Re: lets vote for better security

Vanguard
Date: 04/10/05 

Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:42:08 -0500

"Karl Levinson, mvp" <levinson_k@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:OLW1zkdPFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Michael Pelletier" <mjpelletier@mjpelletier.com> wrote in message
> news:ix56e.31346$Xs.2907@fed1read03...
>
>> How many times
>> have you [Microsoft] been caught "sponsoring" the research behind the
>> "studies"?
>
> If you're talking about the most recent study that claimed that Linux
> is not
> more secure than Windows, Microsoft was not "caught" sponsoring the
> research. The researchers fully admitted this in their report.

Microsoft has to do many of the studies because they might be the only
that can afford it. Many companies have to do their own testing or
analysis because no one else can afford it or is interested in doing it.
So you have to read the report with with the assumption that there may
be bias, look for that bias, identify it where you find it, and
determine if it negatively damages the results of that report.

So where is the study from Redhat regarding their own study saying that
their OS is cheaper than Windows and, of course, we're not supposed to
figure there's any bias there, either, uh huh. I suppose you could hunt
around over at http://www.gartner.com/ to find some independent studies.

>> 2) Stop bastardizing the standards. Let's face it, Microsoft is not a
>> company known for developing new Standards on it's own (that work
>> well and
>> are well thought out). Let's face it, when technology people around
>> the
>> World get together to develop a standard they do a much better job
>> than
>> you.
>
> I can't really discuss this statement without some examples.

The problem often lies in the standards themselves. Have you actually
read many RFCs. They are rife with SHOULD and RECOMMENDED statements
which means you do *not* need to obey them to remain RFC compliant. If
the SHOULDs and RECOMMENDs were changed to MUSTs and REQUIREDs then it
would be much easier to measure compliance. For example, an RFC defines
how to physically encode quoted-printable formatted messages but I've
yet to see the RFCs declare how MUAs should format the replies to such
posts. OE "faults" by leaving it as one long logical line which was the
original formatting, but since no RFC dictates how it should be done
then OE really isn't faulting. Another example is the Bcc header.
While most users know that the recipient SHOULD not have the Bcc header
included in their copy of a received e-mail, reading the RFCs shows that
it is allowed but "not recommended". Just because the rule is that you
SHOULD not shove more than 1 billiard ball in your mouth does NOT
preclude someone from shoving 2, or more, in their mouth and still be
compliant with the rule. The RFCs are not the shining explicit pure
standards you profess them to be, and many of the "standards", like the
sigdash, are not standards at all but rather a de facto convention.

> A frequent Microsoft explanation for why they did something a certain
> way is
> because the customers requested it. This explanation is not
> necessarily
> untrue.
>
>> 4) Stop trying to make solutions that are inoperable with other
>> solutions.
>> IBM did it in the 70s and lost. Digital Equipment Corporation did it
>> in
> the
>> 80s and lost..You piss customers off! Work harder at better solutions
>> than
>> working hard at solutions that indenture your customers to you!
>>
>> 4) Get real about security. This involves more Q&A. This involves
>> "less
>> fluff and more stuff"
>
> They have. I'm not sure what reasons you have for not thinking they
> have.

Once the operating system is developed, it's pretty hard to add more
"stuff" that isn't itself more fluff. Do you really think that the disk
cleanup wizard, defragmenter, backup program, calculator, Wordpad,
Windows Media Player, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, Fax service,
Hyperterminal, Paint, and all that other fluff are really part of *just*
the operating system? Not even the desktop UI is part of the operating
system (since it can be substituted by some other desktop UI
*application*).

>> 5) Stop "nickel and diming" your customers! You guys a billionaires
>> do you
>> really need more money? Come on. You do not release some technical
>> resources unless you are a "gold" support customer? What the hell is
>> that
>> about?
>
> You're complaining about paying for technical support? Do you think
> those
> resources cost nothing for MS to create? Do you know of other
> companies,
> open source or not, that put out more and better free tech support
> resources? What other company puts more or less the same
> knowledgebase used
> by their tech support onto the web for free?

I get so used to the depth of articles available at Microsoft's support
site that I quickly get ticked when trying to use knowledgebase's at
other sites. Fact is, all too often in the newsgroups you end up
playing babysitter to lazy poster's that can't bother to first go look
in Microsoft's knowlegebase, and all you end up doing is finding and
giving them the URL to the article (i.e., you're the gopher for the lazy
poster). They had the wherewithall to post to a newsgroup but not
enough initiative to go look at Microsoft. A lot of companies make you
pay through their tech support to access their knowledgebase. He wants
more free support than he already gets. Cheapskate. Well, at least, he
knows to come to newsgroups for an alternate FREE source of help.

>
>> 6) Stop try to prevent/penalize me from using other solutions than
>> Microsoft. If I choose to use Apple or Linux it is MY CHOICE NOT
>> YOURS. If
>> I want a hybrid solution using Microsoft, Apple, Linux IT IS MY
>> CHOICE.
> NOT
>> YOURS! Stop being so damn arrogant.
>
> How have they penalized you?

Yeah, since when has any operating system *inately* supported any other
competitor's operating system? Gee, I must've missed where IBM's VSE,
MVS, and VM support HP-UX and even IBM's own AIX, or I missed where
Solaris supports the full API for Mac OS/X along with *native* support
for all those Mac applications. You can find solutions, like OS
emulators but these run as a native application for the parent OS, and
they aren't supplied by the parent OS developer. You can even find
solutions using hardware, like the Sparc boxes running Solaris that let
you insert a daughtercard that is itself a computer-on-a-card which
provides the hardware platform on which to run Windows (i.e., the
daughtercard runs as a slave host under the Solaris/Sparc host) - if you
want to spend the money on such a solution but it is still not
*natively* supporting another OS within the parent OS. You can get
VMware or Virtual PC but you'll have to buy a copy of each OS you want
to run since none of them are supporting the others. You can multi-boot
to different OS'es in different partitions but, again, there is no
"hybrid" solution. Ford, Dodge, Plymouth, GM, Audi, Volkswagen, Saturn,
Kia, and many other brands of cars drive on the same road but don't
expect Ford to provide some "hybrid" solution that gives you the other
brand cars (ooh, it's a Ford, a mile down it becomes a Subaru, another
mile and half of the car is GM and the other half is Cadillac, yeah,
right). Pay for one car, get dozens of models and brand for the price.
Sounds like a cheapskate, to me. Or maybe he really doesn't have a clue
on how to run multiple operating systems, concurrently or singly, on one
hardware platform.

>
>> Summary:
>> Face it Microsoft. If you do not change you are going to lose.
>> History has
>> proven this. Already, the EU is looking to replace you, The German
>> government has already started. You treat you customer like they are
>> nothing more than mindless revenue streams who's only purpose is to
>> serve
>> you and your monetary needs.

As does the grocer, drug companies and pharmacies, department stores,
and ...

>> You lie.

So far, that assessment is more appropriate applied to yourself.

>> You arm twist. You mistreat your customers.

Yep, one of their representative right now is twisting my arm to use
their products, uh huh. There is no other operating system than
Windows. There are no applications for Windows other than those from
Microsoft. HEY! Owwww. I said what you want so stop twisting my arm
already.

>> You charge an arm and a leg use your software but then write
>> "Micosoft is not responsible for anything" on the software
>> packages...

Don't buy that upgrade or you'll lose your other arm and leg. Then
we'll be deprived of your precious posts and you'll have to give up
soccer. ;->

> Microsoft is crying all the way to the bank. Customers [including you
> and
> your employer?] must like being mistreated, because they keep buying
> Microsoft products despite complaints about the supposedly high price,
> poor
> security and poor support.

The only event that I can think of regarding the European Union (EU) was
remarked in another post at http://snipurl.com/dxef (a Google Groups
copy of the thread). Microsoft won't be hurt by this decision. The EU
wanted to show off by flexing their muscle. Microsoft is laughing
because it really doesn't have to market an N version of Windows XP (you
cannot force someone to market a product they don't want to market as
they'll just decide not to produce in that market). If they do market
an N version, it will be to placate the EU but its effect on the sales
of the non-N version is as effective as spitting into the ocean to raise
the sea level. Microsoft can simply charge the same amount for their N
version as their non-N version which will result is quashing the N
market because all the users will realize they get more for the same
money buying the non-N version. 

-- 
____________________________________________________________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "NIXTHIS", add "#VS811" to Subject.
____________________________________________________________