If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses
that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better.. nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd party software developers to get their act together.. "Wislu Plethota" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2. snip Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into English so we can understand it? Can you give an example of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you mean programs that were written for the platform as it was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly written" program? Nope. You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third- party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of] the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2. So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember- almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the development community to the extent that programmers were able to take advantage of them in writing their programs. But if they were common knowledge among developers, why didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before* they caused problems? The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written" programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed, could have done the patching *before* the holes were exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea wtf he's talking about. You decide. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better.. nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd party software developers to get their act together.. Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on, trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers, nor stupid users, nor spyware. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single source", you
will probably never see the whole picture. No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party application. But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's. People have been demanding more secure and better written code of Microsoft, well now it came. Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have problems and demand the same from them? If not why not? Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other applications work at all costs? The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had a problem. Some worked it out and had information available for their customers when needed. Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft ignoring the fact they could have been working the issue and have a solution or at least near a solution at this time.. And still others no longer exist. Microsoft and others listed applications known to have issues to help the customers have better information. If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take great effort amongst the development community, not just Microsoft. The users will also have to learn safe computing practices. If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing alone, prepare for very unsafe computing. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on, trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers, nor stupid users, nor spyware. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single source", you will probably never see the whole picture. No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party application. But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's. People have been demanding more secure and better written code of Microsoft, well now it came. Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have problems and demand the same from them? If not why not? Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other applications work at all costs? The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had a problem. Some worked it out and had information available for their customers when needed. Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft ignoring the fact they could have been working the issue and have a solution or at least near a solution at this time.. And still others no longer exist. Microsoft and others listed applications known to have issues to help the customers have better information. If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take great effort amongst the development community, not just Microsoft. The users will also have to learn safe computing practices. If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing alone, prepare for very unsafe computing. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing programs that work on the target platform using the specifications and architectuire they were given to work with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of this code was written to take advantage of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the holes before the miscreants could crawl through them. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
No one suggest "heinous crime", that is entirely your idea.
As for shifting the blame, you need to read my posts again. There is blame to go around. Once you get the idea there is blame on many areas including the users as well, you will start to get it. But as long as you believe it is all Microsoft and you are blind to the rest... Mike gave an answer to your question. Software was often designed to give the web developer or program writer almost unlimited rights to what they wanted to show you. This was largely at a time when security was not much of an issue. Progress means change from ALL concerned, not just Microsoft. Those unwilling to change have a choice of not updating. Microsoft does not impose the choice on anyone, the users have and make the choice for themselves. People have been demanding more security. If you choose to ignore it, that is your business. If you choose to go with SP-2, you also choose to do what it takes to get your computer working properly. You can also choose another operating system, there are many choices there as well. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing programs that work on the target platform using the specifications and architectuire they were given to work with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of this code was written to take advantage of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the holes before the miscreants could crawl through them. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Wacko.
"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks. What an idiotic statement. It's like telling a person who's on fire that the vast majority of people don't burn to death. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Wacko squared. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.
"Wislu Plethota" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2. snip Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into English so we can understand it? Can you give an example of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you mean programs that were written for the platform as it was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly written" program? Nope. You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third- party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of] the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2. So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember- almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the development community to the extent that programmers were able to take advantage of them in writing their programs. But if they were common knowledge among developers, why didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before* they caused problems? The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written" programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed, could have done the patching *before* the holes were exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea wtf he's talking about. You decide. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
"Mike H" wrote in message .. . Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better.. nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd party software developers to get their act together.. Right. Most folks find that SP2 works just fine. "Wislu Plethota" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2. snip Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into English so we can understand it? Can you give an example of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you mean programs that were written for the platform as it was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly written" program? Nope. You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third- party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of] the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2. So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember- almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the development community to the extent that programmers were able to take advantage of them in writing their programs. But if they were common knowledge among developers, why didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before* they caused problems? The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written" programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed, could have done the patching *before* the holes were exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea wtf he's talking about. You decide. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Go away.
"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better.. nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd party software developers to get their act together.. Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on, trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers, nor stupid users, nor spyware. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Stop trolling.
"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Personally, I think this whole thread has gone to crap, but I wanted to
note that MS releases their supposed SDK's and DDK's to developers to work with. You work with this and develop your software based on what MS has provided. That is the best you can do since MS hasn't released their source code for anyone to integrate their products the way they would like to. Also, the fault lies with most software developers (which includes MS) who try to save time and money by writing quick code instead of strong code. ---- Nathan McNulty Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: No one suggest "heinous crime", that is entirely your idea. As for shifting the blame, you need to read my posts again. There is blame to go around. Once you get the idea there is blame on many areas including the users as well, you will start to get it. But as long as you believe it is all Microsoft and you are blind to the rest... Mike gave an answer to your question. Software was often designed to give the web developer or program writer almost unlimited rights to what they wanted to show you. This was largely at a time when security was not much of an issue. Progress means change from ALL concerned, not just Microsoft. Those unwilling to change have a choice of not updating. Microsoft does not impose the choice on anyone, the users have and make the choice for themselves. People have been demanding more security. If you choose to ignore it, that is your business. If you choose to go with SP-2, you also choose to do what it takes to get your computer working properly. You can also choose another operating system, there are many choices there as well. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
You are becoming rather tedious... you do have another life somewhere don't
you. Please go their and enjoy it. We are certainly not enjoying you! Fed up with wasted bandwidth, Len "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single source", you will probably never see the whole picture. No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party application. But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's. People have been demanding more secure and better written code of Microsoft, well now it came. Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have problems and demand the same from them? If not why not? Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other applications work at all costs? The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had a problem. Some worked it out and had information available for their customers when needed. Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft ignoring the fact they could have been working the issue and have a solution or at least near a solution at this time.. And still others no longer exist. Microsoft and others listed applications known to have issues to help the customers have better information. If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take great effort amongst the development community, not just Microsoft. The users will also have to learn safe computing practices. If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing alone, prepare for very unsafe computing. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing programs that work on the target platform using the specifications and architectuire they were given to work with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of this code was written to take advantage of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the holes before the miscreants could crawl through them. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Juniper you are preaching to the choir. Most of this drivel
is composed by people who have VCR's and clocks blinking around the house, cannot assemble their children's toys at Christmas time, and don't regularly change the oil in their automobiles. This dumbing down and finger pointing was heavily pushed in the 1980's. These posts are the results. "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message ... No one suggest "heinous crime", that is entirely your idea. As for shifting the blame, you need to read my posts again. There is blame to go around. Once you get the idea there is blame on many areas including the users as well, you will start to get it. But as long as you believe it is all Microsoft and you are blind to the rest... Mike gave an answer to your question. Software was often designed to give the web developer or program writer almost unlimited rights to what they wanted to show you. This was largely at a time when security was not much of an issue. Progress means change from ALL concerned, not just Microsoft. Those unwilling to change have a choice of not updating. Microsoft does not impose the choice on anyone, the users have and make the choice for themselves. People have been demanding more security. If you choose to ignore it, that is your business. If you choose to go with SP-2, you also choose to do what it takes to get your computer working properly. You can also choose another operating system, there are many choices there as well. "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing programs that work on the target platform using the specifications and architectuire they were given to work with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of this code was written to take advantage of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the holes before the miscreants could crawl through them. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is SP2 doing - apart from trashing everybody's PC?? | Hugh | Windows Service Pack 2 | 41 | September 25th 04 06:45 PM |
SP2 and IE 6 Error message on first page | PA Bear | General XP issues or comments | 0 | September 23rd 04 07:47 AM |
some clues to SP2 Behavior | Gene Murphy | General XP issues or comments | 0 | September 21st 04 12:19 AM |
Has SP2 been issued by MS yet? | tom-islander | Windows Service Pack 2 | 4 | September 6th 04 12:07 AM |
SP2 install delay and other mysteries | Papa | Windows Service Pack 2 | 4 | August 30th 04 05:55 PM |