http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=39935This heartfelt message is for the good people at Microsoft: Delaying Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) to 2004--any time in 2004--is a
mistake of epic proportions.
Windows Update currently provides almost 100MB of updates the first time you turn on an XP SP1 box, and
almost half of those updates are critical security updates. That situation isn't too troublesome for customers who have broadband connections, but for most people (in other words, most of your customers--you know, the people you supposedly care so much about), 100MB of code is an often-insurmountable amount to download and install.
If you're serious about making SP2 all about security and bug fixes, and if you're serious about
keeping your customers as safe and secure as possible, I strongly urge you to stop whatever other work the Windows client team is doing immediately and ship XP SP2 within the month. Then, adopt a schedule in which you deliver new Windows client service packs every 6 months on the nose and make CD-ROMs with those fixes available--for free--in major electronics stores such as Best Buy and CompUSA. If you don't do this--and I suspect you won't because you're dead set to complete whatever silly long-term road map you've started--you will have undermined any remaining good will your customers still have toward you.
Remember when you supposedly "stopped on a dime" and embraced the Internet? Why don't you truly make a difference by stopping on a dime and embracing your customers with the security fixes they all desperately need? It's almost too late.And yes, it's a pro windows site, if you keep reading infact, you'll find this little treasure:
Mossberg isn't the only person taking advantage of the recent spate of security problems to tout his favorite platform. "LinuxWorld" published a rant this week in which it declared, "Microsoft
continues to demonstrate that [it is] years behind Linux and open-source innovators in many areas, not the least of which is security." That statement is fascinating but untrue for the reasons cited earlier. The real problem is that the article claims
Linux is more secure than Windows because turning off unused services in Linux is "trivial." The idea that anything in Linux is trivial is almost humorous because your definition of trivial depends on your experience level. Is a control panel that enables and disables services Linux's only security advantage? Frankly, the knowledge and experience of the people who use these systems is what counts, which basically proves that Linux is no more secure than Windows; Linux just has more technical users.
Personally, I don't see how their argument helps the windows scene. It seems to me like they are ranting themselves. (when you put the two articles together, its hard to imagine their thought process)
