From: "Randy H" 

Naah, MSFT is too busy sucking up to PETS:

"
People for the Ethical Treatment of Software NEW YORK - People for the
Ethical Treatment of Software (PETS) announced today that more software
companies have been added to the groups "watch list" of companies
that regularly practice software testing.

"There is no need for software to be mistreated in this way so that
companies like these can market new products," said Ken Grandola, a
spokesman for PETS. "Alternative methods of testing these products are
available."

According to PETS, these companies force software to undergo lengthy and
arduous test - often without rest - for hours or days at a time. Employees
are assigned to "break" the software by any means necessary and
inside sources report that they often joke about "torturing" the
software.

"It's no joke," Grandola said. "Innocent programs, from the
day they are compiled, are cooped up in tiny rooms and 'crashed' for hours
on end. They spend their whole lives on dirty, ill-maintained computers,
and they are unceremoniously deleted when they're not needed anymore."

Grandola said that the software is kept in unsanitary conditions and is
infested with bugs.

"We know alternatives to this horror exist," he said, citing
industry giant Microsoft Corp. as a company that has become successful
without resorting to software testing.

"

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:3fb24188{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3fb21280{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Note the date MS was notified, almost a YEAR to patch a root level
> > exploit!!! This is totally unacceptable.
> >
> > Geo.
>
>
> Heh - Maybe they were busy with their 'Days of Risk' agenda?
>
> from http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/11/HNmsassault_1.html
>
> Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux
> Company will criticize Linux for taking too long to fix bugs
>
> By Kieren  McCarthy, Techworld.com November 11, 2003
>
> Microsoft Corp. is preparing a major PR assault over Windows' perceived
> security failings in which it will criticize Linux for taking too long to
> fix bugs, we have learned
>
> In a sign that the inroads made by the Open Source community are starting
to
> rattle the software giant, Microsoft has hired several analysts to review
> how fast holes are patched in the open source software and is expected to
> announce that Windows compares favorably.
>
> The strategy, called "Days of Risk," measures the number of
days it takes
> programmers to release a public patch after a vulnerability is revealed.
> While high-profile holes in Linux and associated software tend to be
swiftly
> dealt with, less prominent problems -- which could be just as potentially
> damaging -- can take weeks or even months to appear.
>
> Microsoft's aim is to undermine critics and place a question mark over
> Linux's security by revealing that, on average, Windows poses less of a
> security risk. By turning attention away from its own software bugs while
at
> the same time launching several security initiatives, it hopes to be able
to
> tackle one of main worries business has with its proprietary operating
> system.
>
> Windows security is a club constantly used by Linux advocates to beat
> Microsoft over the head -- made all the more relevant following the
> extremely damaging Blast worm and SoBig virus that spread rapidly thanks
to
> vulnerabilities in Microsoft's software.
>
> Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer is known to have made
> security a top priority. Last week, the company announced a $5 million
> reward program aimed at bringing virus writers to justice. Although it is
> unlikely to reap any tangible results, the message was clear: Microsoft is
> taking security seriously.
>
> And at the end of October, Ballmer gave the audience at Gartner's autumn
> symposium a taster of what was to come when he attacked Linux's assumed
> security superiority. "In the first 150 days after the release of Windows
> 2000," he said, "there were 17 critical vulnerabilities. For Windows
Server
> 2003, there were four. For Red Hat Linux 6, they were five to ten times
> higher."
>
> He also questioned the notion that the open source's community approach to
> fixing problems was superior to Microsoft's. "Why should code submitted
> randomly by some hacker in China and distributed by some open source
> project, why is that, by definition, better?"
>
> A spokeswoman for Red Hat was undaunted by the prospect of a full frontal
> security assault by Microsoft however. "We just don't have
viruses," she
> told us. "Our problems are located and fixed more proactively. Because the
> source code is open, we find there is a patch before there is even a
> problem."
>
> She also denied there was an issue of professionalism: "We have dozens of
> Fortune 500 customers we have to report to. We would never let a bug go
> unfixed."
>
> However, Microsoft is thought to have pulled out all the stops to prove
its
> security case. That means it should have something more tangible than the
> questionable reports it has sponsored in the past in an attempt to show
> Windows has a comparable or lower total cost of ownership than Linux.
>
> "There is always some assertion by Microsoft," the
spokeswoman told us.
"And
> its example is always on a very small part of Linux. But when you look at
> Linux as a whole, it is very reliable and our customers considerable it
> superior."
>
> Microsoft failed to respond to our questions, although its law and
corporate
> affairs spokeswoman told us that she didn't think the company intended to
> launch a security attack on Linux and that it would be "odd" if the
company
> used strong comparative information to state its case. It would be more
odd
> if it didn't.
>
>
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5