RSS
Microsoft Says Proprietary Software Needs Proprietary Security
from the going-it-alone dept
In the endless cat and mouse game that is computer security, it's common to hear of some worm or exploit (usually targeting a Microsoft product), and then wait for an official patch. However, as we've noted in the past, sometimes third parties can come out with a patch before Microsoft can, which might be expected from a company with their size and bureaucracy. You'd think Microsoft would want to foster this kind of support and community, as these companies are doing their work for them. Instead the company is discouraging use of these fixes. They argue that only Microsoft fixes are guaranteed to work with other applications, and future versions of the software. Here the company should take a cue from the open source community, and the concept of the perpetual beta. People like continuous marginal improvement as opposed to infrequent upgrades that just require more patches. In security, especially, there's never a final fix, just temporary advantages over attackers. If Microsoft succeeds in pushing away third-party security offerings, they'll only strengthen the perception that competing products are safer to use. Update: News.com reports that a recent project to clean up bugs in open-source software went extremely fast, with developers fixing 900 bugs, in 32 pieces of software, over a two week period. While Microsoft isn't going to let developers tinker with their source-code directly, they should do their best to harness the speed of the community in fixing problems.
I have an idea...
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
I have an app...
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Would you guarantee...
Would you guarantee other people's work? If I were M$, I wouldn't want to be liable for work, that people who are not under my control, have done. You could essentially get sued for what some other chump has done.
So even if I didn't mind it, I would still come out publicly against it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Don't be so hard on it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't be so hard on it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Would you guarantee...
Of course, the entire theory above is predicated on the notion that software has to be "just good enough" which in and of itself sucks but it does play into the continued profitability of Microsoft and others.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not even Microsoft can guarantee that its own "tested" patches will work with other applications. I've had plenty of problems where a Microsoft patch will break a perfectly legitimate peice of software I needed. I've had issues with printer drivers, video drivers, a firewall app, and various other software applications that have been "broken" because I've updated Windows with a new patch. Then I either have to roll back the update or wait for the original manufacturer to come out with their own patch to fix their printer or software to Microsoft's new patch.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Would you guarantee...
Ever read the EULA? Ever talk to a company Microsoft rep?
Microsoft does NOT guarantee their work....to ANYONE.
Patch screws up and wipes out your million dollar database? You can't sue Microsoft.
Customer support? Well you gotta pay for that too.
When using Open Source, you can have the same guarantees (none) that Microsoft gives you. Faster fixes, better quality, lower prices, lower operating costs AND you CAN get the SAME customer support Microsoft gives you with any one of a number of established and reputable support companies.
Take a look sometimes...ignorance isn't bliss...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft and Proprietary Security Software
A well written article. I particularly like your statement " People like continuous marginal improvement as opposed to infrequent upgrades that just require more patches." Truer words were never said. I have always updated my XP software since day one (Oct 2001) and I must admit,virtually all were to fix bugs or security issues. I believe I am well past 200 of them. Now these patches probably included fixes for numerous issues. Although as a SOHO I have never had a problem with XP. But with over 4.5 years of patching and fixing I would not expect to have any.
Microsoft of course requires 'new versions' in order to keep the revenues flowing and indeed they do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft and Proprietary Security Software
A well written article. I particularly like your statement " People like continuous marginal improvement as opposed to infrequent upgrades that just require more patches." Truer words were never said. I have always updated my XP software since day one (Oct 2001) and I must admit,virtually all were to fix bugs or security issues. I believe I am well past 200 of them. Now these patches probably included fixes for numerous issues. Although as a SOHO I have never had a problem with XP. But with over 4.5 years of patching and fixing I would not expect to have any.
Microsoft of course requires 'new versions' in order to keep the revenues flowing and indeed they do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment