Microsoft Patches the super patch

[Xeen]

Looks like MS has begun releasing a service pack for its service pack 2.   :rolleyes:  

Microsoft has released the first of many patches for problems created by Service Pack 2 for XPee.

Article

[jtpenrod]

Who would ever imagine that?   :eek:  

This horseshit has been going on now for nearly ten years. You'd think that they'd learn by now.   :rolleyes:  

Perhaps Sir William of Redmond ought to start a division that manufactures vacuum pumps. That way, Microsoft would finally have a product that didn't suck.
_________________________________

Live Free or Die: Linux
If software can be free, why can't dolphins?

[hm_murdock]

Oh no! Not the hotfixes to repair minor problems that apparently only a small number of people have a problem with! OH NO!!!!!111111

Will you guys ever see anything they do as right, or is it...

Oh yeah, it's bias... I forgot.  

[Laukev7]

If they weren't so sloppy in the first place, then maybe they wouldn't need to release a patch for a service pack.

You can say what you want about 'bias', but the fact is that it has been set by an enormous number of precedents of buggy and insecure products, releases, service packs and patches.

[hm_murdock]

Might I direct your attention to the initial release of:

Red Hat 7
Fedora Core 1
Fedora Core 2
Mac OS X 10.0
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.2
Mac OS X 10.3
Solaris (any release)

All of these required some sort of fixes soon after release. In the case of Solaris, typically multiple attempts were needed. I also seem to remember that memory leak that plagued 10.1 all through its product cycle that could have been used to launch a buffer overrun attack.

RH7.2's firewall settings were inept. FC1 and 2 were horribly buggy, even though they weren't but minor updates to the previous release. All of these problems were fixed, yes, but the initial releases were flawed. x.0 is typically a rather flawed version of any product.

You need to consider that SP2 is such a drastic change, that it's practically a new OS. As for all the "compatibility problems"... people need to get used to them. MS's problem historically has been that they favor backward compatibility in the stead of real improvements. This is why many people saw "Windows 2000", thought it was an update to Windows 98, got it, and nothing ran. Many "home users" still think that 2000 was "buggy", not knowing that XP is really 2000! :-D

I'll bet that many OS X users would be surprised to see OPENSTEP 4.2, Rhapsody, and then realize that software built for those releases have no chance of running on OS X, due to changes made.

SP2 is important I think not because it "plugs all the holes"... it doesn't, it can't... but because it shows that MS is finally growing up and taking notice. They're finally realizing that they can't just keep tacking things onto the outside of their software. They've realized that they need to really address issues and FIX THEM from the inside out. It's important because it shows that they finally get it.

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Might I direct your attention to the initial release of:

Red Hat 7
Fedora Core 1
Fedora Core 2
Mac OS X 10.0
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.2
Mac OS X 10.3
Solaris (any release)

Heh, I'd like to add a few:

Mandrake 9.0
Mac System 7
Mac OS 8
Mac OS 8.5
Mac OS 9
Windows 98
Windows 95

All of those were also unholy when first released.  Improvements from 95a-95b, 8.5-8.6, Mdk 9.0-9.2, and System 7-System 7.5 really show something as well.

I'll probably install SP2 on my dad's machine when the version for XP Pro pops up on Windows Update.  Since his box acts as router and firewall, I'll take anything for that box's security.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
Might I direct your attention to the initial release of:

Red Hat 7
Fedora Core 1
Fedora Core 2
Mac OS X 10.0
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.2
Mac OS X 10.3
Solaris (any release)

All of these required some sort of fixes soon after release. In the case of Solaris, typically multiple attempts were needed. I also seem to remember that memory leak that plagued 10.1 all through its product cycle that could have been used to launch a buffer overrun attack.

RH7.2's firewall settings were inept. FC1 and 2 were horribly buggy, even though they weren't but minor updates to the previous release. All of these problems were fixed, yes, but the initial releases were flawed. x.0 is typically a rather flawed version of any product.

You need to consider that SP2 is such a drastic change, that it's practically a new OS. As for all the "compatibility problems"... people need to get used to them. MS's problem historically has been that they favor backward compatibility in the stead of real improvements. This is why many people saw "Windows 2000", thought it was an update to Windows 98, got it, and nothing ran. Many "home users" still think that 2000 was "buggy", not knowing that XP is really 2000! :-D

I'll bet that many OS X users would be surprised to see OPENSTEP 4.2, Rhapsody, and then realize that software built for those releases have no chance of running on OS X, due to changes made.

SP2 is important I think not because it "plugs all the holes"... it doesn't, it can't... but because it shows that MS is finally growing up and taking notice. They're finally realizing that they can't just keep tacking things onto the outside of their software. They've realized that they need to really address issues and FIX THEM from the inside out. It's important because it shows that they finally get it.

The patches for THOSE operating systems NEVER stopped the functionality of the OS.  OSX usually is clean from the get go and as for linux'es.  The patch is to prevent anything from happening in the first place, where as Micor$oft is again trying to  cover up its sloppy coding practices.  You keep going on about "will m$ do anyting right."  Instead of complaining, why don't you work with M$ to at least fix the BASIC problems they have.

How is it that they are taking the right step when they are STILL repeating the same mistakes again.  Again we have a major patch that causes more problems than an average virus attack, this has being going on in Micor$oft for years.  Backwards compatobility has never existed in the M$ world since they don't follow any kind of standard.

For a hobby OS its fine.  People could live with such insecure and unstable troubles as what M$ brings.  Its just not ever going to be an OS that will be taken seriously.

[ September 01, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn / BOB ]

[hm_murdock]

quote:The patches for THOSE operating systems NEVER stopped the functionality of the OS.

Mac OS 10.2.7 I think it was, or 10.2.8, broke ethernet on Power Macs.

OH, no it's impossible for non-MS companies to screw up.

Pfft.

 

quote:OSX usually is clean from the get go and as for linux'es. The patch is to prevent anything from happening in the first place, where as Micor$oft is again trying to cover up its sloppy coding practices.

Let's see you build something that complex, with as poor a history as they ACTUALLY HAVE, and do better. The problem is that you won't see that there's actually a change. Instead of just fixing bugs, SP2 actually makes architectural changes to the OS, and adds several new security layers. Regardless of what value you see in that, it DOES mark a change in the way MS thinks. Instead of saying "it's up to the user to plug the holes", they're actually taking a proactive stance for once and are at least trying to fix the mistakes they've been making since NT 3.1 was released.

 

quote:You keep going on about "will m$ do anyting right."

Actually, I "keep going on" about the way you say that MS will never do anything right.

 

quote:Instead of complaining, why don't you work with M$ to at least fix the BASIC problems they have.

Or perhaps you could do this? When last I looked, I wasn't the one complaining about MS Windows.

 

quote:How is it that they are taking the right step when they are STILL repeating the same mistakes again.

If you can't see it yourself, then it's not worth explaining it.

 

quote:Again we have a major patch that causes more problems than an average virus attack, this has being going on in Micor$oft for years.

Sure, whatever.

 

quote:Backwards compatobility has never existed in the M$ world since they don't follow any kind of standard.

lollerz

I suppose the whole "being able to run code from a decade previous" doesn't count as backward compatibility.

You gimp.

 

quote:For a hobby OS its fine. People could live with such insecure and unstable troubles as what M$ brings. Its just not ever going to be an OS that will be taken seriously.

Oops. Too late... people already do.

[ September 01, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ]

[Superboy]

quote:Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
]I also seem to remember that memory leak that plagued 10.1 all through its product cycle that could have been used to launch a buffer overrun attack.

Did it happen? No.


 

quote:

You need to consider that SP2 is such a drastic change, that it's practically a new OS.

If it was a new OS, why wouldn't they sell it as a new OS? This is Micro$haft were on about here. Anything they can make money from, they will.

 

quote:

MS's problem historically has been that they favor backward compatibility in the stead of real improvements.

Haha! Fact: Stuff from 98 won't run on XP.

Stuff from 1993 still works perfectly well on my 2005 G5. Thats 12 years later. Micro$haft cant run stuff thats 5 years old.

 

quote:

I'll bet that many OS X users would be surprised to see OPENSTEP 4.2, Rhapsody, and then realize that software built for those releases have no chance of running on OS X, due to changes made.

That's because OS X is a different OS to OpenStep.

[MrX]

ha!
with   BeOS I dont need to waste my energy with all that stupid stuff.

Mr X

[Refalm]

That triple post just cost you some points    
Please don't do it again.

EDIT: Triple post fixed.

[ January 31, 2005: Message edited by: WMD ]

[Aloone_Jonez]

quote:Originally posted by Elijah Gould:



That's because OS X is a different OS to OpenStep.

I wouldn't say that SP2 is a complete upgrade but it did make some majour changes and for me at least XP runs a bit faster and is more stable. Windows XP and 2000 won't run some Windows 95/98/ME programs because they are completely different operating systems. Windows XP and 2000 are both NT based while Windows 95/98/ME are all MS-DOS based.

For the most part I think Windows XP does a very good job of running legacy code. I use some DOS programs written way back in the 80s but there are also are some old DOS & Win/9x/3.x programs that won't run in XP.

I agree that MS did a pretty shitty job of testing SP2 but there are literally 1000s of Windows programs and it would take ages to test them all.