, 2003-09-15
The software-maker's dismal security record seems to have left it immune to criticism and shame.
Expand all |
Post comment
Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-15
Anonymous (6 replies)
Anonymous (6 replies)
Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand
2003-09-15
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand
2003-09-17
Billgatezebub is TEH DEVIL (1 replies)
Billgatezebub is TEH DEVIL (1 replies)
We Must Do Our Job
2003-09-15
Sean M. Lynch (2 replies)
Sean M. Lynch (2 replies)
Patch, reboot, patch, reboot....
2003-09-16
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Useless rhetoric
2003-09-15
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes.
2003-09-18
Scott G (3 replies)
Scott G (3 replies)
If only Windows allowed scripting w/o the security headaches.
2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes.
2003-09-19
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Of Course They Dont::Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-18
Linux, Torvald. Mr. Linux Torvald to you. (1 replies)
Linux, Torvald. Mr. Linux Torvald to you. (1 replies)
Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-19
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Only two Suse patches?!?
2003-09-19
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

Also, why can't MS bundle their "recommended" patches like Sun Microsystems does so that we don't have to patch, reboot, patch the update, reboot, patch the service pack, reboot...
MS servers aren't reliable enough to be patching all the time for urgent security defects. Our Solaris mailserver has been running for 470 days with no issues and that's the goal I would want for maintenance of a Windows box.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/185/22312#22312