Microsoft patches a patch

[Xeen]

This just gets better and better.
Turns out the patch that Microsoft released last fix to fix Internet Explorer's URL-spoofing bug created problems in some cases. Many users reported that the patch prevented them from accessing some sites, so MS was forced to released a patch to patch the patch.    

Article

[dishawjp]

Multiple choice question:

What is suprising about this is that:

a) Microsoft, with all its money releases buggier software than the free and open source software available and charges a lot of money for it.

b) With all its highly paid programmers, Microsoft is slower to fix bugs and serious security flaws in its software than often unpaid open source programmers.

c) Windows, with its closed source (for security reasons it seems) is regularly bombarding the internet with virus and worm generated e-mails and launching DOS attacks on commercial servers unlike that insecure, open source Linux OS.

d) Bill Gates begs Tux every night to let him give Tux a blow job hoping that Tux will give him a clue on how to develop a secure OS. But Tux don't f**k with Satan.

e) Linux security flaws are repaired faster than Microsoft flaws, generally don't require system reboots, and usually are right the first time...even though the OS can be freely downloaded and installed instead of costing about $200 US.

f) All of the above.


Sure can't wait for that Winders Longhorn stuff.  Maybe if I went back to Microsoft I could be owned, hacked and crash regularly.  I think I'm missing them BSOD's.

Or maybe I'll just stick with Linux.  Hmmmmm...

Jim Dishaw

[Mistshadow]

d) is just way too out there; Bill gates doesn't give a crap about making a secure OS. If he did, OSS  'nix code could be worked into Windows as a asecurity layer, whixch would naturally require reprogramming Windows. But since they don't give a shit, absolutely nothing is being done to make Windows more secure.

They don't seem to be making any improvements to Windows at all, for that matter. All they're doing is upping their claims that Windows is better through marketing tactics while proving the exact opposite everyday.

[timothygr]

Well, guys, it seems to me that there is nothing new about that: I guess you must have learnt by now that M$ is the ONE and ONLY company in the whole universe that always offers a problem to every solution. Simple as that.

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by Mistshadow:
They don't seem to be making any improvements to Windows at all, for that matter.

Don't need to.  They have their monopoly, marketing department, and the power to shut off people's software.  What can I say?  

[Fett101]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:


Don't need to.  They have their monopoly, marketing department, and the power to shut off people's software.  What can I say?    

Have you tried XP compared to 98. Sure, there's some things worse then 98 (Messenger... stuff), but it is far better ins stabability and features.

[solarflare]

quote:Originally posted by xeen:
This just gets better and better.
Turns out the patch that Microsoft released last fix to fix Internet Explorer's URL-spoofing bug created problems in some cases. Many users reported that the patch prevented them from accessing some sites, so MS was forced to released a patch to patch the patch.    

Article

This is the biggest joke since Windows was created!! !

Microsoft are going DOOOOOWWWWWNNNN...

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by Fett101:


Have you tried XP compared to 98. Sure, there's some things worse then 98 (Messenger... stuff), but it is far better ins stabability and features.

Yeah I got XP right here     Remember, the stability has been around for years, it's just been marketed only towards corporate use (2000/NT4).

As for features, I'm sure I could go with a stable version of 98 ok.  But then there's Linux of course  

[restin256]

XP goes too slow.

I think it'd be perfect if some team of brilliant hackers somehow decompiled the source of Windows 98SE, rebuilt it so that it had an intergrated version of apt/pkg_tool/Windoze Update that could go across a list of servers, and were open source.

Too bad that's never going to happen. I'd be able to run Windows on my 486 again without having to worry about program compatabilities.

[dishawjp]

quote:
Have you tried XP compared to 98. Sure, there's some things worse then 98 (Messenger... stuff), but it is far better ins stabability and features.

Well, I have to admit that Win98 was the last version of Windows I ever used personally.  Been Linux ever since.  But when my daughter was getting ready to leave for College, I bought her a new HP with WinXP on it.  She hated it and asked me to install Linux over Windows, but I was worried that she might need Windows for some of her school work.  When she came back on her first Christmas break, she asked me again to just install Linux over WinXP, but instead, I added a second hard drive and set her up with a dual boot; RH9/WinXP.  When she brought the computer home at the end of the academic year, it was still dual boot, but she had gotten a copy of FC1 and installed that over WinXP, so it was (and still is) a RH9/FC1 dual boot.

My oldest daughter went to Linux only as soon as she graduated college a few years ago.  I have 5 computers at home.  One still has Win98 on it, but nobody uses it and I'm considering trying out OpenBSD on it.  The thing probably hasn't been booted in months.

I personally don't give a rats rear end about M$Windows, their patches, viruses, stability, features or anything else.  Just as long as I don't have to use it.

Jim Dishaw