Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm You mean Windows Me wasn't just a throw away prototype then? :-)
Marty > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Sean Ahern > Sent: Tuesday 07 May 2002 12:30 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Secure platforms DO matter! > > > At 06:59 07/05/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > >Have you all heard anything about win64? > > Yes. > > Do have any faith that MS is > >changing to become a more security aware company? > > No. I am however sure that MS has become a company which -claims- it is > more security aware. But MS has always been guilty of bolting-on > functionality to its OS's, rather than building it into their > cores. Thats > not something you can do with security. It would rather add features > (.NET) than solve core issues. > > > MS is staking its life on > >.NET and Win64. > > For Microsoft, revenue is driven by forcing the user to > upgrade. Thus their business model depends on the Next New Thing > .NET and > Win64 are the Next New Things. > > > They are working hard to change. > > I disagree. They are working hardest to attempt to force the > consumer into believing they have no other choice; because their > intellectual property will be taken away from them if they use something > else, because it is illegal to use something else, because it is > dangerous > to use something else. Even because it is "unAmerican" to use > something else. > > > *nix has been around for > >a long time, it is rediculous to think that it would not be secure. > > Longevity does not imply security. Good design does. > > > MS > >would never release any software if it had to be bug free before release. > > What about "acceptably bug free" because they decided against > adding yet more 'features' which were actually security holes. > > > >No other software get used by more people, so it is no wonder > that more bugs > >are found in it than anyother software. > > Several things determine the number of bugs found. The > overriding > one is the number of bugs present. > > > Point being that there are bugs and > >security flaws in *nix also that have not been found for lack of use. > > So you say its been around longer, so it is secure, but less > people use it so the bugs cant have been found. Huh? > > > MS > >plans to use Win64 and .NET to compete with the *nix Java > solutions. Do you > >think that they are going to ignore security as a selling point, for > >themselves or for *nix against them? > > As a selling point? No they won't ignore it. But what > will they > be selling? Ask yourself if the marketing is actually going to say much > more than "Buy .NET because its more secure than what we sold you last > year" and whether they'll actually even deliver that. > > >MS knows that it HAS TO solve its > >security problems to compete in the enterprise solutions arena. > > Windows NT is over 8 years old. Why have they only -just- > discovered the necessity of solving security problems? Is 'lets > fix a bug > month' a -real- attempt to solve security issues, or just a dumb PR stunt. > > > The have > >the money, the man power, the motivation, and the skill to get > it done. The > >only question is will you all buy it. > > They've alwyas had the money, the manpower and the skill. I > -dont- buy the fact that they've somehow suddenly got > motivated. 'Security' at MS is merely the buzzword of the day. > > SxA > > _______________________________________________ > Perl-Win32-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs _______________________________________________ Perl-Win32-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
