On CNET: Tech gifts for every budget
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 15 of 60:
Next »
« Previous
Reply to Boot_Agnostic
That is correct. Software makers cannot possibly know every possible way someone can figure a way to exploit the software. Is C&H responsible because some nutjob figures out a way to use sugar in a manner in which it was not intended? Of course not. However, because stupid judges and annoying lawyers and brain dead politicians who feel sorry for every possible injury someone gets, society has come to think that companies are responible for knowing every possible scenario, and must have things fixed before they release a project.
Should we hold paper manufacturers responsible because someone could use it to cause papercuts or while shooting spitwads can poke someone in the eye? Or, because they burn the paper, burn themselves, the company should be held responsible?
It's rediculous.
So is expecting companies to know what some crackpot will do when they hack systems.
Unfortunately, these companies wont know of security issues until after it happens.
This back and forth bickering by many of the people here is old. I dont even respond to those posts anymore. It's brainless jibber jabber. We can see that Firefox can be vulnerable.
The question you asked, "Given that, MS still has a slower track record for fixing denoted flaws. What would there explanation be?"
Without being a MS advocate, it is reasonable to assume because they do have 95% of the market, it will take a lot longer to patch things up for several things.
1) Solutions are not always easy to find. Windows is not proprietary. The result is finding a fix that will work on most systems and configurations.
2) Because of the percentage, there are security holes coming in on a daily basis. The point is to try and plug them as efficiently and effectively as possible. Having 95% of the market means MS has a lot more to deal with.
Firefox is not invulnerable. These Mac ads on TV are also wrong. They are not invulnerable, either.
You are quite corrct: No software is invulnerable.
Posted by: LegendsOfBatman   Posted on: 02/08/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Already fixed flaws found, heh  CobraA1 | 02/07/07
(sarcasm)  xxn1927 | 02/08/07
only one fixed...  flatliner | 02/08/07
It's like saying there are problems wirh IE5  javarunner | 02/07/07
Not Quite  nmh | 02/08/07
Same thing  Spoon Jabber | 02/08/07
The reason a flaw found in FF1.5.x...  Raymond Danner | 02/08/07
Unfair slap at Firefox  compusolver | 02/08/07
It's not outdated if...  flatliner | 02/08/07
What problems specifically?  Logics | 02/10/07
It's relevant  Urdolf | 02/09/07
firefox 2  clockmendergb@... | 02/12/07
Whether you hate or love Mozilla or Microsoft  Boot_Agnostic | 02/08/07
Once a month  Spoon Jabber | 02/08/07
Reply to Boot_Agnostic  LegendsOfBatman | 02/08/07
Hard to imagine that Mozilla's browser  xuniL_z | 02/08/07
10s of millions a year?  Spoon Jabber | 02/08/07
Well it's payment for advertising  xuniL_z | 02/08/07
Most OSS projects are commercial  Logics | 02/10/07
you STILL don't get it do you?  mdsmedia | 02/09/07
Two flaws found in Firefox  neverhome | 02/08/07
Bravo!  xxn1927 | 02/08/07
Message has been deleted.  corticus | 02/08/07
Bonehead often?  jt@... | 02/08/07
Watch it. Nearly flagged as offensive.  Raymond Danner | 02/08/07
IE's a serious business product? Hahahahahahaha!  haydens0 | 02/08/07
Just more bull from MS bachers like you.  workit@... | 02/08/07
Believe it...  xuniL_z | 02/08/07
Ignorant of history  critic-at-arms | 02/08/07
Blinded by the light!  Still Lynn | 02/13/07
FF's struggles  nix_hed | 02/13/07
Fooled me for a second...............  silvergeek | 02/08/07
You might as well give it up  Ole Man | 02/08/07
Re: of course...  BigThunder1 | 02/08/07
you got it backwards  Sowhatsupyouranus@... | 02/08/07
You are just a...  baka_toroi | 02/12/07
Oh absolutely!  Jambalaya Breath | 02/12/07
Please don't be so disrespectful and clueless  aceofspades1217@... | 03/09/07
Why bother?  xxn1927 | 02/08/07
You forgot one...  mdsmedia | 02/09/07
MS bachers (siq)  haydens0 | 02/08/07
#5  Sowhatsupyouranus@... | 02/08/07
Let's not start picking on spelling, etc.  Big Scoddie | 02/08/07
I gave up correcting spelling errors ages ago  I am Gorby | 02/08/07
I hate it when people mispell  swoopee | 02/09/07
then instead of than,....  mdsmedia | 02/09/07
Umm...  whytestar@... | 02/12/07
I only have 1 question  lynne1462@... | 02/08/07
not me...  zoroaster | 02/08/07
Poor excuse  sam.cooks@... | 02/09/07
Sarcasm?  Al K. Hall@... | 02/09/07
Update Gotcha  Wayne Reid | 02/09/07
Why is this a "news" item?  interested_amateur@... | 02/09/07
If you bothered to read the article...  mdsmedia | 02/09/07
You're right.  Todd_Ehlers | 02/09/07
Dorks 2978  smokeyboy03801@... | 02/09/07
WHY would some one  lynne1462@... | 02/12/07
Finally...  Gazok | 02/13/07
Glad.  ttocsmij | 02/13/07
This is NOT news  ve3sy | 03/09/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Meet Doc