Re: XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of users want fixed

> 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.


.