What's Really Broken with Windows Update - Trust 521
Be Cool writes "According to ZDNet, Microsoft has steered itself into a real trust tarpit with Windows Update: 'See, here's the problem. To feel comfortable with having an open channel that allows your OS to be updated at the whim of a third party (even/especially* Microsoft ... * delete as applicable) requires that the user trusts the third party not to screw around with the system in question. This means no fiddling on the sly, being clear about what the updates do and trying not to release updates that hose systems. While any and all updates have the potential to hose a system, there's no excuse for hiding the true nature of updates and absolutely no excuse for pushing sneaky updates down the tubes. Over the months vigilant Windows users have caught Microsoft betraying user trust on several separate occasions and this behavior is eroding customer confidence in the entire update mechanism.'"
Monopoly Mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have an effective monopoly, trust really doesn't matter.
Re:Monopoly Mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
I was for a long time in helpdesk and system repair. Time and again I've seen unpatched machines. The usual reasons:
1. Obviously, hacked versions that couldn't get updates.
2. Hacked machines that could get updated, but people fearing that MS sends the FBI, CIA and WTF after them if they only attempt to update.
3. People who got burned once with an update and won't ever, ever do it again because "it broke everything".
4. People who got people from 3. as their friends and don't want to end up like that.
So yes, it might not affect MS. It affects the rest of the 'net world.
Re:Monopoly Mentality (Score:5, Funny)
"Who are you?"
"WTF! Shutup and give us your stuff!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Monopoly Mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is dead on, actually. Trust is maybe the biggest problem MS has today when it comes to their patches. People don't want their patches because "it works" and "who knows if it still will afterwards".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Making an update DVD with ctupdate [heise-security.co.uk] will allow you to go from a fresh install to fully-patched without picking up any of the malware Microsoft has been pushing out lately. WindizUpdate [62nds.com] is good for incremental updates, and it works with Firefox.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my 2cp
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just monopolies. I have stated before that democracy and capitalism (voting with the pen and with the wallet) seems to break down at 1e7~1e8 customers or voters. Once there are that many, the company or political party knows they have nothing to lose... any negativism is drowned by apathy.
OT: scale of sociopolitical groups (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably the same for capitalism as well. Capitalism works great when everyone knows everyone else, or at least most everyone else. I, as a retailer, know my customers and my customers know me. I'm happy to sell to them for a reasonable price that supports me in a reasonable manner and they are happy to buy from me knowing that they're not being screwed. They know this because they know me and know my lifestyle, at least somewhat. Once you no longer know your customers, then you begin to view them as objects with money that you want to get. It's sort of inevitable (I know, I own retail businesses). Likewise, if you as a customer don't know the producers/retailers of goods and services you purchase then you objectivize(?) those people and no longer care about their living and working conditions, you begin to just want the stuff as cheap as you can get it.
It is my opinion, based purely on anecdotal experience, that the system breaks irrevocably once the scale of the local population gets above some number of thousands (maybe 10-50, at a guess) and the population at large is also sufficiently large (a few million?).
I trust MS (Score:3)
I know a lot of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, which patch for XP puts a 'MyWorks' folder on the partition with the most space? And what is is for? Where did the 'DRM' folder in your profile come from? Which updates say they will do these things?
I don't trust them in the slightest - and the 'stealth' patch for IE7 shows I was right, because IE7 opens up holes that weren't previously there.
Re: (Score:2)
As the GP was saying, so what? What does it matter to MS if they have no trust and billions of dollars of sales?
TWW
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to an Anonymous Coward, we can now see a brighter future. Turning the RIAA's "vs. John Does" strategy against the industry, you are the one who has finally come up with the idea of "John Does vs. Microsoft." Genius!
What's really broken here (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What's really broken here (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder what would have happened if Digital Research had sued Microsoft (and succeeded) for crippling Windows 3.x if the underlying OS wasn't MS-DOS.
But you know what really screwed everything up? The exclusivity contracts with hardware manufacturers. You know, bundling and all that. Those things must go away, since they keep ruining competition (how can it be possible for a machine with Windows being cheaper than one without it?) Don't you hate hidden taxes?
Long Lost (Score:4, Insightful)
One slight problem with this article... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
For all those who feel they have to use Windows (please, please don't take that as flame bait) then it's pretty essential to keep the machine patched to the latest level. The only relaistic way to do this is to accept whatever M$ send down the pipe. I don't trust M$, I'll never trust M$, but, until I can get all the things I want on Linux I'm stuck with M$ and it's going to be a well patched version.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One slight problem with this article... (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is a U.S.A company, right? Wrong. Microsoft is a multinational company.
Now imagine they move HQ from Redmond to Shanghai. If you're an USian, would you still feel the same way when your deactivated auto-update program suddenly automatically updates something unknown (according to Microsoft, just itself)?
</tinfoil hat>
the real issue with trust (Score:5, Insightful)
kris_lang
Re: (Score:3)
Re:the real issue with trust (Score:4, Insightful)
A TPM chip only reduces your rights if YOU are not the TPM controller.
However, if YOU are the TPM controller, you can run/not run programs you choose, and in general, are the root controller of the machine.
If you run Linux, one could use the PAM TPM interface and have everything ran by that. Who'd turn down better security?
Now... if you run a 399$ MS desktop, guess what you get? -100$ for TPM remote control, -100$ for subsudised cheap Windows. If you wish to trade your rights away, go ahead.
Who needs trust (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You were modded funny? With my experience with family and at the workplace, that's *insightful*!
Re: (Score:2)
If you do you updates (Score:3, Interesting)
This reminds me of an incident.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This reminds me of an incident.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Hardware suppliers are supposed to give you the exact same hardware for each of the "same" system you order--makes regressing problems easier, and eases management issues. Your supplier didn't--maybe they used a different video card that had the same chipset but different manufacturer. If you installed Windows on a hundred computers, with the exact same hardware, the results should be exactly the same except for the odd crash. This doesn't sound like a "Microsoft being stupid" story as much as
What a suprise... (Score:3, Informative)
Hacked access is only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree with the tag that reads "editorsdontgetit". The problem with having this stealth update capability in the first place is that it's a clear and obvious vector for attack and p0wn4g3.
If somebody figures out how to hack these stealth updates (and now that people know the capability exists they will definitely try), then we can all look forward to the time when a rootkit or other exploit is pushed down to machines and installed with the blessing of the OS and the complete ignorance of the person whose machine just got screwed. And it'll look like a legitimate update as far as all parties are concerned after the fact.
The author claims that it's a "Bad Thing(tm)" when people eventually decide to pull the plug on Windows Update, and I agree given all the legitimate patches that have been made available this way. But on the other hand, what choice do we have? Do we leave a door open that has been proven to be used in an untrustworthy fashion by the very people that are telling us to trust them and that they're making our machines better/safer/++?
Will somebody please start writing games for Linux so I can be free of this nonsense?
C
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hacked access is only a matter of time (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly! All they need are the private keys MS uses to sign the updates.. oh wait.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is an amazingly huge understatement. I suggest learing more on how software is signed.
One of the first crude examples of this is the old MSDOS.SYS file. It contained a number of Xes in them to keep the file length a certain size so windows could check to see if it had been altered as would be a sign of a virus
Actually, that was file padding for backwards compatibility, not virus detection.
An open door (Score:4, Interesting)
If I was a hacker, I have begun to work on this door as soon has the "feature" has been released.
Imagine, using Microsoft Update to update your virii or you Troy, that a nice "feature".
Err... No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between watching your vendor closely for QC issues, and watching them closely to pre
Trust is to be earned. It's not given freely. (Score:2)
Unfortunately MS has shown time and again that their primary concerns are not their users but their business partners. Which does not mean their customers, though.
Now, an update to an OS can alter it considerably. The OS sits between me and my data, it controls all input and output my machine generates, it controls all data received and transmitted, can alter, generate or suppress information, in both directions. So the tech
The alternative (Score:5, Funny)
"Windows Update needs to download an update so that it can update to provide you with updates".
I felt so dizzy trying to comprehend that, I just clicked 'OK'.
And I've never had Fedora updates screw anything.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes i have.
"What do you mean you don't use Apache as your webserver?!?!?! Doesn't everybody?!?!?! What else would you POSSIBLY USE?????"
The article may be obvious TO US, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we want to evangelize about open source/gnu linux, articles from "relatively neutral" parties such as this one are a very good resource.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2. Hibernate.
3. And it's 4 hours on Vista, not 30 seconds.
Some granularity to the configuration process could be used, though. It sounds like you can change one setting and solve all your problems (that is: "Download updates but let me choose whether to install them" - it won't interrupt you only to tell you it has new updates.
Trusting your computer (Score:3, Insightful)
First, most people don't really trust their computers anyway, because they don't understand them. So the "trust degradation" of giving Microsoft free rein is minimal, maybe even negative, because "At least Microsoft understands my computer, and if anyone can keep it running, they can." Basically it's responsibility transferral for something they don't understand.
Second, there are cases where trust is absolutely required. A few I can think of are medical/HIPPA, military, and media. In a way, the first 2 embody opposite requirements from the 3rd. The first 2 absolutely require data integrity and system control, and the machine owner is central, in control, and responsible. There seems to be quite a difference between medical and military usages, and IMHO it's because medical usage grew out of IT departments, where such things were understood. It appears that military usage grew out of command/control and procurement, where they weren't. As a result, there's no shortage of people waiting to see the fireworks between Microsoft an HIPPA for the former, and the Win-Yorktown and all of our current cyber-security fears for the latter.
As for the 3rd example of trust mentioned above, you can find DRM arguments all over on
It doesn't help on the trust... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have heard this from several different MS partners in the past years.
Good point, terrible article (Score:3, Insightful)
An article on that subject by someone above the blithering blogger level would be useful. This subject needs coverage in the Wall Street Journal or Business Week. There are some real issues here. If you're a bank, what do bank examiners think of Microsoft having a backdoor into your systems? If you're a health care provider, is there a HIPPA compliance issue? If you're a law firm and some of your clients are adverse to Microsoft, is it a breach of your duty to your clients to let Microsoft control your systems? If you're a defense contractor, is that back door permissible?
Many such companies run background checks on anyone who potentially has access to their data, and audits of what's happening within their own business. Who's auditing Microsoft for security? Who actually has access to the master keys that allow pushing an update? How many people have access to those keys? Are they US citizens? Do they have security clearances? Are they bonded?
Now those are the questions to be asking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This stuff only applies to consumers using AutomaticUpdates or WindowsUpdates/MicrosoftUpdates.
Businesses use (or should be) WSUS or other systems so that they have complete control over the patching.
If businesses dont do this, then they are making a choice to not have control over updates to their system.
No one is forcing anyone to go this route.
Now, mind you, MS should never have been doing silent updates without full disclosure. But its not like the
Forced to Use Windows, but not Updates (Score:4, Interesting)
The Dell has never been back on line since then, and has never sufferred a BSOD, nor any update issues, and has stayed up virtually 100% of the time, performing flawlessly.
All work on the web is done on my MacBook Pro, thank you, and it has never suffered any downtime, either. Well it didn't until I filled up its hard drive and needed a larger one.
I am seriously tempted to repeat Win XP SP2 install on a new Dell to take the next version of the application I must run. The last thing I want is crap from the web shutting me down for various crapo reasons.
Trust and a cult of apathy (Score:5, Interesting)
We have rights, we do, but we need to fight for them or people, politicians, and corporations will simply assume we will be lazy fucks and taunt "nah nah nah nah nah" and take them away.
We have the right to own our machine. We have the right to tell companies "I won't open a word document, send it to me in ISO ODF or PDF or text." We have the right to remove Windows from our system. We have the right to sell our OEM Windows licenses.
Without even getting into politics or the growing U.S. police state, corporate america needs a dope slap. We, ALL OF US! have to stand up to corporate shit. We do not stand against it in great numbers, then nothing will ever get done.
Call tech support when shit happens, keep them on the phone for a long time, it costs them money. Send products back, it costs them money. Tell people to avoid products that suck, it costs them money. When the shit that comes from China has lead in it, sue them, it costs them money. The government isn't going to do anything for you, the politicians represent the corporations. It is only when bad corporate policy costs them money, will they change and not one minute sooner.
Start RETURNING computers, WHOLE COMPUTERS, because vista sucks. If Windows is part (as OEM's claim) of the computer, the the WHOLE COMPUTER is defective. That will make the Dells and HPs start to offer new options. Seriously, if 10% of the slash dot readers went out and bought new computers at the big retails stores tomorrow and returned them the next day siting that Vista does not work and is not reliable. It would make a HUGE impact on the industry. No one could ignore it.
But, no, no one will do that because they ARE to fucking lazy.
IT journo misses the point, again (Score:4, Insightful)
As Bruce Schneier points out [schneier.com], the problem is not that Microsoft can install updates on your computer without asking, but as soon as it gets cracked, then soon every script kiddy on the planet will also be able to do so.
Then you're really going to be screwed.
-mike
Microsoft might not be the only player (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll admit this may be a little tinfoil-hattish but it makes me wonder if MSFT is the only player in this saga. Just supposed in the wake of 9-11 hysteria that someone in the administration had the brainy idea to slip a traceable...something...in PC's to track terror suspects. Not something that reported to a third party...too easy to spot the traffic. Something that relayed the data through MSFT so the destination would remain hidden. Now the forced updates are wiping out whatever it was.
Probably out there but a few years ago suspecting the phone companies of listening in on the phone calls of millions of Americans without a warrant would have been really out there.
And before that was the revelation that printers were spitting out identifiable information in the background.
It's a sad testimony that wholesale spying on PC users is not out of the realm of the plausible for the current administration to attempt or Microsoft to cooperate.
It may be years from now before we find out the whole truth. What we know today should send a shudder through every freedom loving person in this country. I'm mildly surprised so many hard-core right wingers are okay with the government spying on them.
I've often wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
It could just be coincidence as it would be a very dangerous move by MS, yet I wouldn't put it past them. Users who are having to fuck around are surely more likely to consider switching OS. For the bulk of desktop users that would be Vista.
The best fastest way to get people out a building is to set it on fire...
It's a neverending story (Score:3, Informative)
The updater got greedy and decided to update my MS Office. I don't have outlook installed, since I never use it. The updater however somehow failed to detect that and started downloading a "critical update" for Outlook without permission. It then started asking me if it's ok to install, but naturally the install always fails, as the files are not where it thinks they are, so it cancels and later again asks me whether it's ok to try. I've been seeing that wizard ever since for a few months now. The solution? I can think of two actually:
1) Reinstall the OS (preferably to something Open Source)
or
2) Get used to the thing.
That's how it always is with Microsoft - the bug is there for so long that everyone knows about it, and then it's not a bug anymore. It's a "feature"...
Trust? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there are probably a lot of people on Slashdot that got burned early by WindowsUpdate, and never trusted it again. I've been burned a few times, and now I leave automatic updates off unless I have a good reason to leave it on. Nevertheless, I really believe that Microsoft is making a mistaking screwing around with this particular sacred cow, although I'm sure the temptation to abuse it was just irresistible. As Wally from Dilbert put it, "What would be the other reasons for having power?"
Still, if our good friends Joe Average and Joe Sixpack get it into their heads that WindowsUpdate has a significant chance of blowing away their systems, they're going to just turn it off and to Hell with patches and fixes. And you know what? They'd be right to do so. This is a stupid, dangerous game that Microsoft is playing.
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:5, Funny)
* Fast
* Cheap
* Good
So when is MS going to offer any of these?
Grandparent post deliberately obscures the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's recent sneaky update has caused severe problems: Microsoft Stealth Update and Windows XP repair don't mix [zdnet.com]. If Microsoft weren't sneaky, at least customers could deal with the mistakes more easily.
Quote from the ZDNet article: "The overall impression that I get as someone who deals directly with the company is that Microsoft believes that it is right and anyone making a fuss is ultimately wrong". It's not surprising to me that billionaire virtual monopolists would have developed arrogance.
However, that's not the REAL problem, in my opinion. The real problem is that people think that Microsoft is a software company that is routinely abusive. But it isn't. Actually, Microsoft is an abuse company that uses software as a means of delivering abuse. I think a lot of people agree that, if you look at it that way, Microsoft is excellent at what it does.
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Nope.
Hell, I've been coding for 7 years, and although I rely exclusively on my linux boxen for any large scale modeling or EA work, I wouldn't like to go without my windows machine. I like a lot of windows software. Winscp (http://winscp.net) alone is one of the greatest open source applications I have ever encountered, and it's windows only. I'm also a fan of putty, ssh session saving is great, and putty and winscp integrate nicely. I find it extremely easy to inspect progress of experiments on all machines using these two programs together, transferring files between machines is so easy its silly. This alone would encourage me to keep a copy of windows on one machine.
Anyway, in spite of my initial lack of interest in windows versions of my software, the mob has spoken, downloads of my software for windows (though still still tiny) outnumber those for Linux. So I couldn't drop windows if I wanted to
Not perhaps the most impressive list of reasons, but I suspect I'm not alone.
Not to forget there's also games, but everyone say that one.
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Informative)
I assume you mean that there is a lack of graphical utilities under Linux for SCP/SSH? Konquerer has an scp agent built in (fish://user@host/path/to/dir), Gnome allows you to mount a server via ssh/scp, OSX has Fugu, and if you want a graphical SSH then kssh is pretty much identical to PuTTY (though personally, I like my shells to be simpler).
Now, the other arguments (number of sales/downloads etc) I can't argue. I have to admit in my own development I see far more OSX downloads than Windows, and more Linux than OSX. Of course, what I write is primarily server monitoring apps and dashboard/konfabulator stuff so that would be logical.
Re:What?!? (Score:4, Informative)
Or they could just run the Unix version of PuTTY itself.
Re:What?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And before anyone starts telling me about how they gave [insert distro of choice] to their 84 yr old gran/4 yr old neice/dog (*delete as appropriate) and they could work it fine within minutes, we are talking about comparitive ease for Mr and Mrs J Public between switching to Linux and staying with Windows. Linux is improving, but I still would not say the switch is an easy one.
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the big shift for me was during college, when my Frankenstein computer failed during the one particularly hectic spring essay rush. I bought a Dell laptop because it was cheap and could be at my door in three days. Since then, I've never built a "main" computer again. I still have my HTPC project and a few other things, but it's really, really nice to know that I have one computer that will always work when I need to actually, you know, DO something that matters. No driver headaches, no dodgy hardware, no constant configuration. I open the lid, do my thing, then close the lid. Although I have become a real Mac fan, this isn't a pro-Mac post at all... it's a post in strong favour of things that don't require me to screw around. If I WANT to screw around, I will, but at least the choice is mine now. I've put that same principle into play in what I drive, too. I have a 2000 Mazda Protege, which never fails, as my daily driver. Then, I have a 1988 Nissan Pathfinder with 31" tires, a lift, etc for those days where I feel like tinkering. That truck sits apart for weeks if I don't feel like getting my hands dirty, and you know why? Because it can -- I don't need it to get me to work. It's beautiful. If you can afford it, life really is better when you don't have to drive the project (both literally and as a metaphor for computers).
Frankly, even if it costs me my Geek Card, I'm never going back to the "old way."
Re:What?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac OS X "just works" out of the box.
Linux, not so much. Even Ubuntu requires that I fiddle around with some stuff before it's properly usable. Here's a sample of the idiotic config crap necessary:
- twiddle the X config file to get certain mouse buttons working - I have a 5-button mouse. Only 3 buttons are supported by default, so I have to go add a couple more buttons to the mouse in the config file. How hard is it to just have a nice HID manager that polls the device for its button/axis count and binds everything to a set of commands? Really, it shouldn't be that tough. Mac OS X calls them Button1..ButtonN. Windows does the same but calls them Joy1..JoyN. Motion axes are handled similarly.
- get "special" video drivers to do anything that requires hardware acceleration - To be fair, this one is slowly going away as the Damned Hippies (you know the type) lose control of the community. Ubuntu at least gives you an easy interface to get this if you want it. But to be completely fair, there's not even an issue with this if you use Mac OS X or Windows.
Oh, and before you say "but you can compile your own stuff under Linux and customize it however you want", 1) you can do that on Mac OS X too, and with mostly the same tools, 2) with several distros (Ubuntu, I'm looking at you) the tools aren't included and you have to track them down along with their dependent libs/tools/etc. (again, no different from Mac OS X), and 3) that doesn't meet the definition of "just works out of the box" in even a small way.
You're right in that there's no reason why Linux couldn't work the same way as Mac OS X. But it doesn't. And it won't until the Damned Hippies are removed from the equation. They are now the fly in the ointment. They've contributed a lot, and they deserve the credit for that. But they need to stop dicking around and get things to the point where it "just works" (and the word "completely" really should be added to that) or Linux will never catch on with the masses. And the longer Linux takes to catch on with the masses, the longer Microsoft & Friends have to keep trying until they get something right. They've already done it in the dev community with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience for several years has been that Linux is light years beyond Windows in terms of detecting hardware and installing appropriate drivers (the big exception bing wifi drivers, of course). They used to tell you to make sure you copied all of the info out of Device Manager before attempting a Linux install so you could hunt down the drivers you would need to get your hardware
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I was referring to situations where a person wanted to install Linux on a box that was currently running Windows (and I was talking about more than a few years ago). It may be hard to believe if you are relatively new to Linux, but there was a time when installing it was complicated enough that LUGs would hold "Install-fests" for the uninitiated. If the box you were about to help the newbie put Red Hat (or Slackw
Running apps that use standard API needs Ultimate (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's go with this a minute. To have a comparison, I will use Synaptic on Ubuntu. Both are consumer oriented. Both allow you to do unattended. Both allow you to get user aproval before patching. (Other then the WGA update, point to Ubuntu)
Ubuntu has had several spectacular failures that have resulted in a system that will not boot to the desktop. Microsoft has had a few good ones that call you a pirate and shut off functionality. The Ubuntu fix was within hours. The Microsoft fix was within days. On paper they are quite close, but in the real world MS is hated. Why this is should be the first priority at MS before more people realize just how viable Ubuntu is for many people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's go with this a minute. To have a comparison, I will use Synaptic on Ubuntu.
One more point which may seem minor, but in the context of trust is huge:
Synaptic downloads a list of all updates to the user and the user's computer determines what updates are applicable.
Microsoft uploads a list of 'everything' on the user's PC to Microsoft and Microsoft determines what updates are applicable and then stores that uploaded list, associated with your registration information, for an undisclosed period of time.
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tecchannel.de/ueberblick/archiv/402064/index15.html [tecchannel.de]
Scary shi*t -- MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
I knew Windows Update was dodgy, but this is far beyond the so-called red hand of guilt -- MS would have to be some kind of anti-Pict with its whole body dyed red for this expression to apply in this instance. Got me thinking more and more about simply sucking up the hit in productivity from missing *nix software and making the jump, regardless of required apps that I can't get to run under Wine. Part of smart business is reducing your expo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may trust a Third party such as Microsoft with data from your PC but most people here don't.
As already stated further up the thread, the way Ubuntu updates are done is via a file with a list of software package infor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can spare MS the work... When Ubuntu fails, that is due to an error, and it doesn't call the user a pirate. When Windows fails to validate, that is dues to MS thinking the user is a pirate (and being quite verbal about it).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Umm... what's it got to do with MS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So tell me again how much MSFT has to pay people? Features are easy to do once you implement a straight forward properly designed system.
Yes I know that MSFT makes all of it's own cool toys, but that's only because it's the MSFT way or nothing inside MSFT. If MSFT stopped duplicating everyone else's work poorly maybe they could release a good OS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for all the graphics parts, all the objc APIs, all the system resource stuff, all the device drivers...
True, but OSX is based upon BSD anyways.
Last time I goofed around an OSX commandline, all of the commands did exactly what I expected, the kernel is where the BSD code comes into things. And it would be inane to suggest that if an OS used a Windows kernel that it wasn't based upon Windows. Same goes if a substantial part of the kernel were to come from an OS, the new OS would still be based upon the one providing kernel code.
They graphic bits and the drivers are going to be done by Apple. The graphics are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But on OSX10.4 you can MAKE HD movies, such as you get on Blu-ray. All you add is one of the new HD camcorders to take the original footage. Then you get can edit and produce your great creative work in DRM free HD video. It all comes for free with your Mac. As soon as HD burner prices come within reason, burning HD disks, of whichever format finally wins, will be part of the iDVD program that comes with every Mac.
If all you want to do is PLAY commercial HD mov
Ugh... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have to pay for my Linux patches. Where is that going on? I'd like to see that scam in action.
Microsoft has a company to run.
They offer the least possible features that the market allows for the highest possible price they can fetch. Indeed, Microsoft is a Marketing company that employs a legion of developers. The product, for the most part, is testament to that. No innovation to speak of and more license restrictions in the next product.
Let's unwind the propaganda a bit.
1. The average useful OSS project is not a headless zombie with a bunch of peace-loving anarchists running around it. There's somebody that has FULL control of the project. In fact they all have better organization than all of the big companies I've ever worked for.
I know that Microsoft in particular has quite a bit invested in spreading the headless-zombie-anarchy idea around but it's just not true.
You are paying too much for what Microsoft offers and have been for over a decade. Please take a step back and examine the situation with a little more rationality. You'll be much better off without Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But you get it: Slow (with more than one semantics), Expensive and Ill-Designed all at the same time.
CC.
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:4, Informative)
The fact is Microsoft has been caught a few times implementing stealth fixes or trying to force major updates (eg. IE7).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The difference between Linux and Windows fixes (Score:5, Funny)
At MS, engineers argue who has to do the fixing.
With Linux, geeks argue whose fix is more elegant and better.
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blindly trusting a third party, especially one with a track record like Microsoft, with updating your production systems may be an unwise move.
Re:Release Too Soon... (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux sites have a far wider array of configuration differences than Windows systems do: Not the least of which being multiple cpus and generations of systems, Windows in the enterprise is kept solely single-use because Windows admins know maintainability is hard, but Linux in the enterprise tends to have a larger number of functions because the Linux admins know maintainability is a solved problem.
The reason both is true is a social effect of getting software from "third parties"- that is, a cloud of developers that do not communicate with eachother. Whenever one of them does something "tricky" or "wrong", generally speaking nobody else in the cloud knows that they are doing it (When they do, it's called a "known incompatibility").
Linux distributions don't have "third parties"- most Linux admins get all of their software from the distribution itself. That means there's no cloud where "that's a problem with your other vendor", or "that's a problem with running Microsoft Exchange on the same server as IIS", and so on. The buck stops immediately, it gets resolved and everyone benefits.
Historically, other unix suppliers have had the same problem, and a lot of people just assumed it was (practically) unsolvable until groups like Debian and Red Hat- looking to solve a particular technical problem (of managing the necessary modularity of a GNUish system) also built up the social framework necessary to solve this very social problem.
Microsoft simply cannot do this. It's not a matter of "just making better patches", they need to be the sole supplier of software in order to solve this problem, and their users need to be able to patch and redistribute that software. Not just legally, but actually encouraged to do so.
I call BS (Score:4, Insightful)
The vast majority of packages are maintained separate from any distro, and they're pulled into each distro by the distro maintainers. The real reason why the the linux updates are more reliable is that the developers can _talk to each other_. Most packages have mailing lists, newsgroups, forums, etc. and solutions can be developed in cooperation with the other developers.
As for the buck-passing thing...it happens with linux too. The application team blames the platform team which blames the distro which blames glibc, and they in turn say that the distro needs to upgrade to the latest version, which isn't compatible with the distro's compiler....and so it goes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is with transparency.
I can accept that not all code is perfect and that in a beast of an OS like Windows it is entirely possible that an update will break something. That's fine. That's OK. And when I decide to install an update I am aware that I may need to fix something after the fact. I don't have a problem with this.
What I do have a problem with is M
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there are folks that say, "If they would have designed it properly the first time..." But, you know what, a project the size of an OS, kernal, Office app is very hard to weed out all the problems.
No, if you had designed it properly the first time, it would have been easier in the long run to weed out all of the problems. The fact that MS has such a difficult time producing secure and stable software is itself evidence of a design failure. It's not that the programmers make mistakes - it's
Re:Linux is no better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oh well (Score:4, Informative)
This happens with EVERY linux distro I have ever installed within 6-12 months of use. The only way to keep a linux install from breakign is to NEVER update after a clean install.
The updates come almost DAILY. Kernel updates come in "stable" kernel lines that break the ABI and cause perfectly installed and functioning hardware to stop working until you hand rebuild and hand re-install the drivers for them.
People complain about Windows version upgrades but Linux routinely breaks itself with point point releases in "stable" lines
I have ZERO trust in ANY update I do with Linux now, Microsoft has 100 times as much information about their updates than any Linux distro (even if it isn't 100% complete) and the non-breakage trust is about 100 times higher for Windows than Linux (pick any distro, I've installed moret of them).
An awful lot of these posts really seem more like freudian slips than anything informational. Unconsciously everyone KNOWS what a shabmbles the Linux update situation is so to try to stave off some kind of guilt about it they find ways of picking no their enemy for the same thing instead.
It's REALLY EMBARASSING GUYS!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)