Why does every one hate Microsoft

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Dana, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. Dana

    Dana Guest

    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.
     
    Dana, Oct 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dana

    Bit Twister Guest

    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, Oct 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dana

    Dana Guest

    Future sales
    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.
    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.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #3
  4. A browser built into the OS is fine, but using a desktop browser on the
    internet is plain stupid
    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?
    10 years afer the problem was discovered
    Not complaining about adding security, complaining about locking out
    competition
    If you trust that MS will ever make a secure system , that is fine.

    Stuart
     
    Stuart Miller, Oct 26, 2006
    #4
  5. 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?
    They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.
    They always do. They're morons.
    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 has never been any such reason.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Dana

    Jim Watt Guest

    Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
    gambling.
     
    Jim Watt, Oct 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Dana

    Dana Guest

    I believe that the issue was Internet Explorer being integrated with the OS.
    I like quite a few people see no issue with that.
    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.
    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.
    That is not true.
    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.
    No one said they were quick
    It is Microsoft's OS, they are not locking out competition. Those other
    companies can come out with their own OS.
    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.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Dana

    Dana Guest

    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.
    That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have been
    demanding.
    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 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.
    As you pointed out, microsoft has always been weak on security.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Dana

    Dana Guest

    Gambling is legal in quite a few places in America.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Dana

    Todd H. Guest

    We did? Who the hell decided that was a good idea?
     
    Todd H., Oct 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Dana

    Todd H. Guest

    That I agree with. You shouldn't need $40/year of 3rd party crap just
    to make an OS not be a pain. This is among the reasons Mac is such a
    compelling choice as a desktop.

    I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
    changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
    Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete and disk
    defrag functionality, then they don't know their business very well.
    They should be thankful windows was so horrible reliant on them for so
    long rather than bemoaning the (possible) end of the line.
     
    Todd H., Oct 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Dana

    Dana Guest

    And as Mac shows, there is competition in the OS world.
    And as Linux becomes more popular with more applications coming on line,
    Microsoft will have to adapt to keep its share.
    I agree
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Dana

    Beachcomber Guest

    I like Microsoft products. Yes, they are a near monopoly in some
    ways. That can be a good thing. For all their push to hire great
    minds, they have always been pretty much a copycat company. I like
    Apple products too. Sometimes I wish that Microsoft products would
    work as well as Apple products. (I've just downloaded the new IE7 for
    Windows. It works ok and has some new, up-to-date feature, but it
    looks like too many decisions were made by committee and it lacks that
    cutting-edge elegance).

    The GUI interface, which is the basis for Windows is a copy from the
    Macintosh and before that, from the Xerox Parc technology. In my
    mind, bad versions of DOS went on for far too long. The mouse,
    Internet Explorer,and another Microsoft cash cow... MS office... all
    are copies of great ideas from other individuals and organizations.
    Microsoft was even late in recognizing the importance of the Internet
    when it went mainstream in the mid 90's.

    Still, they give out free updates and patches and they generally work,
    hassle free. Microsoft products provide value. The Europeans all
    get together in haughty meetings and say "Harrrumph... we can't have
    this American company dominant in a product that is so vital to our
    economies... so lets try to throw a wrench in the works and
    over-regulate them with our laws..."

    Americans are jealous of success too. Many attack Bill Gates for his
    wealth, his geekiness, his dominance of his company, and even his
    generosity and his charitable foundations.

    If Microsoft was that awful, they wouldn't have 80-90% market
    dominance. If you want a better operating system, you could choose
    Apple, or if you don't like paying high royalties, there is always
    Linux.

    If all you want to do is complain.... you could write your own :}

    Beachcomber
     
    Beachcomber, Oct 26, 2006
    #13
  14. You don't need to, and never did. Actually all this security software
    bullshit makes a secured Windows box become vulnerable in first place.
    The real problem is that users are too stupid to actually use the built-in
    security features, Microsoft intentionally hides them (XP Suck^W"Home"
    Edition), and are useless by default because everyone has full root
    privileges.
    That the biggest fun: users got their "Recycle Bin", and they're still
    deleting their own data and ask for recovery. Now the Norton stuff has even
    added a "Norton Protected Recycle Bin" inside the normal "Recycle Bin", and
    there's still their Norton Undelete. I mean, how ignorant can someone be
    delete important data even with two or three layers of confirmation, and
    how stupid must someone be to add even more confirmations?
    Well, yeah, hardly spectacular. NTFS always did a good job in avoiding
    fragmentation, the NTFS Fragmentation API always provided the functionality
    to consistently make single files continuos, and shifting around continuos
    files to keep large chunks of free space in between isn't that big either.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Didn't you read the rest of the statement, where I explained why MSIE
    should not be considered a webbrowser?
    IE -> trivially compromised by malware, generally unavoidable
    Netscape -> maybe a bit fuddly, but works well

    Na, that's not a choice, that's a collary.
    You really didn't read a word, did you? The integration of an unfixable
    security problem into the OS is of course a big problem.
    Right, and there's still no relationship to the product quality. People
    used IE because it was there and they didn't know anything else.
    You may consider this statement again.
    For sure they stopped doing so more than 10 years ago.
    It is also well known that Microsoft has put out some very secure software
    products. Now, you should not generalize everything.
    Huh? Is it? That would be real news. Any references to a major security
    problem in Win2K?
    What did we learn from Apache vs. IIS? The most easily attackable system is
    the target, which is not necessarily the most widely used one.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Dana

    Dana Guest

    Being that Internet Explorer is recognized as a web browser, your opinion is
    just that, an opinion.
    Still the point is when the browser wars between IE and Netscape happened,
    netscape lost even with all the problems in IE.
    And again, there is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying IE into the OS.
    You may dissagree with the MS decision to do that, but that is their choice
    to make, not yours. If you do not like that, well use a different OS.
    Netscape was advertising. Heck I had both browsers at one time. Just like I
    have Mozilla and opera today.
    I myself never liked Netscape Browser, and it seems quite a few people also
    felt that way about Netscape browser.
    I did, if you despise MS so much, do not buy their products.
    Yes if you work for a company, and they buy Windows, that you have no
    control over.
    Windows is not anywhere being as secure as a Unix distro from say Sun or HP.
    This is not a knock against windows, it is just a known fact.
    Heck server 2003 is their best server yet, almost as good as a Unix box in
    regards to reliablity, and ability to handle intensive processing. I still
    would not trust Windows as my database server platform, for that I will
    stick with HP or Sun Unix and Oracle.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #16
  17. What about talking about facts? The detail that it's commonly recognized as
    a webbrowser doesn't make it one. From a technical point of view it simply
    isn't.
    Are you trying to permanently switch subjects? The fact that IE has "won"
    the "browser war" is absolutely no argument for its quality. As you already
    wrote: Nothing more than an opinion.
    Could it be that you logic is a bit flawed?
    So, once again: Microsoft, being fully aware of the consequences, put a big
    security problem into the system, knowing that it would hurt the customers
    on the long run. I'd call that a bad thing. Whether it was their free
    choice of not.
    Seems like you didn't. Hint: What's the difference between "buy" and "use"?

    Hmm... says who? AFAICS they had to pull a lot of stuff to integrate
    various security modules to just get the EAL3 evaluation, whereas for Win2K
    you had to pull a lot of configuration measures.
    Actually the part about "intensive processing" is quite counterintuitive,
    because of the memory management with the Working Set mechanisms: usually
    the most efficient way, but when confronted with a huge memory load, leads
    to hardly controllable page flattering.


    BTW, when will you ever fix your broken quoting? Maybe you should stop
    misusing Outlook Express as a newsreader. Which is, well, just another good
    reason why I don't consider you being able to give any valuable opinions
    about computer security.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #17
  18. Dana

    JAB Guest

    EAL4+ makes a "highly secure system" are you sure?
     
    JAB, Oct 26, 2006
    #18
  19. Dana

    Jim Watt Guest

    I was more thinking about the protectionist measures implemented
    to make offshore gambling sites inaccessible to US users and the
    tactics of the administration arresting directors of legitimate
    companies.

    The sort of thing one expects from a rogue state, like the US.

    But its more a political thing than a computer security issue.

    Security of the individual against the state seems to be low
    on the agenda these days in the US.
     
    Jim Watt, Oct 26, 2006
    #19
  20. Dana

    optikl Guest

    Well to those people I say
    ooooh... tough talk. I like it.

    Amen. Of course, M/S isn't the only software developer and products producer
    one can say that about. Hey, Symantec, how about throwing some darts your
    way?

    Unless, of course, that 3rd party product is orders of magnitude better than
    what comes with the OS.
     
    optikl, Oct 26, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.