«

Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we find
it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with their
crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
cannot make.
Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
the OS I purchase from Microsoft.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, Dana wrote:
> Well to those people I say STFU, it is about time microsoft take
> control of the security of the OS, there should be no reason I have
> to buy a third product solution to secure the OS I purchase from
> Microsoft.

Hehehe, where is the incentive to fix security problems.

Delivery slipped years and final release fixed 400 bugs found in beta 2.

Micro$not now has a new /feature/ which allows them to charge you a
$50 a year tax to secure your system.

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35312

"Bit Twister" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, Dana wrote:
> > Well to those people I say STFU, it is about time microsoft take
> > control of the security of the OS, there should be no reason I have
> > to buy a third product solution to secure the OS I purchase from
> > Microsoft.
>
> Hehehe, where is the incentive to fix security problems.

Future sales
>
> Delivery slipped years and final release fixed 400 bugs found in beta 2.

I never said it was going to be perfect, and this only shows that 3rd party
companies will not be so out of business as they are crying about now.
>
> Micro$not now has a new /feature/ which allows them to charge you a
> $50 a year tax to secure your system.

I agree, I dislike the direction that Microsoft is taking with licensing,
which is why I still use win 2000 and not XP.
Of course I also use Linux (Fedora 5), Solaris 8 and 10, and HP Unix
So I am not stuck with one OS.
>
> http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35312

"Dana" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
> find

A browser built into the OS is fine, but using a desktop browser on the
internet is plain stupid

> it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with
> their
> crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
> cannot make.

Never told people what they can or cannot make, they decided what was legal
in their jurasdictions. If yo don't like the laws, either elect new law
makers or don't do business there. But, if you do business, obey the laws.
Problem is MS makes more money breaking the laws and paying fines. And you
trust them to secure your computer?

> Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in

10 years afer the problem was discovered

> thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say

Not complaining about adding security, complaining about locking out
competition

> STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>
If you trust that MS will ever make a secure system , that is fine.

Stuart

Dana wrote:

> Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we find
> it easier.

No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable for
surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well, why
didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?

> Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
> thier OS, by building security into the OS,

They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.

> now once again the crazy europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic
> are complaining

They always do. They're morons.

> that Microsoft is going to add security to the OS.

Nah, at least one part of the complaint is true: Microsoft is the authority
to decide what gets loaded to the kernel, not the user. Now how TF should I
be able to load my very own driver for inspecting system memory, which
requires access to \Device\PhysicalMemory, which requires being loaded to
the kernel due to Microsoft having it locked down? Or what about loadable
filesystem driver like TrueCrypt? What about WinPCap? I admit, some other
things can be done via the kernel hooking API, but some important things
will get lost, because they can't afford a certificate.

On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not that
VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...

> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.

There has never been any such reason.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, "Dana" <> wrote:

> especially in Europe, with their
>crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
>cannot make.

Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
gambling.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

"Stuart Miller" <> wrote in message
newsbS%g.190984$1T2.159797@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Dana" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
> > find
>
> A browser built into the OS is fine, but using a desktop browser on the
> internet is plain stupid

I believe that the issue was Internet Explorer being integrated with the OS.
I like quite a few people see no issue with that.

>
> > it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with
> > their
> > crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can
and
> > cannot make.
>
> Never told people what they can or cannot make,

That is what they did. As it is European courts and really Europe in general
with their socialist viewpoing really is not keen on liberty and freedom in
general.

> they decided what was legal
> in their jurasdictions. If yo don't like the laws, either elect new law
> makers or don't do business there.

Notice how there is no European counterpart to Microsoft.
I mean electronics and Wireless has the likes of Nokia and Alcatel, and
Siemens, all of which make an excellent product.

> But, if you do business, obey the laws.
> Problem is MS makes more money breaking the laws and paying fines.

That is not true.

> And you
> trust them to secure your computer?

Now, I never said that either. What I said is that with Vista they are
making a better effort than before, yet people are claiming this will stifle
competition.
Well I with a lot of others would rather see Microsoft secure their OS, as
we do not see why we need a 3rd party solution to secure the OS.
So those 3rd party companies will lose future business if microsoft secures
their OS, well they better start looking at what else than may be able to
produce to make up for that projected loss.
>
> > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
>
> 10 years afer the problem was discovered

No one said they were quick
>
> > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
>
> Not complaining about adding security, complaining about locking out
> competition

It is Microsoft's OS, they are not locking out competition. Those other
companies can come out with their own OS.
>
> > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
secure
> > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
> >
> If you trust that MS will ever make a secure system , that is fine.

I don't need symmatic saying that Microsoft is locking out the competition
either, especially when microsoft is not locking out the competition.
Symmantic can try and develope their own OS.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>

"Sebastian Gottschalk" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Dana wrote:
>
> > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
find
> > it easier.
>
> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable for
> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well, why
> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?

Because Microsoft had their own, and there is no problem with them tying it
to their OS. In fact it makes sense for all. If customers wanted a different
web browser, there are quite a few available for them.
>
> > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
> > thier OS, by building security into the OS,
>
> They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.

That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have been
demanding.
>
> > now once again the crazy europeans and companies like Mcafee and
Symmatic
> > are complaining
>
> They always do. They're morons.
>
> > that Microsoft is going to add security to the OS.
>
> Nah, at least one part of the complaint is true: Microsoft is the
authority
> to decide what gets loaded to the kernel, not the user. Now how TF should
I
> be able to load my very own driver for inspecting system memory, which
> requires access to \Device\PhysicalMemory, which requires being loaded to
> the kernel due to Microsoft having it locked down? Or what about loadable
> filesystem driver like TrueCrypt? What about WinPCap? I admit, some other
> things can be done via the kernel hooking API, but some important things
> will get lost, because they can't afford a certificate.

And this boils down to what you want the OS for. If you want to play and
load drivers, well you will have to get an OS like Lynx which will let you
do that.
But windows is made for the masses who have no desire to mess with the
drivers, they just want an OS that works out of the box with minimal
configuration from the user to make it work
>
> On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not that
> VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...

On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types will
still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.
Microsoft is under no obligation to disclose anything about the kernel to
make it easier for them.
>
> > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
secure
> > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>
> There has never been any such reason.
As you pointed out, microsoft has always been weak on security.

"Jim Watt" <_way> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, "Dana" <> wrote:
>
> > especially in Europe, with their
> >crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can
and
> >cannot make.
>
> Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
> gambling.

Gambling is legal in quite a few places in America.

> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

"Dana" <> writes:

> Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS

We did? Who the hell decided that was a good idea?


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/