can you definte "critical" please? - yet another M$ patch

Discussion in 'Community' started by jxyama, Sep 10, 2003.

  1. jxyama macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003

    this is ridiculous...

    one of the definition of "critical" (from

    "Being in or verging on a state of crisis or emergency"

    if you are always in such a state (of crisis or emergency), given the number of these "critical updates" from M$, is it really a crisis or an emergency? hmm...
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    Yeah, I was reading this earlier today... Ok all you windows users! Get busy installing yet another patch so the internet doesn't come crashing down on the rest of us!
  3. stoid macrumors 601


    Feb 17, 2002
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    The reason it is critical "state or verge of emergency" is because every single one of these patches covers up a gapping hole in the Wintel programming architecture. Just because Windows users are always in a state of panic because their OS is a security sieve doesn't mean that the panic is anyless justified.

    If your house were somehow lit on fire in a way that it burned and burned for days and months, years after it lit on fire, it would still be critical that you put out the fire. The OS sucks and continues to suck, and so it is critical that patches are released to stop up the holes in the dike.
  4. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    The bast part is that they say this only affects users of Windows 2000, XP, 2003 Server, etc. That it doesn't affect users of Win9x. Which is no longer supported. So if you are currently using the old OSs, they ask that you please upgrade so you can take advantage of the newest features. Like the fact that you are susceptible to the newest security holes. Which you should patch right away.

    Even though that might not fix it, and more will surely be coming.

    I'm beginning to think M$ is more inept than it is evil.
  5. spinner macrumors regular

    Jan 16, 2002
    South Dakota
    It wasn't until last year that security became a top priority? That explains a lot.

    "All hands, brace for impact!" :rolleyes:
  6. jxyama thread starter macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003
    i realize these are "critical" updates. but i guess my take is that there shouldn't be so many "critical" holes... like in your example, if the house is perpetually on fire, THE thought in my mind would be "why is the house always on fire", NOT "thank goodness M$ is giving us a constant supply of fire extinguishers."

    i'm rather sick of the situation that M$ supplying an awful product, a very expensive product, to be used by majority of the population. i can't believe how people actually put up with this. i'm hoping people will start to wake up and break the M$ monopoly - don't care if it's linux or Mac or else. consumers shouldn't have to pay for all this junk.

    do i care if XP is more stable? do i care if windows is better than ever? do i care PCs are cheaper? no. what price are you willing to put on not having to deal with this garbage?
  7. themadchemist macrumors 68030


    Jan 31, 2003
    Chi Town
    I think Microsoft would turn a bigger profit if it just gave away the OS for free and charged for the updates.
  8. jxyama thread starter macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003
    have any of you read the discussion over on /.? i can't believe some people are having serious discussions about the merits and demerits of windows update... that's not the point. the point is, a product that requires such frequent and "critical" updates is obviously unfinished, untested, unpolished, etc. etc. why such a product out in the market??? why is it allowed to prosper? why is M$ given even a tiny bit of "credit" for handing out these patches? why are consumers having to maintain/debug a product they PAID the freaking money and purchased to just WORK??

    if your car required that you tune it every week, should you be grateful that you can get free tune ups from the dealership or should you be cursing the dealership for selling you a car that requires such frequent and inconvenient tune ups?
  9. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    Hehe, critical as in it can delete your important files, not that there isn't one released every 5 minutes...

  10. TEG macrumors 604


    Jan 21, 2002
    Langley, Washington
    Its like I've said since XP came out... XP is the size of a Semi, and its security holes are the size of New York City.

  11. themadchemist macrumors 68030


    Jan 31, 2003
    Chi Town
    I think this has been mentioned before, but it is worth mentioning again.

    If a car is dangerous, it has to be recalled. The manufacturer is legally liable.

    If a baby toy is dangerous, the same thing applies. Yep, medical equipment, too.

    Now seeing as computers have saturated almost every field, making them critical not just for creating data, but for sustaining and protecting human lives, wouldn't it make sense that the same standard that applies to other potentially life-threatening devices apply to computers?

    Instead of always going after hackers, shouldn't we be going after Microsoft?

    We don't go after consumers who discover a manufacturing defect in their cars. Of course, most consumers don't misuse those defects maliciously. Thus, hackers still have a great deal of responsibility...

    But this doesn't remove responsibility from Microsoft, the company that created the software. It created software with significant defects. If a car manufacturer had a car with this many defects, it would have recalled its car long ago.

    What's the point of suing some Coca-Cola-glasses programmer munching on doritos and writing a virus? Companies, universities, and individuals, if they can show legitimate damages to themselves, should be able to sue the manufacturer, Microsoft, for defects in its software. Microsoft can actually cover those damages, whereas most hackers cannot.

    Of course, computers are complicated, since so many different companies and products have a hand in them. Should you sue Microsoft or Compaq for the problems caused by your Presario? Well, there might be some ambiguities, but these across-the-board security updates are certainly an admission by Microsoft that its product is faulty.

    Right now, software is provided AS-IS. But when it becomes dangerous, potentially life-threatening, that kind of agreement should be null and void.

    Software (and hardware) companies should be civilly, if not criminally, liable for certain damages that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, are caused by normal operation of their products. Such products should be recalled.

    Windows should be recalled.
  12. rainman::|:| macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    i think the government has shown us the answer here, Microsoft needs to develop an alert-level status...

    orange for "Normal - There are mani virii afoot. None are really bad, they only hurt your data"
    purple for "Uh Oh - You probably have a serious virus. You should spend a bunch of money on virus software that you will let get outdated immidiately"
    green for "That's Not Good - Your computer just DOS'd a poor orphan's dialysis machine. And now he has your credit card information"
    dark rose for "It's The System Administrators' Fault - The global economy just took a big hit"
    flashing blue - "Duck And Cover - The United Nations building just burst into flames, and Austrailia just fell into the ocean"

    I think this would really increase our ability to gauge the constant security SNAFUs that MS does... since they're now "proactive" enough to at least tell us before a cripling virus attack...

  13. wdlove macrumors P6


    Oct 20, 2002
    With all the updates everybody would be broke. If XP is definitely on the critical list, you would think that the priority would be to be to make a major revision. With all the power and money that Bill Gates and Microsoft there is really no excuse to security problems. They should have learned something by now!

Share This Page