Microsoft To Provide IE Patches for Windows XP Only 610
Fortunato_NC writes "Microsoft has decided that future IE updates, including those related to security, will only be available to customers using Windows XP. This news.com article has the complete scoop. A choice quote: 'Microsoft may be turning the lemons of its browser's security reputation into the lemonade of a powerful upgrade selling point.' This should provide a huge boost to Mozilla and other alternative browser backers."
Classic M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Informative)
No, their view, believe it or not, is that people don't want the security patches for older systems! At least, that's what Bruce Morgan, of the Internet Explorer team, posted on the IEBlog [msdn.com].
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Informative)
And the article [eweek.com] he's talking about has one person saying
So, fine, you may disagree with that, but it's not quite the fantastical position that you imply.
TROLL ALERT! (Score:5, Informative)
The article DOES NOT state no more IE patches for 2000/NT 4.0
Very very misleading title to this story on
Re:TROLL ALERT! (Score:4, Informative)
In a way it does. It basically says that the new version of IE will NOT be available for anything but WinXP. Therefore, any patches or fixes that are in the new version of IE will not be incorporated into the lesser IE's.
Re:TROLL ALERT! (Score:5, Informative)
By refusing to offer IE's security upgrades to users of older operating systems except through paid upgrades to XP, Microsoft may be turning the lemons of its browser's security reputation into the lemonade of a powerful upgrade selling point.
While I'm not sure it's 100% as cut and dried as what the
Microsoft's Consistency is GUI (Score:5, Interesting)
How Microsoft is reconciling that with THIS:
"Microsoft remains committed to providing security updates to our customers for all supported Windows versions." [microsoft.com]
I suspect it means that the popup blocker, new download protector, IE plug in controls, window relocation blocker, e-mail screening, and e-mail bug blocker [microsoft.com] will not be made available for anything but XP-SP2. Which kinda sucks, but is mostly OK. If only it were possible to view the "Downloaded Program Files" folder without Windows Explorer filtering the contents; possibly the plug-in manager would improve that, but I doubt it. I've found the best blocker for these stupid add-ins and adware pieces is creating an empty NTFS folder where it wants to go... and then setting all permissions to "Everyone -- Deny".
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Informative)
Read it straight from Microsoft. Windows 2000 is supported until 2010. This article from cnet only states that Windows 2000 will not receive a pop-up blocker or an add-on manager. Hotfixes will still be released as needed.
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is already committed to supported Windows 2000 until **** 2010 ****.
All this article says is that Windows 2000 will not get a pop-up blocker and an add-on manager.
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Informative)
All this article says is that Windows 2000 will not get a pop-up blocker and an add-on manager.
Mod this fellow up, if you bother to read the article you will see the post is correct. It specifically says security updates will be released, just not the sp2 "security enhancements." Didn't sp2 get some kind of protections against buffer overruns at a low level? that's what won't be backported.
As I've always said, IE was never 'free' (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only a matter of time before MS decided to tie browser upgrades to OS upgrades. After all, for a large portion of users, the browser's the only app they use. With their ill-gotten browser semi-monopoly, why wouldn't MS force you to buy an OS upgrade to get a new browser. DOJ? Not this DOJ.
Sounds like as good a reason as any to separate the browser from the OS. After all, this side-effect of bundling can't possibly be regarded as beneficial to consumers, and consumer benefit was the only defense they could come up with for exempting their bundling from antitrust regulations.
Re:Classic M$ (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft will definitely give it a second though when they realize organizations like this [af.mil] one are using Windows 2000 on user machines. It took them until 2002 to get fully upgraded from NT 4.0 where I was.
XP only ? (Score:5, Interesting)
No update for Win2000 which is still used by my 50000-employees company ?
Or do they mean they will not update IE/Solaris and IE/OS[9X] ???
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:XP only ? (Score:4, Informative)
Seems pretty clear to me.. Unfortunate
In other news Microsoft decides to stop patching Windows 2003 and recommends that everyone upgrade to Linux..
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not as simple as don't use IE as a web browser. Outlook and Outlook Express use it. Quicken uses it. Any executable or VBscript could open an IE control and send an exploit to it.
As other threads have pointed out, they won't be porting the XP SP2 enhancements like the popup blocker and the new, safe ActiveX handling (whatever that means). I'm guessing they'll still be releasing patches for exploitable bugs like the recent JPG decoder bug.
Re:XP only ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:XP only ? (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as Windows' go, 2000 is the lightest and most stable. XP is bloat, and seems to have more bugs in my experience. It also has that nasty DRM shit which no one, corporate or private, truly wants.
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Interesting)
No update for Win2000 which is still used by my 50000-employees company ?
Yup -- but you were supposed to upgrade to XP already, so what's the big deal? You have been paying for Software Protection, haven't you?
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, youse wouldn't want anything to 'happen' to yer software, now would you?
KFG
Re:XP only ? (Score:3, Interesting)
2000 has another year of full support anyway, making it about five years, like any other Microsoft OS.
It looks like a NX support thing, not patches to fix the JPG execute problem, which have been rolled back to 2000.
Re:XP only ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, we are in an academic setting. I'm not being 'stupid' as you so kindly put it. We simply don't have the cash. We run SUS server, etc, to push out patches, so wasting the admin time isn't that huge of a deal.
Windows 2000 machines are quite adequate for most desk jobs. Forcing an upgrade is silly when the machines are working fine as-is and don't require that much maintenence. And as for e-machines... their failure rate is *not good* (voice of experience here).
Re:XP only ? (Score:4, Informative)
It means you will still get all of the patches, but you will never get the popup blocker and other features specific to IE6 SP2. Not a big deal.
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has said that they will not make IE6 SP2 available for older versions of Windows, not that they won't provide security patches.
Generally speaking, I don't criticize the Slashdot crew because they have enough story submissions to read through that things will slip past, but this is ridiculous. Microsoft has committed to several more years of Windows 2000 support, and there are still a couple of years left on Millenium. Because they view the browser as part of the OS, it would be asinine to think that they would patch XP's IE and leave the older ones to sit where they are now.
Re:XP only ? (Score:5, Informative)
Win3x, Win9x, and WinME are all long passed. WinNT Server remains until 31 Dec 2004, but other WinNTs are passed. Win2K is scheduled for demise on 30 June 2005 (start saving). Even WinXP is scheduled for desupport 31 Dec 2006. Win Server 2003 is scheduled for 30 Jun 2008, so you've got a while there, but it's on the plan.
It should not come as a surprise that they stop providing feature enhancements to the older versions. Profit and other greed aside, technically it's unrealistic to expect them continue to support systems indefinately.
Tick, tick, tick...
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I have already moved all my customers off IE and onto firefox and have received NO complaints as of yet, actually they are like wow I don't seem to get any more of those pop up ads, you're a great admin...
Microsoft continues to shoot them selves in the foot in the area of security. I thought they wanted to keep their market share, I guess the greed is getting to them.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not so much shooting themselves in the foot as shareholder pressure. One of the ironies of M$'s near-monopoly position is that their old products are their biggest competition (in most markets). Shareholders, of course, are not content to rest on the companies laurels, but want new profits.
It may sound strange, but this is just an attempt to choke out the competition.
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
However it is terrible news for businesses. Consider a company with upwards of 10,000 people using Windows 2000... well let's just say that the "migration" to Windows XP would be a rough ride.
How long now until Microsoft decides to stop supporting Windows 2000 altogether, as it's "not as secure as XP with SP2"? I see this a setting the stage. Since IE is integrated into the system, would this not also hinder other secur
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Just like Apache vs. IIS.
It seems like we could declare this argument debunked at this stage of the game.
Firefox can't be updated automatically? Or it isn't updated automatically with MS tools?
I'm sure that an admin of merely average ingenuity could come up with an automat
Servers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Servers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having a functional browser on your server is not completely insane, especially in a small shop.
Re:Servers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Servers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not security updates but security enhancements (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not security updates but security enhancements (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not saying that they're going to stop making hotfixes for the older versions. Windows 2000 is still officially supported...just don't hold your breath for a pop-up blocker.
Re:Not security updates but security enhancements (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between giving the user a firewall (improvement) vs giving the user a patch in a security flaw in the OS (patch).
just like them (Score:3, Insightful)
The summary says that it will boost browsers like Firefox, but I highly doubt it. I don't know that many people who aren't already on Windows xp, but the plain fact is, plenty of people browse websites that can ONLY be viewed properly in IE. I hate it. You hate it. But the fact is, people need to put more pressure on webmasters to create standards-compliant websites.(AHEM SLASHDOT) COUGH COUGH
Chris
Re:just like them (Score:5, Informative)
Care to provide any examples?
Re:just like them (Score:4, Informative)
Care to provide any examples?"
Windows Update. [microsoft.com]
There's one. Many financial sites are like that, as well as a few more i've seen. I love firefox, but it is still lacking in some CSS2 areas.
Re:just like them (Score:3, Insightful)
There's something gutbustingly hilarious about saying "can't use alternative browsers for IE-only sites" and then going on to complain about a few CSS2 issues in Firefox.
Granted, I don't know a browser that perfectly handles all of CSS2, but IE is one of the worst offenders. display: fixed, and most of the pseudo-attributes completely fail under IE. Not to mention
Re:just like them (Score:3, Informative)
This site [od2.com] were/are providing download facilities for an album in aid of Oxfam's campaign for Darfur.
Apparently, because the DRMed-album is in Windows-only format, people with browsers like Firefox are forbidden - presumably our use of Firefox proves we're going to try and use Winamp to bypass DRM...or something.
You're right though - there are precious few web-developers stupid enough to build for IE and IE alone these days.
Sites not usuable by non-IE browsers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:just like them (Score:3, Informative)
Re:just like them (Score:3, Informative)
Re:just like them (Score:4, Funny)
That's not a Mozilla problem.
It's a powerhouse.co.uk problem.
I will not "need to update" iBrowse/Voyager/Galeon/Firefox/Safari/whatever to IE5, thankyouverymuch. It's Mr Mongoloid Webmaster at Powerhouse who needs to get a clue.
Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically, the "left side" menus and the main page overlap most of the time. (That's what the original poster meant by "Slashdot left side".)
Half the time ONLY the left side menu and nothing else renders.
For the past month or two,
www.geocaching.com's front page is also broken in Mozilla.
OK try this one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:just like them (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm saying you shouldn't use an alternative browser, it's just that the potential for harm is still there as long as the security hole remains present. And it worries me.
Metaphorically speaking... (Score:5, Funny)
This article tries to turn the sow's ear of an overstretched metaphor into the silk purse of a pithy comment, but winds up counting it's chickens in a castle built on sand as the skeletons in the closet come home to roost.
How many reasons? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know a LOT of really intelligent, well educated people, many of whom are programmers or use linux in a server environment, who still use IE / Outlook [Express] on their desktops.
That is just begging for it.
I tell them over and over again the risks, and they still stay where they are. Ironically, complete neophites switch over as soon as I tell them about Firefox / Thunderbird.
I guess the meek really will inherit the earth.
Re:How many reasons? (Score:5, Interesting)
This could be because those people have never been affected by all the exploits that are out there.
Think of it like a house with a dodgy lock, you don't bother getting around to changing it because it's the last thing on your mind. As soon as you get broken into, you'll fix it.
These people just haven't been given an incentive to change yet. They're happy with what they have and aren't interested in changing. Banks rely on this sort of apathy all the time - otherwise you'd get some decent competition when you're shopping around for a new current account.
No, that's not what they said. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft this week reiterated that it would keep the new version of Microsoft's IE Web browser available only as part of the recently released Windows XP operating system, Service Pack 2.
Only the new version of the browser is available under XP Service Pack 2, for architectural reasons the other OS's lack (NoExecute and whatever else).
It says nowhere they won't provide patches for the most current IE's available under 2000.
The new IE only runs under XP SP 2. You also need to upgrade if you want true HT support, BTW.
the door is still open (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if people switch to a different browser IE is still installed on the machine and vulnerable to attacks without the security 'updates' in SP2.
So even though you've installed a much more secure 'door' (Firefox, etc) your backdoor is still just as wide open.
Since MS decided to 'combine' the browser into the OS they should be required to support ALL of the OS with their security fixes.
Wait a minute.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as IE isn't apart of windows (wasn't that part of the anti-trust agreement?), shouldn't I be able to D/L the latest and greatest version of IE (with patches already included) from MS??
When asked about IE's origin as a free, standalone product, the representative said, "You're talking in software terms that might be considered ancient history."
Oh, I see... the settlement is ancient history....
I can see them only including it in windows update for XP only, but not giving out the latest and greatest as a standalone product? Bad move.
And my car? (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds more like a marketing move combined with laziness.
Re:And my car? (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA: "It's a problem that people should have to pay for a whole OS upgrade to get a safe browser..."
This implies that the older versions of MSIE won't be considered "safe" anymore.
Still patches for previous versions... (Score:5, Informative)
Still sucks for the Win2k users though... Its clearly nothing more than a ploy to make them upgrade.
This is NOT what the article says (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox shines, but free hard to believe for some (Score:5, Interesting)
The good news is that he's happily using it now and he's starting to understand that IE was how the malware was getting onto his system. But I tell you, if I have to spend as long convincing/educating others as I did with him, it's going to become a full-time job pretty damned fast.
- Leo
This is probably one of the biggest obstacles... (Score:4, Interesting)
As I installed Firefox, he kept asking "And it's free? Why? What's their business model?" As a salesman, he just couldn't swallow that it could be a full-featured application AND available for free.
Almost *all* PC users who have never known anything but Microsoft Windows are suspicious of free software (and always confuse free/libre with free/gratis). People in sales/marketing are just extra slow learners in this respect
I have converted my parents, my girlfriend, some of her family and a few of our friends (all running some MS Windows variant) to Firefox (and Thunderbird in a couple cases) and all have been happy with the change. However, there is one person (whom I know only through chatting on Yahoo Messenger) that is totally convinced that Mozilla is a company with a business model built around distribution of adware. This stems from the fact that he claims to have tried Thunderbird late last winter/early spring and it coincided with an increase of pop-ups and system crashes while he used it to browse. He cleaned his system up (removing Firefox and a few other things) and it worked better again.
I told him that the crashes MAY have been due to the fact that he was using an earlier beta version (but not even guaranteed). I also told him it was ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for an install of genuine Firefox to be the source of the pop-up ads and that it has always been my experience that Firefox gets RID of them. There was no convincing him that it was another one of his "free" programs (he has all manner of Yahoo Messenger toys like YTunnel, replacement smileys, booters to get rid of the dirty old men hitting on his 15 year old daughters, boot stoppers, etc). I even edvanced the theory that he may have gotten a tainted/hacked version of Firefox and that you should get it right from Mozilla. He contends that that is where it came from.
He had the same kind of questions as your sales friend, and kept responding to my answers with more questions:
Him: "If they give all their programs away and there was no ad-ware, how does Mozilla make any money?"
Me: "They don't. Mozilla is a non-profit foundation. The programmers are volunteers or paid through donations"
Him: "Well that just means they don't make a profit. The companies that donate money to Mozilla are getting ads in return for their sponsorship"
Me: "Not all of the project sponsors are corporations and none of them want advertising. Some are individuals who give their time and/or money as well. Also, the idea is that the project is Open Source, so even though a company or person might only have/be one developer on the project they can reap the rewards of an entire team of people and see the code like everyone else"...etc etc
Him: "I dunno...sounds fishy to me. I'd really check out that Mozilla outfit to make sure they are legitimate. Right now, I don't trust their programs on my computer. It's not like they are just little toys...the web browser and email are important parts of the OS"
The lesson here: don't just tell doubters to download it and try it out. Actually be there to oversee the installation, and explain what is going on in ther PCs. If Firefox or any other software that is free is anywhere near their PC when bad things happen, it'll be the first think a sceptical convert that runs Windows will blame.
Suggested answer. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Firefox is what you get when people get together for the purpose to write the best possible software, rather than to make money."
This usually conveys the message pretty well, I found.
So much for MS's new focus on security (Score:5, Insightful)
-
"Microsoft is not using security issues or any security situation to try to drive upgrades," said a company representative. "But it only makes sense that the latest products are the most secure."
Well yes that's true but it's also true that a large portion of the zombie PCs out there spewing spam, viruses, worms and DDoS attacks are NOT running the latest product from Microsoft. Effectivly Microsoft's saying "well we'll concentrate on security only in a future sense." Bet that once Longhorn finally arrives XP will stop getting security patches shortly thereafter.Frankly we can only hope that there's enough big business clients that have "legacy" Windows OSs that will raise holy hell with Microsoft on this. Otherwise we can expect the situation with compromised machines to not get any better. It seems most of the people with badly compromised PCs don't even try to get them fixed until they finally grind to a halt, they're not likely to be upgrading to XP anytime soon.
hardly lemonade, more like ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because IE upgrades themselves drive other upgrades for Microsoft products. For the vast majority of people, nonIE choices simply aren't an option, particularly for users wanting to use the Windows Update site. (Yes, I know that you can use the Mozilla Firefox extension for Windows Update, but my point is that many people don't)
Windows Update is actually usable now -- something I never thought I would have seen only a few years ago.
I understand that MS has to draw the line somewhere; I understand that MS has to support a huge array of old code; I just wish they would be a touch more responsible about it.
I have been dealing with this exact issue all this week for various clients, and I really wish I could just simply get them all to move off Windows permanently. Wishful thinking...
Hot Java?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anybody use it. Does it have something that other browsers don't. Its it written in Java?
Complaints (Score:3, Informative)
Let the 200 million non-XP users speak out. Heck, speak out even if you don't use windows. Unpatched machines can cost you your bandwith.
MY favourite quote (Score:3, Funny)
That many? :) And I like Dave's blog's subtitle ... "Internet Explorer moving forward!". Looks like this bugger [wikipedia.org] might have some competition ...
Lemme get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have my very nice 1969 Mustang soupped up and taking me every place _I_ need to go. Then we find out that the fuel pump has a problem with it that could cause a tremendous fire or explosion.
Now I have to go to the dealer as they're the only one that can do work on the car, purchase a 2004 Mustang to prevent my car from potentially exploding and causing serious damage to myself and others _and_ I have to pay them for the new car?
I don't think so.
Found Letter (Score:4, Funny)
Damn you! You shot me!
Sincerely,
Your Foot
Does this surprise anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can understand companies needing time to upgrade to a new version of the OS in particular, and software in general.
But XP is the newest major version of the desktop OS. There is, AND SHOULD BE, and end-of-life for the older versions. Who's still running a 1.x kernel of Linux? What percentage are even running 2.2x? Does Apple still patch Mac OS 8 or 9 (I'm asking, I don't actually know the answer)?
I see all this "MS forcing you to upgrade" talk - well they're HARDLY the only company out there that does this, how else will a company that makes software for profit stay alive? This includes every gaming company out there, Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc. etc., in addition to the other OS vendors (Apple, Sun, RED HAT...you get the drift).
I guess maybe the sentiment is that 2000 isn't old enough "yet" to be back-burnered like this? That's at least debatable. But the notion that MS is wrong to wean people off of the older versions over time is folly.
Xentax
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
XP accounts for only half of the Windows installed base of 390 million. Half. Win2000 is around 17%. That's what, 65 million installations? Nah, nobody uses that shit anymore.... fuck em.
Sheesh.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kind of like how Ext2 is a big favorite even though there are all these clever new FSes. The maintainers never said "Hey, we're done. Upgrade to Ext3 or a journalized FS."
Thank you, Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thunderbird is my next target, I'm eagerly waiting for a full-feature, almost-no-bugs release. I had some trouble this week with some recalcitrant Outlook Express users and viruses, and I already managed to convince them to change the e-mail client. You can use good arguments to convince them, but downtime can usually be even stronger than your arguments. ^^
More /. editor FUD (Score:4, Informative)
(And don't tell me that the submittor picks the title. The editors pick the title -- in this case, the title doesn't even match the submission, much less the article.)
M$ Partners (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I don't think it will. I work for a small business (a Microsoft partner) which provides IT services for other small to medium sized businesses. We provide both solutions and support. If we chose to use a non-microsoft product, we loose tens of thousands of dollars in support. No viruses, worms, spyware, hijacked browsers == no money.
It seriously bothers me, but I would argue that the strength Microsoft has is not in providing well written software, but providing poorly written software prone to exploits.
Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
It looks like they are keen to keep even pirates in the update cycle. Maybe they would rather those who won't pay pirate Windows than use an alternative?
A Little Bit Of Dan Rathering Don't Ya Think? (Score:4, Insightful)
"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement.
SlashDuh gurgles:
Microsoft has decided that future IE updates, including those related to security, will only be available to customers using Windows XP.
Slashdot generating it's own FUD now?
Huge boost? Not likely. (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about it for a moment. The only boost to Mozilla and others will be users who:
Now, I'm not saying it's zero because clearly it won't be. But it's equally clear to me that those first three are at least somewhat contradictory, so it certainly won't be a huge boost.
Re:Microsoft responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
If that where the case people would be sueing microsoft for worms, holes, vulnerabilites etc... Most worms that have been written where created due to security problems Microsoft knew about MONTHS if not Years before the problem ever surfaced.
Don't get me wrong I would love someone to try it, but I don't see that happening.
Re:Microsoft responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong I would love someone to try it, but I don't see that happening.
Since this is
Re:Microsoft responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have four letters for you: E U L and A.
Be interesting to see if this, finally, gets them tested in a court of law. Problem is, and much as a despise them, it would do an awful lot of damage to the software industry if they weren't upheld.
Read the EULA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read the EULA (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, it's a basic part of contract law that any clause that effectively takes away precisely the benefit you were contracting to receive is automatically void.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft responsibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Less so if it only applies to software which is sold--a commercial Linux vendor would be liable, but Joe Developer who writes that email client and doesn't charge for it would be okay.
You waived that right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Odd that this is one of their biggest FUD weapons against OSS, "There's no one to sue.". Well, there's no one to sue with M$ software either.
Re:Microsoft responsibility? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlikely. I would be really worried if Microsoft was liable for damage due to a security bug, or obliged to provide patches to older versions of its OS.
Suppose you wrote, say, a free FTP server. Some games outfit decides to use it, then due to a bug in your software, some cracker makes off with their upcoming blockbuster game. They claim $500 mil. in lost revenue and send you the bill. Or a company is
Re:HotJava? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm being completely serious here mind you. Opera will fill a niche market, but that is how Netscape "died". Internet Explorer was free, and un-bundled in the beginning. Being a Microsoft product it was favored by the masses.
Now that Mozilla is gaining word of mouth marketshare it will again be the standard. Opera will not last long, all IMHO.
After all, how many people want ads IN their browser.
Re:Soup nazi ref? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, how can ppl buy MS if they know that in the future they may not recieve any support for their insecure software?
Let's compare Microsoft vs. OSS. The browser is one component (integrated into the core OS in Windows, yes, and that should NEVER have happened) but there's countless other bits of software that make up an operating system and its applications. I am still running a copy of Windows 2000 on one box, and I still get updates for various flaws from time to time, about four years after purchasing it. I'm pretty pleased about that.
By contrast, I can't keep a Linux distro on a box for longer than about two years. I can modify a spec file and rebuild a RPM with (the second cousin of) the best of them, but at some point things just stop building properly. The solution? Upgrade to a new distro. Just went through this on my mail/web server a couple of months ago; damn but it's hard to make the new versions of all the software play nicely together. But I digress...
Overall, I'd say MS is up there with the best of them in terms of shipping updates that are compatible with a fairly old version of their software, their broken security model notwithstanding. I'm a lot less concerned about broken components like IE that I can (happily) replace than core OS components needing an update that I am stuck with... thankfully those are rare enough in my case.
Anyway, I'm a flip-flopper on the subject of the OS I use; both Windows and Linux (oh yeah, Solaris too) on a daily basis and have both a use for, and issues with, all of them. C'est la vie.
- Leo