[CLUE-Talk] Microsoft incompetence of negligence?

[Dennis J Perkins]

> On 08-24 18:29, Dennis J Perkins wrote:
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34978-2003Aug23.html
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 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.
> > 
> > It might also spur legislation limiting how much software companies can 
> > avoid liability.  This is unfortunate.  Hopefully such legislation will 
> > be balanced because the truth is that it is very difficult to remove all 
> > bugs from software.  Maybe software can be rated on the basis of its 
> > history, since it is impossible to rate it on bugs that have yet to be 
> > discovered.  But those bugs should give some indication to the quality 
> > of that software.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> LOL - he mentions those "Protect Your PC" ads. I tore one out of my WSJ last
> week and hung it up in my cube. A co-worker wrote in a step 0: "Deinstall
> Windows".

In a perfect world.. :)  But if the viruses and worms keep hitting MS shops 
hard, they will eventually look for another solution.  And at the courts.  
These attacks are going to affect the pocketbook, and that will get their 
attention.

> 
> As for CIOs getting summarily fired for using/recommending Windoze - I wish.
> Last place I worked at we were finally moving towards Linux for at least the
> *servers*. Then, whoosh, we got the new boy wonder CTO and bam, it was all
> "rah, rah, Microsoft"...and any independent thinkers got laid off. Whee.
> 
> This genius even wanted to move the codebase (eventually, he so graciously
> said. Using what rationale other than looking at MS' latest brochure for
> PHBs, I dunno.) to .NET!!! Talk about pure visionary genius[0]. 

For an industry that supposedly demands intelligence, there are a lot of 
incompetent fools in charge.  I guess that means that while someone's doing the 
work, someone else is playing politics and taking credit, as usual.  (I'm 
feeling sarcastic right before going on vacation. :) )

Sounds like laziness to me.  "Let's just use MS and I won't need to make any 
decisions."

> 
> [0] I know the dotgnu project is trying to make sure .NET doesn't succeed in
> MS' lock-in goal, but this guy would have made sure to make developers use
> ..NET-only features somehow...at one point I was so puzzled by his fervor for
> MS that I actually asked him if he used to work for them. He answered that
> "they make the best-of-breed tools". Cue some goofy cartoon sound effects
> here...

I haven't read any books on .NET, but knowing MS's penchant for greater 
interoperability between their programs and their equally well-known penchant 
for attention to security, I wonder if things could be even worse on .NET.

What's he comparing MS's tools to?  Tools from ten years
ago?