Apple got it right, Microsoft got it wrong

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 429

billwg wrote:

>> I realize that you probably have an alterer motive for keeping the status
>> quo. But, just because you are making money out of the current shambles
>> that the computer industry has become, doesn't make it right that is
>> should stay like that.
>>
> Some few posts ago, wasn't it you who was saying that you make the "big
> bucks" by showing people how to straighten up and fly right? I don't
> think that I said anything like that, although I might have.

For every company that realizes that they are totally FUBAR'D, there are a
hundred more that actually still believe the Microsoft marketing BS.

Ian

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
>
> For every company that realizes that they are totally FUBAR'D, there are a
> hundred more that actually still believe the Microsoft marketing BS.
>
Do you think the world is thankful that they have you to guard the
truth then?

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
>
> For every company that realizes that they are totally FUBAR'D, there are a
> hundred more that actually still believe the Microsoft marketing BS.
>
Do you think the world is thankful that they have you to guard the
truth then?

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:
> billwg wrote:
>
> >
> > Ian Hilliard wrote:
> >>
> >> For every company that realizes that they are totally FUBAR'D, there are
> >> a hundred more that actually still believe the Microsoft marketing BS.
> >>
> > Do you think the world is thankful that they have you to guard the
> > truth then?
>
> Hardly! Those responsible for making the mess are seldom happy about someone
> fixing it. It is a serious loss of face.
>
I think you didn't understand the context here unless you actually mean
that the world is equivalent to "those responsible for making the
mess".

But in your implied context, do you really think that MS would see what
you claim to do as some kind of "loss of face"? Do you really think
that MS cares about that?

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 429

billwg wrote:

>
> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>
>> For every company that realizes that they are totally FUBAR'D, there are
>> a hundred more that actually still believe the Microsoft marketing BS.
>>
> Do you think the world is thankful that they have you to guard the
> truth then?

Hardly! Those responsible for making the mess are seldom happy about someone
fixing it. It is a serious loss of face.

Ian

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

Ian Hilliard wrote:

>
> I wasn't writing about Microsoft per se, but now that you raise the point.
> How about this recent article.
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2019162,00.asp
>
> <quote>
> Microsoft has historically frowned on the idea of third-parties providing
> security fixes. At the height of the WMF exploits earlier this year, the
> company slapped a "buyer-beware" tag on an unofficial hotfix created and
> released by Guilfanov, and although its own fix for the latest VML bug is
> scheduled for delivery on Oct. 10-more than two weeks away-the company's
> stance hasn't changed.
> </quote>
>
So what about it? The snide "buyer beware tag" terminology was
invented by the eWeek flack that wrote the article and was not so
stated by Microsoft. MS said that they recommended that users wait for
the MS-certified fix. The bug could only be exploited by visiting a
web site that was set up to exploit the bug. That is not going to
affect anyone who is using the internet in a normal manner. MS says
that they have to certify fixes against a lengthy list of compatibility
issues and do that in a large number of languages. The amateur fix
wasn't up to that standard, eh?

Ian Hilliard · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 429

billwg wrote:

>
> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>> billwg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Ian Hilliard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For every company that realizes that they are totally FUBAR'D, there
>> >> are a hundred more that actually still believe the Microsoft marketing
>> >> BS.
>> >>
>> > Do you think the world is thankful that they have you to guard the
>> > truth then?
>>
>> Hardly! Those responsible for making the mess are seldom happy about
>> someone fixing it. It is a serious loss of face.
>>
> I think you didn't understand the context here unless you actually mean
> that the world is equivalent to "those responsible for making the
> mess".
>
> But in your implied context, do you really think that MS would see what
> you claim to do as some kind of "loss of face"? Do you really think
> that MS cares about that?

I wasn't writing about Microsoft per se, but now that you raise the point.
How about this recent article.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2019162,00.asp

<quote>
Microsoft has historically frowned on the idea of third-parties providing
security fixes. At the height of the WMF exploits earlier this year, the
company slapped a "buyer-beware" tag on an unofficial hotfix created and
released by Guilfanov, and although its own fix for the latest VML bug is
scheduled for delivery on Oct. 10—more than two weeks away—the company's
stance hasn't changed.
</quote>

Ian