October 2nd, 2004, 12:21 PM
I've come to a conclusion on M$ security
It sucks, not because the OS, but because the people making it try to throw it out so fast that it never gets the full attencion it deserves. It should under go much more work to make it more secure and a truely better OS, not every one cares about the windows media player that they spend years on developing when they put a day or two in to a firewall that is about as strong as a paper bag, and wow there not to sturdy. I think maybe bill and his buddied should wake up and smell the java, and build a better OS next time around. Maybe longhorn will prove me wrong!, thank you, eNIX
October 2nd, 2004, 12:38 PM
Re: I've come to a conclusion on M$ security
This is just a very uninformed opinion. For starters, the people that work on programming Windows Media Player are not the same people that work on programming things like the Firewall. It's not as if Microsoft has only 5 developers on staff, and if they're busy working on 1 thing, there's no time to work on anything else....
Originally posted here by Sphyenx
It should under go much more work to make it more secure and a truely better OS, not every one cares about the windows media player that they spend years on developing when they put a day or two in to a firewall that is about as strong as a paper bag, and wow there not to sturdy.
Windows XP Service Pack 2, which was made available for FREE to all Windows XP customers, cost Microsoft over ONE BILLION US DOLLARS to develop. How many companies do you know spend $1 billion to develop something that they plan on giving away for free? I would say this shows a commitment on the part of Microsoft......
As for the firewall that was including in sp2. I would love to hear your analysis of what makes it only as "strong as a paper bag"? Perhaps I could give you the IP address of a computer that's running it, and you could demonstrate to me how you can easily bypass it to compromise the system?
Any security expert that's worth his or her weight in salt will tell you that it is a LOT easier to develop vulnerabilities to compromise a system, than it is to develop a system that can't be compromised.
October 2nd, 2004, 01:34 PM
Building such a detailed OS is an extremely complicated undertaking and I would suggest that if you believe that it or a portion of it sucks; you really ought to put your knowledge and abilities to work. The challenge is there. Provide MS the patches they need to improve those areas you have concerns about. Or, build an OS that does everything that XP is capable of doing. Seriously, anyone can be critical or offer an opinion. So how soon before we see the Sphyenx OS?
Since I love trying to poke holes in my firewalls, I too would love to hear a detailed analysis of your testing.
Connection refused, try again later.
October 2nd, 2004, 06:01 PM
I agree that Linux in general has less security hole but that because they have less peoples probing their code for vulnerability that Microsoft.
What about Firefox? Every week, they keep adding new patch! I was about to switch to Firebox when I noticed it was more plagued by security bug that IE is now!
October 2nd, 2004, 07:09 PM
omg jp graced us with his presence. /me bows. hehe.
October 2nd, 2004, 08:41 PM
This isnt just my opinion im getting feeds on this from not only friends, but IT professionals, corperate buisness, and my computer tech advisor. I wouldnt post something that would be my opinion alone. Im just trying to squeeze in, quit trying to kick me out.
October 2nd, 2004, 08:44 PM
We're not trying to kick you out, what your saying is arogant and miss-leading...
October 2nd, 2004, 08:54 PM
Ok, thats all, It was an ignorant post i weould presume, but most people know windows is well not even 80% safe. Yes there many reasons that probably led to windows sp2 being free, 1 maybe because people were probably thinking of droping windows for good. Who knows. Another well because sp1 was just a plain peice of you know what.
October 2nd, 2004, 08:56 PM
f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd cmptr jb prgmng
if you can read this you can get a job computer programming, well what if your like me and suck at math?, eNIX
October 2nd, 2004, 09:04 PM
But once again, your not entirely correct. Windows only SEEMS to be unsafe because 90% of all computers in the world run some form of windows. Therefore it is attacked more often then any other OS to cause the most damage. I promise you that if linux was running on 90% of the worlds computers, people would be complaining about linux being insecure.
According to pcmag, windows had considerably less security holes then linux and mac...
Programming doesn't take as much match knowledge as you may think...