Redmon is in error ?

[pam123]

If this article is right you have to wonder about Microsoft's sense of self-preservation : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09...curity_review/

Of course they might think they're invulnerable to everything but silver bullets and holy water.

[Statica]

Let me preface by saying that I am not for OS insecurities, but the article seems to largely miss the point about SP2 - nobody said that it was the be all and end all of OS and browser insecurities, but what it is is a step in the right direction.
Whether they like it or not, the computing world is split into 2 parts - those that want a modular OS, where everything is a secured behind eons of community driven essentially shell-based security locking down everything in sight; and those that want a GUI, and want to be able to not only have access to their router from their computer, but couldn't be bothered with reading a manual or learning the processes behind a particular service. Microsoft's OS offerings cater to the "home users" those that want to be able to share files through their IM but dont care about knowing which port is going to be open. Nobody in Microsoft or in RedHat or at SCO claim to have absolute security in their OS development; what they wrestle with on a daily basis is to provide an adequate level of security for the type of userbase they call their clients. Windows users are largely home users who want to plug and then play. Imagine having to be swamped by support calls of "well I plugged in the network cables but I can't see the other computer", how many people will now go buy Windows? And regarding settings and browser vulnerabilities? all I have to say is IE has these vulnerabilities and holes for a while now, is this the only time they were actually aware of it? Exploiters, script kiddies, hackers, crackers are getting better at their use of the holes provided. When people go out and buy Windows 98, did they assume that it was the most secure and the most crash proof OS out there? Why do they now assume that SP2 is all that and more? When people insalled SP2 for Windows 2000, did they assume that it automatically made their OS completely secure and the best there was? Then why assume the same with XP? Windows 2000 and a lot worse were yet geared towards the home user. Let's face it, its the evolution of a platform, or we'd be forced to stare at the incredibly secure C:\> prompt till Linus Trovalds released kernel 12.4.0 or Bill Gates released Windows 2098 with a neuro interface that automatically gauges the user's aptitude and adjusts the GUI and services accordingly.
Till then this is the best offering of a one-size-fits all OS that has a good balance of usability tools to give a person productivity with a minimal learning curve.

I cannot understand the frenzy about SP2, if history is any indication, it is going to be one in a series of many, that will ultimately result in a progressively more secure OS, or keep the XP user supported till a newer OS is released - which in turn will continue with the trend. SP2 makes the XP environment a lot more secure, and the average home user aware of things that s/he can understand. The release of SP2 in no way means that Microsoft has stopped supporting XP users, nor does it mean that it is invulnerable. It is, what I believe, a step in the right direction.

[pam123]

There actually used to be a Barney at Barney's and, when I was growing up, he was famous for something really interesting.
His salesmen used to do their best to convince customers that they didn't need alterations ( dumb but they did it ) but the trick never worked for long. Sooner or later the original Barney would wonder through the fittingrooms at the then 14th ST store while they were pulling this schtick(if you want to correct my yiddish go ahead) and the voice would ring out "FIX THE PANTS!!".
We all knew what had happened, unless the guy at the top reins them in the bureaucrats take over.
What Microsoft had done is refuse to do that job, it means they have too many layers of managers to get it done.
What's more they have spent considerable money and time to not do the job.
The home user needs protection and the ability to send family pictures to others, a security center that would make this possible isn't an impossibility.
Your kids, the IM fiends, need one level of security but your Quicken files need another.
What I see, and what I think the author of that article sees, is that Microsoft has steadily refused to "fix the pants".
Those 3 words became something of an in joke for awhile when Barney's went into chapter 11 ( they recovered, I think they learned ).
sp2 was not a step in the right direction, oh they know what they should be doing, and they're pretending to do it.
This is damning.
I'll say it now, and I use XP, I think Microsoft is in trouble.
Well, you didn't hear it from me first but I said it also.