| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft: We have lost a lot of trust | |
|
||
| Time: 10:17 EST/15:17 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Microsoft's new focus on security is paying off, but the company still has a long way to regain its customers' trust, according to the company's security program manager, Jesper Johansson. Johansson — a Ph.D who left academia in search of more hands-on tasks — discovered security holes in Windows and warned Microsoft, and eventually got offered a job in Redmond. He is the author of several documents with practical tips on how to avoid security gaffes and tips on hardening Windows installations. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:29:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/10/2004 4:21:43 AM |
|
Considering the depth of the update in XP SP2, it appears that its development was brisk.
There is a great deal under the hood that has yet to be properly assessed. While we may never fully trust software, we might be able to trust that a company is sincere in its efforts to make software both more secure and easy to use - while not removing features or functionality. All of the companies seem to fall into that category. |
| #2 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at 8/10/2004 4:18:01 PM |
|
#1,
Um, not really :) TL |
| #3 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/10/2004 7:08:08 PM |
|
Great, then the fact that the OSS community wants to syncronize and build a solution to defend against avalon/winfs/aero ... that should just be totally disregarded as good intentions. Good, glad to hear it.
BTW I'd like to know a feature that Linux has that XP does not. The rules to play with here: It either has to be part of the package or supplemental products (like a resource kit or admin tools for Windows -- not 3rd party), or it has to be everything developed for the entire platform (for example, you can't use apache or sendmail and claim that XP doesn't have it, when 2003 does, or you can't claim that XP doesn't have spam blocking when there are a bazillion apps out there that provide it). Any "windows" product from 2000 on will work. Knock yourself out.... and cut the FUD. |
| #4 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/10/2004 10:17:20 PM |
| I don't care that OSS exists. Halcyon consistently pushes that OSS is the only solution; closed source is the work of the devil (apparently). |
| #5 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/11/2004 2:53:15 AM |
|
You're pushing closed source as the only solution, you insist it's the only thing viable.
Bzzt. No. WRONG. Thanks for playing, please try again. I have consistantly stated that I like that OSS exists. I have consistantly stated that I have evaluated OSS projects vs closed projects and in the last 5 years I have consistantly chosen closed source. I have given OSS every chance. I used to work for a purely unix-based company, and even there, I led the drive to get Windows servers there, and proved the viability. I have worked for two entirely separate companies that migrated from Lotus Notes to Exchange and from sendmail to Exchange, and had been instrumental in pitching the costs to the "higher ups". TCO to me is critical, yet to you and every other major OSS supporter, it's so off the radar it's like a non issue. So what if sendmail is free. I can pay for Exchange and deliver x,y,z features, offer x^2 level of supportability, offer less servers, cheaper supportability, etc. Who cares if it's free. The costs of NOT choosing closed source shouldn't be ignored either! But as you say, and I'll try to make this very very clear since you keep missing it: For some people, and some small businesses, free and OSS solutions are viable. Mostly in the personal/home sector, or the mom'n'pop shop that don't have any money to spend at all. Even for the "small" businesses that have 50k to spend on IT, an OSS solution just doesn't deliver the same power that a closed source solution could, in most cases -- at least not without the speed, integration, manageability, interoperability, etc etc [already beaten to death] that you can get... I have yet to see you even state anything beyond "use what you want" to be fair to either side. I know OSS is viable. Again and again you are being shown how the TCO doesn't work for OSS, it has crappy supportability, it isn't as extensible as closed source, etc. Rather than agree or disprove the argument you always obfuscate it. Case in point... It distributes the source code for free. That is not a feature of the product, Linux. That is a feature of OSS / GPL. Now if you want to say that you have the source code to modify in Linux, where you don't in Windows, ok... http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Initiative/Initiative.mspx I would recommend you read the "Man in the Middle" section. Now you could say "but you still can't modify it!". That's not true, that's simply a matter of cost and private licensing. And then, the inevitable question of "but in Linux that's free!"... yadda yadda... That's why I fundamentally say source code is not a feature of the product. The real issue is customization. Just like the Windows kernel, the Linux kernel is really all about device driver support and file system support. Apache, Bind, Sendmail don't exist, that is not part of Linux, unless you want to consider a package. Hell you can't even say any command line functions are part of Linux. So I could turn this around and say that it wouldn't matter about source code because all the programs aren't even part of Linux, only the kernel. |
| #6 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/11/2004 2:26:25 PM |
| ^^ What Bob said, especially about the troll bits. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:29:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
