__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Thursday 21 September 2006 15:21 \__
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eers6a$3kl$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1593857.DAdyh3QZD8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> Peter's point w.r.t. DRM was an excellent illustration of how
>>>> self-serving and vain Microsoft has become. Why? Because it can. It's
>>>> about what /Microsoft/ can gain, rather than the customer, let alone
>>>> other residents on
>>>> the Web who are not Microsoft customer.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I'm not sure I understood Peter's point about DRM
>>> (seemed
>>> to be non-sequitur at the time). Is he basically saying "If Microsoft can
>>> add DRM to XP, they can add anything to XP"?
>>>
>>> - Oliver
>>
>> No. I am saying they had plenty of time to add a (not-wanted) DRM module
>> (and even make it an "important" update) while at the same time unpatched
>> (and *still* unpatched) holes *with* exploits are known
>>
>> These nimwits have time for such sillyness, instead of making XP better
>
> Okay, thanks for the clarification. I don't see how this is relevant to
> the "Vista is not a service pack" discussion though.
I still abide by my belief that touting security as a 'feature' in Vista is
plain wrong. If the previous product is broken, it must be fixed. Urging the
customer to but newer products (with the hardware 'side effect') is
unacceptable. Some of the features in Vista should have been provided in the
form of a Service Pack to XP. Back in 2005, Microsoft promised it would
deliver SP3 for XP. Ironically, they did so with a rename and a price tag.
Best wishes,
Roy
PS - Vista will /still/ not be secure. The 'code spaghetti' makes this
inevitable.
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Previous signature has been conceded
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 474660k used, 39820k free, 10232k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
