Printable View
The program, posted on the group's website, takes advantage of a vulnerability in nearly all versions of Microsoft's Windows operating system, including Windows Server 2003, touted as Microsoft's safest ever.
To read the full story
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,59792,00.html
[rant]
Only three times a year? RIIIIGHT, and I only breathe about three times a year too. What are they trying to do, fool the entire world into thinking Microsoft doesn't release a security patch every other day?Quote:
"Three times a year, there are (flaws) this bad," Maiffret said. "This is one of those times."
Personally I don't understand why M$ doesn't get off their ass and just fix a damn OS to work. I mean come on people please, I know it's next to impossible to make an OS hack proof, but at least you could do better than all these patches and crap. I mean for the past month I have been installing a new security update at least every other day. This is just insane practice!
*passes out from shock*
~AciD
[/rant]
Do you really think they can do that? All M$ does is create a new OS built over the current errors and maybe correct one or two errors to make it look impressive. Then they go along creating patches for eternity. How many patches can there be? I guess infinite amount when it comes to M$.Quote:
Personally I don't understand why M$ doesn't get off their ass and just fix a damn OS to work.
We need a solid OS M$, since Windows Server 2003 still doesn't cut it.
Guidance...
Acid: You are forgetting one tiny little detail, namely that security is the balance between a secure OS and a useable one. People do not buy stuff they do not understand or know how to work. Microsoft's original products did not have to worry about being hacked over always on connections and barely had to worry about much else malicious either. In order to make market share they went ahead and did things in such a way as to make _everything_ work seamlessly for "Joe Stupid" and his wife "Josephine". The problem came when M$ raised the level of expectation to a point where the OS was thoroughly usable but utterly insecure. Give 98% of Windows users a *nix distro and less then one percent would succeed in using it. Placing yourself in Bill G's position - Would you risk the loss of 97% of your business to provide users who, for the most part, are oblivious to computer security issues, (since you know that if you leave the "usable but insecure" market someone else will jump right in with an equally usable but insecure product), or will you continue to make it usable and issue patches for those who are interested when you find holes?
Looking at Bill's bank account he seems to have made a good decision...... looking at the customer base Bill has I would suggest that there are plenty of shops that are "windows only" and are secure.
It's fine to rant about M$'s patches etc. but think about your grandma trying to set up that spanking new linux box. Don't expect an email from her too soon...... ;)
Yea I agree cutty, stop making new OSs and just take the next few years and build one without so many damn holes. And it's not even the fact that it has holes, its the fact that most of the problems a security issues are things that are right there out in the open.
But no, they don't care because they know there will still be a lot of people sitting there jerking Bill Gates off as they give him more money for the same BS! Yet all Gates seems to really worry about is the fact of people pirating his software. Maybe people would buy it if you wouldn't keep giving them **** in a box, and charging more for it each year!
Maybe I'm the crazy one, maybe I'm just being foolish, who knows...
~AciD
[edit]
Even still, Windows 95 was nice and easy to use, and did what it did. Though it had a ton of issues itself after time went on. Sure you could make the excuse that it was because it was new, but then look at Windows 98. Built off 95, was supposed to work better, but didn't. It had it's own issues and things seemed to be worse. Those OSs would crash all the time, memory hole issues, etc. They worked for the average person, but even the average person got sick of dealing with that stuff.
Maybe I just don't see it in that logical sense. But I'm just getting sick of using "the new and improved Micrsoft Windows Product" that seems to work nice for a week and then have issues. Xp works great, but it's security patch after secuirty patch and it's just getting to be a little crazy with all the patches that come out day after day. To me that says that someone is missing something while coding.
That's my personal view...
~AciD
[/edit]
Tiger Shark, Bill did not make a good decision. Bill figured out a way to monopolize the market and con us into buying his products that are build without respect for the users.Quote:
Looking at Bill's bank account he seems to have made a good decision......
Yes his products are easy to use but what good is easy to use when you have to reboot your system constantly, or it crashes for no apparent reason? What good is a windows box that has to be patched everyday? Why should we spend so much money to buy a windows product when we can get another for free? Why can't we take the time off to learn another OS, which in the long run will cause us less headache?
You know why? We settle for second best, because it's easier. We don't want to go the extra mile for what is better and that's just an issue people like Bill capitalizes on and always will. Until the day we open our eyes and see windows for what it really is then Bill we continue to make tremendous amounts of money for building OSs that have four times more errors than the one before and make twice the amount of money for it.
We need to wake up.
Guidance...
Well done cutty, you always do know how to write those posts. Just one thing to add to that now that cutty struck up the conversation... so what if Bill's bank account is big? Look at all the mob bosses; they had big wads of cash... does that mean they are doing right in taking money from all the little people just because the little people were scared of the mob? Money in today's age does not show that someone is doing something the "right" way, it just means that they are getting paid well for what they do. Bill never came up with DOS, he bought it off someone. All the technological advancements in the OS stage have been stolen from the little people. Windows was a copy of the Mac OS GUI interface, and OS/2 was a copy from Windows.
If you've ever watched Triumph of the Nerds or done any research on Gate's youth, you'll know how his mind worked at solving puzzles. That's all the industry was when he started out, a puzzle to put together. He's played the game and put the pieces together and built a big company, mainly on other people's work. He's smart yes, and he has the money to show for it. But to me that doesn't mean that I am going to bow down and kiss the earth that Gates walks on just because he happens to be on top of the market... for right now. In another 5 years, a blink of the eye in the computer industry, Gates and Microsoft could be a memory long forgotten and someone else could be on top. Then it would be the same question all over again...
Just a thought...
~AciD
Not wanting to get into a "my OS is better than yours" pissing match which has been hashed out a million times and still has no definitive answer.............
Cutty:
Ergo..... Bill looked for an opportunity at the inception of a revolution, found one, exploited it in a fashion that maximized his gain and has managed to keep himself at the forefront of that revolution for 30 or so years..... You are right... He didn't make a good decision.... He made lots of them.....Quote:
Bill did not make a good decision. Bill figured out a way to monopolize the market and con us into buying his products that are build without respect for the users.
Yeah, I could live with that statement if what you are talking about hasn't improved 100-fold since windows 3.0, (which it has in case you are totally locked in a *nix world).Quote:
Yes his products are easy to use but what good is easy to use when you have to reboot your system constantly
Ever heard of auto-updates? Gee..... And, if you follow bugtraq, you would have noticed that the number of patches for non-windows systems/software has exceeded the windows patches quite nicely over the last 3 months or so. Maybe you aren't affected by the different flavors that are being exploited but let's be a little honest here - *nix is how many OS's really?.... There are n different kernels and everyone has their own builds with different "features" complied into them. Windows is basically 2 OS', (the Win9X kernel and the WINNT kernel). Let me also point out that WINNT has been around for more than 10 years but it was the business OS, not the home OS..... people didn't need the business OS for a system that connected from time to time through AOL or whatever. One of the big problems now is that the old systems are connected through always on high speed connections..... They weren't designed for that...... Let me repeat that..... They weren't designed for that!!!! Now.... with the hodge-podge of *nix flavors with each with different code against the 2 largest used OS's in the world - if you were a non-talented skiddie what OS would you want exploits for? The one that affords you the most chance of success. Therefore, if you are the guy finding the exploits to prove that you are 31337 which OS are you going to try to exploit to fill the demand for exploits....... This **** isn't rocket science you know......Quote:
What good is a windows box that has to be patched everyday
No, we settle for what we can teach the users to learn. Cutty, you need to sit back for a sec and think about why you are here...... You are here because you are a cut above the users, (no pun intended...... ;) ). You are here because you understand computers better then 99% of the entire population of the world, possibly more than that....... You need to step back sometimes and understand that what you find easy and "second nature" just ain't like that for the masses. Look at the user that gets the same error message every time they try to do something and they don't even read it.... Why? Because they are convinced they won't understand it..... That's what Bill has to overcome in as many people as he can to get them into a new computer...... He succeeded.... May we all share such success sometime soon.Quote:
We settle for second best, because it's easier
There is a "big picture"..... Step back and look at it..... We aren't all computer geniuses!!!!
Acid:
Exactly..... So demonizing Bill, (who I might add was the guy who pushed out the then "big fish", IBM), is only a temporary thing until a bigger "evil" presents itself.Quote:
But to me that doesn't mean that I am going to bow down and kiss the earth that Gates walks on just because he happens to be on top of the market... for right now. In another 5 years, a blink of the eye in the computer industry, Gates and Microsoft could be a memory long forgotten and someone else could be on top. Then it would be the same question all over again...
I am far from being a Bill fan..... In fact I am the first to say that he has made his billions off the backs of hard-working and talented sysadmins like myself who worked long hours to get around some of his OS's shortcomings..... BUT..... It's what the users want....period!!!! And you know what...... It's their train-set and they can play with it any way they want. It's our job as sysadmins to make it work for them - not us.......
Tiger Shark I would have to agree with you that windows have improved since 3.0 but this improvement comes with a lot of errors. DOS don't crash, 3.0 had some issues but was pretty stable, win95 was a disaster waiting to happen and win98(first one) made it worst, win98CE tried to correct the mistakes. Some were corrected but not all. Win2k was definitely a break through, not the best but better after various patches but I still don't get the transition to winXP. Was winXP a graphical transition or was it, suppose to be better than win2k? I guess winXP has a lot more things built in but it also has a lot more errors than win2k. You get my drift?Quote:
Yeah, I could live with that statement if what you are talking about hasn't improved 100-fold since windows 3.0, (which it has in case you are totally locked in a *nix world).
Windows improves yes but the problems before are almost never corrected and more are added. I am a multi OS user because I have to be but I just believe that Bill can do a better job and am not to sure he's trying to IMO.
Tiger Shark, I have heard of this but guess what I stay away from that. You know why? Have you ever heard of "Updating system resources error occurred windows was unable to start"? :) Well that's what happened to me on two occasions while running auto updates. Am just lucky I keep backups. So it isn't all just let it do its thing since you run into these problems, maybe not all the time but it happens and it happened to me one time to many. Just a thought.Quote:
Ever heard of auto-updates?
Tiger Shark, we may not all be computer geniuses but we all have sense of familiarity and guess what that's what Bill has used. We are familiar with windows; hence we are stuck with it. We are not really familiar with the other OSs and it's a hassle to learn no doubt about it but if we really want to computer geniuses or not can't we? Am not saying that Bill didn't do a good job by making (probably stealing :)) windows user friendly and easy to use, he did. That allows my parents, parents to go online and communicate and that's great. The issue is however; Bill has used this to put in work on new OSs that are mediocre which is wrong. You should always build the best product possible and am sorry but I don't think Bill has ever tried to build the best.Quote:
There is a "big picture"..... Step back and look at it..... We aren't all computer geniuses!!!!
It's like to me he says to his developers, 'Just make it look the best it doesn't have to be the best cause they won't know the difference and even if they do we have the market so they have to use our crappie OS anyway' and that's the sad thing about the world. We can be manipulated so easily but there's really nothing one individual can do about that.
Just my $0.02 and I would say Tiger Shark you made some real valid points but there's a lot wrong doing to the users by Bill.
Guidance...
Cutty: No offence - but you made me roll on the floor for ages with your "DOS didn't crash" comment..... There wasn't a **** load to crash to start with but I remember spending many, many hours trying to reconfigure autoexec/config.sys or a new mouse that didn't want to talk because it conflicted with a modem that seemed to be lying about it's IRQ...... ;) So the reason it never crashed was cos if you were going to start it with a config that was prone to a crash the bloody thing wouldn't start in the first place..... Thanks for the giggle though.....
As I said in my last post.... I'm no big fan of Bill's.... But you have to give the guy credit..... He has built a universal OS with 40 million lines of code much of which gets ported from system to system and it works right out of the box on most any hardware. That's an amazing feat.... ****, I've written publicly available code in my deep dark past that was fine within certain parameters but running it on _any_ box was impossible.
As to auto-updates...... I think that's why Bill allows disk mirroring. All our servers, especially those that are publicly available, have two IDE boot drives, (let's face it they are cheap nowadays). Every two weeks or so we make the mirror, allow it to complete the rebuild and then break the mirror again and unplug it. This serves two purposes:-
1. If an autoupdate messes with the system I can remove the drive, plug in the mirror and away I go.
2. If some nasty "B" compromises the system I can, if I chose to, get the service back up in minutes with the knowledge that the drive is intact and undamaged by the little "B".
As to not all being computer genuises and familiarity....... That's part of Bill's genius.... Before you ever saw a computer you had no familiarity with windows or *nix or anything. What Bill did was make a product that he marketed well but, more importantly, after the sale it wouldn't be bad-mouthed by the masses, (you and I might but we don't get heard by Bill's buying public). In fact it was lauded by the masses, (Coo, grandma.... You need email, we have a windows X computer... It's ever so easy.....).... See what I mean.... In a way it sold itself and that is what I am giving Bill the credit for.......
I will join you in your criticism of his security but only insofar as it is a product of him becoming a businessman rather than a deliberate act on anyone at M$'s part. They simply didn't go out to create an inferior product..... They just got one because of a lack of insight as to how quickly things might change and their inability to properly react to that change in a cost effective manner..... aka bad business planning......
*Screams out laughing grasping for air* Am glad I gave you a wonderful laugh:).Quote:
Cutty: No offence - but you made me roll on the floor for ages with your "DOS didn't crash" comment.....
Tiger Shark I see exactly what you were trying to bring across now and it all makes sense. The discussion was nice. I guess M$ allows the existence of a lot more businesses and services than we care to take into consideration. I will admit, he is a very good businessman in spite M$ bad business planning.
Just one more thing though, do you think that M$ would make a stable OS if say Linux comes out with a user-friendly version? I was just wondering, since that might be in the making. I would appreciate windows a lot more if a little more work is put into it.
Tiger Shark thanks for the great flow of the discussion BTW. AciD we need your thoughts here too.
Guidance...
im sorry! i must have taken a wrong turn. i thought this was the thread about a chinese program that exploits RPC
That was a good comment to make Tedob1! LOLQuote:
Originally posted here by Tedob1
im sorry! i must have taken a wrong turn. i thought this was the thread about a chinese program that exploits RPC
As for the rest, I would sit and quote most of what both Tiger Shark and cutty wrote, but I think you should go back and read their full posts anyway.
Overall I think we all sit on the same side of the line, we all just see things a little different. Gates has made his money off the backs of hard working people, and will take more if he sees fit. But with all the money he does get he at least has been bringing some new technology to the fore ground of the "typical" user. Plus as TS said of how Gates has made an almost universal OS that works right out of the box. Maybe we should give him a little more credit in that area. I know I still install Red Hat and such and have to do it a few times because there are always buts in the installer.
Running down the time line, it is interesting to see the different platforms and the jumps between each one... DOS, Win 3.11, Win 95/98 compared to NT... the next generation of NT (Win2k), then the all around NT platform for the typical user. But that's nothing compared to the scattered versions of the *nix. So I guess keeping it more centralized helped to keep the work focused and helped to improve it better.
Now cutty brought up a good thought, what if *nix marketed a version that was really user friendly and could be understood by the typical user... think they would catch more of the market? Maybe even Gates eye and give him a scare? I know the Mac OS X uses an old version of the *nix kernal.
And speaking of Macintosh in this whole conversation, nothing much has been said about that? Why is that?
One last thought though:
I think in the end that's why we are mad at Gates and Microsoft, because that's how we feel Windows is made. Maybe we are wrong for feeling that, but like I complained about having to do updates all the time... it makes you think. Though on the flip side I guess without doing the updates then my system would totally be at risk of attack. So am I happy that I have updates or am I mad because Bill should have thought ahead? No one is perfect, but then again how much did they know about these "problems" before hand??Quote:
It's like to me he says to his developers, 'Just make it look the best it doesn't have to be the best cause they won't know the difference and even if they do we have the market so they have to use our crappie OS anyway' and that's the sad thing about the world. We can be manipulated so easily but there's really nothing one individual can do about that.
LOL overall there is so much to reply to I don't really know where to start. But I wanted to make a post with these few thoughts nonetheless. Be interested to hear what everyone (especially TS and cutty) think about what I've said!
Just a thought...
~AciD
Acid: Yeah, we are on the same side...... I just get fed up of hearing Bill G. being demonized like he is some kind of intentional Lucifer. He didn't start out to con anyone and I don't think he is trying to do that today. Does the OS have security problems.... Hell, yes..... Does every OS have security problems.... Hell, yes. Is he making a good effort to address them.... Certainly.... Is he doing a good job of addressing them..... I think he is better than average considering the number of people who spend all their waking moments trying to break the OS..... Is that good enough? Well..... That's where the issue is open to question..... Certainly, the fact that he has a lot of money is irrelevant..... Simply spending more does not a secure OS make.... and it isn't Bill doing the programming either don't forget.... In fact I'd be surprised if he can even read code any more....<s>
If linux made an easy, out of the box, OS........ That's Bill's greatest fear and one thing that prevents him from rewriting WinWhatever from scratch. The moment he commits resources to a complete rewrite, (which would take years), Linux will come up with a fancy new system that is attractive to the masses. Then where is he? Remember, it's not just his pocket - he has a responsibility to almost everyone who has an IRA or 401K.... IOW, he has a responsibility to almost everyone in the USA..... He's a businessman now......
While I mention a complete rewrite let's not forget backward compatibility. It is foolish to think that you are going to move a user base the size of M$'s to a new OS overnight. Most people will just stay with what they have because it suits them, (look at the installed base of Win9X still). It's fiscal suicide to commit all the resources for a rewrite and then commit all the additional resources to supporting utterly different OS's. The cost would have to be passed on to the end user which would further slow the conversion process and the total outlay to fix the underlying problems will severely anger the gods of wall street. Then the system has to be able to deal with all the other software we already own..... including it's flaws..... There's your next security nightmare..... Otherwise you are forcing all the major software houses to do a complete rewrite and forcing me to change all my software, (at no small cost), to allow me to use the fancy new OS. The cost to an individual would be high, the cost to business would be phenomenal. Who do you think would end up paying these higher operating costs.... Yep, you and me..... the punters.....
Macintosh..... Well, I think we can safely say that the moment Bill and Steve shook hands a couple of years ago when M$ bailed out Mac that the opportunity for Mac to become a serious competitor of M$ pretty much went out of the window..... (so to speak.... :D )
Fun discussion.......
Oh, Tedob...... Yeah we did go a tad astray..... But the road to China is a long and winding one...... ;)
No arguement from me, he's doing his job. The only argument that I have is I think he could stress the issues more of security. Or better yet, take all that money and build a department that sits and hacks the OS so they know what to look for... the fix that in the next release of Windows. I think he has that much control over the process. Sure I don't think he codes Windows itself, but he is a CEO... that means something in the building process in general.Quote:
Acid: Yeah, we are on the same side...... I just get fed up of hearing Bill G. being demonized like he is some kind of intentional Lucifer. He didn't start out to con anyone and I don't think he is trying to do that today. Does the OS have security problems.... Hell, yes..... Does every OS have security problems.... Hell, yes. Is he making a good effort to address them.... Certainly.... Is he doing a good job of addressing them..... I think he is better than average considering the number of people who spend all their waking moments trying to break the OS..... Is that good enough? Well..... That's where the issue is open to question..... Certainly, the fact that he has a lot of money is irrelevant..... Simply spending more does not a secure OS make.... and it isn't Bill doing the programming either don't forget.... In fact I'd be surprised if he can even read code any more....<s>
Again I say this is bull. He could build another company subdivision of M$ (plus to get out of the whole monopoly issue) that would be only for rewriting the entire OS... and doing all the things you stated. He could still have M$ itself doing it's job and bringing out with OSs, updates, etc, without committing business suicide. The guy is worth how much money? I think he can invest that back into the business some more and do things right. He can make the software to do what it needs to do without a problem. When you talk about a guy worth that much and then say he can't do something... again that's where I see differently. He's got the resoruces, he has the money to use them, and if I was in his position and had my bills paid and what not that's what I would do. I would rather see the advancement of the OS/busniess rather than personal gain. No one can tell me he can sit and cry because he doesn't have the money to use/do whatever he wants.Quote:
If linux made an easy, out of the box, OS........ That's Bill's greatest fear and one thing that prevents him from rewriting WinWhatever from scratch. The moment he commits resources to a complete rewrite, (which would take years), Linux will come up with a fancy new system that is attractive to the masses. Then where is he? Remember, it's not just his pocket - he has a responsibility to almost everyone who has an IRA or 401K.... IOW, he has a responsibility to almost everyone in the USA..... He's a businessman now......
While I mention a complete rewrite let's not forget backward compatibility. It is foolish to think that you are going to move a user base the size of M$'s to a new OS overnight. Most people will just stay with what they have because it suits them, (look at the installed base of Win9X still). It's fiscal suicide to commit all the resources for a rewrite and then commit all the additional resources to supporting utterly different OS's. The cost would have to be passed on to the end user which would further slow the conversion process and the total outlay to fix the underlying problems will severely anger the gods of wall street. Then the system has to be able to deal with all the other software we already own..... including it's flaws..... There's your next security nightmare..... Otherwise you are forcing all the major software houses to do a complete rewrite and forcing me to change all my software, (at no small cost), to allow me to use the fancy new OS. The cost to an individual would be high, the cost to business would be phenomenal. Who do you think would end up paying these higher operating costs.... Yep, you and me..... the punters.....
I have to say yes and no on this one. Mac is still up there, it does a lot of business. I work at a university of 44,000+ students, plus I don't even know how many for staff. I would have to say at least 25% of just the students are Macs, old and new.Quote:
Macintosh..... Well, I think we can safely say that the moment Bill and Steve shook hands a couple of years ago when M$ bailed out Mac that the opportunity for Mac to become a serious competitor of M$ pretty much went out of the window..... (so to speak.... )
Just a thought...
~AciD
Acid:
Ok.... So, what you are saying is that he generate another entire company to compete with M$. Hmmmm..... How well is Mac, Unix, Linix, Sun microsystems etc. doing against the original Microsoft right now? Oh, that's right.... they are losing the battle..... they have the smallest market share. With that in mind how, exactly, is M$II going to compete. It will still have the same issues that a complete rewrite done in-house would have. High cost, small user base, etc. but now it is in competition. So Bill has to compete back from M$ because his shareholders would expect it, (they don't own the second corporation, (we separated it for anti-trust reasons.... remember), only the first). So Bill is going to pour marketing and development dollars in from both ends....... That's lunacy.... It's like me asking you to pay all you monthly bills twice..... for what gain? Ahh.... So the new OS can take over from the old. That's worse than bad business, worse than suicide and it's not something he, or I for that matter, would or could do, we'd be fired.Quote:
Again I say this is bull. He could build another company subdivision of M$ (plus to get out of the whole monopoly issue) that would be only for rewriting the entire OS... and doing all the things you stated. He could still have M$ itself doing it's job and bringing out with OSs, updates, etc, without committing business suicide.
And that was the downfall of Macintosh...... It was a great idea..... Sell the Macs to the students - get them "hooked" on the OS and they would carry it forwards into the business world for them....... It could have worked - but _only_ if they had paid due care to marketing and development for the business world too. They didn't, and all those students came out of school only to find that their nice shiney new Mac they got as a graduation present was utterly useless on day one of their first job. Heck, they couldn't even take work home to impress the boss till they bought..... Yes..... I'm gonna say it..... A windows box...... ;) So Apple's marketing and sales simply got stuck in the revolving door of the universities and was left for dead as soon as the students stepped off the campus.Quote:
I have to say yes and no on this one. Mac is still up there, it does a lot of business. I work at a university of 44,000+ students, plus I don't even know how many for staff.
I guess in the final analysis it's important to understand the fundamental differences between the *nix community and the Windows community. *nix, (linux really), is driven by people, lots of them, who are computer literate and write and edit, and oversee the code between them. They have no responsibility to anyone but themselves and they have no investment other than sweat equity in their product. If they were going through the constant assault that M$'s code goes through they can easily sit down and say "we need to improve this" and it would get done with no inconvenience to anyone..... The new kernel comes out and everyone D/L's the distro, compiles that baby up and we are all fat, dumb and happy again in the *nix world. OTOH, there's poor old M$..... They are stuck in the corporate world with billions of dollars belonging to millions of people resting on their every move...... With this heavy burden there should be no surprise that this beast moves more slowly and has far more restrictions than the *nix community. Woe betide them if they produce an OS that grannie can't install on her own...... a 1% failure rate would severly damage the product image and greater than 3% would probably kill it without vast quantities of cash being expended to untarnish that image. See, Grannie can't just call her son to have him write drivers for her CD-ROM.... Cos the source code isn't available..... Oh.... and her son is dumber than a box of rocks where computers are concerned.......
It's really easy to sit back and say "I'd do this" or "I'd do that" but until you sit back and understand that, if he had the opportunity you seem to think he has, Bill would probably do exactly what you think he should do. But he has a whole lot more to think about than the OS. I'll guarantee you that Bill is damn proud of what he has created and what he has accomplished. I'll also guarantee you that Bill is painfully aware of his "baby's" shortcomings and that - given a viable opportunity he would do what it takes to make it right..... It's just that viable opportunities for huge organizations to make such significant changes almost never come about. Vast changes are the realm of the small, nimble companies and Bill proved that but moved past that point many years ago.
Guys you are leaving me out of the loop. :)
Tiger Shark:Quote:
Ok.... So, what you are saying is that he generate another entire company to compete with M$. Hmmmm..... How well is Mac, Unix, Linix, Sun microsystems etc. doing against the original Microsoft right now? Oh, that's right.... they are losing the battle..... they have the smallest market share.
Microsoft competition maybe losing the battle now but some years down the line they may not be losing. The fact that creating a new company is really not a good idea doesn't give M$ an excuse not to provide better security IMO. First of all, I believe that M$ security went from ok to bad with the transition from win2K to winXP. Now that shouldn't be. You already have the knowledge so any new system should be more secure and not less. So M$ is sacrificing security out of all things for other things. That's really bad. Security is important in my world and I am sure it is in yours' too.
Secondly, M$ has enough money to create a side project (not another company) that can look for loop holes in say winXP and make that OS as secure as possible without sacrificing too much of the user friendly environment. It can be done, how long it will take I don't know, how much money I don't know either but he could invest in it if he wanted to. But, he's not willing to spend that amount of money, because who is he competing with really? As for now no one. So, to him, if he can just keep his market share, then he can make the OS however he wants and there wouldn't be any problem with his clash flow. That sucks big time. I know Bill means us no harm really but he's in the money and he would do whatever it takes to keep the flow.
Oh yeah, M$ source code is not available. Damn how could I forget that. ;) You see M$ could have a more secure OS if he made just a little of his source code available but he can't do that can he. Hmmm.. What is Bill hiding? Lets see, half of the code in their isn't really his, maybe or is he afraid that he will loose everything if he makes his code open source. Maybe he's afraid some kid from the side of the street picks up his code and makes it a lot better than M$ ever could. Sounds like that movie Antitrust (kill the kids that program from their garage and steal their code). That's kind of interesting and I would really want to know what the real reason is that he keeps his code unavailable. What do you guys think?Quote:
See, Grannie can't just call her son to have him write drivers for her CD-ROM.... Cos the source code isn't available..... Oh.... and her son is dumber than a box of rocks where computers are concerned.......
I guess the overall idea is to be on top of the market and when it comes to that Bill has done a wonderful job. Am not saying that he didn't contribute to the computer industry, am just saying that being on top is most important to him right now.
Guidance...
Cutty:
Yes.... You are correct..... But there are 500 million home users that wouldn't know what computer security is if it came up and slapped them in the face.......Quote:
Security is important in my world and I am sure it is in yours' too
I don't disagree with what they should do. Nor do I disagree with what they could do. However, linked to your comment about why we can't see the source code - it might preclude their ability to actually succeed in creating a more secure OS without jeopardizing the ease of use for whch they are "famous". That's a hard question when you consider one of the original premises that a secure OS is a balance between security and usability.Quote:
M$ has enough money to create a side project (not another company) that can look for loop holes in say winXP and make that OS as secure as possible without sacrificing too much of the user friendly environment.
As to how Bill got his source code.... I have some experience of that. When I first came to work here they had a little peer-to-peer network by a company called Web, (owned by Buffalo Software I believe). It was a nice little system but I needed to implement a Novell Network and have both systems running concurrently. With a little bit of "hacking" I managed to set it up so that both systems would run concurrently on the same machine, in such a way that there were still significant system resources remaining, (rememer 640k of RAM and TSR's.....;)) and the Web clients could seamlessly use the Novell resources. I had a little problem remaining, (can't remember what), so I called Web and was talking to a chap called Steve Sweet who, it turned out, wrote the whole system. He was somewhat impressed that I had managed to get a working configuration and wanted to know more because he had clients that were looking for just that functionality but told me that he had to go out of town for a few days. A few weeks passed and I called back to get my issue resolved and talk to him about my config. All there was was an answering machine..... Hmmmm...... A few weeks later Steve called saying that he could no longer help me and I was no help to him any more..... Why.... Web, (read Steve), had been bought by Microsoft. Several months later we got our first copy of Win95 and blow me down..... The networking portion was Steve's Web network. No you can't see it obviously but, had you been familiar with Web you would "feel" it. There is no doubt in my mind that the core networking was based on his work..... I do believe that acquiring other companies is legal....:) and I can't vouch for any other code.... But I'd bet my shirt on this one....
No that's not what I was saying, just another part of Microsoft that would be dedicated to rewriting an OS from the ground up. Not something to compete against M$ itself. Making a whole new company would be crazy; I will admit that because they would have a hard time going at each other in the market place. I'm just saying a division of Microsoft that does its own coding, its own thing away from the projects of Windows 2003 server, Windows XP2, etc.Quote:
Ok.... So, what you are saying is that he generate another entire company to compete with M$.
I pretty much agree with you on the fact about Mac not being marketed correctly. It’s not a good idea to go after one direct group... just like Iomega found out (which is a whole other topic in itself about marketing and where it could have been today). If you have a product that would work in all aspects... in the office as well as at school or in the home, then do it. Don't try to sell your product to just one of the other.
LOL yeah I can see it like that cutty. I believe personally that Bill would buy out whoever and take their code/company to make sure they don't interfere with M$ in general. I think *nix would have gone to waste if it wasn't for the fact that universities and educational institutions are basically that got it going from the start.Quote:
Oh yeah, M$ source code is not available. Damn how could I forget that. You see M$ could have a more secure OS if he made just a little of his source code available but he can't do that can he. Hmmm.. What is Bill hiding? Lets see, half of the code in their isn't really his, maybe or is he afraid that he will loose everything if he makes his code open source. Maybe he's afraid some kid from the side of the street picks up his code and makes it a lot better than M$ ever could. Sounds like that movie Antitrust (kill the kids that program from their garage and steal their code). That's kind of interesting and I would really want to know what the real reason is that he keeps his code unavailable. What do you guys think?
But on the flip side of that, I can understand not giving out your source code for this reason: hacking. Someone gets a hold of your source code; more people are going to try to hack it... especially if you are number 1 on the hacker hit list. And with 98% of computers using an M$ based OS, well that would be the end of computers if someone found a way to get into most of them through a hole in the entire code. Plus who ever wants to give out their trade secrets? That much I can understand and say I'm cool with.
Very very good closing to your last post! Truly it makes you wonder at times about Gates. That's why this whole conversation jumps both ways from the same side of the line. It's all in how you interrupt things that are going on.Quote:
I guess the overall idea is to be on top of the market and when it comes to that Bill has done a wonderful job. Am not saying that he didn't contribute to the computer industry, am just saying that being on top is most important to him right now.
Just a thought...
~AciD
Windoze is like a weak rubber boat full of holes. Everyday a new one opens up and u have to patch it with "band-aid". I guess its weaknesses gotta keep pple working...so that they can provide for their families. if there was no errors, there'd be no people fixing these errors.
Wow, that's an interesting story for the books...too bad there really isn't any way of researching more into that. Sounds like an interesting story to hear...
And I doubt there will never be an OS with no problems or errors or security holes. The only time that would happen would be hte day hackers stop doing what they did, and people were just happen word processing on their computer and that was that
Just a thought...
~AciD
You see Tiger Shark, it's all about money. Why use your own developing team to develop your code when you can create a research team to find code out there and just buy out these companies or persons cause they are easily bought? It's the law of the business world. Buy out all your competition if you can. When they are all gone it's only you left and there's no other choice but for the people to choose you. So I guess that's the way Bill thinks. Bill is a really smart guy; acquire a company before someone else finds it.Quote:
The networking portion was Steve's Web network. No you can't see it obviously but, had you been familiar with Web you would "feel" it. There is no doubt in my mind that the core networking was based on his work..... I do believe that acquiring other companies is legal.... and I can't vouch for any other code.... But I'd bet my shirt on this one....
However, Bill has gone wrong a few times since people can play hard ball. Take for instance, Real player. To my knowledge the guy who developed it use to work for M$ but he left and his code wasn't open source and up to this day windows can't get media player to look half as good as Real player. If they all got along we could have the best of both worlds. If M$ stop trying to bit down the competition too then maybe windows would be much better by allowing various programs to run error free.
There are a lot of issues with M$ I disagree with but wouldn't get into all right now. There's the issue of compatibility though which may have been corrected now. I just don't see why M$ was making his own up to date programs incompatible with previous ones. Like various Word programs was incompatible with Works programs. I just figured that this was way out and shouldn't be. But to Bill, it's like let them buy both I get more money. Good for business profit but bad for the user and bad for him in the long run. Just my thought.:)
Cybr1d:
I get what you are saying, but don't you think there are just too many errors? There will always be errors, I just don't think you should leave them in there since you figure you can fix them later and that's the issue with most of M$ errors.Quote:
if there was no errors, there'd be no people fixing these errors.
Programmer: We have 1 million errors Bill, what do we do?
Bill: Does the OS run with those errors?
Programmer: Yes Bill it does?
Bill: Have we reached our release date?
Programmer: Yes Bill.
Bill: Well release the damn OS, we would have patches before they can figure out the errors.
That's pretty much what happens. Get it out there making money while we create patches. It's the way of the business world. Pretty smart, I got to hand it to them even if it's all on our backs.:(
Guidance...
Cutty: Other than the purely money factor what exactly is the difference between one group going out and buying the best code and coders they can find and open source software such as linux. In OOS' case they take the best of the code that people are giving freely and generate an OS from that. In M$'s case they buy the same thing in a competitive market arena.
The results are the same but one lacks the altruistic high ground and the other lacks the spoils of war, (read profits). Neither is inherently wrong and neither is inherently better.
just a thought or two for what they are worth....... Time to go now..... I have a cold one with my name all over it...... :D
Which is what I think Windows ME is. I heard about Windows ME coming out, it's going to be the OS that crosses the Win9x world with the NT world... you'll get the best of both worlds. It looks thrown together, still runs off of what seems the 9x kernal, crashes all the time, BS this and that, problems problems problems. Why was it released, because the new Mac OSX was coming out, or just the new Macs in general (I can't seem to keep my dates sorted in my head at the moment). So now a ton of people are still using an OS that was supposed to be this great work of art, and turned out to be a flop... just to meet a date.Quote:
That's pretty much what happens. Get it out there making money while we create patches. It's the way of the business world. Pretty smart, I got to hand it to them even if it's all on our backs.
Instead of thinking of the user in the end, lets worry about what the other people are doing. Even though if they would have waited a bit longer it would have been great... what everyone expected from all the hype. Instead it was a failure, one OS I don't even own a copy of and won't even really deal with because it's not worth my time.
Because of all the hype, we had to wait until the release of Windows XP to get what ME was supposed to be. To me that just doesn't sound right. It's like telling your kid you are going to Disney World this summer, and talk about what you're going to do there, etc. Then instead just go to the local park and save the trip for another year. Should have pushed the date back instead of upsetting a lot of people and wasting a lot of time and money on a worthless OS... At least that is my view.
In that perspective, I can't really say anything against it. Just somtimes it makes people feel like M$ is trying to be the only person on top rather than letting other small companies have a chance to make a break in the market with their own ideas. In a way I can see it as M$ is stealing other peoples ideas, whether they buy it or what not.Quote:
Cutty: Other than the purely money factor what exactly is the difference between one group going out and buying the best code and coders they can find and open source software such as linux. In OOS' case they take the best of the code that people are giving freely and generate an OS from that. In M$'s case they buy the same thing in a competitive market arena.
The results are the same but one lacks the altruistic high ground and the other lacks the spoils of war, (read profits). Neither is inherently wrong and neither is inherently better.
Just a thought...
~AciD
I have always said Windows software is like swiss cheese. I know to make software easy to use you have to lean a little bit away from the security side. I would rather have it a bit hard to learn and very secure. than so easy that a script kiddie could break into it without breaking a sweat. Microsoft would probably be less of a target if they would release a small portion of the source code or enough to make people happy.But for that to happen H3ll would have to freeze over twice.I don't think that will happen anytime soon
Microsoft for a while has had a "monopoly" on the market and when there is not a compediter then your product does not have to be amazing just "good". Windows is by far easier for most people to use. Hense alot of buisnesses will use it so they dont have to spend $$$ training the entire company how to use it. Instead they use Windows for day to day company stuff and use nix in part of IT for various things that it is needed for. Also it is not really cheaper to use Linux in the corperate enviornment... Little thing with linux that costs money is support... most companies cannot afford to not have support on servers. Its not that we settle for second best, it is more that we have to do what is best for the company. Microsoft is also expanding in Research and Development so hopefully it will get better. The best computer enviornemt is one that uses the best of what the distros offer.Quote:
Originally posted here by cutty
You know why? We settle for second best, because it's easier. We don't want to go the extra mile for what is better and that's just an issue people like Bill capitalizes on and always will. Until the day we open our eyes and see windows for what it really is then Bill we continue to make tremendous amounts of money for building OSs that have four times more errors than the one before and make twice the amount of money for it.
Though you can still make it as secure as you want, and someone will still find a whole.. there always will be one. The fact is that Gates does his job and it can stay easy to use, its just the fact that (in my opinion) he needs to keep a better eye on the code that is used. Because with every security update, that does not affect the interface of Windows at all... so that shows it can be secure but still easy to use.Quote:
I have always said Windows software is like swiss cheese. I know to make software easy to use you have to lean a little bit away from the security side. I would rather have it a bit hard to learn and very secure. than so easy that a script kiddie could break into it without breaking a sweat.
Again I stand by the fact that if the source code was released, I think people would just hack it more. The damage is done, and there are the people who target M$ just because it's M$. Releasing the code would only help those people better attack Windows getting at Gates. Plus releasing a part of the source code, what would that really do? Which part would you release... how much would make the public happy?Quote:
Microsoft would probably be less of a target if they would release a small portion of the source code or enough to make people happy.
I don't totally support the guy and how he does stuff, but I would look at it from any aspect. I think if enough people wanted to, *nix flavors would be full of holes too. But no one goes after them because they started out freeware, and they stay pretty much freeware. Though there are security threats and stuff aimed at that OS, just not as often... plus it doesnt directly attack any company or person so its not big news. Remember, the things in the news aren't always true.. and just because they are in the news doesn't mean it's the only thing going on.
No I will give Gates this, I think if an understanding would come of it... he would give. But that would have to be a pretty damn good understanding. And I'm not talking about a court order or anything like that either.Quote:
But for that to happen H3ll would have to freeze over twice.I don't think that will happen anytime soon
I don't know maybe I'm starting not to hate Gates as much after all this, or maybe when I made my first post I was just ticked off and something just set me off. Or maybe I'm just in too mello of a mood to really think about the ******* he is. Though when I came home I had another damn security update to install/restart.
Just a thought...
~AciD
[edit]
Didn't mean to skip you DivineRogue, just am tired and wasn't thinking. LOL... You make a good point about *nix being expensive to maintain with support, and a reason why it's not used. There are pros and cons to both sides, but *nix OSs are nice to have as servers. Plus I think in time more people will learn it so there won't be such a demand. Right now it's just slowly working it's way up, hopefully it will keep M$ on it's toes and keep them cracking at bringing out a better server side OS!
I like this thought, because its true... not just for computing but anything. Look at Ford, he was fine with this model and that, only upgraded a little as the technology went... but then other people started coming along and you aren't the only one in the market and you got to make thing bigger and flashier to draw the public to your product. Why upgrade or care about buying something new if it isnt fashy. XP and Mac OSX look alike in ways, like the login screen. Think they would have done it that way if Mac hadn't brought out their new stylish GUI? Something to think about...Quote:
Microsoft for a while has had a "monopoly" on the market and when there is not a compediter then your product does not have to be amazing just "good".
[/edit]
Tiger Shark, well other than money M$ would buy out a company because of competition. Mark my words not, not because the company is doing poorly but because he doesn't want the company to develop to give them competition. Why can't he push money into the other companies to help them build? Ok, that's a silly question no company in their right mind would do that but why buy them out of the market? Let them be, but no, he has the money so he buys them out. That's real bad IMO. But, then again it's good market it strategy and it's not illegal so more power to him.Quote:
Cutty: Other than the purely money factor what exactly is the difference between one group going out and buying the best code and coders they can find and open source software such as linux.
Tiger Shark don't drink too much tonight, since tomorrow is a working day. :) Heck.. Let me get a cold one my self. :)Quote:
Time to go now..... I have a cold one with my name all over it......
AciD, don't get me started on WinME. I've been trying for a while now to forget that this OS was ever made. WinME sucks and that's a fact. WinME was a total disaster and that's a fact. Did I mentioned that WinME sucks... am maybe I did. Anyway let me stay off WinME because I will go on and on and Acid already did a wonderful job of that.Quote:
Which is what I think Windows ME is. I heard about Windows ME coming out, it's going to be the OS that crosses the Win9x world with the NT world... you'll get the best of both worlds.
DeadAddict, all the security updates (patches) doesn't change a thing when it comes to the ease of use so the system could be a lot more secure up front. Oops and likewise Acid said that too:Quote:
I know to make software easy to use you have to lean a little bit away from the security side.
Quote:
Because with every security update, that does not affect the interface of Windows at all... so that shows it can be secure but still easy to use.
DeadAddict, in my true opinion I think it would be a bad idea for M$ to do that, even if am really curious about that code but not for hacking reasons. I think that will make windows just more unsecure than it is. I just have to stand with AciD on that one.Quote:
Microsoft would probably be less of a target if they would release a small portion of the source code or enough to make people happy.
Quote:
Again I stand by the fact that if the source code was released, I think people would just hack it more.
DivineRogue, you made a valid point here and you know what if you have been keeping up with the news you realize that some companies are actually switching over *nix flavors over windows these days. Does that tell you anything? M$ is stating to get a little competition, hence the need for them to expand in Research and Development.Quote:
Its not that we settle for second best, it is more that we have to do what is best for the company.
That's all I have for now. *Falls off the chair* Damn am tired heading off to bed.
Guidance...
I respect your opinionBut no one will ever know if it is never tried at least once the door can swing both ways if it doesn't work then it is no big deal but if it does great I guess some people are afraid to try something new and it is their loss.Quote:
I think it would be a bad idea for M$ to do that, even if I am really curious about that code but not for hacking reasons. I think that will make windows just more unsecure than it is
LOL I rember reading that :DQuote:
AciD, don't get me started on WinME. I've been trying for a while now to forget that this OS was ever made. WinME sucks and that's a fact. WinME was a total disaster and that's a fact. Did I mentioned that WinME sucks... am maybe I did. Anyway let me stay off WinME because I will go on and on and Acid already did a wonderful job of that
Right, but what happens if that code gets out and then a ton of computers are taken over to DoS a bunch of companies... I mean Windows is used everywhere and I know of a few countries where security is far from tight when it comes to servers. That's the big picture of letting the code out I think, even if that's not why Bills doing it. If it was let out I would be very worried about people figuring a way to break into it. Its a lot easier to break a code that you can read straight forward, than it is if you have to hack it.Quote:
But no one will ever know if it is never tried at least once the door can swing both ways if it doesn't work then it is no big deal but if it does great I guess some people are afraid to try something new and it is their loss.
Plus I bet more people would go after M$ saying they stole code, etc. Because there are too many people these days that just wat to get rich fast, whether they deserve the rights or not. That would just lead to more bullshit and web slinging back and forth I think.
Just a thought...
~AciD
True I agree with what you said and I will leave it at that. it would be a never ending line of people trying to get Microsoft's money and their name on the front page news
Yeah it's just weird to think how people will go after the easiest way to get money. Just like SCO (or whatever the hell that company is called) going after the *nix users to get them to pay for the code in the OS they are using. I mean come on, ok so they have the "intellectual" rights to the code. To me it sounds like another case that will be in court right next to the whole RIAA and P2P file sharing case.
Oh well, some people just bug me on that subject... just can't let things go.
*is being pulled away from the computer and won't let go of the keyboard*
~AciD
Well lately in the news it has been said that M$ has decided to release its source code to a dozen national governments in the effect to counter-attack the rise of switching to Linux in the cooperate world but they will not release it to small companies with under 1,500 Windows desktops.
Follow link below for full article posted by MemorY.
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=246818
Well M$ knows exactly how to play hardball. Hit them where it hurts. They are doing whatever it takes to stay on top without sacrificing much. Way to go M$, all respect due.
What do you guys think? I like the fact that Linux brought them to that level. Hopefully soon, their hands will be so tied that they might just improve the security in windows... hmmm maybe not... :) but we will see.
Guidance...
I like that thought cutty!Quote:
What do you guys think? I like the fact that Linux brought them to that level. Hopefully soon, their hands will be so tied that they might just improve the security in windows... hmmm maybe not... but we will see.
Yeah it is kind of interesting to see how M$ does it's business. That company will do what it takes to stay on top, just like riding a bull. Though I wonder if they will know when it's time to stop playing hard ball and give the people what they want.
Personally I don't understand why M$ is releasing their code to big companies and that's it? They think this is going to be an easy fix to the computer user moral or something? Not sure what their expectations are (and yes I've read the news... I'm just saying)...
Just a thought...
~AciD
Another link by MemorY and yet another spin that can be added to our discussion.
Thread posted by MemorY
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...639#post648967
M$ is really not going away without a fight. They are trying to find loopholes in their competitors now. That's really interesting; I wonder what they will come up with. The fact is, M$ is actually opening their eyes now and realizing that they are not alone in this venture. They have competition and if they don't do something about, their wonderful dynasty might just fall apart.
I like what's happening. It can only benefit us. Better and more secured OSs. Way to go Linux and way to go M$ for the come back. I want to see what comes next.
Tiger Shark, I haven't heard from you in a while. Was just wondering where you stand on this.
AciD keep them coming.
Guidance...
Microsoft will do something because they don't want to lose any amount of money And I htink they should take some pointers from linux it would make a better and more secure product and who knows might gain some new users