RPC Shutdown

[BlackCryptoKnight]

[quote author=deakie link=board=5;threadid=1532;start=120#msg17413 date=1063232893]
true....but then you get les capability and features.

also, remember that xp and 2000 is meant to be the allinone os for windows. it incorporates the flexibilty of 98 and the security of nt.
i still give microsoft plenty kudos for offering an os that is so modern and up to speed with most current technology out there.
not simply cause i use it alone but really, because in just so short a time, it has really evolved to be a very advanced system than the days of msdos.
lots of apps today owe their strength to the advances of this os.
i want it to survive and continue but not in a vein where it becomes too protected and selfish. it should have the lil bubbles and kinks.....after all, what would we get the chance to gripe about or even to fix.
your jobs would become non-existent then. ;D
[/quote]

Bwoy... I see the fun of tech fading fast for me if my every waking moment is consumed with thoughts like "That's the 100th patch M$ has released for <insert name of product(s) that everybody on your network uses> today. > >

I wouldn't mind software with a few less features, and better stability, reliability and security.
The truth is that most people only use a few of the features in most software these days - Windows included. So many people wouldn't miss much if it was scaled down. I'm sure that they would appreciate better guarantees against crap like Blaster and Sobig.F

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Also, if there were no ##$^!@@@!! > > M$ bugs to deal with, then people could actually do productive things that are easily seen to be valuable to the organization instead of wasting time trying to convince non-IT decision makers that you're actually doing work when you're patching, and troubleshooting, and re-installing etc.

Truth be told man ... those #%@# > > product bugs and flaws are some of the main reasons that techies get a bad rep, and we'd definitely be better off without them. >

[deakie]

if then you had nothing to fix and went walkin roun wid hands in pocket whistling, then maybe management start seeing you as a complete waste of space and money too.... :P

what we need is some bugs that deliver some popups that say....

please get your IT engineer to rectify this problem.
do not attempt to do it yourself. you'll mess up and then he'll be upset.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

[quote author=deakie link=board=5;threadid=1532;start=120#msg17425 date=1063234365]
if then you had nothing to fix and went walkin roun wid hands in pocket whistling, then maybe management start seeing you as a complete waste of space and money too.... :P
[/quote]

So what you're saying is that if one is not trying to fix problems caused by buggy software, that one is not useful? I disagree...

Whatever happened to being productive? Building things, automating manual processes, putting things in place to make people's lives and jobs easier - that's what tech is supposed to be about...not patching fixing.

There's plenty that techies could be doing if they were not fixing bugs.

[Xenocrates]

BCK - don't you think you're being a little one sided? Are you trying to say that other operating systems don't have bugs? In fact, is there such a thing as bug free software? I guess no matter how many times I say it, people will never understand:

Windows is popular, which is why we all know about the bugs so much and therefore, it is public target # 1. So whatever flaws it has, will be exposed long before those existing in any other software.

Currently, there is no other Operating System on the planet that offers more ease of use, practicality or support than the Windows platform. None. Windows even supports devices and / or software running on other platforms. So if we're going bash Windows for its bugs, we might as well bash women because they're difficult to understand. I mean..... what's the point? :

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Xeno, I'm not saying that Windows is the only software with bugs. I believe that generally, the software development industry needs to put more focus on quality assurance - part of which is security.

If you look at many of the custom developed software that companies undertake, you'll find that quality control is very lax, or non-existent in the development process for many places.

The competitive environment for commercial software makes developers put out code on the market without adequately ensuring that it is bug free.

The result is that we have many software on the market and in production that have serious bugs, which could have been more effectively dealt with up front before release, than after the fact.

It's just not a good situation to be in. M$ is guilty of it, as are many other software vendors.

M$ just annoys the heck out of most people, just because Windows has become so pervasive.

One could have the argument that for such a fundamental aspect of modern computing, M$ should really ensure that it is rock solid and bug free. The bugs that have been popping up are just unacceptable.

[Xenocrates]

Fair enough. But let's be reasonable. I'm going to assume that you've studied software engineering at some point. There are design methodologies that are used to build software today that significantly reduce the presence of bugs. But the truth of the matter is, no matter how hard you try, because of our imperfection, software will never be truly perfect. We can reduce the probability of the presence of bugs, but we may never truly eliminate them.

Microsoft uses the Rapid Application Development methodology in which the cocept of OOP is applied where many software components are reused to build even more complex ones. The truth is, that the design of the software package is flawless. However, if there was a loophole in one of those software components from how long ago, it may never become exposed until someone tries a new way to break what was originally thought to be impregnable.

My point is BCK, is that no matter how perfect the design of a software package is (which MS spends billions of dollars to ensure by using massive thousand people strong test centres), there will always be SOMEONE out there that is very creative and VERY smart that will be constantly trying to break the system - exposing new flaws that no one had the precognition to see before.... hence the need for patches.

[Xenocrates]

Average users don't find bugs in systems as complex as these. It's the really smart, really progressive thinkers that do. Usually when they have done so, they write an exploit for it. These guys usually number in the 1 per 1 hundred thousand people. Gifted individuals with accelerated cognitive abilities.

What Microsoft should do is follow suit and do like what IBM does. Whenever IBM discovers that a hacker has found a way into their system, they find the kid, and hire him. He then becomes their software tester. IBM currently has hundreds of what are known as ethical hackers. These are kids with abnormally high IQs that can break almost ANYTHING. With them on their staff, IBM is less likely to be requiring that people download patches to their programs.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

We're on the same page basically Xeno. Nobody is perfect, no software is perfect. But there's definite room for improvement in the Quality Assurance area for many developers.

We can't get rid of all bugs, but at least if M$ did as you suggested, the really serious ones could have been stomped out before the products made it to market.

From a security perspective, there's definitely a tradeoff between the level of security you want, and the level of functionality. As I mentioned in a previous post...another possible strategy could be to reduce the code bloat inherent in many of todays applications and cut down on the amount of features they try to pack into software. Yeah it sounds radical, but think about it... how many people use most of the features in software today? I'm not saying cripple software, but at least package the different functionalities differently. Don't take the 1 tool does 50 million things approach...because it opens of the probability of many bugz.

It's all about managing risk - determining how much risk is acceptable.
I think that consumers haven't been given the full picture for a long time, and software companies have been making such decisions for us - and ignoring much of the risks.

[Xenocrates]

I will tax M$ for one thing though BCK...

...their default configurations. Anyone who has ever used previous versions of IIS will tell you that if you don't go into that program and do some SERIOUS configuration changes, installing IIS is the same thing as installing a gateway to your machine for the whole world.

Similarly, the Windows Messaging service is enabled by default - but for a very good reason. What M$ should have done is that if the PC is not networked, in otherwords, if it is a standalone machine, that the Messaging Service is disabled by default. For standalone machines have no need for the Messaging Service. It is what is manipulated to bring pop up messages from portscanning spammers.

Again, the host of TCP ports that M$ makes open in Windows by default is just asking for trouble. It's almost as if they have a bargain with ZoneLabs (creator of ZoneAlarm) to leave all of these doors open in Windows so that some third party software has to come in and lock all of them for you.

In short, the only problem that I can truly blame M$ for is leaving so many feature based doors open in their software that literally invite attack without the need for hacking. THAT I will knock them for. That is just plain stupid if you ask me. >

Isn't it odd that ZoneLabs and many other third party software developers seem to thrive on M$ bloopers? Life is not without a sense of irony, it seems. :