Microsoft Plugs a Record 26 Security Holes 200
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft today released ten patches to fix at least 26 separate security holes, including a whopping 16 flaws in Microsoft Office and its constituent apps. According to Washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog, this is the most number of patches ever released by Redmond outside of a Windows service pack. Also of note, six of today's updates apply to fully patched Windows XP systems, and two of the flaws are actually present in Windows Vista."
It could have been worse... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thirty-seven!?! (Score:2)
(I think the AC meant to say his girlfriend found thirty-seven as a reference to Dante Hick's girlfirend in "Clerks" [videosift.com]
It's not how many were patched... (Score:3, Insightful)
And, how many were created in the making of the 26 patches?
".NET" - a computer "language"?! (Score:3, Informative)
I am really annoyed by journalists who pose as experts in whatever they are reporting on.
This guy tries to explain to the average reader/non-geek that Microsoft
He should at least refer to it as a platform, even if the vast majority of the readership won't know the difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But its a way to -tell- a computer to do "stuff". So I guess saying its a computer language is "good enough". Misleading, and I'd get annoyed if this appeared in more technicaly oriented articles, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:".NET" - a computer "language"?! (Score:5, Funny)
So long as your precompiled code is a combination of English and C, and yet you still prefer to call it a "language", you shouldn't be surprised to hear others mis-use the word just as bad as you.
C, C++, VB, Java, Perl, Pascal, Javascript, and all the rest are syntaxes, not languages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, its full name is "the
DISASTROUS NEWS ! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:DISASTROUS NEWS ! (Score:5, Interesting)
It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over. Now, you'd have a hard time finding a Microsoft product more complex than Minesweeper or calc.exe that doesn't connect to the Net somehow. And let's not forget that Netscape provided Microsoft with some much-appreciated help in taking over the Web, by screwing up their own release schedule so badly that there never was a Netscape 5.0.
Flash-forward to a couple of years ago, when Bill sent out yet another all-hands memo, pointing the company in the direction of security. At first, we all laughed. But now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet. They are aiming to be the top of the heap in security, and they've got drive, ambition and aggression.
Make no mistake, this kind of event is exactly what a company that wants to get secure should be doing. Thomlinson's comments about how seeing their code exploited "hits people in the gut", and the fact that "he was glad to see the crowd of engineers taking things personally" -- these things are right on the money. These things say to me that, within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft.
In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me. It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition. SP2 wa s huge leap forward in security for Windows and for IE, and Blue Hat makes it obvious that Microsoft is just going to get better at it. In the meantime, Firefox appears to be standing still on the security front, or maybe even losing a little ground. Sure, it's still miles ahead of IE's security, but if IE keeps up the pace, it will overtake Firefox sooner or later -- probably sooner.
Is there any way the Firefox development team (and the OO.o team, and anyone else who's working on high-profile F/OSS projects) can take a lesson from Blue hat? Can we get together events like this of our own?
If we don't, I can already see that by 2009 or so, at the latest, I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Does that mean that I can do a File->Open and type in an URL from MS Office and have a remote document right on my screen?*
*Half trolling, half really wanting to know if I can do this, since I can with KDE for some time now.
Re:DISASTROUS NEWS ! (Score:4, Informative)
Now for the kicker:
If that URL happens to point to a sharepoint server, when you click "save" it will save it back to the site, update the document history, prompt you for any necessary meta-data, and (with 2007) kick off a workflow for (example here) document approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It works just fine with WebDAV. In fact, it works better with WebDAV than the Web Folders thing does. Add "SVNAutoversioning on" to your Subversion repository config and have fun, just for one example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the table, troll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Norman set your WayBack machine to 1995 (because hindsight is 20/20). The "big" thing with Microsoft Office 95's re
My side note (Score:2)
B.
Re:DISASTROUS NEWS ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also look at how quickly Microsoft fixes security vulnerabilities. They've let major holes exist for 3 years or more. Even if they have fewer vulnerabilities it's almost irrelevant if they don't fix the ones they have.
It's a more complex issue that simply how many vulnerabilies each camp discloses.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right about that. The more important number to keep track of are out of those exploitable ones how many are exploited in the wild. That IMO is the problem with "security by obscurity". By the time they get around to fixing the exploit it is already being exploited. Nothing like closing the barn door when the horse is dead from pneumonia.
B.
Re: (Score:2)
Also anyone can add to the official bug list for Firefox.
Don't think that simply because IE has less publicly documented exploits that it's more secure. Unless you work for the software vendor, you will never really know how secure any proprietary software is.
It's perfectly possible for the software company not to know about bugs in its own software. Especially if they are a large corpor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also it is a time for the standard stock quote, "Past performance is not a direct indicator of future performance."
I think their is no way to interpert which is more bug free product, from past security issues. If you assumed the two products started out with identical # of critical faults, then the product with the most patches is likely the most secure. Even if your trying to win a bet on which was more secure on 10-11
They did it by distributing it with the OS (Score:3, Interesting)
maybe almost 70% of the internet users do not know what a "browser" is, and there are other browsers out there.
This is because microsoft easily pushes its own browser as a "os feature".
majority of casual computer users by then were, now the majority of the casual internet users, those who are not interested in doing something else than using mail, going to a few sites, chatting with some friends and playing some backgammon around the net, are not in a level, proficiency
Re: (Score:2)
and no factor more effective.
Then why did the fastest period of Internet Explorer's marketshare growth occur with IE4, in the time period before and shortly after the release of Windows 98 ?
In case your memory is hazy (or you weren't there), IE4 was only availble as a manual install prior to Windows 98, and the adoption rate of Windows 98 was very slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Your market share might be growing from 0.1% to 1% very rapidly, this is also a fast growth. from zero to something is always a fast growth come to think of it. and if you notice, the years 97-98 are the years when internet was still niche, people using it was not in numbers comparable to today, and noone would get surprised if most hardcore netscape users gave internet explorer a try then.
its not the start, but what is after that matters.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you do. Internet Explorer 3 was released on August 13, 1996. Windows NT 4.0, which shipped a year after Windows 95, came with IE 2.0 (which crashed on launch on a fresh install; something I thought was quite impressive. Fortunately, Windows Update didn't require IE back then, and so you could download a newer version through that).
Re: (Score:2)
This should all be "no, duh" material, but it looks like you're the only other person
Re: (Score:2)
Adding internet capability does not remove things from the programs it was added to.
Adding "security" usually means loosing features, options, performance, "ease of (ab)use", time-to-market etc. Security is a trade-off.
Also, much of their "security" effort is directed at DRM (which has nothing to do with _MY_ security).
I think they'll get better at security, but at some point t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad that it won't work, unless they scrap everything they have and start from scratch, likely breaking all most
Re: (Score:2)
'security' isn't something you can just slap on top after the fact, it's the foundation of a solid system. If you just paint over the holes, you will keep on doing that forever.
Fortunate, then, that the "foundation" of Windows is quite good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, as it's pointed out above, this is one of the biggest reasons to why vista is delayed so much. Wikipedia has information on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista#Security_and_safety [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
By writing from scratch they do not mean throwing away all the previous code, it's not reasonable. However they did indeed redesign many core places of the OS.
At first, as everybody knows, they wanted to increase the value of their desktop platform (winfs, desktop composition,
So they did redesign the presentat
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I can be that optimistic as you are!
You know, the other day I've got discusion here on /. with other guy about drivers. Problem is, that "kernel folks" in an attempt to rid themselves of the need to maintain a lot of backward-compatibility layers do not provide stable driver API. (there are of course also
what really happened to Netscape (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't an afterthought it was a renamed Spyglass browser which they subsequently 'gave away' with Windows so as they wouldn't have to pay royaltees. After failing to buyout Netscape and get an exclusive deal from NCSA they settled with Spyglass.
"It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over", ronkronk
IE took over by billg strong arming the OEMs to take Netscape off the desktop. Can't you remember what the MS AOL court case was all about.
"AOL's March 12 and October 28, 1996 agreements with Microsoft also guaranteed that, for all practical purposes, Internet Explorer would be AOL's browser of choice [gpo.gov]"
"Compaq was the only one to fully commit itself to Microsoft's terms for distributing and promoting Internet Explorer to the exclusion [gpo.gov] of Navigator"
"now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet", ronkronk
Like as an after thought.
"within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft", ronkronk
I've heard exactly the same kind of thing when NT came out.
"In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me. It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition.", ronkronk
Netcape was never inferior to IE. As this test [netscape.com] proves. The MS stratagy at the time was to make it a jolting experience for the enduser. Why are you trolling slashdot with patently false pro-MS propaganda.
"We will bind the (Windows) shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience" [usatoday.com]
Firefox running on a more secure OS as standard user are not as serious as bugs in IE running on WinVista. You see as MS embedded the browser directly into the OS so as it couldn't be removed.
Secondly Netscape lost ground because of backroom shenagenans by billg an Co. After threatening to withold technical information, they offered to carve up the market between them or else they would cut off Netscapes oxygen supply.
`The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.'
"Microsoft representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API immediately or in three months.'"
`After Netscape refused Microsoft's offer to divide the browser market, Microsoft embarked on a predatory campaign to eliminate the browser threat'
`In subsequent meetings in the Fall of 1995, Microsoft explained to Intel that its strategy would be to kill Netscape and control Internet standards'
`in exchange for steering clear of the Windows browser segment Netscape would be made a preferred Microsoft partner'
"I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.", ronkronk
I'm really an Open Source advocate except for bla, bla, bla
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613-1.htm [usdoj.gov]
http://www.theregister.co.u [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can IE be better if Netscape don't have access to the API. I'm not sure if you actually read, but here are the relevent quotes, again.
"Test results showed that Communicator 4.6 beats IE 5.0 in browsing speed over a modem connection"
"The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser"
"I r
Re:DISASTROUS NEWS ! (Score:4, Insightful)
[Hi, my name is Stonedonkey. I noticed that your extremely shitty post got marked "5 interesting." My notations will be in brackets. Enjoy!]
It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over.
[By being bundled into every version of the OS for the last ten years.]
Now, you'd have a hard time finding a Microsoft product more complex than Minesweeper or calc.exe that doesn't connect to the Net somehow.
[Specious exaggeration that isn't really relevant.]
And let's not forget that Netscape provided Microsoft with some much-appreciated help in taking over the Web, by screwing up their own release schedule so badly that there never was a Netscape 5.0.
[IE won because of its default desktop placement.]
Flash-forward to a couple of years ago, when Bill sent out yet another all-hands memo, pointing the company in the direction of security. At first, we all laughed. But now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet. They are aiming to be the top of the heap in security, and they've got drive, ambition and aggression.
[In what sector? Desktop consumers? Can you provide some supporting material for all these pronouns?]
Make no mistake, this kind of event is exactly what a company that wants to get secure should be doing. Thomlinson's comments about how seeing their code exploited "hits people in the gut", and the fact that "he was glad to see the crowd of engineers taking things personally" -- these things are right on the money. These things say to me that, within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft.
[That's great. But right now, I can get superior software for free. Then again, you didn't specify what sector you're talking about, so I can't say for sure.]
In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me.
[See the other guy's response about open source.]
It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition.
[There you go again, glossing over IE's default inclusion.]
SP2 was huge leap forward in security for Windows and for IE, and Blue Hat makes it obvious that Microsoft is just going to get better at it.
[Oh, shut yo mouth. SP2 was not a "huge leap forward." Not when MS was so far behind to begin with. It sealed some painfully obvious cracks, but I wouldn't hand them any trophies for it.]
In the meantime, Firefox appears to be standing still on the security front, or maybe even losing a little ground.
[A little subjective. Is your assured tone suppose to make your reaction generalizable and trustworthy?]
Sure, it's still miles ahead of IE's security, but if IE keeps up the pace, it will overtake Firefox sooner or later -- probably sooner.
[This is a contradiction. Or, at best, a back-handed compliment.]
Is there any way the Firefox development team (and the OO.o team, and anyone else who's working on high-profile F/OSS projects) can take a lesson from Blue hat? Can we get together events like this of our own?
[Will it be another failure of open source if we don't? Should I be surprised when you sieze that "failure" as an example of some larger and wholly imagined problem?]
If we don't, I can already see that by 2009 or so, at the latest, I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS.
[Suit yourself, Nostradamus. Maybe by then Microsoft will "share" some of its code to assuage your worries. By the way, how in the flaming fuck do you make the leap from "Mozilla" to "F/OSS"? I'm sorry, but that's pure jackassery, pal.]
And I don't want to see that happen.
[In that, we agree.]
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to whom?
I never used OS/2 or Amiga, but compared to Macintosh, Microsoft was WAY ahead on the whole internet thing. Apple didn't even release a PPP connection tool until, what, version 7.5 or so? Long after
Holes (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Holes ... nyet nyet... (Score:2)
Protein Gel Quickly Stops Bleeding
http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/10/10/20242 28.shtml [slashdot.org]
research....
You can't FRAKIN' KILL ms employees (but, you CAN frak and frazzle them up a bit); you resu-frakin-rrect them... (gotta find and destroy that FRAKKIN' ms resurrection ship hid
Microsoft's Numerous, Humongous Security Holes (Score:2)
The end of which month? That does sound like an evasive Ballmerism, after all.
How many were previously identified (Score:2)
god forbid they take it seriously
On behalf of many admins . . . (Score:2)
Apple's last patch fixed 24 and was over 200 MB. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has bugs, people complain.
Microsoft fixes the bugs, people complain.
Apple releases an incremental update to OS X 10.2 to 10.3 and charge you for it ($129.00), and when they release a MASSIVE update in September, not a peep of complaints...
Re:Apple's last patch fixed 24 and was over 200 MB (Score:3, Insightful)
Time will tell though.
Re:Apple's last patch fixed 24 and was over 200 MB (Score:5, Interesting)
And that massive update in September isn't so massive when you point out that it's the most we'll see all year. Meanwhile, Microsoft released an IE patch, then released a patch to fix the patch, then released a patch to fix THAT patch. And you wonder why people complain about Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a major version release, it would've been 11. Going from 10.x to 10.y is by definition a point release, not a major release.
Now to be fair, MS do the same thing - Win2k is NT 5.0, XP is NT 5.1. That doesn't change the fact that if Apple want me to think that 10.3 is "a major version release" they should name it as such.
Re: (Score:2)
So someone has to go and call you ignorant, and most of the time you get modded down....
Too bad tho
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. A major version update includes a major point release.
So all it will take to make you think that is bumping a number? Simply examining the changes yourself isn't enough? Take a visit to Arstechnica and read Siracusa's reviews sometime.
Re:Apple's last patch fixed 24 and was over 200 MB (Score:2)
The cost for that upgrade is about the same as a 5 pack of 10.3-10.4
Re: (Score:2)
They re-did the entire PPC emulation layer (or at least heavily modified it). On my Mac Pro (Intel) it was 200+ MB, but my iBook ran to about 30ish MB. So it's pretty clear that about 160-180 MBs of that update was a Rosetta overhaul for speed and scientific apps. That wasn't 200 MBs of security updates, that was like 30 MBs of securi
Re:Apple's last patch fixed 24 and was over 200 MB (Score:2)
What procedures? (Score:2)
Wowee! We're falling behind! (Score:5, Funny)
If I have my math right:
52
-26
-----
26 bugs left!
Microsoft only has to fix them there 26 bugs until Windows is all perfect and flawless!
*Does a happy dance!*
Re: (Score:2)
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ [debian.org]
look like for windows?
What are you doing about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
int main()
{
while (1)
{
}
}
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is plain wrong, and very much so. OpenbSD is an Operating System, nut just a kernel with GNU userland tacked on.
Why don't you try it yourself?
Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)
26 patched flaws isn't the story here (Score:2)
Why not a recall?!? (Score:2)
If an automaker and its unhappy vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers keep finding major safety issues and design flaws in a line of cars, flaws that required fix after repair after parts replacement, all of which fail to correct the underlying problem(s), I think the manufacturer would be forced to recall the cars. Certainly lemon laws would apply in many states!
How about a recall on Microsoft Windows XP? Microsoft could probably weasel its way into exchanging the clearly def
Re: (Score:2)
If an automaker and its unhappy vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers keep finding major safety issues and design flaws in a line of cars, flaws that required fix after repair after parts replacement, all of which fail to correct the underlying problem(s), I think the manufacturer would be forced to recall the cars. Certainly lemon laws would apply in many states!
So which OS are you thinking of that _wouldn't_ be classified as a 'lemon' ?
The only vista on my OS horizon: Ubuntu (Score:2)
Almost any OS that is free... After all, it is hard to argue that Ubuntu (for example), should be flawless when it costs nothing and is in fact shipped out at someone else's expense if one asks for a few sets of the install discs. I run Ubuntu and although I've used Red Hat back when it (as opposed to Fedora) was free, I never really got into Linux. Ubuntu I am working to learn well enough that I never have to infect any of
Re:The only vista on my OS horizon: Ubuntu (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost any OS that is free... After all, it is hard to argue that Ubuntu (for example), should be flawless when it costs nothing and is in fact shipped out at someone else's expense if one asks for a few sets of the install discs.
So if it's free it can't suck ?
How about all those versions of Linux that *aren't* free ?
Why waste money on a bigger, slower, pile of crapware from Microsoft when it offers nothing substantial in the way of practical improvements over the mess that is XP?
It offers masses of "substantial, practical improvements". The important question people need to ask is if any of those are important enough to them to upgrade.
What I'm reading these days is that the Vista release is being given the yawn treatment by many IT professionals.
IT professionals are waiting for a) the server-side complement to Vista and b) the early rounds of bugs to be shaken out.
In fact, I'm worried that security will be much worse on Vista than it is on XP since 3rd party security vendors are being prevented by Microsoft from hooking in at the level their code needs to run at to be most effective. I don't trust Microsoft to handle security issues. It has a pathetic track record. The programmers at MS clearly don't understand their own code.
Sounds to me like you're buying into the standard anti-Windows and anti-Microsoft FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, that'd have to be 'Apple'.
Sorry, but OS X is patched regularly and frequently as well.
OSX is gets Security Updates frequently too (Score:2)
In 2005 OSX received security patches nearly every month (there were two months it didn't , but there were two other months that had 2 security updates, so it evens out). OSX security updates for 2006 haven't been as frequen
how many more? (Score:2)
Title should read... (Score:2, Funny)
Good job Microsoft (Score:2)
As a Microsoft customer, I'm glad to see that they are releasing a whole slew of patches. As strange as it seems, I'm actually glad and feel MORE secure that they're releasing a lot of them. It gives the impression (however naive it may be) that they really are getting serious about finding bugs and patching holes. I know it's fun to bash on Microsoft but seriously, they aren't going through anything all that different than what the *nix world when through in the
Re: (Score:2)
I get the feeling that was supposed to be a jab at linux. It's a lousy one. A typical desktop linux install does not have httpd or ftpd installed and things most definitely aren't compiled from source -- in fact update systems in linux are in some a
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't so much a swipe or jab at Linux so much as it was a statement to reenforce my position that the *nix world had similar secu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DUPE! (Score:2)
most number of patches (Score:2)
How do you patch a fully patched system? (Score:2)
I'll bite...
If a system is "fully patched," how do you apply an update? Doesn't the need for an update require that a system is, by definition, not fully patched?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how you look at it. Technically since there was no IE7 in today's patches, IE7 is still pending.
If they would deliver it, then it wouldn't be pending anymore.
I know, I know, I deserve the friggin Pedant of the Year medal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ok I give you the medal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well Guess that means (Score:4, Funny)
I kid! I kid!
Funny that you mention that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or......a million others. I thought it was highly interesting that there were a high number of flaws in the Windows Office, but only one in the Mac Office. What say you /.?
Office for Mac is largely a separate codebase to Office for Windows. Added to that, Office for Mac is a significantly newer codebase that has relatively recently been exposed to some signficant workovers (for OS X). It isn't surprising at all that it would a) have fewer bugs and b) have bugs that were not present in Office for Windows
Re: (Score:2)
In stark contrast to Linux, BSD, and OSX, which are completely defect free.
Re: (Score:2)
Relatively speaking when looking at "critical" exploits [read: remote exploit taking full control of your system]?
Completely defect free? No. In comparison though
Of course I am one of the anal ones and monitor my banks servers [yes, I bank online] -- and have closed accounts when I've seen them go to Windows (and they later wonder wh
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to cleanup your man-gook when you're done stroking your ego.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to add an "oh, wait..." to the end of that. Microsoft argued itself into that corner in the DoJ v Microsoft antitrust trial. By claiming IE is an "integral part of the OS" they set that standard themselves.
B.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this [microsoft.com]?
Better yet, you can download these patches and slipstream them into the installation folder, then all you need is a way to make a CD bootable or to make some boot floppies and your fresh install will already be the latest patched version. Sort by release date, go back to the latest service pack, and download it and newer patches.
This has only b
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, wtf are you smoking? I hate MS, but atleast try to actually use the software before you bitch about it. Installing a WSUS server is pretty fucking painless. And its free, just like its predecessor. True, you do have to have Win 2k or 2k3 server, and SQL Server, but SQL Server express is free, and if you don't have or can't get a copy of Windows server then you probably don't use Windows e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a piece of software (In this case the WGA servers) had a glitch, I am totally amazed. When are we going to finally get software that never ever screws up and affects a large amount of people and companies? This [newsforge.com] never [launchpad.net] happens with F/OSS! There are plenty of bugs that are hunted and eliminated on a daily basis in many projects. I'm not saying Linux or F/OSS sucks, because quite frankly I'm eagerly awaiting my next purchase of a hard drive so I can get my Gentoo installed again (Maybe even take a look at
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points for you...