Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we find
it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with their
crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
cannot make.
Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, Dana wrote:
> Well to those people I say STFU, it is about time microsoft take
> control of the security of the OS, there should be no reason I have
> to buy a third product solution to secure the OS I purchase from
> Microsoft.
Hehehe, where is the incentive to fix security problems.
Delivery slipped years and final release fixed 400 bugs found in beta 2.
Micro$not now has a new /feature/ which allows them to charge you a
$50 a year tax to secure your system.
"Bit Twister" <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:slrnejvqms.vqi.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, Dana wrote:
> > Well to those people I say STFU, it is about time microsoft take
> > control of the security of the OS, there should be no reason I have
> > to buy a third product solution to secure the OS I purchase from
> > Microsoft.
>
> Hehehe, where is the incentive to fix security problems.
Future sales
>
> Delivery slipped years and final release fixed 400 bugs found in beta 2.
I never said it was going to be perfect, and this only shows that 3rd party
companies will not be so out of business as they are crying about now.
>
> Micro$not now has a new /feature/ which allows them to charge you a
> $50 a year tax to secure your system.
I agree, I dislike the direction that Microsoft is taking with licensing,
which is why I still use win 2000 and not XP.
Of course I also use Linux (Fedora 5), Solaris 8 and 10, and HP Unix
So I am not stuck with one OS.
>
> http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35312
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12jvor22t99gf39@corp.supernews.com...
> Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
> find
A browser built into the OS is fine, but using a desktop browser on the
internet is plain stupid
> it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with
> their
> crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
> cannot make.
Never told people what they can or cannot make, they decided what was legal
in their jurasdictions. If yo don't like the laws, either elect new law
makers or don't do business there. But, if you do business, obey the laws.
Problem is MS makes more money breaking the laws and paying fines. And you
trust them to secure your computer?
> Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
10 years afer the problem was discovered
> thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
Not complaining about adding security, complaining about locking out
competition
> STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>
If you trust that MS will ever make a secure system , that is fine.
"Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DbS%g.190984$1T2.159797@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12jvor22t99gf39@corp.supernews.com...
> > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
> > find
>
> A browser built into the OS is fine, but using a desktop browser on the
> internet is plain stupid
I believe that the issue was Internet Explorer being integrated with the OS.
I like quite a few people see no issue with that.
>
> > it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with
> > their
> > crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can
and
> > cannot make.
>
> Never told people what they can or cannot make,
That is what they did. As it is European courts and really Europe in general
with their socialist viewpoing really is not keen on liberty and freedom in
general.
> they decided what was legal
> in their jurasdictions. If yo don't like the laws, either elect new law
> makers or don't do business there.
Notice how there is no European counterpart to Microsoft.
I mean electronics and Wireless has the likes of Nokia and Alcatel, and
Siemens, all of which make an excellent product.
> But, if you do business, obey the laws.
> Problem is MS makes more money breaking the laws and paying fines.
That is not true.
> And you
> trust them to secure your computer?
Now, I never said that either. What I said is that with Vista they are
making a better effort than before, yet people are claiming this will stifle
competition.
Well I with a lot of others would rather see Microsoft secure their OS, as
we do not see why we need a 3rd party solution to secure the OS.
So those 3rd party companies will lose future business if microsoft secures
their OS, well they better start looking at what else than may be able to
produce to make up for that projected loss.
>
> > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
>
> 10 years afer the problem was discovered
No one said they were quick
>
> > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
>
> Not complaining about adding security, complaining about locking out
> competition
It is Microsoft's OS, they are not locking out competition. Those other
companies can come out with their own OS.
>
> > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
secure
> > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
> >
> If you trust that MS will ever make a secure system , that is fine.
I don't need symmatic saying that Microsoft is locking out the competition
either, especially when microsoft is not locking out the competition.
Symmantic can try and develope their own OS.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
"Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:4qab7cFltvslU1@news.dfncis.de...
> Dana wrote:
>
> > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
find
> > it easier.
>
> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable for
> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well, why
> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?
Because Microsoft had their own, and there is no problem with them tying it
to their OS. In fact it makes sense for all. If customers wanted a different
web browser, there are quite a few available for them.
>
> > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
> > thier OS, by building security into the OS,
>
> They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.
That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have been
demanding.
>
> > now once again the crazy europeans and companies like Mcafee and
Symmatic
> > are complaining
>
> They always do. They're morons.
>
> > that Microsoft is going to add security to the OS.
>
> Nah, at least one part of the complaint is true: Microsoft is the
authority
> to decide what gets loaded to the kernel, not the user. Now how TF should
I
> be able to load my very own driver for inspecting system memory, which
> requires access to \Device\PhysicalMemory, which requires being loaded to
> the kernel due to Microsoft having it locked down? Or what about loadable
> filesystem driver like TrueCrypt? What about WinPCap? I admit, some other
> things can be done via the kernel hooking API, but some important things
> will get lost, because they can't afford a certificate.
And this boils down to what you want the OS for. If you want to play and
load drivers, well you will have to get an OS like Lynx which will let you
do that.
But windows is made for the masses who have no desire to mess with the
drivers, they just want an OS that works out of the box with minimal
configuration from the user to make it work
>
> On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not that
> VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...
On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types will
still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.
Microsoft is under no obligation to disclose anything about the kernel to
make it easier for them.
>
> > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
secure
> > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>
> There has never been any such reason.
As you pointed out, microsoft has always been weak on security.
"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:3qtvj2lvhjtpuc9mqcom3o631sh56k6udp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > especially in Europe, with their
> >crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can
and
> >cannot make.
>
> Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
> gambling.
Gambling is legal in quite a few places in America.
> Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
> thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
> STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
That I agree with. You shouldn't need $40/year of 3rd party crap just
to make an OS not be a pain. This is among the reasons Mac is such a
compelling choice as a desktop.
I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete and disk
defrag functionality, then they don't know their business very well.
They should be thankful windows was so horrible reliant on them for so
long rather than bemoaning the (possible) end of the line.
"Todd H." <comphelp@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:84iri7x504.fsf@ripco.com...
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
> > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
> > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
> > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
> > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
> > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
secure
> > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>
> That I agree with. You shouldn't need $40/year of 3rd party crap just
> to make an OS not be a pain. This is among the reasons Mac is such a
> compelling choice as a desktop.
And as Mac shows, there is competition in the OS world.
And as Linux becomes more popular with more applications coming on line,
Microsoft will have to adapt to keep its share.
>
> I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
> changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
> Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete and disk
> defrag functionality, then they don't know their business very well.
> They should be thankful windows was so horrible reliant on them for so
> long rather than bemoaning the (possible) end of the line.
>I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
>changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
>Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete and disk
>defrag functionality, then they don't know their business very well.
>They should be thankful windows was so horrible reliant on them for so
>long rather than bemoaning the (possible) end of the line.
>
I like Microsoft products. Yes, they are a near monopoly in some
ways. That can be a good thing. For all their push to hire great
minds, they have always been pretty much a copycat company. I like
Apple products too. Sometimes I wish that Microsoft products would
work as well as Apple products. (I've just downloaded the new IE7 for
Windows. It works ok and has some new, up-to-date feature, but it
looks like too many decisions were made by committee and it lacks that
cutting-edge elegance).
The GUI interface, which is the basis for Windows is a copy from the
Macintosh and before that, from the Xerox Parc technology. In my
mind, bad versions of DOS went on for far too long. The mouse,
Internet Explorer,and another Microsoft cash cow... MS office... all
are copies of great ideas from other individuals and organizations.
Microsoft was even late in recognizing the importance of the Internet
when it went mainstream in the mid 90's.
Still, they give out free updates and patches and they generally work,
hassle free. Microsoft products provide value. The Europeans all
get together in haughty meetings and say "Harrrumph... we can't have
this American company dominant in a product that is so vital to our
economies... so lets try to throw a wrench in the works and
over-regulate them with our laws..."
Americans are jealous of success too. Many attack Bill Gates for his
wealth, his geekiness, his dominance of his company, and even his
generosity and his charitable foundations.
If Microsoft was that awful, they wouldn't have 80-90% market
dominance. If you want a better operating system, you could choose
Apple, or if you don't like paying high royalties, there is always
Linux.
If all you want to do is complain.... you could write your own :}
"Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:4qai9cFm5re1U1@news.dfncis.de...
> Dana wrote:
>
> >> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable
for
> >> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well,
why
> >> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?
> >
> > Because Microsoft had their own,
>
> No, they didn't.
Internet explorer. Which when those two first came out, I would say IE was
better than Netscape.
>
> > and there is no problem with them tying it to their OS.
>
> Wrong again.
No, I am quite right. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying internet
explorer to the OS.
>
> > If customers wanted a different web browser, there are quite a few
available
> > for them.
>
> If customers were able to make a choice or just recognize that there's a
> difference between a webbrowser and the WWW, then they would have chosen
> Netscape on a large base and not even considered misusing IE as a
> webbrowser.
That is not what happened, Internet Explorer became the popular choice over
NetScape.
>
> >> They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.
> >
> > That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have
been
> > demanding.
>
> You forgot to specify which customers. Media companies trying to sell
their
> content by using DRM against the users, these aren't customers in the
usual
> meaning.
>
> > But windows is made for the masses who have no desire to mess with the
> > drivers, they just want an OS that works out of the box with minimal
> > configuration from the user to make it work
>
> I guess even normal users want a reliable workstation for doing serious
> work. With IE, DRM, and the lack of fundamental OS enhancements like a
> well-proven crypto filesystem a la TrueCrypt or extensive network
> monitoring capabilities (for WireShark you need WinPCap), you can't do
> anything serious on such machines. Normally you should be in constant fear
> of your data getting fucked up with you being unable to anything against
> it.
No one is forcing you to buy windows. Just do not turn around and try to
demand via theo courst and governments what Microsoft can and cannot do.
>
> >> On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not
that
> >> VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...
> >
> > On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types will
> > still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.
>
> No.
Sure they can if they want.
>
> >>> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
> >>> secure
> >>> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
> >>
> >> There has never been any such reason.
> > As you pointed out, microsoft has always been weak on security.
>
> No.
Yes, it is well known that Microsoft has put out some very vulnerable
software products.
> Microsoft has done many mistakes, ranging from a crappy default
> configuration over to user applications bundled to Windows and some legacy
> issues, but the core system of Windows itself has always been a very
clever
> and well-designed highly secure system. Hey, why do you think they got
> EAL4+ certification for Windows 2000? Or C2 for Windows XP? You can't
> achieve such a thing without at least a solid base.
That still does not help how vulnerable Win 2k is to attack.
Of course being the most widely used OS also plays a factor in this, in that
more people to to crack it.
"Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:4qallmFm0ooiU1@news.dfncis.de...
> Dana wrote:
>
> > "Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> > news:4qai9cFm5re1U1@news.dfncis.de...
> >> Dana wrote:
> >>
> >>>> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable
> > for
> >>>> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well,
> > why
> >>>> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?
> >>>
> >>> Because Microsoft had their own,
> >>
> >> No, they didn't.
> >
> > Internet explorer.
>
> Didn't you read the rest of the statement, where I explained why MSIE
> should not be considered a webbrowser?
Being that Internet Explorer is recognized as a web browser, your opinion is
just that, an opinion.
>
> > Which when those two first came out, I would say IE was better than
Netscape.
>
> IE -> trivially compromised by malware, generally unavoidable
> Netscape -> maybe a bit fuddly, but works well
Still the point is when the browser wars between IE and Netscape happened,
netscape lost even with all the problems in IE.
>
> >>> and there is no problem with them tying it to their OS.
> >>
> >> Wrong again.
> >
> > No, I am quite right. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying
internet
> > explorer to the OS.
>
> You really didn't read a word, did you? The integration of an unfixable
> security problem into the OS is of course a big problem.
And again, there is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying IE into the OS.
You may dissagree with the MS decision to do that, but that is their choice
to make, not yours. If you do not like that, well use a different OS.
>
> > That is not what happened, Internet Explorer became the popular choice
over
> > NetScape.
>
> Right, and there's still no relationship to the product quality. People
> used IE because it was there and they didn't know anything else.
Netscape was advertising. Heck I had both browsers at one time. Just like I
have Mozilla and opera today.
I myself never liked Netscape Browser, and it seems quite a few people also
felt that way about Netscape browser.
>
> > No one is forcing you to buy windows.
>
> You may consider this statement again.
I did, if you despise MS so much, do not buy their products.
Yes if you work for a company, and they buy Windows, that you have no
control over.
>
> >>> On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types
will
> >>> still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Sure they can if they want.
>
> For sure they stopped doing so more than 10 years ago.
>
> > Yes, it is well known that Microsoft has put out some very vulnerable
> > software products.
>
> It is also well known that Microsoft has put out some very secure software
> products. Now, you should not generalize everything.
Windows is not anywhere being as secure as a Unix distro from say Sun or HP.
This is not a knock against windows, it is just a known fact.
Heck server 2003 is their best server yet, almost as good as a Unix box in
regards to reliablity, and ability to handle intensive processing. I still
would not trust Windows as my database server platform, for that I will
stick with HP or Sun Unix and Oracle.
>
> > That still does not help how vulnerable Win 2k is to attack.
>
> Huh? Is it? That would be real news. Any references to a major security
> problem in Win2K?
>
> > Of course being the most widely used OS also plays a factor in this, in
that
> > more people to to crack it.
>
> What did we learn from Apache vs. IIS? The most easily attackable system
is
> the target, which is not necessarily the most widely used one.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> No. Microsoft has done many mistakes, ranging from a crappy default
> configuration over to user applications bundled to Windows and some legacy
> issues, but the core system of Windows itself has always been a very clever
> and well-designed highly secure system. Hey, why do you think they got
> EAL4+ certification for Windows 2000? Or C2 for Windows XP? You can't
> achieve such a thing without at least a solid base.
EAL4+ makes a "highly secure system" are you sure?
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12jvor22t99gf39@corp.supernews.com...
Well to those people I say
> STFU,
ooooh... tough talk. I like it.
>it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
Amen. Of course, M/S isn't the only software developer and products producer
one can say that about. Hey, Symantec, how about throwing some darts your
way?
> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
>
Unless, of course, that 3rd party product is orders of magnitude better than
what comes with the OS.
"Bit Twister" <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:slrnejvqms.vqi.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid...
> Micro$not now has a new /feature/ which allows them to charge you a
> $50 a year tax to secure your system.
>
> http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35312
>
In the Aerospace and Defense Industry, it's not all that uncommon to find
contractors who try to negotiate additional, out-of-scope funding for
meeting tough contractual requirements or very aggressive deliveries. "Oh,
you wanted *that*? I thought you were just kidding. Open your checkbook."
Perhaps, Microsoft thinks they have found a new and clever tactic.
"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:53q0k254sboga0bp7d7c18elrh5lll1058@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:36:11 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>news:3qtvj2lvhjtpuc9mqcom3o631sh56k6udp@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > especially in Europe, with their
>>> >crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can
>>and
>>> >cannot make.
>>>
>>> Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
>>> gambling.
>>
>>Gambling is legal in quite a few places in America.
>
> I was more thinking about the protectionist measures implemented
> to make offshore gambling sites inaccessible to US users and the
> tactics of the administration arresting directors of legitimate
> companies.
>
> The sort of thing one expects from a rogue state, like the US.
>
> But its more a political thing than a computer security issue.
Actually politics has more to do with this than the ordinary person
realizes.
1. Why does the US not enforce its own anti turst laws against MS?
- because MS finances campaigns for candidates?
- because MS has so much cash to 'fight' the legal system?
- because MS generate so much profit and therefore pays so much income
tax?
(silent partner profiting from 'illegal' activities)
2. Why does the ECM enforce its' laws more vogorously than the US?
- because MS brings in massive amounts of foreign exchange by selling
copies which have no real cost of production, thereby helping
to correct the massive US trade deficit?
- because MS represents a major outflow of currency to the ECM?
- because the various governments genuinely care about the products
available for sale there?
3. Why do computer professionals tolerate MS?
- because if the system were secure and stable, half of us/them would be
redundant?
(No I am not a computer professional but I do fix computers)
>
> Security of the individual against the state seems to be low
> on the agenda these days in the US.
"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:53q0k254sboga0bp7d7c18elrh5lll1058@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:36:11 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> >news:3qtvj2lvhjtpuc9mqcom3o631sh56k6udp@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > especially in Europe, with their
> >> >crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can
> >and
> >> >cannot make.
> >>
> >> Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
> >> gambling.
> >
> >Gambling is legal in quite a few places in America.
>
> I was more thinking about the protectionist measures implemented
> to make offshore gambling sites inaccessible to US users and the
> tactics of the administration arresting directors of legitimate
> companies.
Would you give some examples of what you are talking about.
I may live in Alaska, but we are not that out of touch, I really have not
heard of anything close to what you describe.
> Security of the individual against the state seems to be low
> on the agenda these days in the US.
And again I have seen nothing in the US to verify your above statement.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com
"optikl" <optikl@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ehq7ue$vma$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12jvor22t99gf39@corp.supernews.com...
> Well to those people I say
> > STFU,
>
> ooooh... tough talk. I like it.
>
> >it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
>
>
> Amen. Of course, M/S isn't the only software developer and products
producer
> one can say that about. Hey, Symantec, how about throwing some darts your
> way?
>
>
> > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
secure
> > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
> >
>
> Unless, of course, that 3rd party product is orders of magnitude better
than
> what comes with the OS.
And if I needed it to go above what the OS mfg did, yes I can see that.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> JAB wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>> No. Microsoft has done many mistakes, ranging from a crappy default
>>> configuration over to user applications bundled to Windows and some legacy
>>> issues, but the core system of Windows itself has always been a very clever
>>> and well-designed highly secure system. Hey, why do you think they got
>>> EAL4+ certification for Windows 2000? Or C2 for Windows XP? You can't
>>> achieve such a thing without at least a solid base.
>> EAL4+ makes a "highly secure system" are you sure?
>
> No, it's the basis.
>
> After all, it's just a certification. It certifies that the system can be
> configured accordingly by careful reading the documentation and applying
> the relevant settings, that if the system is implemented as documented it's
> secure according to various scenarios, that it actually seems to behave as
> documented, and that there aren't any design program errors.
>
> It does not guarantee that the system always behaves as designed, that the
> implementation is correct and there aren't any random program errors, that
> there aren't any undocumented features, and especially doesn't state that
> the system is configured with such security by default.
>
> The latter being the most common reason why Windows is perceived to be so
> insecure.
No I'm sorry I really think you need to do some research on exactly what
a CC evaluation at EAL4 means, as it's certainly not what you have
stated above. This isn't supposed to be some sort of insult just I think
you need to understand what a CC evaluation 'proves'.
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS
>
> We did? Who the hell decided that was a good idea?
No, we did not. MS did. To keep market share away from Netscape, who
were starting to erode MS's monopoly of the browser 'market'.
To the OP, get your 'facts' right. They (MS) are now trying to do the
same thing with anti-virus / firewall / anti-spyware applications. It was
'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now. If they (MS) were to make multiple
versions of their OS, with and/or without such things, to let the consumer
decide which way they want to do things, that would be ok in my book, but
making only the one 'product' that will include all the others is 'wrong'.
--
We apologize for the inconvenience
"ArtDent" <par@noyd.invalidname> wrote in message
news:0Q80h.271$zf.247@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net...
>
> On 25-Oct-2006, comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
>
> > "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
> > > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS
> >
> > We did? Who the hell decided that was a good idea?
>
> No, we did not. MS did. To keep market share away from Netscape, who
> were starting to erode MS's monopoly of the browser 'market'.
That was never proven as being the intent of MS
> To the OP, get your 'facts' right.
My facts are right.
> They (MS) are now trying to do the
> same thing with anti-virus / firewall / anti-spyware applications.
Well no they are not. They are making their own features along those lines,
heck they should have done that years ago to secure the OS a lot better than
they did.
> It was
> 'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now.
It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
> If they (MS) were to make multiple
> versions of their OS, with and/or without such things, to let the consumer
> decide which way they want to do things, that would be ok in my book, but
> making only the one 'product' that will include all the others is 'wrong'.
In your view, many others may like the idea of buying just one product.
If you do not like what MS is doing, use a different OS
>
> Well no they are not. They are making their own features along those
> lines,
> heck they should have done that years ago to secure the OS a lot better
> than
> they did.
>
> > It was
>> 'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now.
>
> It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
> Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
>
But you have missed the point
MS can say what is 'right' or wrong' for their product.
But a number of governments have the right and duty to say what is
appropriate for a marketplace free from monoply power and consistent
anti-competitive and illegal actions.
So it is a case of what is 'right' or 'wrong' for a properly functioning
market
"Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:AO90h.193116$5R2.83091@pd7urf3no...
>
> >
> > Well no they are not. They are making their own features along those
> > lines,
> > heck they should have done that years ago to secure the OS a lot better
> > than
> > they did.
> >
> > > It was
> >> 'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now.
> >
> > It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
> > Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
> >
> But you have missed the point
> MS can say what is 'right' or wrong' for their product.
> But a number of governments have the right and duty to say what is
> appropriate for a marketplace free from monoply power and consistent
> anti-competitive and illegal actions.
And in regards to MS, the governments and the courts were wrong.
What the governments and courts did was stifle competition and punish
innovation.
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12k2hc9pliesa0d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:AO90h.193116$5R2.83091@pd7urf3no...
>>
>> >
>> > Well no they are not. They are making their own features along those
>> > lines,
>> > heck they should have done that years ago to secure the OS a lot better
>> > than
>> > they did.
>> >
>> > > It was
>> >> 'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now.
>> >
>> > It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
>> > Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
>> >
>> But you have missed the point
>> MS can say what is 'right' or wrong' for their product.
>> But a number of governments have the right and duty to say what is
>> appropriate for a marketplace free from monoply power and consistent
>> anti-competitive and illegal actions.
>
> And in regards to MS, the governments and the courts were wrong.
> What the governments and courts did was stifle competition and punish
> innovation.
>
Those are some very broad and unsupported allegations
Can you provide any proof?
Which governments and courts were wrong?
In what way were they wrong?
How good is your knowledge of international trade laws?
In what ways did they stifle competition?
Condemnation like that required proof to be believeable.
"Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Zfc0h.193666$5R2.68422@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12k2hc9pliesa0d@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:AO90h.193116$5R2.83091@pd7urf3no...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well no they are not. They are making their own features along those
> >> > lines,
> >> > heck they should have done that years ago to secure the OS a lot
better
> >> > than
> >> > they did.
> >> >
> >> > > It was
> >> >> 'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now.
> >> >
> >> > It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
> >> > Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
> >> >
> >> But you have missed the point
> >> MS can say what is 'right' or wrong' for their product.
> >> But a number of governments have the right and duty to say what is
> >> appropriate for a marketplace free from monoply power and consistent
> >> anti-competitive and illegal actions.
> >
> > And in regards to MS, the governments and the courts were wrong.
> > What the governments and courts did was stifle competition and punish
> > innovation.
> >
>
> Those are some very broad and unsupported allegations
> Can you provide any proof?
> Which governments and courts were wrong?
The Europeans and the US.
The US because it was a political driven attack against MS
The Europeans because they were upset with the dominance of an American
company, so again it was all political.
> In what way were they wrong?
Because of the political nature of the bogus claims from the governments
> How good is your knowledge of international trade laws?
Has nothing to do with international trade, although the Europeans screw
American companies every chance they get.
> In what ways did they stifle competition?
Showing the marketplace that big government can come in and squash you like
a bug.
on 10/25/2006 5:35 PM Dana said the following:
> "Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> news:4qab7cFltvslU1@news.dfncis.de...
>> Dana wrote:
>>
<SNIP>
>> They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.
>
> That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have been
> demanding.
DRM is not about protecting my computer from the outside world, DRM is
about preventing me from having control over my computer
on 10/25/2006 8:12 PM Dana said the following:
> "Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
>> IE -> trivially compromised by malware, generally unavoidable
>> Netscape -> maybe a bit fuddly, but works well
>
> Still the point is when the browser wars between IE and Netscape happened,
> netscape lost even with all the problems in IE.
Well, Duh. Are you being intentionally dense? IE won because it was
sitting there ready to go.
When you check into a hotel room, do you go to the store to buy soap?
Or do you use the one sitting on the counter? By your standard, you'd
say that people "prefer" crappy hotel soap.
on 10/26/2006 4:33 PM Dana said the following:
> "Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:AO90h.193116$5R2.83091@pd7urf3no...
>>> Well no they are not. They are making their own features along those
>>> lines,
>>> heck they should have done that years ago to secure the OS a lot better
>>> than
>>> they did.
>>>
>>>> It was
>>>> 'wrong' then, and it is 'wrong' now.
>>> It was not wrong then and it is not wrong now.
>>> Only MS can say what is right or wrong for their product.
>>>
>> But you have missed the point
>> MS can say what is 'right' or wrong' for their product.
>> But a number of governments have the right and duty to say what is
>> appropriate for a marketplace free from monoply power and consistent
>> anti-competitive and illegal actions.
>
> And in regards to MS, the governments and the courts were wrong.
> What the governments and courts did was stifle competition and punish
> innovation.
>
>
"John Hyde" <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:12k2mi47br5fp0e@corp.supernews.com...
> on 10/25/2006 8:12 PM Dana said the following:
> > "Sebastian Gottschalk" <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
>
> >> IE -> trivially compromised by malware, generally unavoidable
> >> Netscape -> maybe a bit fuddly, but works well
> >
> > Still the point is when the browser wars between IE and Netscape
happened,
> > netscape lost even with all the problems in IE.
>
> Well, Duh. Are you being intentionally dense? IE won because it was
> sitting there ready to go.
So,
>
> When you check into a hotel room, do you go to the store to buy soap?
Yes
> Or do you use the one sitting on the counter? By your standard, you'd
> say that people "prefer" crappy hotel soap.
Why does every one hate Microsoft 