Security Hole Striptease

Security Focus ^ | May 27, 2002 | Tim Mullen

[Dominic Harr]

Microsoft needs developers who can consistently provide services without trashing Microsoft.

And there in lies your biggest problem -- all good developers will be very critical of software with flaws. And MS has a lot of software with a lot of flaws.

So in your mind, MS needs 'yes men' salesmen like you and B2k, not 'critical' software developers.

It'll be interesting to see how far such a strategy will go.

I'm about bored with your sales pitch, so unless you've got something new to add . . .

[Dominic Harr]

The Java Community Process doesn't own Java, Harr.

What you don't understand is a lot.

And since I know you've been explained the truth about the JCP by several people, your lack of understanding is clearly cultivated.

Oh well, you know what they say: "It ain't done til Lotus won't run".

Aren't you proud of your Brittney?

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Brittney"

I'll take the young new thing over your old hag, any day.

[Bush2000]

And since I know you've been explained the truth about the JCP by several people, your lack of understanding is clearly cultivated. Oh well, you know what they say: "It ain't done til Lotus won't run". Aren't you proud of your Brittney?

This post of yours is a perfect example of a typical non-responsive Harr post. It is a well-known fact that Sun owns Java and controls all rights to its destiny. You know this to be the case and you're soft-shoeing around the issue of ownership because you don't like what it implies: that some other company could easily hijack Java if Sun fails through the means I've outlined. The only thing that JCP gives you is an organization to promote compatibility and APIs; it doesn't own Java. If it did, the organization would clearly submit Java to ISO or ECMA. But Sun is blocking that move by virtue of its ownership interest.

As for the "It ain't done 'til Lotus won't run" comment, I'm still waiting for proof from a reliable source. Without proof, it's yet another one of your many lies. And it should be obvious to people still reading this thread.

[Bush2000]

And there in lies your biggest problem -- all good developers will be very critical of software with flaws. And MS has a lot of software with a lot of flaws.

A. You focus your angst almost exclusively on MS software despite the fact that other vendors are equally plagued with bugs.
B. Nobody ever said you were a good developer.

[Dominic Harr]

It is a well-known fact that Sun owns Java and controls all rights to its destiny.

I and about a dozen others have tried explaining this to you, and you still refuse to admit the truth, so I'll leave you to your denials.

And I've criticized Sun, Apple, Oracle, HP, and MS loudly and regularly here on FR.

You know, ironically, that 'never criticize MS' attitude that is likely the single biggest cause of MS's quality problems. A good developer is, by definition, required to see and admit flaws in their products. That is the only way to *fix* flaws. So by selecting it's employees based on their 'yes-man' attitude, MS is stuck with a bunch of developers who can't admit bad things about MS or MS's products. This means they can't fix what they don't admit exists.

Hence, MS software has about ten times the bug rate of other companies. MS even has more bugs that Oracle, which is saying something.

Oh, yeah -- you don't admit to any of this. You don't see any MS quality problems. You believe that all this talk about MS quality problems is just "anti-MS hate speach" by "ABM Bigots". You believe there is a "vast conspiracy" out to get MS, and that MS is the "innocent victim" in all this.

In spite of Mr. Gate's directive to stop being blind to internal quality and security problems, you're still locked into pure denial mode.

And, "It ain't done til Lotus won't run"!

[Bush2000]

I and about a dozen others have tried explaining this to you, and you still refuse to admit the truth, so I'll leave you to your denials.

Another lie. You simply avoid talking about the subject, just like now.

And I've criticized Sun, Apple, Oracle, HP, and MS loudly and regularly here on FR.

Those of us who know how you operate are aware that you spend 98% of your time blasting MS. Your limp-wristed criticisms of other vendors are weak cover for your agenda against MS.

MS is stuck with a bunch of developers who can't admit bad things about MS or MS's products. This means they can't fix what they don't admit exists.

Rubbish. MS recently shut down development on Windows and IIS for several months of security changes.

Hence, MS software has about ten times the bug rate of other companies. MS even has more bugs that Oracle, which is saying something.

References, please. Back it up with facts or admit your lie.

Oh, yeah -- you don't admit to any of this. You don't see any MS quality problems.Reread #35, troll. I admit it when I see that MS has security issues. In this case, IIS. Don't you ever get tired of lying?

You believe that all this talk about MS quality problems is just "anti-MS hate speach" by "ABM Bigots". You believe there is a "vast conspiracy" out to get MS, and that MS is the "innocent victim" in all this.

No, Harr, I don't see a "vast conspiracy". What I see are a small number of misguided folks like yourself who want to demagogue the issue of security in order to promote their own agenda: tearing down MS and replacing it with their sacred cows (Java, Linux, Mac, take your pick, whatever); folks who want to ignore the fact that every platform has serious security problems.

And, "It ain't done til Lotus won't run"!

You can repeat that lie as often as you like, Harr, and it won't make it true. Either prove your statement or retract it.

[Dominic Harr]

What I see are a small number of misguided folks like yourself

A "small number"?

Remember recently, at the Security convention, when the crowd laughed at the mention of MS's "Trustworthy Computing" intiative?

So you think only a "small number of misguided folks" consider MS's quality to be poor. Funny! You're the one in the minority, a small 'clique' of MS-funded yes-men who can't admit unpleasant truths about their corporate masters. Interestingly enough, it's the same small 'fringe'

I don't think you believe this drivel. I think you're just making this up, in a pathetic attempt to sell MS. No one could be that delusional.

Then again . . .

[Dominic Harr]

For over 30 posts it's been down to me and two MS salesmen who can't say anything that isn't on the approved script they got from the sales dept.

This thread is dead, and I'm out.

[PatrioticAmerican]

You are not out. You are running scared. You tell lies without and claim other do. You HATE Microsoft and that is all your presence here is about.

[Bush2000]

Remember recently, at the Security convention, when the crowd laughed at the mention of MS's "Trustworthy Computing" intiative?

I seem to recall this same crowd laughing about OS stability, as well. They're no longer laughing.

[Bush2000]

This thread is dead, and I'm out.

I've given you ample opportunity to backup your claims about "It ain't done", bug count comparisons to Oracle, etc -- and you've consistently avoided providing evidence. Therefore, I have to conclude that you are a lying sack of sh*t.

[steve-b]

Ah, another Bush-Dominic rumble:

[Dominic Harr]

:-)

[steve-b]

Thanks -- it occurs to me that I ought to ping Bush2000 after having taken his name in frivolity.