Does Microsoft Give a Damn?

Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
George Smith, 2003-09-15

The software-maker's dismal security record seems to have left it immune to criticism and shame.

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-15
Anonymous (6 replies)

*Quote*
First, depending on the number of networked PCs in an organization, "how many people does Microsoft recommend should be hired full-time to run round installing patches?"
*Quote end*

If companies bothered to use SUS (which is free by the way) the answer would be simple: ONE person.
...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-15
Anonymous (1 replies)

We could use SUS at our site if we spent about $750,000 to upgrade all of our hardware and software to a level that SUS will support them. The effort and $$ required to analyze such a swapout for legacy software and systems is much higher that that "real" cost....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

Hmmmm, if you are running equipment THAT old, it isn't worth patching anyway!...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-23
Anonymous

So, if I run a business that depends on this old software, for example automakers who have many critical machines still running older hardware and OS's I should just let the assembly lines shut down....or spend millions to upgrade because the non-warranty software Microsoft sold me several years ago...

[ more ] [ reply ]

One problem w/ SUS: 2003-09-16
Penguinisto (1 replies)

SUS involves the use of a .vbs script. I discovered this myself while unpacking SUS, and watched as Norton A/V (Corporate Ed.) got up and shouted like hell about it.

I don't know of too many sysadmins who want VB Scripting Host running loose in their network...

/P...

[ more ] [ reply ]

One problem w/ SUS: 2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

I have seen no complaints from Symantec AV 8.1 about any of the SUS 2.0 updates done on our network....

[ more ] [ reply ]

One problem w/ SUS: 2003-09-19
penguinisto

Not sure if they didtched it in 2.0, but SUS version 1 w/ SP1 coughed up this script:

SUS10SP1.vbs

Regd's,

/P
...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-16
Anonymous

That free tool to check for patches almost allways faild to detect the slammer patch correctly....so if you relied on it you caught the worm....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-17
Anonymous

How big is your shop?

I have over 40,000 systems across the globe and some are at the end of a 33K pipe.

We put the MS03-026 patch out. But we require users to autneitcate to the firewall when they go to the internet, and the patch broke authentication/authorization meaning we have to now all...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-17
Anonymous

.. Nah, you're not doing anything wrong, except expecting everyone else to eagerly enact the same measures that you've come to adopt. Sure, the columnist whines a lot about the potential of losing very easily saved time and effort, but what I think he's really mad about is that these flaws are here...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Make that Two problems with SUS 2003-09-23
Anonymous

So how did you patch your Office and VB apps for MS03-035, MS03-036, MS03-037, MS03-038?

SUS? Nope, doesn't do Office.

Thanks Billy G....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand 2003-09-15
Anonymous (5 replies)

Just another factually flawed Microsoft bashing. If you read between the lines, you'll find an appauling series of mistakes which were made by the administrators of these systems. Even A/V vendors failed to release signature updates for this before it was too late. At least Micrososoft published a p...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand 2003-09-15
Anonymous (3 replies)

The point of the article is that it takes lots of *time* to assess the risk and apply patches. I don't care how long ago a patch was released if I can't get a software vendor to certify that a patch won't break their application.
Also, why can't MS bundle their "recommended" patches like Sun Micros...

[ more ] [ reply ]

They do bundle them, but not often enough. 2003-09-16
Anonymous

They do bundle them...the bundles are called "cumulative patches", "roll-up patches", and "Service Packs". Unfortunately the time between when a patch comes out and when it's included in a bundle tends to be rather longer than the time between when a patch comes out and when it's exploited.
...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand 2003-09-17
Anonymous

Point 1, I agree with what all of you are saying although, I dont just blame microsoft for their shortcummings in the field of programming. I think that what their programmers have done is phenomenal considering the amoung of work it is to develop any platform of this magnitude. Although, I think ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand 2003-09-18
Anonymous

> Our Solaris mailserver has been running for
> 470 days with no issues

Exactly. I will respect MS operating systems when people on usenet start getting into uptime dicksize wars about them....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Speaking of which... 2003-09-16
Penguinisto

"Even A/V vendors failed to release signature updates for this before it was too late."

Err, perhaps that's because one cannot build a reliable (or in most cases even useable)signature for a virus type that hasn't been released yet, unless one *is* the virus writer.

/P...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand 2003-09-17
Billgatezebub is TEH DEVIL (1 replies)

I understand that Micro$oft sells candy-coated garbage that crashes at the drop of an electron and which is so insecure that children can and do break their operating systems. My favorite M$ "security" feature was the login password for Windows 98. If you set it up to use a password to log in, cli...

[ more ] [ reply ]

I hate to interrupt your rant, but... 2003-09-17
Penguinisto

Windows 98 was not considered a business-level OS... that was supposed to be Windows NT's job (NT 3.51 and 4.0 at the time.) Small businesses did use Win98, but that was out of cost-cutting and ignorance, rather than Microsoft's marketing efforts.

One would do well to compare apples to apples, ye...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand 2003-09-17
Anonymous

This sounds like the "no child left behind" program. Hold the teachers responsible for the childs failure to lean. MS has a responsibility to turn out secure code so we can do true sysadmin work and not patch after patch after patch.

The new code being put ont he internet for the MS03-039, shou...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand 2003-09-18
Anonymous

Do you even work in the industry? We have to test atches for a while before we can roll into production. In fact the newist blaster patch broke a lot of our custom code that used RPC. So while we rewrite our code (ms dosn't care) we have to rely on our firewall to do its job, and pray that a virus d...

[ more ] [ reply ]

We Must Do Our Job 2003-09-15
Sean M. Lynch (2 replies)

I agree with the posts about MS Bashing. Every OS has its own issues. If Unix or Linux was so secure, why are there security patches for those OSs as well? We cannot rely JUST on the OS, AV, IDS, or anything else as our sole savior against malicious attacks...FOR ANY PLATFORM. The issue is defen...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Patch, reboot, patch, reboot.... 2003-09-16
Anonymous (1 replies)

> I agree with the posts about MS Bashing.
> Every OS has its own issues. If Unix or
> Linux was so secure, why are there
> security patches for those OSs as well?

Yes, my Linux systems require patching from time to time. But it's a lot less disruptive to patch a Linux system than a Windows s...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Patch, reboot, patch, reboot.... 2003-09-17
Anonymous (2 replies)

That was precisely my situation as well. It could be very frustrating. In one hand, you would like to keep the system up-to-date, on the other hand, you will not be able to do it until you could schedule downtime.. In fact, I have mentioned this a couple of time to Microsoft Technology Evangelist...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Patch, reboot, patch, reboot.... 2003-09-18
Anonymous

It's because of the way Microsoft handles file locking. If a file is open, for any purpose, you can't touch it.
...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Patch, reboot, patch, reboot.... 2003-09-18
Anonymous

Have no fear! Haven't you heard? Windows 2004 will fix all of this. No bugs and no virii. There's a new feature being introduced called "Blackhole" that automatically looks for security flaws and patches them all in real time.

(There's only one issue with the new feature, as soon as you turn it o...

[ more ] [ reply ]

We Must Do Our Job 2003-09-16
Anonymous (2 replies)

Linux Software needs to be patched every so often. But only VERY rarely is there a vulnerability in the operating system itself.

with windows on the other hand...the flaws are issues with the operating system....

[ more ] [ reply ]

We Must Do Our Job 2003-09-17
Mark Kovacic

This is a specious argument. Very few of the patches to microsofts code are actually in the Kernel itself, which is what linux bigots insist on limiting the term OS to in re linux. The difference is, that Microsoft has geared it's system to a less Savvy user and therefore many components come up at ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

We Must Do Our Job 2003-09-17
Anonymous (1 replies)

I think it depends on how you define "operating system." For example, under Linux Samba isn't really an operating system component, but under Windows SMB file sharing is. For that reason it's hard to make a really fair comparison of bug totals.
...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Yes and no... 2003-09-18
Penguinisto

Well, this may explain why:

Linux (like all other *ixes) use a monolithic kernel architecture, so it's real easy to tell which parts are OS and which ones aren't (modules are semi-included, but even changing one of those doesn't require a reboot 99.9 times out of 100.)

Windows, with a Microker...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-15
Anonymous (2 replies)

As usual, George presents us with more useless rhetoric rather than any solutions. Makes me wonder what he really does at that "think-tank" other than just bashing Microsoft. If you look at the last few months of CIAC high risk vulnerabilities, you'll see that Microsoft vulnerabilities are right b...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-16
Anonymous (2 replies)

I think the onus is on Microsoft to come up with a solution. Other OS vendors have come up with nice central management systems for patching their operating systems. It can be done, MS just isn't interested in doing it.
...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-16
Anonymous

There are a lot of patch management solutions...

Take a look at www.shavlik.com, you can use HFNetChkPro for free for 50 CPU-s...

There is Symantec's Vunerability Assessment 1.0, Microsoft SUS (free)... etc......

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-17
Anonymous

Since "Microsoft isn't interested" in centralized patch maintenance, then the onus indeed belongs on the administrator to patch his/her systems. Saying that Microsoft doesn't make it easy for you isn't really a valid excuse to not patch your systems. That philosophy is like saying "this company do...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-17
Anonymous (1 replies)

Some don't patch because the patch breaks critical business applications. The cost of rewriting these applications in time and money out weigh the risk of being exploited.

If we had to patch our cars as often as we have to patch MS, we'd all be walking, or we'd buy a different brand of car.

F...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-17
Anonymous (2 replies)

Interesting comparing cars to MS products. If you think about it, cars have to be patched all the time too. Oil changes every 3000 miles, regular maintenance, gasoline to keep it running, mechanical failures, etc. The fact is, people still buy them so they don't have to walk.

Should MS write...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-20
Anonymous

Patching systems and taking down critical business applications could also be a career limiting move....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Useless rhetoric 2003-09-21
Anonymous

>Interesting comparing cars to MS products. If you think about it, cars have to be patched all the time too. Oil changes every 3000 miles, regular maintenance, gasoline to keep it running, mechanical failures, etc. The fact is, people still buy them so they don't have to walk.

cars have complex m...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-16
Anonymous

I find the mood of both professionals and end users is entirely acquiescent, i.e. end users consider viruses causing damage or disruption to their computer is a fact of life [like, say, minor car accidents], and professionals consider root-level vulnerabilities in Windows in a similar fashion.

I ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-16
Gary K (1 replies)

First off.. The point of this article is not to hold Microsoft "financially responsible" for the patching efforts.. it's to make people realize that using MS software is going to make you more prone to attacks, and being prone to those attacks makes you patch more often, and finally, when you patc...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-16
Anonymous

Gary wrote:
I'm saying that Microsoft has more patches out for their OS's than any other software provider, bar none.

This isn't true, at least when it comes to security specific patches - but - when it comes to most Windows admins it doesn't really matter who got the most/least patches out. Pr...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? It doesn't matter 2003-09-16
Anonymous - Jerk (1 replies)

You are all missing the point of the article. Not only do I agree with the points made, I'll further the argument. Several posters have touted how their organization wasn't affected, well your not exactly right. The Internet as a whole was affected. Now that the telecom and American businesses h...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? It doesn't matter 2003-09-17
Anonymous

With exploits such as RPC-DCOM, this was exploited by reaching a port which shouldn't be publically accessible in a corporate environment. In a lot of cases, proper steps taken to secure the network on different angles can often buy you some time in deploying patches.

Schedule your downtime, scri...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-17
Anonymous (1 replies)

Stop whining and start patching. It's about time people start working for their $75K a year. No system is secure you don't go after Linux because you don't know who to blame. Stop surfing and start patching....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-17
Anonymous

"Stop whining and start patching. It's about time people start working for their $75K a year."

Most MCSE's make much less... but in between all the other fun things one does for the paycheck, it's nice to be able to reduce the patching woes (and worse, cleaning up after the mess patches sometimes...

[ more ] [ reply ]

We Must Do Our Job 2003-09-17
Sean M. Lynch

I am amused by the two responses to my original post. The individuals refused to address the issues presented and said essentially "Hey, look at Linux." What a lame response.

Here is the issue. No matter what operating system or combinations of operating systems used in the enterprise, defense...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-17
Anonymous

also consider this. These bugs - in Internet Explorere and Outlook, I'm told - are add on software packages that most people don't use. But, since Microsoft is "legally" allowed to hook these programs into the OS so Netscape and Eudora go out of business, we are all at risk.

It's one thing to lea...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-17
Anonymous

George,

Don't buy Microsoft products and shut up. There are alternatives out there. Use them.

Have a good day!...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-17
E(Ces)

Are we all gonna sit on our asses and bitch at whoever is to blame or are we going to think of ideas to solve the underlying problems ?

Here’s a few, 1. Lets make a Service that activates tcp/ip filtering and that keeps it ON in all circumstances (currently it doesn’t), which actually...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-18
Anonymous

It always amazes me how people bag MS for security. Truth is there is no product out there that is any better, just go and have a look at the vulnerability list here for ANY vendor. Linux sucks just as bad if not worse, I wonder we never hear the press bagging Linux for security even though they hav...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-18
Scott G (3 replies)

Just consider yourselves lucky. If you were using Linux 38 patches would seem like a dream. We installed more than 38 on our Red Hat systems just in the first 6 months of this year. I think we are somewhere in 50's now....

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Windows allowed scripting w/o the security headaches. 2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

cron job + central patch server (which can piggyback on any existing server) + a competent set of scripts that can determine what to keep and install, and what to delete...

...or just use up2date and cron that.

Err, what's the problem?

Beats having to hit WindowsUpdate Dot Com and rebootin...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Windows allowed scripting w/o the security headaches. 2003-09-19
Anonymous (1 replies)

Err the problem is you must spend time testing each patch, just because the actual time to patch is shorter and easier on Linux doesn't make the plethora of Linux security patches good, I just wish the media would give Linux a bit of publicity for its shamefull security state, maybe then we would ge...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Windows allowed scripting w/o the security headaches. 2003-09-24
Anonymous

Sure you have to test each patch... for the stuff you actually use.

Most of those patches you harp on won't be installed in a Linux server - the admin can pick and choose everything that goes in his box. That way, I only need bother to patch what is relevant to my server.

Not so w/ Windows (ev...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-19
Anonymous (3 replies)

"Just consider yourselves lucky. If you were using Linux 38 patches would seem like a dream. We installed more than 38 on our Red Hat systems just in the first 6 months of this year. I think we are somewhere in 50's now. "

Ahh, I just love it when ignorant Microsoft sheep, aka MCSE's try to...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-20
Anonymous

actually MS provide patches for all applications they ship just as linux does and yes MS 38 includes ALL there applicaitons. sounds like apples to apples to me, if you only want to include OS patches then MS record is far better. ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-20
Scott G (1 replies)

It always amazes me how linux bigots have to resort to insults when faced with facts :-). For your info I am not an MCSE I run a 8k workstation environment, mostly windows XP with about half Red hat servers and half win2k. and yes Red hat servers really are more painfull to maintain....

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-22
Anonymous

Ahhh, as I said, I really don't care and am not out to convert anyone. I have found that my *nix (solaris, slackware, redhat) servers are much easier to patch and defend. I can also buy myself time with regards to the patches by utilizing iptables, chroot techniques, etc, etc.. My point was just t...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-22
Anonymous (1 replies)

SUS is used and is a charm and by the way 120,000 full time users, 60,000 contractors, and its a global company.

Is that grown up enough??...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-24
Penguinisto

Re: SUS - You allow (let alone run) Visual Basic scripts on your network?

Ref: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/t
echnet/security/topics/patch/secpatch/part_ii/p2ch2.asp

You're a lot more trusting than I am...

/P...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-20
Anonymous (1 replies)

Ok....lets do some simple math here:
For the sake of arguement lets say that Windows 2000 Server and Redhat 9.0 are equally insecure and take the same amount of time to patch(both of which I would never agree with!).

Windows 2000 Server -- $600
Redhat 9.0 -- $0

And that price tag for Windows...

[ more ] [ reply ]

If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes. 2003-09-23
Anonymous

U have a shop with 100 servers:
Windows 2000 Server -- 1000X600=$600,000
Redhat 9.0 -- 1000X0=$0

Sounds easy enough to me which one is the better deal(unless you don't know how to use a command line!)

There's one fundamental error in your math there. Windows 2000 Server is supported...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

Actually I see progress there, not so long ago peoplw were complaining that Microsoft prodcuts were not stable were not supposed to be used up anywhere etc etc etc...

I find interesting that now the focus has moved from : we cannot keep the servers up
to :
We cannot afford the downtime required...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-20
Anonymous

"Think about it, when you have 15000 customers with a hundred servers, MS is supporting 95% of the market... (or 75% or whatever I am just making a point not saying anything like I know the numbers and I don't actually care about them)"

You obviously don't know the numbers! I would explain it to ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-18
Anonymoose

I agree with the "lame comparisons" between MS and any other OS. If Linux were the standard, it would be hacked and exploited equally as hard as MS. Perhaps, *ux would have a better method of globally deploying patches than Microsoft...perhaps, not...who knows.

However, and this is only my hu...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

"ONE person who will subscribe for security notifications from Microsoft ::snips::
Having tested the patch that ONE person would then approve the patch"

One person; 50,000+ PC's/servers and over a hundred off the shelf and proprietary applications in this organisation alone. That ONE person woul...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-19
Anonymous

Snippet:
One person; 50,000+ PC's/servers and over a hundred off the shelf and proprietary applications in this organisation alone. ... To roll out one patch, in reasonable time, in this organisation requires a team of 40 or more testing a patch

Actually the amount of PC's and servers doesn't r...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Of Course They Dont::Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-18
Linux, Torvald. Mr. Linux Torvald to you. (1 replies)

Um..how about if Microsoft actually patched their shitware. Then you stupid runts would have something to complain about.

4 months to develop a patch with a hole in it. $40 billion in cash, +/- 13,000 idiots working for them, and they can't even patch a patch:

http://www.malware.com/greymagic....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Of Course They Dont::Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-25
TK

No professional in software engineering could come up with such a nonsens. I can not imagine that you have ever written down a single line of code. Sure Bill Gates calls out for all the idiots in the world to hire them.

Can you image what will happen if the patching process would look like this: ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Stop the whining, George! 2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

I just don't understand the mentality of those that seem to live in a Cinderella world. Hmmm, maybe that IS the explanation. What software company in the history of computing has had a record of flawless code? And when you get software as popular and widespread as Windows, the exposure to freaky peo...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Stop the whining, George! 2003-09-20
Anonymous

I hate to drop a bomb on you but I administer Windows and Unix servers and ease of use is equally proportional to experience and skill.

Administration of a Unix or Linux box for me is much easier than administration of a Windows Server for one large reason: I understand what I'm doing when I type...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Shut Up !!! 2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

Every single one of you posters needs to shut up! The ones who reply to this need to find something to fill their time. Maybe you should go get a job. The ones who post the worst spelling are the programmmers responsible for the crappy code that goes out. Concentrate on doing something with your lif...

[ more ] [ reply ]

No, _You_ Shut Up (was: Shut Up !!!) 2003-09-23
Anonymous

You said: "Every single one of you posters needs to shut up!"

I respond: "Funny, your remark is actually reflexive. Telling one's self to shut up is the mark of an idiot. To bed at once, junior, and no cookies for you."

You said: "The ones who reply to this need to find something to fill the...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-19
Anonymous (1 replies)

I work for an 1.5 million subscriber ISP and we don't have a single microsoft product. It was decided in the begining to spend two days to train new employees on Linux and save ourselves the hassle of patch/crash cycle. In two years we have had to apply only two patches, not had a single virus or ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Only two Suse patches?!? 2003-09-19
Anonymous (1 replies)

Take a look over at Suse securety announcements (http://www.suse.com/de/security/announcements/index.html). I count 94 patches released within the last two years, and only TWO you deemed important enough to implement?

Does your customers know?...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Only two Suse patches?!? 2003-09-21
Anonymous (1 replies)

You also have to keep in mind, a properly run linux system contains only what it needs to run. On a server, you do not install a GUI or WebBrowser. On a desktop, you do not install Apache.

The software on my web servers is essentially 100MBs worth. Yes you heard that. I run a full featured web si...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Only two Suse patches?!? 2003-09-23
Anonymous

Read the first post, 22K of PCs - not servers.

But I'll be the first to admit, my windows servers/clients all use more than 100mb. But I do know how to lock down both clients and servers, not at least my windows DNS servers so that I don't have to worry about DNS poisoning. Does that make me über...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-19
Anonymous

Microshaft's new slogan:

"We DON'T give a damn... 'cause we don't have to... suckers."

Ahhh... the billions just keep a rollin' in......

[ more ] [ reply ]

How Interesting 2003-09-20
Sigmund Einstein

A Latin anagram for 'Microsoft"

ficto mors 'death maker'...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-20
haloflightleader at yahoo dot com

So many points have been raised here, and so many inexperiences have inadvertently come out too.

One proud MCSE who clearly thought it would take 1 person to upgrade a network must be managing his PC, and a couple of hand-me-down PCs/Servers from his/her company. Sure, I could do that too. But ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-21
Anonymous

With Linux or Microsoft, you have to keep updating and patching to eliminate security vulnerabilities...patching doesn't magically go away when switching to linux....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Does Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-26
penfold

It is great to see such ignorance is accepted on here. Since when have you ever seen any server software without bugs? Surely you did not enter into the IT field and expect it to be a smooth ride without complications?

Long hours, a stressful working enviroment and insufficient pay, that is what ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Shrill 2003-09-26
Anonymous

This article is about as useful to me as a domestic squabble.

I am looking forward to the day that the zealous activist Linux-at-any-cost-down-with-M$ extremists of the Linux community put down their signs, sit down and do 2 things;

1. Code a real, honest-to-goodness comparable Desktop tha...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Should Microsoft Give a Damn? 2003-09-26
mr_jinx

And why should Microsoft give a damn? If you were a company that made billions of dollars in the software market and had billions of customers, would you give a damn about the customer, or the bottom line? I bet it would be the bottom line.

When it comes to money, the customer takes second plac...

[ more ] [ reply ]