Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard
From: Trevor L. Jackson, III (tlj3_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Ioannis: "Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- In reply to: Randy Howard: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Next in thread: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:52:42 -0500
Randy Howard wrote:
> In article <klITd.7187$OU1.6472@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> nameless@nowhere.org says...
>
>>But let's face facts: Microsoft is a big part of the real world.
>
>
> How profound. :-)
>
>
>>Microsoft-bashing is fun but unproductive. In the past they
>>made some huge and naive security gaffs; running programs with
>>powerful macro facilities simply because the user received an e-
>>mail with a particular file type was not so smart.
>
>
> The idea that anyone could send you an email, with executable
> content inside has got to be one of the worst they have come
> up with, and that is saying something. It ought to be the
> grounds for a *massive* class action lawsuit.
>
>
>>The kinds of security bugs Microsoft is facing today are far
>>subtler than writers here realize. Most are triggered only by
>>carefully constructed inputs specific to the particular
>>programming oversight.
>
>
> You are missing the forest for the sake of a couple posts that
> you didn't like. You think Microsoft has only nits to worry
> about now? Then why is XP Home still on the market? It is
> impossible to share a directory over a network and assign
> any access permissions. If it's shared, EVERYBODY can see it.
> Why? So they can make an extra $100 getting people to upgrade
> to get one that has security. So, they want to charge extra
> for security, yet fail publicly every time they try to claim
> that their new version of whatever is more secure. Windows
> 2003 Server was supposed to be completely "overhauled" by
> developers that had all been trained on secure programming
> practices, and it was out a few days before the first holes
> showed up. It's not just about Mary Jones' laptop getting
> an email virus. The real MS security holes are on the
> server side, and when they get hit, it costs millions, not
> a Ghost restore for Mary.
>
> MS is by no means the only company with security problems, and
> the fact that 90% of those trying to break systems are working
> on breaking windows platforms doesn't help. Still, their claim
> of super-robust software, the type of software that simply
> cannot be produced by "amateurs" in OSS projects just doesn't
> hold water any better than a spaghetti strainer.
>
>
>>Some writers seem to think they're methods would solve the
>>problem, but then their idea of an adversarial test is a file
>>of all ones or all zeros. They're just not playing the modern
>>game.
>
>
> You really think focusing on one comment, and assuming that is
> all that is being tried is a fair analysis? Come on.
>
>
>> > According to _Computerworld_ this week, Linux is making big
>> > gains in the server space.
>>
>>Great, but also "Linux Struggles for Desktop Acceptance".
>
>
> Why shouldn't it? It was modeled after a server operating system.
> All those high-margin server licensing agreements keep the
> cool research projects running in Redmond. Taking server market
> share away is the right approach. That's where most companies
> sink costs, not on the desktop, where the OS comes bundled for
> free with a $399 PC. The backoffice license fees alone are
> astronomical.
But there are few organizations paying them. Any organization large
enough to need to pay them does a direct deal and pays far less.
A couple of years ago (2003 I think, might have been 2003) Microsoft(R)
released some of their internal financial information and summaries of
it reached the trade press. I found it fascinating that of the $3.6B or
$3.7B in profits the systems group (the Windows(!tm) group) accounted
for over $4B of it, and the applications group (all other software)
accounted for less than $-400M of it.
Is there any wonder the protect their monopoly as ruthlessly as
possible? Is there any reason to believe _anything_ they say about
their intentions?
/tj3
- Next message: Ioannis: "Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: [XPOST] A unique number for every "person" - can it be done?"
- In reply to: Randy Howard: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Next in thread: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
