Windows Vista to be blocked by Anti-MS group

[Shamrock]

http://www.betanews.com/article/AntiMS_Group_Aims_to_Block_Vista/1123614377

I agree with him 100%

Nothing is 100% secure, but Windows is the least secure, and STILL patching it, for 4 years now, we are 4 year beta testers.

 

[corkyg]

Reminds me of Cervantes.

 

[latresillustre]

Microsoft has an extremely hard job of competing with thousands of hackers deliberately trying to break their product. I don't think Mr. Martin understands that Microsoft gets far more attention for security errors because they are the most used. I'm sure other OS companies would be in the same place if they were as popular. MS isn't close to my favorite, but let's be fair.

From what I've heard and read lately. Politicians have no idea what is logical when it comes to technology. I totally disagree with this article.

 

[kamper]

Wow. I'm no microsoft lover, but that article was retarded.

Martin intends to ask Microsoft for an unconditional warranty that the operating system is free of bugs that could result in security vulnerabilities.

Obviously he's shooting high there, but he should try working for a money-making software development company some time. Either as a developer or a tester, and then see what he thinks about bug free code.

Bill Gates sells the public defective products, and then expects us to spend years being his guinea pigs, while he corrects the myriad of defects and vulnerabilities in his defective code. This is mass consumer fraud.

No it's not. Everyone that buys windows knows d@mn well what they're getting. I've never heard a law against selling a bad product, it's just that the market usually weeds them out. The only way to get microsoft to improve is to threaten their bottom line, through the consumers.

He argues that no company in America gets away with selling a "defective" product the way Microsoft does.

No company in the world sells a product that is so exposed to attacks. I'm sure there are plenty of products in many different industries that have as many potential problems, they just function in a safer environment.

I'm not trying to defend insecure software, I just think legal action is a stupid way to solve the problem.

 

[Jeff7]

It'll never go anywhere, though I like the premise.


Computer users are acclimated to defective products. If it doesn't outright destroy their data on a regular basis, they're happy. BSOD's, fatal exceptions, random crashes - "ah, that's just the way computers are!" But it shouldn't be. Like discovering nuclear power and then immediately developing weapons and unsafe reactors, we discovered the immense capabilities of computers, and rushed into it. Now we realize, with millions of lines of Windows code written, that there is a lot of room for errors to be made very quickly. Heck, in programming classes in school, only a few lines of code can lead to some very odd bugs.

 

[Brentx]

Not that I am a Microsoft fan here ( I love Linux ) but people have to use their head here. If Linux was used by Millions of people around the world that don't know the difference between their Computer and Monitor, much less people who can keep their system free of Viruses and Spyware, Linux would have the same problem. Me and a friend were just talking about this the other day. Same exact situation with FireFox... Since the majority of people use IE, of course people are going to code viruses and trojans to use it's vulnerabilites to their advantage. If FireFox was the most used browser out their, beleive me, we would have a lot more people targetting it.

 

[dsa1971]

there will never be bug-free code and there will always be security vulnerabilities. they can be limited but not completely eliminated.

 

[yukichigai]

Also called into question were Microsoft's claims that Windows XP could run on 128MB of RAM, encouraging the sale of underpowered computers by its partners.

Actually the claim is true. Currently at work we have 3 machines running XP on 128mb of RAM, and 2 more running less than that. It takes a little while to do all the startup crap, but programs load up fine.

If the guy was claiming that there were too many bugs then I could see it happening, because yes, there are way too many bugs in XP. However, trying to get a "bug-free" OS isn't going to happen.

 

[Sunner]

Retarded, that's all that needs to be said about that.

 

[drag]

It's not so much as 'anti-microsoft' as 'anti-have-a-freaking-clue'

Just goes to show how ignorant and corrupt some 'public interest' lawyers are. The guy has obviously no clue about software developement or what it takes to maintain a large OS with large install base. Sure, others do better then Microsoft.. but all software is going to have bugs and insecurities.

stupid lawyers.. going to screw it up for the rest of us. If he cared he could use his lawyer-ly skills for something good, like helping out with non-profits to support Microsoft alternative software instead of trying to get a judge to tell Microsoft on how to build better software.

Hope nobody listens to him, "oh, look, I am a anti-corporate republican! Lets attack MS, it's almost as easy as a target as the tobacco industry!!"
Moron.

 

[Gamerguy68]

It just boils down to losers that haven't got a life, and create viruses to destroy other people's computers. Makes no difference what OS people use. Windows is easy to use and more abundant. UNIX was hacked tons before Windows came on the scene. What should be done is build in some kind of software that tracks intruders and logs details that can be forwarded to the authorities. And the idea of users running as admin is a bad. Should be more like the *nix world with root and regular users.

 

[Parkre]

1969??? jeezzzzz....I'm surprise this guy (from his generation) can even turn on a computer.

(while i know that was a blanket statement, I have yet to meet (personally) someone older than 50 that understands computers well)

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Parkre
1969??? jeezzzzz....I'm surprise this guy (from his generation) can even turn on a computer.

(while i know that was a blanket statement, I have yet to meet (personally) someone older than 50 that understands computers well)

Oh trust me, there are loads of oldies who were there back in the day and could give pretty much anyone >40 a good schooling.
I've met a few, damn those people just won't stop talking if you ask them something about "the good ole days"

 

[drag]

At my work there is a guy that has designed out database for our IBM mainframe. (I don't quite mean the tables and such.. I mean the actual database software itself)

He worked for the government for a long time. Basicly him and a few other people were in charge of making sure that the US's governments payrole and informaiton systems stayed fully functional. They accomplished this by using multiple reduntant and geographically dispersed labs using mainframes and advanced (for the time) networking technology.

Basicly it was their to make sure that in event of a failure, such as from a military attack, that any site anywere in the country can pick up the slack from any other site in any other part of the country in and have everything fully functional in under 10 minutes. They designed and put together this system.

BTW this was around the late 60's/70's era in computing technology. The guy is in his 70's now.

I also met another person, who was a technition for IBM, who specialized in a now-obsolete network technology that was commonly used in banks a long time ago. In this era of bank consolidation occasionally these companies will still run into this propriatory networking technology.. All documentation is long gone, nobody makes parts for it, nobody has machines to work on it. The company that designed and built it used extremely propriatory technology and kept it secret... and then went out of business a couple decades ago. Occasionally they still run into this stuff when a large corporate bank buys some crusty old country or regional bank that still uses this stuff. This network is the only way to get the banking information off of these machines.

I forgot what the actual network stuff was called...

He trained his replacement for 2-3 years in this stuff before he retired. A few months after he retired the person he trained immediately left the company for a huge raise from somewere else. IBM brought him back out of retirement, while still paying him BIG retirement (he got a special deal for leaving a couple years early) benifits he gets 100%+ of his former salary plus he only works 2-3 days a week when he decides too. He can build the networking devices that these banks need from used and broken down spare parts _from memory_. There is only a handfull of people in the world that can even work with this stuff. I think he is getting up into his 70's now, too.

Now that's job security.

Some very old guys are completley computer geniuses of the highest order. They got into it, developed it, made it work back when the average person was awed by a mechanical calculator.

Just because your old, doesn't mean that it gives you a right to be a moron. A person that was in business even back in '69 should know enough by now to at least STFU when he wants to talk about something that he has no idea about... Especially when it comes to getting courts involved into software developement.

That's the last thing anybody needs...

 

[TXJustin]

Yeah, the guy is an idiot. Nothing will ever come of this. If it does, we'd have to stop making everything -- think of all the recalls and TSB's for automobiles and aircraft alone.

 

[dawks]

One thing I have been thinking of, is that Windows XP was developed around a different model then that of Windows Vista. Microsoft is MUCH more security minded now. Security just was not as important back in 2001. It will be interesting to see what comes out of Redmond now that security is number one on all developers minds while they are working away.

 

[piasabird]

Linux is the same way. There mast be a new linux version or subversion every 6 months.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: dsa1971
there will never be bug-free code and there will always be security vulnerabilities. they can be limited but not completely eliminated.

As a software QA person, I will tell you that there is NO S/W product on the market that is "bug free".

There is a huge balance battle between bugs vs. risks vs go to market.

MS has changed it's focus to be more security minded, and that will in turn change that risk/bug importance for security related things. You cannot expect "bug free" software. This is just a case of a dumb person opening his mouth and looking dumber.

And as for the "Well MS has the market, so that's where hackers look" argument...what is the ratio of *nix/Apache web servers to IIS? I'm pretty sure it slants one way

I get IIS attacks on my webserver all the time (looking in the access logs). Why would people waste their time on the small IIS marketshare? Because it's inheriently less secure, because of the focus of development. Apache has had time to get it right, and has a huge number of people who look for/develop fixes for bug/security bugs. IIS does not.

 

[dguy6789]

Andy Martin is a complete idiot. He should not be allowed near a computer.

 

[stash]

Windows Vista to be blocked by Anti-MS group

Your title is inaccurate. They hope to block Vista, but they don't have a freaking prayer, because they are utter morons.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Windows Vista to be blocked by Anti-MS group

Your title is inaccurate. They hope to block Vista, but they don't have a freaking prayer, because they are utter morons.

Judging by the thread, everyone here understand as much

 

[PingSpike]

Honestly I might agree if he were talking about windows9x...but since windows 2000 MS has made relatively solid products IMO. Yeah, sure they have bugs and software compatibility issues...but that comes with the territory when you're making an operating system on such an open standard architecture like the PC. 2k/XP is pretty solid though.

Security vulnerabilities? Yeah, I'm sure they could do better on that front. But they've changed focus from ease of use to security.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Brentx
Not that I am a Microsoft fan here ( I love Linux ) but people have to use their head here. If Linux was used by Millions of people around the world that don't know the difference between their Computer and Monitor, much less people who can keep their system free of Viruses and Spyware, Linux would have the same problem. Me and a friend were just talking about this the other day. Same exact situation with FireFox... Since the majority of people use IE, of course people are going to code viruses and trojans to use it's vulnerabilites to their advantage. If FireFox was the most used browser out their, beleive me, we would have a lot more people targetting it.

I've read that if you do not run Linux as the root user, spyware and viruses aren't as much of a threat. I believe it is n0cmonkey, or one of our resident Linux experts who's said this, so I'm paraphrasing it as best as I can remember it.
If you're not logged in as a root user, you can't severely botch your Linux install. Your data can likely be wiped by you, but not the core OS. Since you can't do that, neither can spyware or viruses. They don't have permission to do it.
Now let's say a virus does take over somehow - it will not be able to replicate itself. It could infect every file it has permission to get, but it can't send itself out en masse. The virus remains contained in your PC.


Ok, appears it was a link in a thread where n0cmonkey posted a lot. Oops.
Article on Linux viruses. From that arcticle:

By contrast, on Linux (or any other Unix), your processes cannot harm the machine (or damage other users' files) ? because you yourself cannot.

Thus, even a Linux user who deliberately wants to activate a Linux virus (trojan horse, worm, or other program designed to do mischief) will have extreme difficulty getting it to circulate. If you're a programmer, try and see. Viruses aren't difficult to write on Linux: Write one, run it (as a non-root user), and watch it bollix your files. But nobody else's.

So the virus infects your PC, and then dies quietly. Not a very efficient way of infecting PCs - one at a time.



Anyway, I hope that I can move to Linux by the time Vista is ready to go mainstream.

 

[stash]

If you're not logged in as a root user, you can't severely botch your Linux install. Your data can likely be wiped by you, but not the core OS. Since you can't do that, neither can spyware or viruses. They don't have permission to do it.

The same applies to Windows. Unfortunately, it is rather...challenging to run as a non-admin on Windows, and it is not the default. This is changing in Vista.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Now let's say a virus does take over somehow - it will not be able to replicate itself. It could infect every file it has permission to get, but it can't send itself out en masse. The virus remains contained in your PC.

Linux won't usually come with an outbound whitelist firewall setup by default so there's nothing stopping a virus from communicating with the outside world. It would still be able to set up whatever outbound traffic it wants.