They can't make it secure because of their business model. Even if they ditched everything and started with OpenBSD tomorrow, they would end up broken. They don't and can't have the resources required to do everything they want to do. They once bragged about sucking up the BSD TCP/IP stack, but do you think they have maintained it and all their add-ons? Microsoft will never be able to afford to have their code as well looked over as free software. The GNU debugger has more than 87 authors, how many people do you think Microsoft can afford to put on a single application? Microsoft leaves holes in their software because they can't afford to fix them all and distribute the results.
Service pack 2 is more of the same. Gates has been blowing about security being job one for what, two years now? My little brother reports that service pack two, breaks all sorts of programs. "It was so bad I gave up." is how he described one experience with it. I do not expect the changes to make a real difference. Microsoft turning on their firewall will not do any better than all the other superior firewalls that have not been able to band-aid over all of Microsoft's design flaws. Microsoft's idea of security is protecting their revenue stream by breaking other people's software. I feel sorry for anyone forced to implement service pack two, yet I know that's going to be the big dog order. On Thursday 01 April 2004 00:39, Shannon Roddy wrote: > http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml? > articleID=18700083 > > It is good that they are trying to make windows more secure, but I > think the big problem is all of the legacy *&$# that they have to > support. > > I still don't like windows, but if they can make it secure... > everyone's life will be a whole lot better. >
