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

In <d3mvq4$nej$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 04/14/05
at 04:56 PM, "Fritz Schlunder" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:


><learning@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:425ef3d5$1$woehfu$mr2ice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> 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.


>Oh I wasn't giving them kudos. I called them degenerate elements of
>society.

Well, I was referring more to the technological pedastal you put them on,
as if it requires any genius to write a virus. BTDT, its not a big thing.


>> 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.


>There is an important difference between your analogy and the situation
>with MS products.

Yes, and you didn't get it :-) I pointed out that the way we react to
those flaws in every other element of society is to cause the manufacturer
to deal with it, directly, efficiently, and quickly. When viruses spread
across the planet, shutting down businesses, and potentially harming
people who depend on the computer to run trains, planes, safety systems
etc, the only people getting blamed are the hackers, while the M$ lackies
are out in force telling everyone that M$ is doing all they can to avert
the problems, when that is just not the truth at all.

>and they are crafty and adaptable just like humans are. In the absence
>of technology that fundamentally alters the dynamics of the situation,
>the germs will remain one step ahead of those working to combat them.

If a germ is propagated only by anal sex, and you stop having anal sex,
you don't have a virus anymore. Germs cannot adapt to deal with measures
known to stop the spread of the disease. Germs might stay one step ahead,
but humans can control the method used to spread those germs.

>Well I do agree that Microsoft probably could make less vulnerable
>products out of the box if they spent more time and effort during the
>design considering every possible vulnerability.

This is where we don't see eye to eye :-) I am in agreement that any OS
can be compromised by a concerted effort, but M$ can either eliminate self
opening emails, and forbide applications from taking over the OS, or they
can just keep letting hackers have the keys, the wheel, and a full tank
of gas.

My position is not to that we need to constrict the OS so that absolutely
nothing can go wrong. That is not possible. What is possible is to get rid
of some of the 'features' that are so obviously responsible for
practically all the virus/spyware issues we are seeing. They will never
all go away. Linux and OS/2 can be infected. I agreed with that, but those
systems purposely restrict what a wayward or unwelcome app can do, and M$
ought to do the same thing in the name of security and safety, for the
benefit of their customers.

>Indeed they should
>probably do this. I wouldn't suggest going so far in this effort that it
>paralyzes new product development and the furtherment of human technology
>however.

What new product development? XP? There is nothing new there. M$'s new
product development consists of buying out competitors and killing their
products. I am in favor of new technology, but I search in vain for an
example of it coming out of Redmond. How about IE? That puppy hasn't been
updated for like three or four years. New technology? If there was any,
people would get excited, use it, and maybe not be so quick to jump on
M$'s refusal to deal with the problems. They had a chance when they
ditched the Win9* architecture, but no, we just got the same old problems
in a new environment.

Having been around and worked on the early development of microprocessors
and the PC, I had high hopes. M$ wrecked those hopes, in the name of $$$,
when they could have had both.

> Don't get me wrong, Microsoft isn't perfect, and they do have
>room to improve. On the other hand, they aren't just a bunch of evil
>villians deliberately making products designed to frustrate people's
>existances.

I see a lot of "I love Microsoft" in that statement <g> You are entitled
to that mindset, as much as I am gonna stay on the "I think they suck"
bandwagon.

The world of computing would be a much better place if there was
competition, and a level playing field. M$ is keeing things down, and not
preventing progress in the computer world. without competitors to show
customers that they can have secure computers and great features, there is
no way the masses will ever see what it is that they are missing. How much
money does one company really need?

Thanks,

JB
.

Relevant Pages

  • Frogs gotta virus
    ... French fighter planes were unable to take off after military computers ... were infected by a computer virus, ... the French navy admitted that during the time it took to ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Is AV software necessary?
    ... > spread updated virus definitions. ... > installations by installing Norton bloatware. ... For instance, I know better than to open attachments from strangers, but it ... majority of those computers either don't have AV software or they have ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers)
  • Re: Is AV software necessary?
    ... > spread updated virus definitions. ... > installations by installing Norton bloatware. ... For instance, I know better than to open attachments from strangers, but it ... majority of those computers either don't have AV software or they have ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: AntiVirus
    ... would be some sort of abnormal behavior. ... So far my 2 computers are ... The plural form of Virus is Viruses. ... Symantec has. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Virus Scanners
    ... functions, etc...It checks for signatures. ... it has a technology called Bloodhound which stands for its ... It works with another technology called Striker. ... Subject: Virus Scanners ...
    (Security-Basics)