Ballmer Says Commercial Software is Better Because Someone's Rear End is on the Line

[dnuggett]

The story

The analysis

Ballmer slaps Linux in the face...

 

[XZeroII]

Didn't read story, but based on your title I must say,


It's true

 

[Witling]

It's true, huh? Does that mean the fired one guy for each new security patch they've put out. That's a lot of people.

 

[sandorski]

Bunk.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Whitling
It's true, huh? Does that mean the fired one guy for each new security patch they've put out. That's a lot of people.

Since it is so easy to account for every possible security risk... get real people.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Is there currently any software on the planet that poses a greater security risk than Micro$soft?

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Is there currently any software on the planet that poses a greater security risk than Micro$soft?

Is there any software targeted as often as that made by microsoft?

 

[glenn1]

Is there currently any software on the planet that poses a greater security risk than Micro$soft?

Is there any other software on the planet that for a decade or so has commanded a 90% plus share of the market like Windows and Office, and might that have something to do with the situation?

Commercial Software is Better Because Someone's Rear End is on the Line

That statement sounds good, but has no logical basis. Financial concerns may provide motivation but they don't create talent.

 

[burnedout]

Ballmer Says Commercial Software is Better Because Someone's Rear End is on the Line

Ballmer is also a CEO who feels threatened by Linux. If I were in his position, I'd hype my software too.

 

[dpm]

Ballmer Says Commercial Software is Better Because His Rear End is on the Line

 

[freegeeks]

Every Sys Admin that has to work on a daily basis with both systems knows that Ballmer is talking out of his ass.

 

[rudder]

SO what he is saying is that if I purchase some server software from red hat that there are no rear ends on the line if they release a product with serious security risks?

I wonder whose rear end was on the line at microsoft when the blaster virus hit.

 

[kage69]

Every Sys Admin that has to work on a daily basis with both systems knows that Ballmer is talking out of his ass.

Damn straight.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Every Sys Admin that has to work on a daily basis with both systems knows that Ballmer is talking out of his ass.

Exactly.

People who write open source do so because they have a passion for programming. They are mostly very good at it. Companies like Microsoft have many good people too, but they also have a lot of mediocre drones who are only interested in a paycheck. Microsoft is also burdened by a Marketing department that sometimes imposes requirements that compromise security, if only by adding unnecessary complexity to their code. Finally, open source code is peer-reviewed by innumerable equally-talented and equally-passionate programmers. Microsoft & co. code is mostly written in private with limited, if any, peer review.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Every Sys Admin that has to work on a daily basis with both systems knows that Ballmer is talking out of his ass.

Exactly.

People who write open source do so because they have a passion for programming. They are mostly very good at it. Companies like Microsoft have many good people too, but they also have a lot of mediocre drones who are only interested in a paycheck. Microsoft is also burdened by a Marketing department that sometimes imposes requirements that compromise security, if only by adding unnecessary complexity to their code. Finally, open source code is peer-reviewed by innumerable equally-talented and equally-passionate programmers. Microsoft & co. code is mostly written in private with limited, if any, peer review.

Yeah i doubt MS has a QA dept at all for any of its products.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Every Sys Admin that has to work on a daily basis with both systems knows that Ballmer is talking out of his ass.

Exactly.

People who write open source do so because they have a passion for programming. They are mostly very good at it. Companies like Microsoft have many good people too, but they also have a lot of mediocre drones who are only interested in a paycheck. Microsoft is also burdened by a Marketing department that sometimes imposes requirements that compromise security, if only by adding unnecessary complexity to their code. Finally, open source code is peer-reviewed by innumerable equally-talented and equally-passionate programmers. Microsoft & co. code is mostly written in private with limited, if any, peer review.

Yeah i doubt MS has a QA dept at all for any of its products.

Thank you for completely ignoring everything I said (as well as the weekly evidence of the effectiveness of Microsoft's QA process). You realize you can set your knee-jerk partisanship aside at times -- you don't have to take an opposing position on everything. You could even try staying out of a discussion when you haven't the slightest clue about the topic at hand.

Didn't you claim you always keep things civil just a few days ago?

 

[Zebo]

I'm pretty happy with the price/performance ratio of open office.. Pretty hard to beat FREE no?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Every Sys Admin that has to work on a daily basis with both systems knows that Ballmer is talking out of his ass.

Exactly.

People who write open source do so because they have a passion for programming. They are mostly very good at it. Companies like Microsoft have many good people too, but they also have a lot of mediocre drones who are only interested in a paycheck. Microsoft is also burdened by a Marketing department that sometimes imposes requirements that compromise security, if only by adding unnecessary complexity to their code. Finally, open source code is peer-reviewed by innumerable equally-talented and equally-passionate programmers. Microsoft & co. code is mostly written in private with limited, if any, peer review.

Yeah i doubt MS has a QA dept at all for any of its products.

Thank you for completely ignoring everything I said (as well as the weekly evidence of the effectiveness of Microsoft's QA process). You realize you can set your knee-jerk partisanship aside at times -- you don't have to take an opposing position on everything. You could even try staying out of a discussion when you haven't the slightest clue about the topic at hand.

Didn't you claim you always keep things civil just a few days ago?

What was uncivil?

When linux is bugfree or when they obtain support the level of hardware and software that microsoft does we can problably make better comparisons. Open source software is not exploit free, nor should anyone even attempt to claim that.

I think microsoft could do make a better effort on security, but at the same time the open source would could make a better effort on compatability and features.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
What was uncivil?

Your sarcastic straw man.

When linux is bugfree or when they obtain support the level of hardware and software that microsoft does we can problably make better comparisons. Open source software is not exploit free, nor should anyone even attempt to claim that.

Can you show me where anyone made that claim? Didn't think so.

I think microsoft could do make a better effort on security, but at the same time the open source would could make a better effort on compatability and features.

A reasonable comment. I assume you're talking specifically about compatibility with Microsoft products since open source tends to be implementations of standards, either by design or my default. Microsoft compatibility is a complicated issue. Microsoft often will not divulge its APIs and formats, making compatibility a laborious exercise in reverse-engineering. Microsoft also tends to take existing standards and bastardize them just enough so others have problems with interoperability. Finally, Microsoft compatibility is a moving target. Nonetheless, I agree that better compatibility is important to increasing the acceptance of open source.

I also agree open source tends to lag behind MS on features. That is the flip side of the Marketing Department influence I mentioned before. The down side to lots of Marketing-driven features is bloated code that has more security vulnerabilities. The up side is that they have more of the features demanded by a diverse user base. Open source code tends to be written for other technical people, with less emphasis on broad appeal to the general public.

Disclaimer: all of these comments are generalizations. While I believe they are accurate, you can find exceptions to every one of them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
What was uncivil?

Your sarcastic straw man.

Finally, open source code is peer-reviewed by innumerable equally-talented and equally-passionate programmers. Microsoft & co. code is mostly written in private with limited, if any, peer review.

Sorry you earned that sarcastic remark.

When linux is bugfree or when they obtain support the level of hardware and software that microsoft does we can problably make better comparisons. Open source software is not exploit free, nor should anyone even attempt to claim that.

Can you show me where anyone made that claim? Didn't think so.
By claiming MS is doing a horrible job, it it implies that open source is doing it better.

I think microsoft could do make a better effort on security, but at the same time the open source would could make a better effort on compatability and features.

A reasonable comment. I assume you're talking specifically about compatibility with Microsoft products since open source tends to be implementations of standards, either by design or my default. Microsoft compatibility is a complicated issue. Microsoft often will not divulge its APIs and formats, making compatibility a laborious exercise in reverse-engineering. Microsoft also tends to take existing standards and bastardize them just enough so others have problems with interoperability. Finally, Microsoft compatibility is a moving target. Nonetheless, I agree that better compatibility is important to increasing the acceptance of open source.

I am talking about compatability from the big picture. Software from vendors too numerout to mention and hardware support that open source is still only still dreaming of.

Does MS have undocumented APIs? possibly, but the large bulk are published and it is very easy to write application that perform well and well behaved under their OS.

It is damn near an industry standard to create new standards. That is the nice things about standards, there are so many to choose from. You can cry because C# sharp stole from java, but every is quite quiet that java stole from C++ and small talk(yes, gosling was responsable for smalltalk)

open source has been lacking compatability for a long time. Open source foolishly has wrapped itself around GNU license rather than the more flexible and business friendly BSD license.



I also agree open source tends to lag behind MS on features. That is the flip side of the Marketing Department influence I mentioned before. The down side to lots of Marketing-driven features is bloated code that has more security vulnerabilities. The up side is that they have more of the features demanded by a diverse user base. Open source code tends to be written for other technical people, with less emphasis on broad appeal to the general public.



And this i wont disagree with this. Products are always a series of comprimises. I would have liked to see microsoft make a slightly bigger code branch between the desktop OS and their server OS(2k and above). But overall i would have to say, 2000 and xp seem to remain a decent comprise, even thought it is obvious that the desktop is tainting the server product.




Disclaimer: all of these comments are generalizations. While I believe they are accurate, you can find exceptions to every one of them.

You are generally correct

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't want to beat a dead horse too badly, but you know me ...

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
What was uncivil?

Your sarcastic straw man.

Finally, open source code is peer-reviewed by innumerable equally-talented and equally-passionate programmers. Microsoft & co. code is mostly written in private with limited, if any, peer review.

Sorry you earned that sarcastic remark.

I disagree. I believe my comment is accurate. First, "peer review" and "QA" do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. QA departments tend to focus on testing, not code reviews. Second, to whatever extent MS does peer reviews, a handful of eyeballs is not comparable to the hundreds or more that review popular open-source packages.

When linux is bugfree or when they obtain support the level of hardware and software that microsoft does we can problably make better comparisons. Open source software is not exploit free, nor should anyone even attempt to claim that.

Can you show me where anyone made that claim? Didn't think so.
By claiming MS is doing a horrible job, it it implies that open source is doing it better.

With all due respect, that's another straw man. I do think open source does security better -- much, much better. Ballmer's FUD not withstanding, I believe its record speaks for itself. That does NOT mean or even suggest that I claim open source is "exploit-free".

I think microsoft could do make a better effort on security, but at the same time the open source would could make a better effort on compatability and features.

A reasonable comment. I assume you're talking specifically about compatibility with Microsoft products since open source tends to be implementations of standards, either by design or my default. Microsoft compatibility is a complicated issue. Microsoft often will not divulge its APIs and formats, making compatibility a laborious exercise in reverse-engineering. Microsoft also tends to take existing standards and bastardize them just enough so others have problems with interoperability. Finally, Microsoft compatibility is a moving target. Nonetheless, I agree that better compatibility is important to increasing the acceptance of open source.

I am talking about compatability from the big picture. Software from vendors too numerout to mention and hardware support that open source is still only still dreaming of.

OK, got it. You're also talking about the fact that open source does not have support for as many different peripherals and devices and such, and that the drivers they do have are often less capable than the Windows counterparts. I agree this is generally true. It's an issue of market share and manpower. Yes, open source needs improvement here.

Does MS have undocumented APIs? possibly, but the large bulk are published and it is very easy to write application that perform well and well behaved under their OS.

It is damn near an industry standard to create new standards. That is the nice things about standards, there are so many to choose from. You can cry because C# sharp stole from java, but every is quite quiet that java stole from C++ and small talk(yes, gosling was responsable for smalltalk)

open source has been lacking compatability for a long time. Open source foolishly has wrapped itself around GNU license rather than the more flexible and business friendly BSD license.

[/b]

I also agree open source tends to lag behind MS on features. That is the flip side of the Marketing Department influence I mentioned before. The down side to lots of Marketing-driven features is bloated code that has more security vulnerabilities. The up side is that they have more of the features demanded by a diverse user base. Open source code tends to be written for other technical people, with less emphasis on broad appeal to the general public.



And this i wont disagree with this. Products are always a series of comprimises. I would have liked to see microsoft make a slightly bigger code branch between the desktop OS and their server OS(2k and above). But overall i would have to say, 2000 and xp seem to remain a decent comprise, even thought it is obvious that the desktop is tainting the server product.

Agreed. 2000 and XP are much better than their predecessors, their desktop products less commendable. From a security perspective, IE and Outlook have been awful, but even their OSs have security holes that trace their roots back as war as Windows 95.

Disclaimer: all of these comments are generalizations. While I believe they are accurate, you can find exceptions to every one of them.

You are generally correct

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I don't want to beat a dead horse too badly, but you know me ...

Speaking of beating a dead horse.....

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
What was uncivil?

Your sarcastic straw man.

Finally, open source code is peer-reviewed by innumerable equally-talented and equally-passionate programmers. Microsoft & co. code is mostly written in private with limited, if any, peer review.

Sorry you earned that sarcastic remark.

I disagree. I believe my comment is accurate. First, "peer review" and "QA" do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. QA departments tend to focus on testing, not code reviews. Second, to whatever extent MS does peer reviews, a handful of eyeballs is not comparable to the hundreds or more that review popular open-source packages.

I beleive your comment is not accurate. Microsoft has a small army that well paid and trained of designers,software engineers and tests. Peer review is required for any large project.

When linux is bugfree or when they obtain support the level of hardware and software that microsoft does we can problably make better comparisons. Open source software is not exploit free, nor should anyone even attempt to claim that.

Can you show me where anyone made that claim? Didn't think so.
By claiming MS is doing a horrible job, it it implies that open source is doing it better.

With all due respect, that's another straw man. I do think open source does security better -- much, much better. Ballmer's FUD not withstanding, I believe its record speaks for itself. That does NOT mean or even suggest that I claim open source is "exploit-free".

I think microsoft could do make a better effort on security, but at the same time the open source would could make a better effort on compatability and features.

A reasonable comment. I assume you're talking specifically about compatibility with Microsoft products since open source tends to be implementations of standards, either by design or my default. Microsoft compatibility is a complicated issue. Microsoft often will not divulge its APIs and formats, making compatibility a laborious exercise in reverse-engineering. Microsoft also tends to take existing standards and bastardize them just enough so others have problems with interoperability. Finally, Microsoft compatibility is a moving target. Nonetheless, I agree that better compatibility is important to increasing the acceptance of open source.


I am talking about compatability from the big picture. Software from vendors too numerout to mention and hardware support that open source is still only still dreaming of.

OK, got it. You're also talking about the fact that open source does not have support for as many different peripherals and devices and such, and that the drivers they do have are often less capable than the Windows counterparts. I agree this is generally true. It's an issue of market share and manpower. Yes, open source needs improvement here.
[/quote]

This has a been a problem since open source projects were started and it will remain until there is a well paid, well trained army behind development writing device drivers. But there is no glory in writing device drivers.

Does MS have undocumented APIs? possibly, but the large bulk are published and it is very easy to write application that perform well and well behaved under their OS.

It is damn near an industry standard to create new standards. That is the nice things about standards, there are so many to choose from. You can cry because C# sharp stole from java, but every is quite quiet that java stole from C++ and small talk(yes, gosling was responsable for smalltalk)

open source has been lacking compatability for a long time. Open source foolishly has wrapped itself around GNU license rather than the more flexible and business friendly BSD license.

[/b]

I also agree open source tends to lag behind MS on features. That is the flip side of the Marketing Department influence I mentioned before. The down side to lots of Marketing-driven features is bloated code that has more security vulnerabilities. The up side is that they have more of the features demanded by a diverse user base. Open source code tends to be written for other technical people, with less emphasis on broad appeal to the general public.



And this i wont disagree with this. Products are always a series of comprimises. I would have liked to see microsoft make a slightly bigger code branch between the desktop OS and their server OS(2k and above). But overall i would have to say, 2000 and xp seem to remain a decent comprise, even thought it is obvious that the desktop is tainting the server product.

Agreed. 2000 and XP are much better than their predecessors, their desktop products less commendable. From a security perspective, IE and Outlook have been awful, but even their OSs have security holes that trace their roots back as war as Windows 95.
[/quote]

I will agree outlook does have problems, but that stems mainly from the users desire to have it easy to use. MS gave people what they wanted in outlook. Now if microsoft could just train the world to not open email as admin/root.

IE has had problems, but it has been fixed in a timely manner. From a developers point of view, IE has been far more feature compliant that any other browser. Netscape is dead, because it stopped being the better brower.

IIS is complete crap and needs a complete rewrite

Winnt/2k/xp share common code base and have no relation to the win9x code base.

Disclaimer: all of these comments are generalizations. While I believe they are accurate, you can find exceptions to every one of them.

You are generally correct

It was bound to happen sooner or later. [/quote]

 

[charrison]

With all due respect, that's another straw man. I do think open source does security better -- much, much better. Ballmer's FUD not withstanding, I believe its record speaks for itself. That does NOT mean or even suggest that I claim open source is "exploit-free".

Missed these items


I somewhat agree with this, but most open source products are much less feature rich, an therefor less complex. The lower complexity means fewer bugs. Freebsd, openbsd and apache are shining examples of what open source can achieve. Freebsd and openbsd big feature is security and they do a good job of deliverying that. Apache has proven itself to be a secure server and ISS a pile of crap.
Linux has decent security, but it is becoming less secure as its code size and complexity rises.

At the end of the day, your systems are only as secure as the admin makes them. With a good admin, any system is vulerable.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: charrison

With all due respect, that's another straw man. I do think open source does security better -- much, much better. Ballmer's FUD not withstanding, I believe its record speaks for itself. That does NOT mean or even suggest that I claim open source is "exploit-free".

Missed these items


I somewhat agree with this, but most open source products are much less feature rich, an therefor less complex. The lower complexity means fewer bugs. Freebsd, openbsd and apache are shining examples of what open source can achieve. Freebsd and openbsd big feature is security and they do a good job of deliverying that. Apache has proven itself to be a secure server and ISS a pile of crap.
Linux has decent security, but it is becoming less secure as its code size and complexity rises.

At the end of the day, your systems are only as secure as the admin makes them. With a good admin, any system is vulerable.

true but it takes much more time to make a Win server secure. You have to keep up with the weekly updates ...

nobody denies that Xp en W2k are decent desktop systems. The server side is a different story.
just look at the performance and flexibility of Linux, freebsd, Openbsd.

there is plenty support available for Linux on a commercial level (Redhat, Suse, third parties all offer support contracts).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

With all due respect, that's another straw man. I do think open source does security better -- much, much better. Ballmer's FUD not withstanding, I believe its record speaks for itself. That does NOT mean or even suggest that I claim open source is "exploit-free".

Missed these items


I somewhat agree with this, but most open source products are much less feature rich, an therefor less complex. The lower complexity means fewer bugs. Freebsd, openbsd and apache are shining examples of what open source can achieve. Freebsd and openbsd big feature is security and they do a good job of deliverying that. Apache has proven itself to be a secure server and ISS a pile of crap.
Linux has decent security, but it is becoming less secure as its code size and complexity rises.

At the end of the day, your systems are only as secure as the admin makes them. With a good admin, any system is vulerable.

true but it takes much more time to make a Win server secure. You have to keep up with the weekly updates ...

nobody denies that Xp en W2k are decent desktop systems. The server side is a different story.
just look at the performance and flexibility of Linux, freebsd, Openbsd.

there is plenty support available for Linux on a commercial level (Redhat, Suse, third parties all offer support contracts).

With any OS you have work to do in keeping the system secure. Subscribing to vender mailing list and applying patches is not that big of deal. The fact support contracts are available for redhat shows that they both require work.

The main problem with windows as a server is that many people, since windows is easy to use think that anyone can maintain the system. This just leads to inexperienced people not doing a good job.