| 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 |
 |
Small firms worry they rely too much on Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 09:02 EST/14:02 GMT | News Source: ZDNet UK | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Many companies are concerned about their level of dependence on Microsoft's software, according to a survey. Many small and midsized companies harbour a level of trepidation regarding their dependence on Microsoft software, according to a survey. A report that Boston-based The Yankee Group released on Wednesday shows that some 43 percent of small and midsized businesses are "concerned" about becoming "overly reliant" on Microsoft's products and services. The study focused on information technology needs at 600 companies with fewer than 500 employees. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:33:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 442 (65.83.156.90) at 1/29/2004 10:57:09 AM |
| Microsoft's future is NOT known. People thought the same of IBM back in the 80's. People have said Apple would be out of business for years now. Apple started the personal computer revolution and will continue to lead the pack for another 20 years. You do know that the Mac has been around that long, right? |
| #2 By 3 (81.96.64.229) at 1/29/2004 11:20:58 AM |
|
No companies future is known for sure, things happen that no one here can forsee. If i was to view things now I could say Microsoft, Apple and Sun would most likely be around for the next 10 years or so, but anything after that no one would know, but that could be rubbish too as it's impossible to tell.
Out of all of them Apple and Microsoft are the most likely to carry things through over the next 10/20 years but yeah it is harder to tell what will happen with the others, Apple have after all been going longer than most and waded through consistant rumours of them going under (which clearly isn't likely to happen with the way things are going), so never believe anything people say when it comes to company survival. |
| #3 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 1/29/2004 11:34:59 AM |
|
Considering the amout of cash Microsoft has in the bank, I think it's a pretty safe bet the Microsoft will be around a lot longer than many of these companies that are worried about their reliance on them.
Are these same companies worried about their reliance on Intel for their CPUs? On Xerox for their copiers? On GE for their light bulbs? On Cisco for their switches? Probably not. This fear of "over reliance" is simply a weak front for the ever popular ABM sentiment. |
| #4 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at 1/29/2004 1:50:03 PM |
|
#3,
Um, shall I post the Windows Security Flaw list from 2002? I didn't think so :) TL |
| #5 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/29/2004 4:16:21 PM |
| Comparing latest release to latest release would be pretty fair. Windows Server 2003 has been out for about 8 months now. Who wants to challenge it? |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/29/2004 6:39:23 PM |
|
#13 Windows Server 2003 went RTM on March 28, 2003 and actually launched on April 24, 2003. NetBSD v1.6.1 was released on April 21, 2003.
The patches specific to v1.6.1 are listed here (http://www.netbsd.org/Security/patches-1.6.1.html): NetBSD-SA2003-018 DNS negative cache poisoning NetBSD-SA2003-017 OpenSSL multiple vulnerability NetBSD-SA2003-016 Sendmail - another prescan() bug CAN-2003-0694 NetBSD-SA2003-015 Remote and local vulnerabilities in XFree86 font libraries NetBSD-SA2003-014 Insufficient argument checking in sysctl(2) NetBSD-SA2003-012 Out of bounds memset(0) in sshd NetBSD-SA2003-011 off-by-one error in realpath(3) NetBSD-SA2003-010 remote panic in OSI networking code The patches specific to Windows Server 2003 are listed here (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/current.asp?productid=175&servicepackid=0&chkcritical=on&chkimportant=on&chkmoderate=on&chklow=on&seldaterange=0&txtdatestart=&txtdateend=&submit1=go): MS04-003 - Important MS03-048 - Critical MS03-045 - Important MS03-044 - Critical MS03-043 - Critical MS03-042 - Critical (**) MS03-041 - Critical MS03-040 - Critical MS03-039 - Critical MS03-034 - Low MS03-032 - Critical MS03-031 - Important MS03-030 - Critical MS03-026 - Critical MS03-023 - Critical MS03-021 - Moderate MS03-020 - Critical Note: MS03-042 isn't listed using the URL above but if you have a look at the details, you will see that it does indeed affect Windows Server 2003. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-042.asp So there have been 8 for NetBSD and 17 for Windows Server 2003. What does all of this prove? Absolutely nothing, unless you're one of those people that determines how stable and secure an OS is based solely on the number of security patches! |
| #7 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/29/2004 10:17:38 PM |
|
#17 BobSmith wanted a fair comparison. Given that both 1.6.1 and W2K3 Server came out in April 2003 then that makes it a fair comparison. No Service Packs have been released for W2K3 Server as yet, and we were comparing NetBSD to W2K3 Server not W2K.
Anyways, the whole point isn't that one has more or less patches as it doesn't mean anything! But if you do want to get into the nitty gritty then NetBSD has had 1/2 as many patches. As #18 mentioned, it doesn't matter what OS you run, you'll still need to patch it. From that point of view the most important things for the sysadmin may be the availability of patches, the speed at which they are released once an issue has been encountered and whether or not installing the patch will cause any downtime. Saying "my OS only has X patches" is as useless without knowing the extent and details of those patches. For instance, I would rather 50 normal patches than a single remote exploit for which the server needs to be re-started/bounced to patch! |
| #8 By 12071 (203.217.67.196) at 1/30/2004 3:02:21 AM |
|
#19 "If I was a netBSD user, I would NOT be proud of the fact the "bug fix" version of 1.6 has so many bugs."
Think of it as a Service Pack, like the one that will be released for W2K3 Server to fix at least those 17 bugs. "To be fair," you are comparing one OS which was released 7 months before the other, but you keep on thinking that it's a fair comparison! NetBSD 1.6 was released on September 14, 2002, so it would be a little more fair to compare it to W2K Server SP3 - Service Pack 3 was released in August 2002. Just FYI, there are 46 Critical, 12 Important, 5 Moderate and 2 Low severity patches for W2K Server SP3, a grand total of 65 vs NetBSD's 28. |
| #9 By 19992 (68.69.127.19) at 1/30/2004 7:55:33 PM |
|
If the rest of the patches are for IE and WMP, then they are critical security updates for Win2K3. Microsoft has spent the past several years claiming that IE was part of the OS, and is now doing the same for Media Player. To be fair, they should count.
I do agree however, that Win2K3 is the most secure OS that MS has ever put out. Very nicely designed. I really like the fact that using the NSA security templates doesn't kill the machine now :) |
| #10 By 12071 (203.217.66.106) at 1/31/2004 12:46:07 AM |
|
#22 ""To be fair" I am comparing the last two major releases of products. "
That's the oddest definition of fair that I have ever heard! Would it still be fair if let's say NetBSD 1.7 came out today? i.e. Would it be fair to compare the last two major releases (NetBSD 1.7 vs W2K3 Server)? "The rest are IE patches and Media Player patches " IE and WMP are part of the OS! Which is why those Critical exploits effect W2K3 Server! |
| #11 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/31/2004 12:51:29 PM |
| For the record, I agree with kabuki and disagree with parker on this. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:33:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
