Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: ottomobiehl on December 12, 2003, 02:07:55 AM
-
I was scanning through some news today when I found this (http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-spoof1212,0,4153768.story?coll=ny-business-headlines).
My favorite part of the story is the Microsoft Bit.
A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company is investigating the flaw. The company also chastised security experts for releasing the information to the public before giving Microsoft a chance to fix the bug.
How about making sure the product is done before shipping it out. Like making a half-baked loaf of bread and then serving it to people. :-)
-
Well, until a bug is found it's not a bug. So really, this can happen to any software.
-
adolescent wrote:
Well, until a bug is found it's not a bug. So really, this can happen to any software.
True. But as the saying goes, "The more you overwork the plumbing the easier it is to clog up the pipes." (Paraphrasing) :-)
I know Microsoft isn't the only company who is guilty of this.
-
adolescent wrote:
Well, until a bug is found it's not a bug. So really, this can happen to any software.
True, but this kind of thing happens all the time in all things M$. :-x
-
That´s why I prefer to use only Opera V7 on my pc for browsing and mailing. I only use IE when a site won´t work with Opera, but I handle NO mails with Outlook, only with Opera !!!
-
I use an electric generator powered by burning cow turds for my house's power needs, just in case Bill Gates has a share in the local power company. Everyone give me a pat (not of the cow variety) on the back for not endorsing M$...
-
There's a demonstration page (http://www.zapthedingbat.com/security/ex01/vun1.htm), too.
-
That news doesn't bother me, I stop using IE about three months ago and ive been a Netscape man ever since! :-D
-
Seriously, is anyone else getting tired of the microsoft bashing? Yes their software is buggy, yes their software is insecure, but can you honestly say that AmigaOS is less bugy and more secure when Windows has a larger tester/user base and thus more of a chance to find bugs/security flaws?
When someone brings me a peice of software that is bugless i'll declair hell frozen over. But beware, i was tought that hello world programs have bugs :) Every peice of software has bugs, you just have to look harder and harder to find them the longer you keep fixing them!
Also, if something is marked as stable and/or reliable, all that means is that no major bugs exist that anyone knows of that should keep back the release of some program. I garrentee that AmigaOS will have a lot of bugs after its released, then same goes for morphos, linux, everything!
-
Well, until a bug is found it's not a bug.
Pardon?
-
Rodney wrote:
Seriously, is anyone else getting tired of the microsoft bashing?
No. Bad coding should always result in bad publicity. Microsoft seem never to test their stuff - with their budget bugs like this are absolutely inexcusable, and a prime example why their monopoly is detrimental if not debilitating to the computing scene.
-
No. Bad coding should always result in bad publicity. Microsoft seem never to test their stuff - with their budget bugs like this are absolutely inexcusable, and a prime example why their monopoly is detrimental if not debilitating to the computing scene.
Im not even sure MS have bad programming practices. No one knows that unless they work there.
But even so, MS products are some of the most complicated software in the world. Especialy with their OS. It'd be damn hard to manage a project that large.
Software Engineering is a very new profession in terms of professions. We didnt learn to make bridgets over night and some still fall down. I remember one feel down in tasmania whilst only just being finished or still under construction. There still needs to be better models and designs pattersn worked out.
Microsoft have good products and thats why their the most dominate Software house in the world!
-
No. Bad coding should always result in bad publicity. Microsoft seem never to test their stuff - with their budget bugs like this are absolutely inexcusable, and a prime example why their monopoly is detrimental if not debilitating to the computing scene.
I hardly go around defending MS all the time, but I disagree with you here.
This is a fairly obscure vulnerability, even though it appears simple. But, as with many things, the "solution" appears simple once it has been found. Many other vulns have been found in IE6 SP1 since it was released late last year.
Microsoft do have an awesome budget at their disposal, but I don't think it's QA that is the problem here, it's that functionality is regarded as a far higher priority than security, reliability and performance. The last three factors do not directly earn MS money. Functionality is something definite that can be heralded by their sales/marketing reps. Security, reliability and performance aren't anywhere near so easily marketed.
If people honestly judge Windows, it should be admitted that Windows for example is a fairly awesome product, and in many respects far ahead of the competition for the audience it is primarily aimed at (average desktop users). However, its main problem is that, a bit like with Netscape 4x, true innovation has plateaued. What is needed is for it to break out of that mould, which to a certain extent in the case of Netscape 4x, Mozilla did, and Firebird/Thunderbird has done also to a greater extent. However, "breaking out of the mould" for a business is risky, and while in long development, doesn't earn them any money.
-
But even so, MS products are some of the most complicated software in the world. Especialy with their OS. It'd be damn hard to manage a project that large.
Ok, it is more difficult to manage a larger project, however MS are in a mess of their own making. For example, the only reason IE is integrated into the OS is to push out browser competition. All the other little features it has brought all stem from that bad intention ("what can we offer our users to distract them from the fact that we screwed them?"). It was implemented badly, the idea is flawed, and so Windows has a largely increased number of attack vectors as a result. The project was unnecessarily complicated.
-
Rodney wrote:
But even so, MS products are some of the most complicated software in the world. Especialy with their OS. It'd be damn hard to manage a project that large.
They've only made it hard for themselves by poor visualisation of new additions and even poorer execution. DLL hell and most of the other criticisms of Windows comes directly from this.
Microsoft have good products and thats why their the most dominate Software house in the world!
If you went by that logic, IBM or Sun Microsystems would dominate the world, since their software is a lot better than Microsoft's.
Microsoft dominate the world because they bundled their bad software with PCs, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with their skills. If the market was open to real competition Microsoft would do very badly, unless they improved a lot.
-
I think I discovered a bug in IE:
Type any adress in the URL bar, preceded by "://" withouth the parentheses.
Crashes in XP ;)
-
When i say best software, im not talking about how buggy it is or insecure because all software has these characteristics. Im talking about its features. Also, im not neccessarily talking about their OS. Im talking about MSOffice and other applications. Their Office suit is one reason why their so HUGE. Because that is a good office suit and no other office suit comes close. OO is good but not as good as MSOffice.
The thing is, geeks often run around accusing MS of all the wrong when similar flaws are found in their favourite products but when it happens, they think its ok cause a patch will be out soon.
Linux is a good example of this. Because of linux's fast adoption, more security flaws are being found. The only difference is that the linux community fix these problems very fast indeed. The opensource model is a good model for secure programs and less buggy software but it still has its disadvantages, like those Wayne pointed out a few years ago when trying to find good web-content software.
Most people just bitch about Windows these days because its the fashionable thing to do. When linux is a huge monopolly everyone will prolly flock to BSD and start bitching about linux.
-
People running unpatched Win+IE installations might want to have fun with this (http://www.u-muppet.co.uk/prez.htm) little christmas present for a while.
(Nothing harmful. At least not if you don't have a desktop computer with a cup of coffee or a can of Cocal Cola standing in front of it...)
Did it work?
-
@ Lemonty
Doesn't crash IE here. IE6 SP1 / Win2kSP4.
-
When i say best software, im not talking about how buggy it is or insecure
Ok. Here's an example.
Web brower X has all the features anyone might ever want in a web browser.
However, anyone with the simplest of exploits can get your credit card details, access to any files on your hard disk, and trash your machine.
Is it still the web browser in your opinion?
-
Linux is a good example of this. Because of linux's fast adoption, more security flaws are being found.
I agree, in that this will hold true with any product as its usage increases. However, if a vulnerability is found in one product by the security community, competing products are also usually tested to see if they also are vulnerable, and reports made accordingly.
With this in mind, there are, on average, 20 unfixed vulnerabilities in the most up-to-date, patched version of IE. 6, on average are "critical" vulnerabilities. Compare to competing web browsers, say Mozilla/derivatives and Opera, where there is on average one unfixed vulnerability at any time.
I said previously about MS prioritising functionality far over security, reliability and performance. I'll add to that now. What is far more dangerous about MS software is that by default, the state in which the product is shipped to the customer, is with everything wide open. On other operating systems, for example - ssh on UNIX derivatives, you can't log in remotely as the 'root' (highest privileges) user by default. It has to be configured to do that.
When linux is a huge monopolly
Unless some company chooses to adopt MS typical tactics (which should be illegal), no operating system will ever have a monopoly. Why? Because users will always have a choice. The opposite is a monopoly situation, when users have little or no choice.
-
It seems like alot of the little security problems found in Microsoft Products are found by these companies that test the software for security bugs. Why doesn't Microsoft have something like that in place before they release their products or at least hire these companies to help them out before they release their products.:-?
The other thing is that without any decent competition Microsoft IMHO has gotten lazy. I think if they had to fight for 40 or 50 percent of the worlds marketshare they would be a lean, mean coding machine. That is also why I have such High hopes for OS 4. We know they are starting from the bottom so they have to make sure everything is tight and works well. ;-) And I [color=006699]know[/color][/b][/i][/u] that they are going to pull it off. :-D
-
It seems like alot of the little security problems found in Microsoft Products are found by these companies that test the software for security bugs. Why doesn't Microsoft have something like that in place before they release their products or at least hire these companies to help them out before they release their products
No amount of in-house testing, short of never releasing a piece of software such as a web browser, will ever provide as thorough testing as in the outside world.
The people who are employed at security companies, or just active members of the security community, are pretty damn clever people. Many of them probably used to crack/hack into systems as well, and in some cases, particularly security-related, the phrase "to catch a thief" springs to mind :-)
Also bear in mind that IE earns MS no direct revenue. How much can a business justify spending on such a product? Which is why MS announced they wouldn't be releasing any standalone new versions of IE, only as part of new operating system releases.
Also, if a company can get away with shovelling bug-filled crap and customers buy it, why should they bother improving their QA, unless their revenue stream is at risk.
The other thing is that without any decent competition Microsoft IMHO has gotten lazy. I think if they had to fight for 40 or 50 percent of the worlds marketshare they would be a lean, mean coding machine.
Variety is the spice of life. Competition certainly spices it up as well :-)