
problems by simply configuring it out of the box to close many of the
holes that are not design flaws, but designs on purpose.

When folks quit using IE, and ditch Outlook, then they go along way
towards solving many problems. A few sites demand IE, so keep it around
(good luck getting rid of it anyway <g&gt but use Mozilla/Firefox/Opera
browsers. There are alternate mail programs that will not be subject to
viruses.

Obviously Microsoft should bear some
responsibility in these cases since they themselves played a role in
helping out the degenerate elements of society.

If Yale starts to make door locks that pop open for no good reason and let
crminals into our homes, I am not sure that folks would be willing forgive
and forget just because it was the degenerates that did the actual
stealing. Why are some folks so willing to just let M$ "walk" when they
bear so much responibility for the existence of the potential problems?

Still, no company or
decision making process is perfect. The important part is if they learn
from past mistakes and change their policies for the future. I don't
know if they have or not.

Even GM and Ford don't take 10 years to get things straightened out when
there are major issues. What is M$'s excuse for not caring to solve the
basic problems inherent in every M$ OS since the internet came to the
forefront? Their product is flawed in design, right out of the chute. No
one cares, everyone just makes excuses for them.

Some people keep trying to convince the masses that M$ loves them, and is
not to blame when hackers send out viruses.

I know, I have a real problem with M$, but I have a bigger problem with
people who want to defend them by blaming hackers for everything, when
anyone with a brain and desire can configure their system to eliminate
nearly all virus and spyware. If they can do it, why can't microsoft make
it so right out of the box?

I think we learned all we needed to know about Gates and his company from
the facts that came out in the trial, and from the way they are carrying
on in court with the EU.

JB

 

[Charles Schuler]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:Xt$BTf8tuuXCFwrf@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Charles Schuler
charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote (in <KOedneLLgbjmf8PfRVn-vQ@comcast.com&gt
about 'XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of users want
fixed', on Thu, 14 Apr 2005:

Later in my career, I noticed that everything sucked for many of those
wet-behind-the-ears critics ... the professors, the food, the lab
equipment, the textbooks, and just about everything but them!

Well, that's what they are supposed, as students, to do! Challenge the
established order, in order to change it for the better. But their
appalling incoherence disguises this. If they were to say 'This, that AND
the other are in considerable need of improvement.', you might not be so
dismayed by their attitude.

You attribute too much to their behavior. They are, for the most part, not
"questioning" critics with a modicum of analytic skills. They are simply
whiners and bitchers. I am not condemning a wide class of human beings. I
am citing a statistical shift toward self-serving, ego-centric behavior that
is endemic in the USA. As to the solid types ... they are still there and
work hard and God bless them as they are our future. They will deal with
the whiners and bitchers more harshly because they will have to.

 

[Charles Schuler]

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:1113518270.079573.304370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Bill Gates is just a human being.
Charles Schuler

Same for Stalin.

Same for you.

 

[Charles Schuler]

Micro$oft's part
was finding immoral and illegal methodologies to merchandise it.

Huh? You make very little sense!

 

In <KOedneLLgbjmf8PfRVn-vQ@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 05:36 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said: >Bill
Gates is just a human being. His big mistake was in becoming too

successful. America (don't know about other cultures) applauds a little
success but boos too much of it.

It was the illegal and unethical methods he used to become successful that
seem to strike the nerve in a lot of people. I don't begrudge people
success, but he broke the law in a major way, and by the time anyone moved
to stop him, the damage was done.

Kudos for being a smart criminal, but not for being a good man with a
quality product.

And when Linux becomes as popular, the virus writers will go after that
OS and bring it to it's knees. Damned unfortunate that some folks can't
understand that the biggest kid is the target.

No. Linux cannot be "taken over" by a virus and used to propagate itself
across a network. It can be infected, but it will not give control to a
virus. Damn shame some folks just dont' understand that without the
ability to move the virus across the network, its pretty much dead in the
water.

target
other operating systems such as Linux, I'm confident that they would
successfully be able to find plenty of exploitable security holes in those
as well (especially since they have source code to look at). The reason
these problems don't seem so relevant with regards to Linux is because the
makers of these exploits don't design for Linux. Partly Linux is an
operating system that is fond to them personally, so many of them might
not
ever even conceive of something so malicious. Additionally there just
aren't enough users of Linux to be as juicy a target as MS products. And
then we go back to the "coolness" factor.

Wrong..... Windows is a prime target because its design does most of the
work of passing the virus along.

Microsoft has "stepped up to the plate" when it comes to security. And
Linux would/could do the same?

Microsoft only steps up, after a virus hits.

Topple, bruise, embarrass the big guy ... it's just that Microsoft is an
attractive target.

I ain't flaming you, but I think you need to see how viruses work before
you can declare every OS to be vulnerable to hackers. Its one thing to
break into a computer, its another to be able to take it over. Can't do
that with a MAC, linux, OS/2, or actually, any other OS. Just windows.

JB

 

In <CYydnbzCqt78bsPfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 06:49 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:

Micro$oft's part
was finding immoral and illegal methodologies to merchandise it.

Huh? You make very little sense!

They stole, blackmailed, and used extortion to obtain an illegal monopoly.
Weren't you paying attention during the trail? Ignorance is no excuse.

JB

 

[Charles Schuler]

I ain't flaming you, but I think you need to see how viruses work before
you can declare every OS to be vulnerable to hackers. Its one thing to
break into a computer, its another to be able to take it over. Can't do
that with a MAC, linux, OS/2, or actually, any other OS. Just windows.

You have made an unequivocal statement and you are dead wrong. There is
nothing special about Windows, other than its popularity. Cell phones are
vulnerable. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Guy Macon]

Fritz Schlunder wrote:

Released versions of the NT core products (NT 4.0, Win2000, XP)
have never been very buggy,

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22List+of+Bugs+Fixed+in+Windows%22

Currently the biggest source of frustration comes from things like viruses,
worms, adware, spam, etc. These aren't exactly Microsoft's fault.

Yes they are. Most of them are exploits of bugs.

I contend that any software products as complicated as those
produced by Microsoft are bound to have security issues.

Microsoft has far, far too many.

they would successfully be able to find plenty of exploitable
security holes in those as well (especially since they have
source code to look at.

You are being too obvious. They don't pay you to just lurch into
a subject change is order to hit every talking point in the current
Microsoft FUD checklist. You are supppsed to make it seem as if the
taling points came up naturally in the course of the conversation.

This will *not* look good on your performance review!

 

[Charles Schuler]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:425ef676$4$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

In <CYydnbzCqt78bsPfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, on 04/14/05
at 06:49 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:



Micro$oft's part
was finding immoral and illegal methodologies to merchandise it.

Huh? You make very little sense!

They stole, blackmailed, and used extortion to obtain an illegal monopoly.
Weren't you paying attention during the trail? Ignorance is no excuse.

Yes, and I'd guess that I paid more attention than many. You sound like a
lawyer sitting on one side of a complex issue and who has a major network
microphone and camera stuck in his face and who is making big money by
distorting facts.

 

[Guy Macon]

Fritz Schlunder wrote:

Oh, one more thing about security. Microsoft does care about security, and
they are doing things to actively combat these problems. They are
constantly releasing large quantities of security updates and other fixes on
a very regular basis.

This is sci.electronics.design. We don't consider it to be a good thing
to release a designe with flaws and then to correct them in the field.
To us, sucess is a product that doesn't *need* to be fixed later.

You might also note that MS is currently gearing up to denying security
fixes to those who have pirated copies. If this only hurt the pirates
I wouldn't shed a tear for them, but many of the bugs allow an attacker
to turn a windows box into a spam-spewing zombie, and that hurts *me*.

 

[Guy Macon]

Charles Schuler wrote:

And when Linux becomes as popular, the virus writers will go after that OS
and bring it to it's knees. Damned unfortunate that some folks can't
understand that the biggest kid is the target.

Actually, the kid who has the most servers is the target. Taking down
some grandma isn't nearly as appealing as taking down eBay, Amazon.com,
or Google.