Originally Posted by Ingoal
The big difference is those Linux patches are for nearly every application that MIGHT be installed with Linux. For most people those patches aren't even pertinent because the offending port isn't open. This is a gargantuan advantage for Linux. Microsoft has been advised ad nausea by various security experts to change their stance on this. For example, a representative of ZoneAlarm has commented that he advised MS to close ports by default years ago.
The rest of those arguments relate to the popularity of Windows. If Windows is so popular than certainly there should be the incentive and resources at Microsoft to fix them. Disagree? Big sales means big money which subsequently means big problem solving potential.
So why is Mattias trying to get people to waste their money on redundant firewall software? Just curious.
Originally Posted by Ingoal
The new Windows will have built-in virus detection? Good! Viruses have been a problem for Microsoft OSs for around 10 years now, it's well past time they took some responsibility.
Good luck with this thread. People who update, update. You might win a handful of converts but overall, as we've seen over the last 5+ years, many many people don't update even though they've been browbeaten and updates are available to them on the Internet. This isn't Windows specific: hear about the Mod_SSL problem a few years ago? Basically, anyone who makes software that responds to requests needs to be aware of that reality... a large percentage of people are not going to update. They aren't going research and download some virus detection application. They aren't going to go through a convoluted series of steps to guide the broadband setup wizard to trigger another wizard which sets up a firewall buried in their system.
Luckily, this is what software is all about: making things as easy as possible. Is there any other point to software at all? Windows is marketed to the lowest common denominator, it should work for the lowest common denominator. It should work without buying or hunting for extra applications. Without hunting for a hidden feature buried in some wizard. Does anyone disagree that the location of the XP firewall is... convoluted?
Sorry about the rants, but lets use some sense here. Either thousands of (largely ignorant but well-meaning) users can each independently run across a thread or article like this one and change their ways, or one huge software companies with tons of resources can make small alterations to the default configurations of their software which will squash 99% of all viruses. Which is more likely? Which is actually going to get the problem fixed? Which is better for the landscape of computing?
A lot of these problems result in denial of service issues, those can affect everyone, regardless of how well-kept their computer is. Who is going to step up and address the problem? Thousands of individual computer users driven by a spontaneous and inexplicable comprehension of the complex technical issues involved, or one large software company that already understands those issues, and could have solved them at any major release in the last 10 years?
Alright, lets say I'm full of crap, maybe I am.
Forget fault for a second, just throw that away. No one is at fault, these issues are an act of god so to speak. How do these problems get fixed? Ask yourself, who has the power to actually (not in make believe) fix these issues on a large scale. Face it, individual action is not going to be pervasive enough to eliminate the problem. Good luck getting a substantial percentage of users to upgrade, firewall, and virus detect on their own. Not going to happen. The only way this problem is getting stopped is at the source, which is MS.