PDA

View Full Version : The more things change, the more Microsoft remains the same



Maksutov
2006-Jan-19, 04:45 PM
Microsoft releases security patch for its unreleased Vista OS (http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=10300002IL6U).

Word.

hhEb09'1
2006-Jan-19, 04:47 PM
Right arm

Sammy
2006-Jan-19, 04:58 PM
I don't see any issue here. Vista is still in development, but beta versions are out for testing. Apparently Vista's code contains the same graphics handling security flaw as XP.

After a patch was distributed to the army of XP users, they got a patch out out to the limited number of beta-testers. Seems like a logical approach to me.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-19, 05:04 PM
It hadn't occured to me yet that soon I would be running an "old" OS :).

As to the patch thing, I think there's nothing strange about the way things went :confused:

NEOWatcher
2006-Jan-19, 05:08 PM
I don't see any issue here.
snip
Right. Kind of like saying "I didn't know that" in one case but not the other.

Maksutov
2006-Jan-19, 05:35 PM
I don't see any issue here. Vista is still in development, but beta versions are out for testing. Apparently Vista's code contains the same graphics handling security flaw as XP.

After a patch was distributed to the army of XP users, they got a patch out out to the limited number of beta-testers. Seems like a logical approach to me.Ah, but whatever happened to Microsoft's Security is our top priority (http://news.com.com/Gates+Security+is+top+priority/2100-1001_3-816880.html) initiative?

Is releasing a "new" OS with old security flaws an affirmation of this corporate goal? Or is it just another example of Microsoft expecting the beta testers and the paying alpha users to find the flaws in their half-baked software?

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-19, 06:02 PM
Actually, it shows that they are reusing code, something that used to be considered a GoodThing(tm).

The security flaw wasn't found before the betas of Vista where out.

MicroSoft bashing is really getting out of hand, with people jumping in to attack them on even the flimsiest excuse.

Yes the code was badly flawed from the beginning, but they where right to consider fixing it in the beta lower priority than fixing it in the released production versions.

NEOWatcher
2006-Jan-19, 06:20 PM
snip
MicroSoft bashing is really getting out of hand, with people jumping in to attack them on even the flimsiest excuse.

They might as well use Wal-Mart as thier chief distributer.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-19, 07:36 PM
Ah, but whatever happened to Microsoft's Security is our top priority (http://news.com.com/Gates+Security+is+top+priority/2100-1001_3-816880.html) initiative?

Is releasing a "new" OS with old security flaws an affirmation of this corporate goal? Or is it just another example of Microsoft expecting the beta testers and the paying alpha users to find the flaws in their half-baked software?

Mind that it's only released as a beta at this stage, and at a time when the old flaw wasn't known yet.

Maksutov
2006-Jan-19, 11:52 PM
Actually, it shows that they are reusing code, something that used to be considered a GoodThing(tm).
Mind that it's only released as a beta at this stage, and at a time when the old flaw wasn't known yet.Then it's not much of a new OS, is it?

It therefore follows that we shouldn't have to pay new OS prices for it once it's finally released, but instead, just hand over a small amount for what is essentially an upgrade to our current operating systems.

Or are they only in it for the money?

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jan-19, 11:59 PM
Or are they only in it for the money?
Pardon me for saying so, but that is an immensely stupid question. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/a085.gif

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-20, 02:32 AM
Then it's not much of a new OS, is it?

It therefore follows that we shouldn't have to pay new OS prices for it once it's finally released, but instead, just hand over a small amount for what is essentially an upgrade to our current operating systems.

Or are they only in it for the money?
Decoding images can hardly be called more than periferal to the actual OS, so why bother rewriting it, it's on the same level as device drivers.
If device drivers that worked in XP stopped working in the new OS, I'd bet you'd slam them for that as well.

Maksutov
2006-Jan-20, 02:45 AM
Pardon me for saying so, but that is an immensely stupid question. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/a085.gifNot if you're a Frank Zappa fan (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009YNRZM/qid=1137725002/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-9158618-5920152?n=507846&s=music&v=glance), which, of course, was the reference.

Meanwhile, I suggest you try Q-tips: they're better (and hopefully safer) than fingers! http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Maksutov
2006-Jan-20, 02:48 AM
Decoding images can hardly be called more than periferal to the actual OS, so why bother rewriting it, it's on the same level as device drivers.
If device drivers that worked in XP stopped working in the new OS, I'd bet you'd slam them for that as well.Only if they claim that the old device drivers will work just fine in the new OS, then they don't, and there are no new device drivers for the new OS.

Kinda like what happened with the transition to XP, remember?

:D

hhEb09'1
2006-Jan-29, 05:30 PM
Actually, it shows that they are reusing code, something that used to be considered a GoodThing(tm).A Good Thing, usually, IF you have the original source code and know what it's doing. :)