MORE problems with WMF.....

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2148404/two-problems-wmf-files

Dr. Mordrid

[Jessterw]

Oh yes, but you can upgrade to Vista soon enough.

It's really hard to keep a straight face when MS talks security. Hard to take serious the promise of a new Windows OS being secure when they can't even secure what they already have.

[Helevitia]

Except that Vista is built form the ground up, so you really can't compare apples to oranges. And like any software, there will always be bugs and security vulnerabilities. On top of that, I'm sure that there will be a whole new wave of problems found with Vista that have yet to be discovered.

Personally, I like what MS is doing with security fixes. I like the monthly updates.

[Wombat]

Personally, I like what MS is doing with security fixes. I like the monthly updates.

Translated: "I like being vulnerable for longer periods of time."

[Taz]

Except that Vista is built form the ground up...

I though it used the Windows 2003 Server code base, as that was the most recent one

[Jammrock]

Except that Vista is built form the ground up...

Not entirely. It started with the Windows Server 2003 code, but the code got so bloated so fast that they had to scrap parts of it and rewrite them. A lot of the code is carry over, a lot of the new features are from the ground up, but still use some legacy code.

Luckily the 5270 build is not near as bloated as pervious versions.

The biggest, and smartest, security feature that MS is implementing in Vista is ACtiveX and IE management. ANy ActiveX, Script, etc. from the net can only operate in the Temporary Internet Folder. So even if a malicious app makes it in it can only hurt files in that one filder. Supposedly.

Jammrock

[Jessterw]

Edit: Looks like Jamm beat me to it...

Vista is most certainly not built from the ground up. Yes, they went through and removed old cruft and as well as redoing certain areas, but Vista is still very much a descendant of Windows 2003 Server (which of course has roots in Windows XP and so on). It's not apples and oranges, it's a partially rotten apple and a picture of a fake apple.

I'm not saying that bugs and vulnerabilities aren't a natural part of software development (I do work in the industry), but MS has lousy quality control when it comes to patches (though, they're far from the worst). There is a heritage of patches and updates being released for Windows that break more than they fix, or in this case, open up or bring another vulnerability to light.

I also don't have a problem with the monthly updates, but I do think it was a bad idea to make that the only option save for manually downloading patches and updates.

[Helevitia]

Translated: "I like being vulnerable for longer periods of time."

I thought that since you worked for a big company, you would understand that it takes great effort to fix and test bugs and security vulnerabilities. MS releasing monthly updates is awesome! People think that the DE's are just lazy or are somehow incompetent. I'm guessing MS has close to 1000 if not more DE's working on Windows. To coordinate all of that is a huge task.

[Wombat]

I thought that since you worked for a big company, you would understand that it takes great effort to fix and test bugs and security vulnerabilities. MS releasing monthly updates is awesome! People think that the DE's are just lazy or are somehow incompetent. I'm guessing MS has close to 1000 if not more DE's working on Windows. To coordinate all of that is a huge task.

In the meantime, MS didn't even issue a temporary use-at-your-own-risk workaround for a bug that left you IMMENSELY vulnerable. It took a 3rd party to do that. Totally irresponsible.

[Nowhere]

Except that Vista is built form the ground up...

That would be Singularity, not Vista.