On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:00:28 MST, Kenton Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hopefully we can all agree that anything Microsoft can do to attempt to > make it's O/S more secure is better than the way it is now. No. We can't. Consider the case of Microsoft letting Bozo the Clown do the design work and the Three Stooges carrying out the implementation. Remember that Microsoft is a *business*, and they don't have any responsibility to you, the customer (since they've managed to thus far evade liability lawsuits). They *do* however have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders to maximize the company's bottom line. As a result, if Bozo, the stooges, and enough press releases to make Gartner give a pretty 8.5x11 glossy costs $2M, and doing it *right* costs $20M, they will choose the cheap route unless it's demonstrable that spending $20M will generate enough additional sales that more than another $18M in profits will accrue. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd compare the probable cost of buying off Guninsky, the @stake crew, and the pivx crew, and compare that to the cost of actually fixing IE. Then remember that although the open-source world is about pride and craftsmanship, Microsoft is all about the benjamins....
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
