__/ [Erik Funkenbusch] on Saturday 05 November 2005 07:26 \__
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:54:50 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Previously we discussed conflicts that arise when a user gets 'injected'
>> with non-stop updates. The integrity of the system breaks and below is a
>> very recent example, among many. I still get many queries from staff whose
>> software broke due to some updates, so it's costing time.
>> URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/123431
> Perhaps you'd like to read the real story?
I would have read it if it came from an impartial source.
> Are you really suggesting that Microsoft should prefer not breaking things
> over improving security? Do you really think backwards compatibility is
> more important than security?
I think that security must be put at a high priority for exactly that reason.
Until recently, Microsoft have not made "security their #1 priority" (as
Gates phrased it).
If patches are made essential (as in this case), there must be careful
testing involved. Unfortunately, with time-critical patches, there is not
enough time for thorough tests to be completed. It's a cyclic trap.
Windows programmers have punished themselves and they may struggle to come
out of this mess for years to come. Many businesses are still reluctant to
upgrade from ME/2000.
> That seems to be what you're saying when you complain that tightening
> security breaks something.
I complain about security. Then I suggest that even that magic elixir, which
is called "patches", can in fact be poison.
> This is not a case of a patch breaking functionality that should work, it's
> a case of a patch breaking something that should not have ever worked in
> the first place.
Try to tell that to your average Windows user...
Roy S. Schestowitz | Proprietary cripples communication
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:30am up 2 days 3:28, 5 users, load average: 0.81, 0.67, 0.58
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms