M$ has surrendered to the Blaster worm
- Thread starter MisterMe
- Start date
that whole 95% market share gets 95% of the viruses crap really gets on my nerves. If you actually look at the history of computing microsoft seemed to go out of their way to re-enable exploits that had been found and fixed in unix 10 years prior. They don't do anything for security in their fundamental design. They made executable documents. They made an e-mail program that automatically runs code if given a specific header.
Even microsoft admits that windows 95 was built around the idea that everything was going to work and that small problems then quickly caused big problems. Their code is awful. What they are currently putting out is much improved over what they had put out before, but that's the installed base.
Security isn't that hard, but making it easy to use is, and making it marketable is even harder. microsoft went straight for profits and has never looked back. They could have tried to make their systems more secure, make the components more refined and the interfaces properly documented and limited. They didn't. Everything they do is purely profit driven. As long as people keep paying for their crap they'll keep producing it. Don't pay for their crap.
I know, I'm going off and totally ranting but the 95% hypothesis is utter flaming crap. The fact that I don't have an alternate universe with 95% macintosh usage to compare ours to doesn't mean that I can't extrapolate a reasonable answer.
The best thing we can do for security is to diversify the OS marketplace. Homogenous systems die catastrophic death from single flaws. It's a basic evolution thing. That's why diversity is so important. Look up anything on biodiversity and learn great deals about the nature of networked systems. If we had windows, mac, and linux each with a third of the desktop market, virus success rates would be 1 tenth what they are now.
Some days I wonder if I am more properly described as pro-Apple or anti-Microsoft.
Even microsoft admits that windows 95 was built around the idea that everything was going to work and that small problems then quickly caused big problems. Their code is awful. What they are currently putting out is much improved over what they had put out before, but that's the installed base.
Security isn't that hard, but making it easy to use is, and making it marketable is even harder. microsoft went straight for profits and has never looked back. They could have tried to make their systems more secure, make the components more refined and the interfaces properly documented and limited. They didn't. Everything they do is purely profit driven. As long as people keep paying for their crap they'll keep producing it. Don't pay for their crap.
I know, I'm going off and totally ranting but the 95% hypothesis is utter flaming crap. The fact that I don't have an alternate universe with 95% macintosh usage to compare ours to doesn't mean that I can't extrapolate a reasonable answer.
The best thing we can do for security is to diversify the OS marketplace. Homogenous systems die catastrophic death from single flaws. It's a basic evolution thing. That's why diversity is so important. Look up anything on biodiversity and learn great deals about the nature of networked systems. If we had windows, mac, and linux each with a third of the desktop market, virus success rates would be 1 tenth what they are now.
Some days I wonder if I am more properly described as pro-Apple or anti-Microsoft.
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
From that post, you sound a lot more anti-Microsoft than pro-Apple. You mention Microsoft 3 times and Apple none, besides the last sentence. What I'm wondering is how your arguments don't support the idea that the 95% marketshare gets 95% of the viruses.
It's funny how Windows has 5 steps to activate a firewall, while OS X has only one for each firewall you want to activate: click a check box. Or, alternatively, push the Start button.
Imagine if someone hacked Microsoft's website (which probably wouldn't be that hard, since I'm sure they use Windows servers) and installed a new "patch" that completely broke Windows. They could take control of any computer connected to the Internet, or steal all sorts of data. That would herald very bad for Microsoft if this were perceived as a "critical update."
It's funny how Windows has 5 steps to activate a firewall, while OS X has only one for each firewall you want to activate: click a check box. Or, alternatively, push the Start button.
Imagine if someone hacked Microsoft's website (which probably wouldn't be that hard, since I'm sure they use Windows servers) and installed a new "patch" that completely broke Windows. They could take control of any computer connected to the Internet, or steal all sorts of data. That would herald very bad for Microsoft if this were perceived as a "critical update."
Jason
Eyebrow Moderator
actually i no longer have a pc, but nice try with the facetious comments anyways guys 
its called taking protective measures, sure the average joe doesnt know what the hell he's doing, but it doesnt mean that anyone with a bit of common sense to them cant have a working windows
and IIRC MS did seem to come out on top in the early OS wars.... dont see a whole lot of amiga around anymore
in any case, i still think that MS gets an unnecessary bad wrap, its HAS to work with ALL hardware made, plain and simple. It HAS to have absolutely no security flaws. Or other wise, it sucks. Obviously, they are failing both those... its like this:
if you have 1000 people trying to find a way into a house or 1 person trying to find a way into a house, which do you think will be more successful?
anyways, im still one of the few here that is bi-OSexual
its called taking protective measures, sure the average joe doesnt know what the hell he's doing, but it doesnt mean that anyone with a bit of common sense to them cant have a working windows
and IIRC MS did seem to come out on top in the early OS wars.... dont see a whole lot of amiga around anymore
in any case, i still think that MS gets an unnecessary bad wrap, its HAS to work with ALL hardware made, plain and simple. It HAS to have absolutely no security flaws. Or other wise, it sucks. Obviously, they are failing both those... its like this:
if you have 1000 people trying to find a way into a house or 1 person trying to find a way into a house, which do you think will be more successful?
anyways, im still one of the few here that is bi-OSexual
Cat
Registered
It's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike that. If windows fails to do the two things you mention (support all & no security flaws), I think it is simply in the wrong position. By whom was it put there? By its own ambition to make most money possible and by the marketing/brainwashed users. If windows has all of these apparent flaws, then it shouldn't be on millions of desktops. If it endeavours to be on them and if it claims to fullfill your compatibility and security requirements, but in fact fails, then it deserves to be criticised. People pay A LOT of money for the product and also A LOT of money for the service & support: both seem to fall considerably short of the expectations and the claims. Hence the criticism.
If a company who has a budget corresponding to 95% of the market share, cannot make its products secure, then I am filled with awe at the marvellous feats of Apple and open source OSes which have considerably less resources, yet make at least comparable quality OSes (stability, compatibility, security, usability etc.). You should ask yourself what the Linux community or Apple could do with a budget like that of M$... that would be more of a fair comparison. Who is more likely to produce bugs and leaks? 1000 programmers or 1? Who is more likely to fix them? Ok, so now we have windows, well, let's leave the middle-ages and put some double glazing in there!
If windows fails to do the two things you mention (support all & no security flaws), I think it is simply in the wrong position. By whom was it put there? By its own ambition to make most money possible and by the marketing/brainwashed users. If windows has all of these apparent flaws, then it shouldn't be on millions of desktops. If it endeavours to be on them and if it claims to fullfill your compatibility and security requirements, but in fact fails, then it deserves to be criticised. People pay A LOT of money for the product and also A LOT of money for the service & support: both seem to fall considerably short of the expectations and the claims. Hence the criticism.If a company who has a budget corresponding to 95% of the market share, cannot make its products secure, then I am filled with awe at the marvellous feats of Apple and open source OSes which have considerably less resources, yet make at least comparable quality OSes (stability, compatibility, security, usability etc.). You should ask yourself what the Linux community or Apple could do with a budget like that of M$... that would be more of a fair comparison. Who is more likely to produce bugs and leaks? 1000 programmers or 1? Who is more likely to fix them? Ok, so now we have windows, well, let's leave the middle-ages and put some double glazing in there!
Indeed. The author makes it clear that the Mac and Linux markets are plenty large enough for vendors to make money. However, they are not large enough for bad guys to make mischief? M$ Windows and M$ Office to a lesser extent are virus enabling technologies. Look. The whole notion that M$ gets 95% of the viruses because it has 95% of the market is silly and an oughtright lie. M$ Windows has a lot more than 95% of the viruses. Do the math. And what's more, most viruses that infect Macs originate in M$ Office.
tsizKEIK
its all about HOUSE music
Originally posted by Jason
if you have 1000 people trying to find a way into a house or 1 person trying to find a way into a house, which do you think will be more successful?
anyways, im still one of the few here that is bi-OSexual
if u have 1000 cameras securing ur house does it really matter if its 1 person or 10000 ?
its common sense that if u have 95 % market share ull be more busy tryin to protect ur ground
anyways, im still one of many in here that hates microsoft ...
maybe u should read that article that RacerX posted. it will do u good
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
I think that since Microsoft has so much money, and is constantly receiving more (grr! ), most of their so-called "programmers" are really accountants who just sit at a desk and count money, and only 5 or 6 guys really work on programming Windows. 2 of these guys are Uncle Billy and Mr. Developers, and the rest are crackheads.
), most of their so-called "programmers" are really accountants who just sit at a desk and count money, and only 5 or 6 guys really work on programming Windows. 2 of these guys are Uncle Billy and Mr. Developers, and the rest are crackheads.
hulkaros
The Incredible...
and IIRC MS did seem to come out on top in the early OS wars.... dont see a whole lot of amiga around anymore
This should make you feel at least sad! As for quantity=quality, by now you should have read my signature
in any case, i still think that MS gets an unnecessary bad wrap, its HAS to work with ALL hardware made, plain and simple. It HAS to have absolutely no security flaws. Or other wise, it sucks. Obviously, they are failing both those... its like this:
if you have 1000 people trying to find a way into a house or 1 person trying to find a way into a house, which do you think will be more successful?
If they cannot keep up with the market THEY created in the first place then they should roll over and die! If I cannot support one family I'm not going to marry/divorce 3 times or more! I'm going to stay alone
Not to mention that with M$, people are not trying to find a way into a house... Instead, they already have the keys AND the password of the security system anyways, im still one of the few here that is bi-OSexual
You should become normal: As in you should pair with men or women ONLY, not both and even worst, both at the same time!
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
And stop doing your computer.
Hulk, about the quantity/quality part: 1000 people trying to break into a home are usually a lot more effective by using brute force than one person making an extraordinary plan. Sure, the one's method has more quality, but the 1000's's (yeah, something like that) have the quantity. So I think he agreed with your signature.
Hulk, about the quantity/quality part: 1000 people trying to break into a home are usually a lot more effective by using brute force than one person making an extraordinary plan. Sure, the one's method has more quality, but the 1000's's (yeah, something like that) have the quantity. So I think he agreed with your signature.
Have to disagree. Using multiple operating systems at the same time is most definitely completely unlike having sex with both a man and a woman at the same time. Sure, the psychological issues will cause headaches after a while in both cases, but they just have nothing to do with each other apart from that.
Using multiple operating systems is certainly a good thing. First, you learn more about each operating system. You get a differentiated sense of what's good, bad and - more importantly - different about each OS. You'll also find out that you might enjoy doing one task better in one, another task better in the other operating system. It makes you a more complete computer user. If you're a Mac user only, you look like a dork working on a Windows computer. Believe me. I've seen those. You can be all the bad-ass computer crack on Mac OS (X) you want, if you sit down in front of a Linux or Windows computer, your knowledge isn't worth much any longer. Sure, some things are the same, but in any case: Using two (or three) operating systems on your two (or four) computers is helpful for work, play and - most of all - the future.
Using multiple operating systems is certainly a good thing. First, you learn more about each operating system. You get a differentiated sense of what's good, bad and - more importantly - different about each OS. You'll also find out that you might enjoy doing one task better in one, another task better in the other operating system. It makes you a more complete computer user. If you're a Mac user only, you look like a dork working on a Windows computer. Believe me. I've seen those. You can be all the bad-ass computer crack on Mac OS (X) you want, if you sit down in front of a Linux or Windows computer, your knowledge isn't worth much any longer. Sure, some things are the same, but in any case: Using two (or three) operating systems on your two (or four) computers is helpful for work, play and - most of all - the future.
Jason
Eyebrow Moderator
thank you fryke
i absolutely love using multiple OS's, just for the fact that each one does different things better, and in the end the user becomes more efficient AND more powerful in the work force.
oh well, sue me, i think windows xp is a fine operating system, just gotta be careful how open you leave it to others, and various builds of linux are very nice too (i just have no point using them). and obviously i like OSX
i absolutely love using multiple OS's, just for the fact that each one does different things better, and in the end the user becomes more efficient AND more powerful in the work force.
oh well, sue me, i think windows xp is a fine operating system, just gotta be careful how open you leave it to others, and various builds of linux are very nice too (i just have no point using them). and obviously i like OSX
tsizKEIK
its all about HOUSE music
experience and knowledge = power
its good if u use other OSes.
id like to (and will) use linux one day. and as many versions as possible. suse , redhat etc..
but windows are bad for your health.
theyre built in such a way to make ur life miserable, especially when ur tryin to fix them
and since im not a mazochist..i dont use windows. and i DO THINK XP is a crap os
its good if u use other OSes.
id like to (and will) use linux one day. and as many versions as possible. suse , redhat etc..
but windows are bad for your health.
theyre built in such a way to make ur life miserable, especially when ur tryin to fix them
and since im not a mazochist..i dont use windows. and i DO THINK XP is a crap os
hulkaros
The Incredible...
Guess what? If you shit down and discuss about bi-sexual stuff with such people they will tell you the same things:
Having multiple partners is certainly a good thing. First, you learn more about each human being. You get a differentiated sense of what's good, bad and - more importantly - different about each human being. You'll also find out that you might enjoy doing one task better in one, another task better in the other human being. It makes you a more complete sexual partner. If you're a man sexual partner only, you look like a dork "working" with women. Believe me. I've seen those. You can be all the bad-ass partner crack with men you want, if you sit down in front of a woman or a girl , your knowledge isn't worth much any longer. Sure, some things are the same, but in any case: Having two (or three --or even more) sexual partners on your two (or four) beds is helpful for work, play and - most of all - the future...
Originally posted by Jason
thank you fryke
i absolutely love using multiple OS's, just for the fact that each one does different things better, and in the end the user becomes more efficient AND more powerful in the work force.
oh well, sue me, i think windows xp is a fine operating system, just gotta be careful how open you leave it to others, and various builds of linux are very nice too (i just have no point using them). and obviously i like OSX
I absolutely love using multiple sexual partners, just for the fact that each one does different things better, and in the end any human being becomes more efficient AND more powerful in the "work force".
Oh well, sue me, I think women XP are fine sexual partners, just gotta be careful how open you leave it to others, and various builds of girls are very nice too (i just have no point using them). and obviously I like men...
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
Hulk, wouldn't you use the opposite sex for the OS you prefer, and the same sex for Windows (unless your wired the other way)? In any case, I think we should get off (no pun intended) on comparing OS's to fking and get back on topic.
What do VPC and MSBlaster have to do with each other, if anything?
king and get back on topic.What do VPC and MSBlaster have to do with each other, if anything?
DJHyp3rion
Registered
Holy crap. I'm the same way. I was a PC user since my first computer back in 1996, just recently (Dec. 2002) switched to Mac. Ever since I used a Mac in Kindergarten...I just found it so intuitive, so elegant, so easy yet so powerful...I wanted one. I wanted one practically my whole life. But I just HAD to use Windows because "Macs are crap and no one uses them"...well I do. Look at me! Do I look like I got blasted by a stupid worm that propogates through a DANG SHORTCUT TO AN MS-DOS PROGRAM? I always hated Windows...since Win95...I hated it so much I tried Linux...but Linux isn't there yet. No software...It's like, a very nice and stable OS, but there isn't software for the home user in it yet. But Apple punched the Linux community in the balls by unveiling the kind of OS the "Linux-On-The-Desktop" had wet dreams about: Mac OS X. Stability of UNIX. Hell...I like to think of it as Linux, with a kick-ass Mac User Interface. When Mac OS X got done installing on my brand new iBook back in that restaurant in the Philippines...and it asked me for my user account details, I said "Wow. Feels like installing Linux all over again..."..because it was. Linux (UNIX) core...but so very Mac. I just found my new favorite platform. I remember thinking, "Why the hell would I want a Mac? Nothing runs on it!". That was 1995. Fate has a very, very good sense of irony.
And to this date...my Wintel friends still call me up.
"Phil...Windows made this error...it says (insert some crap error here.)"
"Phil...how do I install RAM?!"
"Phil...what's Napster?"
"Phil..." *sigh*...
Then I got an interesting call...
"Phil...can you help me? I'm having a problem with Windows--O wait...you use a MAC...ugh...never mind. You don't know anything about Windows." *clik*
...He didn't find any of our friends that could help him. His problem? Opening the case of his computer and adding a CD Burner.
My Response: (insert directions to open case/install CD Burner), If you had a Power Mac G4, you could just pull a lever and the case would open.
"Really?"
"Yes."
"Wow...I wish Microsoft would make one like that..."
My head: MICROSOFT?! They make software!!!
I've never met a stupid Mac user in my life. Not yet, at least.
As for stupid PC users...
--Wait...I got another tech support call...one of my Wintel friends again...
(sorry...got a little carried away... I just noticed that's a big ass post)