[CLUE-Talk] Microsoft incompetence of negligence?

[Dennis J Perkins]

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 18:29, Dennis J Perkins wrote:
>
>In response to the subject line, "incompetence or negligence?" Yes. 
>
>  
>
>>This is an interesting article on the fact that says Windows is insecure 
>>by design.  While it can be argued that Windows users are responsible 
>>for applying patches, it can also be argued that it should not be 
>>necessary to apply so many patches, and on a nearly daily basis. 
>>    
>>
>
>Sys admins should be responsible as applying as many patches as
>necessary -- but expecting home users to apply patches for an OS that's
>supposed to be "simple and easy to use" is asking a bit much, IMHO. I
>have no sympathy whatsoever for an NT admin who gets nailed by a Windows
>virus/worm/trojan when the patch has been available for some time -- but
>the home user who only turns on their computer three times a week to
>check for e-mail from their grandchildren or to use TurboTax... that's a
>bit much. 
>  
>
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.  We have only three people 
running our network, and they are swamped already without trying to keep 
up with patches.  And they try.

My sister said her XP box appears to be downloading patches every day. 
 I suspect it might actually be checking every day, but it does seem 
that there is a lot of traffic between her box and MS.  Personally, I'm 
leery of any autopatch facility.  MS has issued faulty patches in the past.

>  
>
>> Besides, patches should be tested before applying them to a network of 
>>computers.  I suspect companies are starting to consider suing Microsoft 
>>after these last two weeks.  Never mind that the license says MS is only 
>>responsible for replacing defective CDs.  Microsoft has cost companies 
>>millions or billions of dollars in labor, lost sales, etc, because of 
>>the problems inherent in thier products.
>>    
>>
>
>What about the government? Our Department of Homeland Security has
>standardized on Windows -- which is simply mind-boggling. 
>
Department of Homeland Security.  Sounds like something from Nazi Germany.

>
>  
>
>>And maybe the govt should also mandate that any software it buys adheres 
>>to certain accepted open standards.  I'm not saying it needs to create 
>>the standards.  But I think that even MS would be forced to adhere to 
>>open standards or lose a lot of business.  And companies that deal with 
>>the govt would also want those standards.  It could be a chain reaction. 
>>Most of Micrsoft's profits in software come from its operating systems 
>>and Office.  Document and communication protocol standards weaken that 
>>monopoly.
>>    
>>
>
>After this week's fiasco, IT managers who buy Microsoft should be
>summarily fired. Period. 
>
>Zonker
>  
>