Patch-Fatigued Users Contemplate Ditching Microsoft

InternetWeek ^ | September 15, 2003 | John Foley, George V. Hulme

[HAL9000]

He's looking at thin clients and Linux as alternatives to Windows and, late last week, he was drafting a letter to Microsoft. The message: He'd like Microsoft to reimburse his company for all those hours of lost productivity.

Good luck.

[newgeezer]

Ditch Microsoft? Go for it.

Where there is demand, there shall inevitably be supply.

[LibWhacker]

Yep, if Microsoft were to disappear tomorrow all the virus writers would retire.

[Ingtar]

You left off your sarcasm tag. They would just move on to the next OS.

[IncPen]

I hope no one pings Bush2000 to this thread.

[DonQ]

Microsoft technology attracts and incites hackers and virus-authors precisely because it is so ubiquitous and popular. If Microsoft is replaced in popularity by Apple, Linux, Sun Systems or something else, soon enough there will be hackers and virus-authors eager to tackle that technology.

[js1138]

The day programs don't need maintenance, we'll all be out of jobs. Building a system immune from attack is like building a house that's immune from attack. If you have something valuable inside, someone will find a weakness.

[ex-Texan]

Most of the problems are little bugs in Microsoft's newest software. For example, I am running Windows 98 and use MSIE 5.5 as my default browser. I downloaded MSIE 6 and was so disgusted I ditched it within a few hours.

Also I use a great web mail server. All my email is double filtered automatically to eliminate virses. I never accept email directly. There is no need to "accidentally" download viruses from malicious people who spam the web seeking more victims. I have excellent anti-virus software and a great firewall installed.

I use an older version of the Mozilla Browser about 30% of the time. It is a really excellent browser, but I am cautious about the latest Mozilla builds.

[RKV]

Try running Oracle applications and see how many patches you need...

[r9etb]

If Microsoft is replaced in popularity by Apple, Linux, Sun Systems or something else, soon enough there will be hackers and virus-authors eager to tackle that technology.

Oh, I'm quite sure you're wrong. These hackers only do it because they dislike Bill Gates. Why, if the whole world ran Linux on MacIntosh machines, there would be no virus problem. /sarcasm

[babyface00]

I agree to a point, but Microsoft's products are also relatively easy to compromise. Besides the vulnerabilities themselves, Microsoft has, in the past, left pretty questionable "features" to install as most vulnerable by default.

The other alternatives (Max/Unix/Linux/etc) have had and will have vulnerabilities, but historically, these have been (relatively) obscure, difficult to discover, and difficult to exploit.

Those are just my observations, although they're from 13 years in IT supporting MS servers, Unix and Linux.

[Prof Engineer]

Bill Gates is the anti-christ ping

[B Knotts]

Hey, as much as I think Microsoft deserves to be criticized...at some point, you gotta remember:

"Ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chance."

Microsoft has not encouraged a healty, competitive marketplace in software, but ultimately, this guy made the choice to buy and use Microsoft's software. He should consider it a lesson learned, and move along.

[Paleo Conservative]

[js1138]

I've worked on systems using SQL Server since the early 90's and only had to install one patch. I'm sure there were plenty of patches available, but the slammer worm was the first instance where I "needed" a patch.

[newgeezer]

Of course. It's why those of us not using Outlook or Exchange aren't bothered by all those scripted, send-it-to-everyone-in-your-address-book virii.

If MS 'went away,' Lotus Notes users would have reason to worry. (Yes, all 3 of us.)

[tortoise]

If Microsoft is replaced in popularity by Apple, Linux, Sun Systems or something else, soon enough there will be hackers and virus-authors eager to tackle that technology.

That is based on somewhat of a false premise. Not all operating systems are equally vulnerable to hacking and exploits no matter how common it is. Linux makes up a large percentage of the servers on the Internet, yet they do not get hacked in proportion to their ubiquitousness. And FreeBSD (and its other *BSD relatives in general), which also makes up a very important portion of the Internet server market (many of the biggest sites use it on their server front-ends) is legendary for being extremely difficult to crack.

If, for example, FreeBSD became the predominant operating system on the Internet, I would expect virus and worm exploits to drop to nearly zero because it simply does not offer the kinds of vulnerabilities that Windows does on a daily basis. It isn't that nobody has looked or tried, but that the code is very clean and the operating system is carefully engineered and well-designed with bulletproof-ness as a very high priority. Linux isn't as clean as FreeBSD, but it also tends to have far fewer vulnerabilities of this type in practice.

A small part of this can be attributed to the relative ubiquity of Windows, but the larger part can be attributed to the fact that Windows has consistently been more exploitable in practice and the internal architecture of the operating system gives many opportunities to hackers.

[newgeezer]

Steve Jobs?

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

He's looking at thin clients and Linux as alternatives to Windows and, late last week, he was drafting a letter to Microsoft. The message: He'd like Microsoft to reimburse his company for all those hours of lost productivity.

Good luck.

Right on. He obviously didn't read the gobbledygook in the EULA.