New Excel zero-day flaw used in attacks

TalkBack 45 of 98:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

To michael_t, the answer to your question

Ok, your question is reasonable, but its been asked so many times before, and the answer has been given many times before. Here is your question;

?WHERE is your counter-argument to my point that MS HAS the resources to make a better job but they DO NOT? Isn't MS making BILLIONS of PROFIT in $$$ ??

Of course this is the question that always gets asked, and as I said, and you should expect it has been answered. Because the question is so compelling, one really would have to wonder wouldn?t they? Lets see, by your own admission, ?MS HAS the resources to make a better job but they DO NOT?.

There are only three possibilities for such a situation.

1. They are careless or out right negligent in their coding practices.

If this where the case Microsoft could be sued for such negligence where their identified negligence had cost anyone anything of value. I?m not just guessing at this either. Lets just say I have studied law in some significant detail and I know of what I speak, I?m not making things up. As Microsoft is certainly worth suing as you have also pointed out they have billions, and they have not been sued for coding negligence the inescapable conclusion is that this kind of negligence is something that can not be proved. Further, by your own admission, they have the resources, why should they not desire to cut the risk and use those resources to eliminate negligent practices? That they certainly could do. The point being; to claim MS is just plain negligent is foolish, it simply cannot be supported by the facts, and it wouldn?t make sense for them to engage in negligent actions when they clearly have no need to.

2. Microsoft isn?t quite negligent, but they could do a better job and they simply don?t care enough to do it.

I guess the theory behind this possibility is that they make more profit by putting out shoddy product due to cost savings over the time it would take to produce a good product. But the claim it cost them less to put out a shoddy product then a good one, or that they simply do not care is also counter to the facts as the cost of supporting XP has not been cheap for them, either in dollars or resources. Its very hard to believe that dollars spent in producing a better XP back in the late 90?s would have cost them more in real dollars then what they have spent in addition since patching XP. Creating SP2 put them way behind in Vista development and its cost them greatly. It would make no sense what so ever to think producing anything less then the best they could, would somehow save them money. Particularly where it is an OS and any significant slack behavior would eventually show up and have to be fixed anyway. Further, the general notion that somehow there is a pay off for MS not doing their best doesn?t follow suit if you suspect MS likes making money, and I think they love it. Apple has some big bucks advertising and a high profile these days and Microsoft dosnt want to lose any more sales to OSX. Linux has a whole variety of very good OS?s for free that are highly secure, and if MS screws up too much it cost people no dollars to switch. Point being unless Microsoft figures they don?t really need any more money doing less then the very best they could would be a pointless risk no company with the business acumen of MS would ever take.

3. They cannot make a better OS of the type they are trying to make without spending far in excess of what they have and spending many more years in development.

Number 3 is the only possibility that makes sense. The other possibilities are just to far removed from business reality, particularly as we are talking about MS here, and to even be worthy of consideration there would have to be some kind of proof indicating that the highly unlikely had come to pass.

I can fully understand anyone who doesn?t like the MS idea of an OS, some don?t like paying, at all, and most value security more then broad compatibility. And I understand and accept that. But do not make it sound like MS is not producing the best OS they can given the crazy parameters they are trying to meet for the broad consumer market.

Posted by: Cayble   Posted on: 06/19/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now