I just wanna smack him

[t. shuffle]

User, beware of new XP patch

Sunday, August 22, 2004

AL FASOLDT
TECHNOFILE

Microsoft has a massive patch for some of the many bugs and security holes in Windows XP. If you're using Windows XP, you might want to download the software patch and install it.

But then maybe you shouldn't.

The patch, called SP2 (for "Service Pack 2"), would seem like a good idea. After all, security is a nightmare for Windows users, and anything that boosts security should be a good thing.

But I am urging Windows XP users to be cautious. Microsoft's track record in making fixes that work is less than stellar.

It created the problems of XP in the first place, and now Microsoft wants us to think it found a lot of fixes.

I'm not buying.

I believe Microsoft should take full responsibility for the faulty design of Windows and recall every last copy of Windows ever sold. Buyers should get a working, safe, secure operating system in return.

Some say that's just not going to happen. But I can't find anything in the realm of common sense that requires Ford or General Motors or any other automobile manufacturer to act responsibly by recalling defective vehicles while leaving Microsoft free to do as it pleases in its monopoly software market.

Some say I'm crazy to expect such a thing. But this crazy guy isn't letting up. I'd even like to see Microsoft put a warning label on Windows, just like the warning label on packs of cigarettes.

People need to be reminded that Windows is unsafe. There are millions of copies of non-XP versions of Windows in use worldwide, and these unsafe versions - Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows 2000 and Windows NT - are not covered by the latest service pack.

In light of Microsoft's record and because of the current flood of Windows spyware and Windows viruses - an uncountable number of spyware infections and an estimated 125,000 active Windows viruses as of this month - I recommend two approaches.



Make a change

I urge anyone who uses Windows to consider the two main alternatives to the Windows operating systems, Mac OS X and Linux. Both are much safer than any version of Windows and are free from spyware. There are only a few viruses for Linux PCs and none for Mac OS X.

Linux has a big advantage: It can be installed as a replacement for Windows on just about any Windows PC. Mac OS X is an operating system designed for Apple's Macintosh computers, so you have to change from a PC to a Mac to switch to OS X.

But Mac OS X has a huge advantage. Apple makes the Macintosh computers and the OS X operating system, and they work together seamlessly, without the problems that plague many Windows computers and some Linux PCs.

Nobody else makes the computer and the operating system. Apple's advantage here is immense.



Wait for the fix


If you have to stick with Windows and you're using Windows XP, don't install Microsoft's patch yet.

Microsoft seldom gets things right the first time. Let the brave and the foolhardy find the bugs in Microsoft's bug-fix software, and let the hackers find the security holes in Microsoft's security-hole patches.

Then, after the company has fixed the fix, go ahead and install Service Pack 2. I'd guess the best waiting period is two or three months.

In the meantime, Windows XP users who don't want to switch to OS X or Linux should check with Microsoft for problems it knows about with SP2.

For a list of dozens of programs that SP2 will interfere with, go to support.micro soft.com/default.aspx? kbid=842242 .



Coming Wednesday


In Wednesday's Technology section, Al Fasoldt writes about tips and tricks for using the Mac.

Al Fasoldt's technology column appears here weekly and is available online at aroundcny.com/technofile/. You can e-mail him at [email protected] or send standard mail in care of Stars, P.O. Box 4915, Syracuse, NY 13221.

© 2004 The Post-Standard. Used with permission.

direct link, so that nobody is deprived of advertising dollars

To quote one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies:

Oh, you were finished? Well allow me to retort.

I could spend the next hour retorting, line by line, as could most of you, but I won't bother tonight. I'm pretty sure I would be preaching to the choir.

It just pisses me off that fucksticks like this get a voice, and there is no option to respond to the article.

 

[oldpablo]

direct link, so that nobody is deprived of advertising dollars

To quote one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies:

I could spend the next hour retorting, line by line, as could most of you, but I won't bother tonight. I'm pretty sure I would be preaching to the quire.

It just pisses me off that fucksticks like this get a voice, and there is no option to respond to the article.

Holy hell, that guy needs to have anything related to technology confiscated for his completely biased and majorly uninformed opinion...

 

[Snugglebear]

The first 40% is absolutely correct. MS knowingly built and sold shit. Most other software houses do, too, on a regular basis. That won't change until people stop buying shit and demand better.

 

[Spleeze]

That's not even worth responding too.







well... its was worth typing that... I guess...

 

[mosin]

...MS knowingly built and sold shit...

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Me? I won't install SP2. Why? Because I already ripped out the shit part and fixed it. My rig is plenty secure. It just doesn't have the Microsoft unsafe parts anymore. I don't need the 200mb of new bloat that SP2 would amount to, if installed on my rig, because it addresses unnecessary features and programs that no longer exist on my machine.

There are enough good mail clients, web browsers, anitvirus programs and firewalls that aren't made by Microsoft to make Windows safe. The most unsafe thing about Windows, the way it comes out of the box, is the typical user anyway.

Best of all, there is a lot of nice freeware that works on Windows....and it won't work on OSX or Linux. My rig is maybe 75-80% Open Source and Freeware...but I could never get used to Linux on a day to day basis.

I like XP, and I don't like Linux. MAC is behind me now, so whatever the guy has to say doesn't affect me, one way or the other.

 

[oldpablo]

The first 40% is absolutely correct. MS knowingly built and sold shit. Most other software houses do, too, on a regular basis. That won't change until people stop buying shit and demand better.

You should spend less time snuggling and more time getting a clue about the computer industry. I can go off on this guy in the article in great detail that cannot be refuted...or I can go to bed. Nighty-night.

 

[Zlash]

He's just a mac fanatic gone off the deep end. Pretty sad.

 

[ameoba]

Granted, there should be some caution with SP2, based on the reports I've heard 'round here of it breaking things. As it came out, the campus IT group sent out an email to everyone saying "you should install this right now." without any suggestions that it might break stuff.

 

[XOR != OR]

Up to "Make a Change", he's mostly correct, and I'd like to see MS held accountable for the crap they spew out ( but not anymore than I like to see any software developer held accountable ). I'd even like to see a warning label, maybe from the surgeon general, "This product has been known to cause elevated blood pressure and annoying relatives".

However, after that point, he's on his own. Saying one OS is more secure than another is just setting yourself up for trouble. Linux CAN be more secure, and out of box with most distros, often is. I can't comment much on OSX, other than to say that having a single company behind it is just as scary as having a single company behind windows.

Further, spyware will be written for linux soon enough, mark my words. And OSX. These past couple years have just been "training" for the real fun that's soon to come.

 

[GreNME]

I just can't believe this guy gets paid to write this tripe.

I am working on a rant about zealots, and this little article provides precisely the example I needed to illustrate how a little platform zealotry can turn someone into a stark raving idiot. Maybe I'll try to find the e-mail addy of his editor and send him a link to my rant when it's finished (I'll link it here if anyone is interested).

 

[oldpablo]

Up to "Make a Change", he's mostly correct, and I'd like to see MS held accountable for the crap they spew out ( but not anymore than I like to see any software developer held accountable ). I'd even like to see a warning label, maybe from the surgeon general, "This product has been known to cause elevated blood pressure and annoying relatives".

However, after that point, he's on his own. Saying one OS is more secure than another is just setting yourself up for trouble. Linux CAN be more secure, and out of box with most distros, often is. I can't comment much on OSX, other than to say that having a single company behind it is just as scary as having a single company behind windows.

Further, spyware will be written for linux soon enough, mark my words. And OSX. These past couple years have just been "training" for the real fun that's soon to come.

Mostly correct? Your serious? Not joking? I'm speechless and flabbergasted. I think the ONE objectively, intelligent, and just downright true statement that guy made was this: "I'm not buying." Odd how this guy http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_sp2.asp seems to say the opposite, and I think he's a bit more qualified... His conclusion is below:

"I've been reviewing Windows products for a decade now, and very rarely have I been able to wholeheartedly recommend any product. Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), however, is such a product, despite the potential for software incompatibilities and certain missing features. Barring a massive incompatibility issue, virtually every Windows XP user should upgrade to this release as soon as possible, in order to take advantage of its enhanced security features. And for heaven's sake, do yourself a favor and leave Windows Firewall and Automatic Updates on, please. Get a compatible anti-virus package; I recommend McAfee VirusScan, which is relatively inexpensive, lightweight, and unobtrusive, or Symantec's corporate-oriented AntiVirus product. Finding incompatibilities with Windows Firewall? Try a third party product, such as Zone Alarm or Tiny Personal Firewall; either one is superior to Windows Firewall and offers outbound protection as well as inbound, a feature Windows Firewall lacks.

And yes, you will run into incompatibilities, count on it, so evaluate SP2 as quickly as possible. Find those incompatibilities, and then figure out a workaround that makes your existing solution work. But realize that security is the priority. Do the right thing going forward, and your system will pay you back by keeping your precious data safe the next time a Slammer-type attack occurs. Windows XP SP2 will make your system more secure, if you let it. But if you ignore or put off this release, you'll only be hurting yourself."

 

[Arkan]

Ok, i'll take a different spin and conjure up this. Microsoft develops this new "patch" and names it SP2. They release a beta form, sit back and watch. The beta users run into problems and sometimes fixes them themselves after hrs and even days of frustration. The boys at Microsoft then "tests" the fix and if it works, releases yet another patch to the original patch. This cycle goes on and on but the only problem is.......the beta users aren't getting paid for it while the fat cats over at Microsoft get rich by your hard work.

Think about that.

 

[XOR != OR]

Mostly correct? Your serious? Not joking? I'm speechless and flabbergasted. I think the ONE objectively, intelligent, and just downright true statement that guy made was this: "I'm not buying." Odd how this guy http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_sp2.asp seems to say the opposite, and I think he's a bit more qualified... His conclusion is below:

Sorry, but to me, my experiences over the last decade ( and a half ) USING MS products trumps his decade of reviewing them.

In my experience, SPs break things. Plain and simple. From NT on, even to win2kserver, service packs are a risky proposal. I do install them, but it's always with held breath, because I just known it's only a matter of time before something breaks.

It's a bit like russian roulette.

Further, I don't know why software developers aren't held accountable for their products. Seems a bit silly to me, and it strikes me as nothing more than wagon circling to those that defend the current practice. And while I think warning labels are a bit over the top, I'd still like to see them.

And he's right: Windows IS unsafe to an untrained user. No two ways about that, and all the proof I need is in a /var/log/secure or /var/log/http set of logs.

* - And it's 'you're', not 'your'

 

[GreNME]

Ok, i'll take a different spin and conjure up this. Microsoft develops this new "patch" and names it SP2. They release a beta form, sit back and watch. The beta users run into problems and sometimes fixes them themselves after hrs and even days of frustration. The boys at Microsoft then "tests" the fix and if it works, releases yet another patch to the original patch. This cycle goes on and on but the only problem is.......the beta users aren't getting paid for it while the fat cats over at Microsoft get rich by your hard work.

Think about that.

I'm not even going to mention the "fat cats" over at Red Hat, SuSe, MandrakeSoft, or even IBM that get rich off the free contributions made to OSS development testing, then...

And both OSS and Microsoft have a shitload of advantages in their models over Apple's "think secret" way of handling development and bugchecking/fixing.

 

[GreNME]

Whoops, I forgot one...

XOR, you aren't incorrect about Microsoft's history, to be sure. However, you should be able to agree that, in the last four years, the turnaround in the attitude and approach from the company is notable and, in the finished product, very noticable. 2k and XP are nothing like the nightmares previous versions were, and both keep getting better (meaning more secure as well as other things).

Can we agree on that?

 

[oldpablo]

Sorry, but to me, my experiences over the last decade ( and a half ) USING MS products trumps his decade of reviewing them.

In my experience, SPs break things. Plain and simple. From NT on, even to win2kserver, service packs are a risky proposal. I do install them, but it's always with held breath, because I just known it's only a matter of time before something breaks.

It's a bit like russian roulette.

Further, I don't know why software developers aren't held accountable for their products. Seems a bit silly to me, and it strikes me as nothing more than wagon circling to those that defend the current practice. And while I think warning labels are a bit over the top, I'd still like to see them.

And he's right: Windows IS unsafe to an untrained user. No two ways about that, and all the proof I need is in a /var/log/secure or /var/log/http set of logs.

* - And it's 'you're', not 'your'

Come on leave the English crap in school (did it make you feel better?), I happen to not care when I'm posting/e-mailing people. As for you trumping him, I don't care who has touched a windows computer longer, I would be VERY surpised if you had more experience using any aspect of Windows then he would. Do I think he is God? No, but I know who he is (look him up), what experience he has, whether or not his perspective is an accurate one, etc. As for SP breaking things, you are taking the wrong perspective in my opinion. Of course they break things, thats a natural effect of software development. But they don't deserve the flack for all the breaking that happens. The vast majority of stuff that breaks is because other software developers aren't staying on top of THIER development. What would you have MS do? Do you think its possible to release "the perfect patch?" Here's the model (in concept form of course):

1. MS designs the OS and releases it after extensive beta testing by large corporations, small businesses, and end users (Software development companies that don't take part in this should find other work...).
2. After awhile MS decides its time for a service pack to roll together all the updates, bug fixes, new features (USB2.0) that have popped up (due to the direction the industry took/new exploit methods conceived and developed, etc., NOT flaws made by monkey programmers). MS takes a hell of a lot of feedback from millions of installs and thousands of scenarios to figure out what exactly needs to go in as well as just bundling in stuff already released individually.
4. MS decides on a course of action influenced by all that feedback as well as where they will be taking their OS in the future (you can ride along or not, its up to you).
5. MS give developers plenty of time and information so that they can do whatever they need to do to make sure their software works. The make service packs available via beta testing, etc. (Once again, software development companies that don't take part in this should find other work...).

I have no problem holding software developers accountable for crappy software, but who says what is crappy? Moron guy from that article because he doesn't know how to properly prepare/use a computer? News flash, there are many many many IT people that are perfectly happy with how MS does things, me included. There are also many who don't necessarily like the way MS does stuff, but at least they understand the model. Then there are those that will never truly get the "M$" out of their head. They fear if they actually approve of something MS does that they might get assimilated. And newsflash, ANYTHING is unsafe to ANYONE untrained to use it. Come on man, you can widen the blinders a little bit can't you?

 

[XOR != OR]

Whoops, I forgot one...

XOR, you aren't incorrect about Microsoft's history, to be sure. However, you should be able to agree that, in the last four years, the turnaround in the attitude and approach from the company is notable and, in the finished product, very noticable. 2k and XP are nothing like the nightmares previous versions were, and both keep getting better (meaning more secure as well as other things).

Can we agree on that?

Sure. They'd have had to try to break things as bad as they did with NT. Although Linux wasn't anything stellar back then either.

It's possible my expectations are and have been too high.

 

[XOR != OR]

Come on leave the English crap in school (did it make you feel better?), I happen to not care when I'm posting/e-mailing people.

Don't like it, ignore it. It drives me up the wall. To, too. Your, you're.

As for you trumping him, I don't care who has touched a windows computer longer, I would be VERY surpised if you had more experience using any aspect of Windows then he would.

To each their own. I trust my knowledge more than someone else's.

As for SP breaking things, you are taking the wrong perspective in my opinion. Of course they break things, thats a natural effect of software development. But they don't deserve the flack for all the breaking that happens. The vast majority of stuff that breaks is because other software developers aren't staying on top of THIER development. What would you have MS do? Do you think its possible to release "the perfect patch?" Here's the model (in concept form of course):

I wouldn't hold MS responsible for breaking SPs if it weren't for the fact that it's their own software it breaks. Mssql, which I have running here, broke with sp4. On two machines. After a few hours of trouble shooting, I gave up and did a reinstall. Installed sp4 before mssql, and it worked fine.

Believe me, I have no more respect for other software vendors than I do for MS. If something breaks after installing a service pack, I call the vendors first, because it's likely an error on their side. However, with MS stuff, that doesn't hold much water.

I have no problem holding software developers accountable for crappy software, but who says what is crappy?

If something doesn't work as it should, it's crappy. Defective. Simple. If something doesn't work as you expect it to, that's obviously a different story.

News flash, there are many many many IT people that are perfectly happy with how MS does things, me included.

Then they are a bit too complancent. I am constantly looking for alternatives, to windows, to linux, to bsd. There is always a better way to do things out there, and I don't mean to use substandard product when i don't have to.

There are also many who don't necessarily like the way MS does stuff, but at least they understand the model.

I fall in that category I think. For what we do here at the office, MS is required, if only for the software that we run on top of it ( which happens to be one of those vendors I'd like seen held responsible for the crap they produce ).

ANYTHING is unsafe to ANYONE untrained to use it.

True enough, however, somethings are merely unsafe, and others should simply not be used by untrained users. I'll sound like a zealot, but windows is one of those things.

 

[oldpablo]

Your post about SQL is valid, and I now see that you are more balanced then your original post above made me think you were. Seriously though, that stuff is gonna happen and I do think it unfair to slander if its something that is in all reality not possible. MS can't guarantee that SP4 won't ever break a SQL install because they can't cover every scenario/method/software/whatever used by all admins. All they can do is the best they can, which honestly I think is pretty damn good for an install base of (I have no idea so I'll make a number up) an uberdillion. As for complacency, I understand what you are trying to say but don't think its that cut and dry. I am happy to try out all different products, but I see the value in not diversifying platforms so much that you cause more headache then its worth. I currently work for a company where they use mac, linux, and windows for servers and desktops. And things here are far more complex then they need to be generating what I feel is more work. Move us to completely MS or completely something else, no more trying to stay on top of three completely different architectures, each with their own quirks, etc. And I'll debate the whole "Windows is not safe" thing to the grave my friend. I have installed numerous Windows networks and have yet to be compromised by hackers or viruses. I'll concede that maybe I haven't had the exposure that maybe some of your networks have. What I do have however, are lots and lots of log entries from hackers/viruses that have tried. Hell on my mom's sbs2003 network the other day there was something like 150 bad login attempts for the administrator account (I have remote web workplace enabled). Good thing I learned all about security like complex passwords and stuff.

 

[XOR != OR]

And I'll debate the whole "Windows is not safe" thing to the grave my friend. I have installed numerous Windows networks and have yet to be compromised by hackers or viruses.

Nor have mine. I was referring to your average home user, with no administrator around to hold his hand, or in my case, smack it hard with a ruler.

Home users are the main source of the virus/trojan/worm problem out there, being the largest install base AND with no tech support ( short of a family member who'd rather not have to deal with a machine he "broke" when he played solitair on it last. Or, in my case, was nice enough to fix it last time. I have a very odd family ). Home users are essentially untrained administrators of their own machines. Think about that on your work network for a second, and shudder.

 

[oldpablo]

Nor have mine. I was referring to your average home user, with no administrator around to hold his hand, or in my case, smack it hard with a ruler.

Home users are the main source of the virus/trojan/worm problem out there, being the largest install base AND with no tech support ( short of a family member who'd rather not have to deal with a machine he "broke" when he played solitair on it last. Or, in my case, was nice enough to fix it last time. I have a very odd family ). Home users are essentially untrained administrators of their own machines. Think about that on your work network for a second, and shudder.

Agreed, but I think a perspective tuning is needed here. I posted this in some other debate in the forums awhile back:

"...think of it as a slider. It slides back and forth between security and useability. But it can never be both. "Network Security" is an oxymoron. Networks are designed to share, security is designed to prevent sharing. Where that slider is in a given OS whether its the default after a clean install or its been "slid" to a certain place, depends on the human factor most definitely. A company(human factor) wanting its OS to work with everything out of the box will have lax security (early MS) or a company wanting it to be locked down after a clean install (later MS), leaving it up to the admin to "open it up."

Security issues were nowhere near as bad as now when MS shipped XP. Could it have been more secure? Sure. But back then it would have been just as bad having a more secure/less easy OS then nowadays having a more secure/less easy OS. Bad as in consumers getting pissy about having to do homework on what they bought to get their chat/webcam/Internet working right. To you and me, security is a crusade. To the consumer (a market that MS has to pay attention to to make money as well) its a hassle even if though it protects them.

 

[GreNME]

Sure. They'd have had to try to break things as bad as they did with NT. Although Linux wasn't anything stellar back then either.

It's possible my expectations are and have been too high.

Not at all. If we never kept our expectations high, perhaps we'd never see any damn progress.

By the way, I put my ranting response to the guy's stupidity up here.

 

[oldpablo]

Not at all. If we never kept our expectations high, perhaps we'd never see any damn progress.

By the way, I put my ranting response to the guy's stupidity up here.

Nice and thorough. In todays ever changing world, any type of brand loyalty to me is absurd. People ask me if I'm a republcan or a democrat and I normally say one of two things: "I'm a Republicrat" or "I'm neither, I'm an American." I have no qualms about switching loyalty to a brand or company when situations/needs change, especially in this industry.

 

[GreNME]

I sent the author an e-mail with the following in it:

Mr. Fasoldt,

You have some serious flaws in your recent article detracting Windows Service Pack 2. However, rather than go through all of the technical details (many of which can be gleaned from the following: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...d7-b791-40b6-8364-685b84158c78&DisplayLang=en ), I decided to take a few minutes and rant right back in your direction about the misinformation and dubious nature of your words. While I don't enjoy printed syndication or a paying job writing articles praising one platform over another, I feel my words have at least as much credit as yours, if not more simply on the nature of them not spewing anger and hatred at any other platform.

I fully expect no response, and I don't know to what extent my words will impact your future op-ed pieces, but I just wanted to suggest that you tone the zealot nature of your words down a little bit, for the sake of objectivity and truthfulness. My retort can be read at the following address: http://www.grenme.com/node/view/19

Cura ut valeas,
John "GreNME" Lieske

I'll inform you of any response (but don't hold your breath).

 

[t. shuffle]

Excellent.

 

[Snugglebear]

You should spend less time snuggling and more time getting a clue about the computer industry. I can go off on this guy in the article in great detail that cannot be refuted...or I can go to bed. Nighty-night.

I'm a contract developer and have been for years. You call me when something breaks. You'd be astonished how often things break and how much it costs to fix something that should not have broke in the first place. People need to start waking up to how much these mistakes are costing in terms of lost productivity, support costs, and to employ fixit guys like myself. Consumers of software, be they CIOs, administrators, or home users have to start expecting more for their money or else this isn't going to change. Without this market force the only other alternatives are government regulated development or the courts finding that license agreements disavowing any responsibility for errors are unenforceable (and thus making them responsible for their mistakes). Neither of these situations would benefit the industry. A more informed consumer concerned with quality would; after all, what use are more features if the damn program crashes constantly.

 

[uwackme]

Cough.....

I'd say more but I'd get arrested.

Needless to say, Microsoft has become an impediment to the progress of mankind.

It suffers from nothing the Army couldn't straighten out in 15 minutes.

 

[Snugglebear]

MS has become more responsive to security and quality concerns in recent years. Whether it's because Bill left the helm to become philanthropist extraordinaire, because business started drying up, lawsuits piled on, governments threating action to make software security/quality an issue of national security (i.e. legislate their ass into the grave), or some combination thereof, progress has been made. It may be a drop in the bucket, but it's something tangible.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

<BIAS>I am a Software Test Engineer on the Windows Setup/OPK Team</BIAS>

It's because that's what are customers need and want, plain and simple. Being a Microsoft employee, I try very hard to make sure that the decisions we make at work, make the customer's happy, but it's a very hard goal to meet, since everybody has different views of happy, it's that slider, people want to be safe on the internet, but don't want to hit yes to 50 pop up's just to view a webpage.

The customer request 3 years ago, was that Windows 9x and NT crashed too much, that the blue screen of death was all too often an occurance, now you only see it when there is a true hardware failure, XP and 2K definatly fufilled that customer request. Now, the request is security, and quite frankly, being one who buys stuff online, who has to service their friends and families computers when they get blaster, etc, we definatly needed to solve that need.

I have spent literally a year and a half full time on testing XP SP2 and for those of you who are worried it wasn't properly tested, it was the most tested service pack the company has ever released, and it was definatly needed. Microsoft testers learned alot about the new world in the last few years, Code Red, Blaster, Shatter, etc. The Code Red lessons are in the fact the firewall is enabled before the NIC is even brought online in setup or booting, the Blaster lessons are in that RPC is now componentized, so one attack doesn't allow the user the whole castle, shatter in that services should never ever interface with the desktop, etc... Firewall and Automatic Updates enabled by default are definatly a win, I know these decisions are going to get the tinfoil hat crowd upset, but they are the right decisions in the new world, since those are the two attack vectors.

I don't know what I was trying to address in this post, just that Snuggle made me want to reply to the why MS is more responsive to Security now then they used to be.

The above post is my personal views and opinions, not that of my employer.

 

[GreNME]

His response:

Thanks for the note, John. I do reply to all letters. Always have.

Please take a look at more than just one of my articles before you make judgments.

Al

To which I responded:

Mr Fasoldt,

Could you direct me to any essays in particular? The ones on your aroundcny.com site, which I did check, seem pretty one-sided. Please note that I don't think your bias is against Microsoft in particular, but a platform-related bias. Considering the great deal of differences between the two platforms—something I am required to be keenly aware of, not only as a consultant but as a back-to-school student of computer science—I find the appraisals to be rather based on a single-platform perspective. If you have other articles that may indicate differently, I am open to reading them.

John "GreNME" Lieske

 

[ameoba]

I'm not even going to mention the "fat cats" over at Red Hat, SuSe, MandrakeSoft, or even IBM that get rich off the free contributions made to OSS development testing, then...

They don't really count as 'free' when you have full-time developers on staff working on the projects...

 

[hulksterjoe]

funny, I live in Syracuse and have seen Al's column for years up untill may 2 years ago, he was such a dye'd in the wool microsoft fan, that no matter what, he might complain a little but never be critical. That was until he finally started using a mac, Now the way he praises macs and yes they have good features you'd think he always loved it.

His column is read and should only be read by people who dont have a grasp on computers, that being said, People who dont understand computers need to understand him and take what he's saying with a HUGE grain of salt. its a vicious catch 22

 

[Snugglebear]

They don't really count as 'free' when you have full-time developers on staff working on the projects...

Yet those produce only a tiny fraction of the software and documentation. The vast majority is written for no compensation. Legally the "fat cats" are making their money off the small proprietary applications they include with a given distro, but those value-added pieces are nothing without the underlying kernel, filesystem, desktop evironment, utilities, etc. OSes are just collections of software, and most of that software isn't being charged for aside for the occasional dubloon for distribution. OSS developers know this, though, and accept this lack of compensation freely. So while the arrangement isn't totally equitable, we understand this.

And here's the irony in all this: I'm sitting here at work idle because the 2k AD server is down again. It was fixed last night and brought back up but now refuses to let us access any of our files in the network share. So here I am being paid to post on this website and check up on the OSS projects I'm on.

 

[GreNME]

They don't really count as 'free' when you have full-time developers on staff working on the projects...

Right, because they don't rely on open-source contributions from people at all...

They pay their respective distro-level developers, but not all the other projects that are included in the install.

 

[Snugglebear]

Right, because they don't rely on open-source contributions from people at all...

They pay their respective distro-level developers, but not all the other projects that are included in the install.

And we as OSS developers know this beforehand.

EDIT: Just FYI, there went 20 man hours by IS to fix the AD auth issuses today and 20 employees averaging 6 hours of downtime. This is in addition to 14 hours yesterday working with the AD server to try to prevent collapse. Don't even try convincing me MS makes quality software.

 

[oldpablo]

And we as OSS developers know this beforehand.

EDIT: Just FYI, there went 20 man hours by IS to fix the AD auth issuses today and 20 employees averaging 6 hours of downtime. This is in addition to 14 hours yesterday working with the AD server to try to prevent collapse. Don't even try convincing me MS makes quality software.

Try hiring real admins. Did they go to the bootcamps to find 'em?

 

[Snugglebear]

Try hiring real admins. Did they go to the bootcamps to find 'em?

They're smart enough to know Microsoft Certified means jack shit. The admins they have there are some of the better ones I've encountered over the years. Back when this shop ran Novell they had 5 hours of downtime in 4 years. With NT4 that bumped to 20 hours in 2, and with 2k it's up to about 100+ in 2 years. And as much as you want to defend MS, you're pulling the linux moron argument that it's always the fault of the admin right out of your ass.

 

[GreNME]

More on the e-mail saga:

There are hundreds of articles on Windows on the Technofile site, John, and dozens upon dozens of articles on Mac OS X, along with general articles that cover computing topics. Tell me what you are looking for in particular.

I'm sure there's a bias of some kind in my approach to Microsoft, but I don't hide it. The company was judged guilty of some serious stuff, and my take on this is that we as consumers inadvertently helped Microsoft get where it is by failing to notice that we lacked a choice in the PC field. Where are all the non-Windows PC operating systems? Why can't you go to CompUSA and choose from any number of Linux PCs?

So we start out with a premise that consumers need to know they have a choice. That's not a bias against Microsoft; that's a bias in favor of consumer choice.

Al

Reply:

Mr Fasoldt,

I'm looking for an article that doesn't lambast Windows because it is made by Microsoft.

The fact that you have such enmity towards Microsoft as a company is damaging your ability to accurately and truthfully review Windows as a product. Frankly, I would agree about a lot of companies' practices being unsavory at some points, and downright dirty at others. Intel does this, Microsoft does this, and even Apple does this. So do electric companies, but telling people voodoo stories about electrical usage doesn't help the consumer. So do petrolium companies, but relaying to people the ins and outs of gasoline consumption is far more effective without baseless and false claims due to vitriolic feelings toward the companies. I despise Sony for its habit of consumer lock-in with their products, but I'm not going to fabricate claims about their products. I personally think that cable television companies are still maintaining a near monopoly on their lines despite new government intervention, but to make fallacious claims about the performance or infrastructure of their broadband or television services doesn't help the consumer make informed opinions.

The problem I have with your articles—the most recent ones on your site being the ones I read for context—is that they don't portray a balanced and informed opinion on the choices you claim to champion, but a biased and misinforming opinion based on your own personal choice. You are projecting your own choice into your claims, and even cursory fact-checking can, in some cases, show your claims to be false. I pointed as much out in the link to my own site I provided.

What I am talking about is not being just another fan-you-know-what for any single company or championing one while demonizing the other—as media, entertainment, politicians, and rabble-rousers are wont to do on any occasion they can find—it is about actually giving the public that deserves to have a clear picture a better view of producs (in this case, technology). It is about actually weighing the issue not from the perspective of proselytizing your own choice, but from the perspective of wanting people to be aware of facts and options in order to make their own choices. While I see you give many tips and suggestions and reviews on things, I see very little outside of you discussing what you like as the only possible best alternative. In many people's experience, the best choice often depends on a lot more than one reviewer's predetermined choice.

Here's an example: I use Windows as my main OS, but definitely not my only OS. Quite the contrary, actually. I find that, depending on the task or the situation, Linux can suit quite nicely. I've even had the pleasure of seeing how the approach that OS X takes can actually provide better results than the approach taken by either Windows or Linux. In every personal instance that I have come to a conclusion one way or another, it was always weighing the options equally and as objectively as possible ('objective' being a rather subjective term, but I'd rather digress from the philosophy match).

Back to the original issue: your claims about the service pack are faulty. The service pack does not stop the ability to use the programs listed. It does not break someone's computer. What it does do is provide not only something as basic as an default-on firewall (which would have lessened the impact of a majority of Win viruses over the last few years), but execution-level protection to aid in a reduced risk of hijacks and surreptitious installs. This is comparable to the *nix or the OS X world, where the greater threat is not from background installs but from remote users elevating privileges, which is where the focus on patching has gone for those operating systems. Basically, your suggestion that users not install the service pack, based primarily on your dislike of Microsoft and not the users who happen to be running Windows, is only going to ultimately hurt the users.

If you want to give people some exposure to choices out there, do some reviews of the more user-friendly Linux distributions, like Lindows (not a personal fave of mine), Lycoris/LX, or Mandrake. Two of those three are not difficult to find in many of the big chain stores (Lindows installed on Wal-Mart PCs, Mandrake often boxed in stores like Best Buy, CompUSA, and Fry's), and a review of them from someone other than personal bragging about how "l33t" they are for running it is sure to garner more interest than saying the equivalent of, "Windows sucks, use Linux." Despite what the antivirus companies would have us believe, actual infection rates are often lower than 10%, even for the more heinous worms. Using scare tactics is not going to help people consider alternatives.

I want you to know that I really do appreciate your responses to me, but I am honestly asking you to consider my words, even if you feel I am judging to strongly. If you are truly biased in favor of consumer choice, then consider approaching even products you dislike with a more even keel, and mix in glowing reviews of some of the alternatives you personally think are suited for the consumer. And just so you know, I am committed to practicing what I preach when I write down my own ranting thoughts on the site I linked you to in a previous e-mail. I already have some older reviews of both Linux and OS X that I am revising with updated data in order to promote both as viable options when someone is considering what they want to look for in a computing experience.

Eutukhei,
John "GreNME" Lieske

 

[oldpablo]

They're smart enough to know Microsoft Certified means jack shit. The admins they have there are some of the better ones I've encountered over the years. Back when this shop ran Novell they had 5 hours of downtime in 4 years. With NT4 that bumped to 20 hours in 2, and with 2k it's up to about 100+ in 2 years. And as much as you want to defend MS, you're pulling the linux moron argument that it's always the fault of the admin right out of your ass.

I should've phrased the bootcamp comment better. Admin's hired out of bootcamps generally have no experience, just the certifications. So I agree with you on the certifications generally not being worth anything on their own. I think you took my bootcamp comment as "They should have hired from there." Sorry. However, call it "the moron linux" argument all you want, the admin being the most important part is simply a fact. Are you telling me that some guy who has messed with Linux in a few scenarios will be a perfectly good admin because the OS will carry him? Same with Windows? Are you telling me that you don't think MS made it too easy to administer NTx systems? That there aren't tons and tons of complacent admins that don't know as much as they should about their network operating system just because they can install win2k, run dcpromo, and all of the sudden have a fully functional domain? It seems to me that would be the implication if you don't think its the admins fault for networks going down. I don't know how good your IT guys are, but I DO know that Win2k and above are fully capable of providing "the five 9's of uptime" if properly implemented and maintained. Maybe because they were primarily Novell guys they never really "got indoctrinated" and fully ramped up their knowledge about Win2k. Perhaps it wasn't Windows at all, but a third party program you had running on the server. I dont know and I won't assume, however assumptions are the bread and butter of those that despise MS. I could tell you that my networks never go down and I can tell you that my fellow IT friends's networks never go down. But that wouldn't mean much to you because its not YOUR experience I guess. I apologize for my comment earlier, it was a bit harsh though I was in a joking mood when I posted it. Come on though, if they had a hell of a time getting it back up, maybe their recovery procedures need to be looked at a little closer, or someone needs to check the event logs a bit more frequently. GreNME... good job.

 

[GreNME]

Maybe because they were primarily Novell guys they never really "got indoctrinated" and fully ramped up their knowledge about Win2k.

This is key. If a primarily Windows guy administers a Unix network, don't expect the best performance out of Unix. If a primarily Novell guy administers a Windows network, don't expect the best performance out of Windows. If a primarily Unix guy administers a Novell network... he'll quit for putting them on such a piece of shit OS.

Honestly, while MS certs don't mean very much outside of MS products in general, someone who actually took the time to learn the products while passing the tests can do wonders with the system. Same for Novell certs, Cisco certs, and many other platform/OS certifications. Don't take a champion breast-stroke swimmer and expect him to dominate in the backstroke competitions without practicing the backstroke intimately first.