Yet Another Good Reason To Dump M$

“We are aware that some of our customers may be experiencing difficulties after applying security update 2823324, which we provided in security bulletin MS13-036 on Tuesday, April 9. We’ve determined that the update, when paired with certain third-party software, can cause system errors. As a precaution, we stopped pushing 2823324 as an update when we began investigating the error reports, and have since removed it from the download centre.”
see Windows 7 'security' patch knocks out PCs, knackers antivirus tools

You bet. They are having difficulties like being unable to boot their PCs. The folks who used to scream here that GNU/Linux was for amateurs and cannot be accepted by businesses really should consider what a debacle like this could do to folks’ confidence in M$’s OS. If you patched thousands of PCs Tuesday and they would not survive reboot because of what M$ did, how would you feel? It’s bad enough with malware running rampant on PCs with that other OS but when the OS itself is the malware, customers get the hint.

I recommend Debian GNU/Linux. It’s put together with loving care by a group dedicated to making computers run smoothly with discipline and integrity. They have simple but effective policies which prevent one package from interfering with the files of another. So simple. Just decline the EULA and install GNU/Linux or better, buy PCs with no OS or GNU/Linux installed. Your OEM can take care of that.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Yet Another Good Reason To Dump M$

  1. Nelson says:

    the problems was caused by a Bank third part “Security” software used by majority of banks on Brazil that behave more like a Bloatware sometimes consuming 100% CPU times and is very difficult to remove, some small companies suffered monetary lost because of this problem, so Microsoft should have tested it better.

  2. George Wilson wrote, “The truth is that the Debian bug tracker ultimately only tracks bug which have been deemed worthy to be fixed. And which bugs are deemed worthy is not something that is decided by the users.”

    That’s false. Debian BTS is a robot. Bugs are filed by users and Debian developers. Bugs are fixed by whoever has the best idea.

  3. oiaohm says:

    George Wilson
    –Suppose there’s a real bug which is considered unimportant by a distribution (ever checked how many bugs are marked as “won’t fix” in popular distributions’ bug trackers?). What does the user do? What can he get for the RIGHT to fix his own operating system? A free lunch somewhere?–

    First thing Microsoft and Apple also declares bugs Won’t fix. Risk of using any operating system that developers will decide won’t fix. So just because a bug is important to you does not mean it will be fixed by other people.

    There are a few options in case of Distribution tagging something won’t fix.

    –What can he get for the RIGHT to fix his own operating system?–
    This is the right to group with like minded and employ a developer to fix. This has happened with projects like blender. Yes an option to open by modern day methods a kick-starter project to fix it.

    This is not an option with Microsoft and closed source operating systems.

    George Wilson the right to free speech does not appear to buy you much either. At least with a right to free speech you can get a group together to deal with the problem. Same apply to the right to fix your own system. You have the right to fix your own system this also comes with the added bonus of being able to directly employ who ever you like to fix it.

    bw
    –If the operating system is broken it has to be fixed by someone who knows how and that is neither you nor me. —
    I will spend money to get access to someone who knows how to fix it at times.

    There is no free lunch this is correct.

    The missing right means you don’t have the means to send cash after the problem.

    bw If the operating system is broken and you cannot fix it security flaws by some means. Some means is yourself or paying someone or begging someone. You can be forced to stop using that OS and migrate to another OS very quickly.

    The right to repair missing causes lot more disturbances.

    Cost of having a bug repaired can be less than the downtime of migration. Yes the right can pay for itself in saved costs.

  4. bw wrote, “If the operating system is broken”

    GNU/Linux is modular. You can’t say the OS is broken if a package for some application has a bug or if a package for some tiny component has a bug. Broken is the wrong term. An installation can be broken, say, if it won’t boot, but that is almost always a problem with the bootloader or the kernel and very rare. A person could go their whole life and never see that. I have installed and used many systems and I have never seen that.

    A much more common problem is that a package will be missing or not upgraded properly. Those things are easily rememdied by a user of GNU/Linux by the same means that software is routinely installed something any user can do if they have root access.

  5. George Wilson says:

    It’s not your job to fix the operating system George, it’s your _RIGHT_.

    BULLSHIT.

    Yes, I do indeed have the right to fix my operating system with Linux, even if that would, for example, mean modifying the code of a critical low-level component.

    But most people are perfectly unable to do that.

    Your RIGHT buys them nothing at all.

    And, out of sheer curiosity, whose job is it then to fix the operating system if it’s not the user’s job? Suppose there’s a real bug which is considered unimportant by a distribution (ever checked how many bugs are marked as “won’t fix” in popular distributions’ bug trackers?). What does the user do? What can he get for the RIGHT to fix his own operating system? A free lunch somewhere?

    You have swallowed too much of the Stallman cool-aid.

  6. bw says:

    “It’s not your job to fix the operating system George, it’s your _RIGHT_.”

    Such false bravado! If the operating system is broken it has to be fixed by someone who knows how and that is neither you nor me. Or Pogson or Wilson or anyone else posting on this forum.

    What is most important is that there is someone available to fix it. If the broken product has some commercial activity, there is a financial motivation to fix the problem lest customers go elsewhere. If it is only a matter of pride to some hobbyist, there still may be enough motivation to get something resolved, but time is no longer of the essence. If you are in business, that is not a very comforting thought.

  7. kozmcrae says:

    George Wilson wants to know regarding Linux: “why should it be your job to fix it?”

    Because George there is never a problem until one arises for the first time. When that problem does arise do you want to be the licensee of an OS that does not allow you to touch it or look into its inner workings in any way? Or, do you want to be the owner of an OS that lays itself wide open to you and allows itself to be tweaked and adjusted by you?

    It’s not your job to fix the operating system George, it’s your _RIGHT_.

  8. oiaohm says:

    George Wilson
    –If a distribution issues a broken package (yes, it can happen, it has happened), why should it be your job to fix it?–
    Lets cover some simple facts here. You want to know why its your job to fix it or pay someone to fix it or change distributions to one that is not borked.

    1) It is your machine. So you are responsible for the harm it causes.

    Windows Administrators are required to remove known defective patches and roll back to older versions are they not George Wilson that work. This is a requirement of Windows. You are kinda saying that Linux users don’t have a requirement to use the Distribution package managers version lock feature to avoid known dud updates.

    Sorry George Wilson you cannot have Windows users required todo one thing then Linux users not required to.

    All common distribution package management has means to force version.

    George Wilson the reality of the brass tacks every computer you run your are responsible for. Does not matter if it OS X, Windows or Linux.

    If you come aware of a issue in OS X, Windows or Linux where you should disable a feature for security you should disable feature.

    George Wilson fixing your machine does not always mean fixing upstream. Downstream patches avoiding particular versions are valid.

    George Wilson Linux you do have the option of fixing a broken package with a new version. Just because you have an option does not mean you have to use that one.

  9. George Wilson says:

    Fixing problems in Linux is a whole different animal than it is with Windows for one simple reason: Linux hides nothing from you, everything is out in the open.

    That’s exactly what I’m talking about. It’s a double standard. If a distribution issues a broken package (yes, it can happen, it has happened), why should it be your job to fix it? You make it sound as if it becomes a necessity that you fix it because Linux is “open”. What kind of reasoning is that? Just recently Pogson wrote that installing Linux is beyond normal people (his words, not mine). So how are they supposed to fix such things?

  10. oiaohm says:

    George Wilson lot of things have been changing in the Debian since the time of the openssl issue.

    Lot of people were blamed. Debian policies where altered.

    This is the problem George we can see debian learning from its mistakes.

    After 2008 you see items like http://piuparts.debian.org/ taken serous-ally by debian.

    George Wilson yes distributions get named and shamed about defective packages.

    George Wilson the ssl example. I am sorry to say that Microsoft has stuffed there ssl implementation up many times as well. Strangely enough most Windows users don’t notice until after MS patches them.

    Debian issue was found very quickly.

    –And which bugs are deemed worthy is not something that is decided by the users.–
    It is partly decided by users because uses can reopen bugs under Linux. Under windows you cannot if MS decides it not worthy end of story.

    In fact there is more than 1 SSL library on Linux and for most cases it was possible to disable openssl and use the alternative.

    OpenSSL and GnuTLS. Both basically does the same job.

    –You fix the problem (if you can).–
    There is a reason why with Linux there is duplication. We admit errors will happen. Duplication makes it simpler to work around a lot of errors.

    George Wilson this is the problem you OpenSSL issue more of a storm in a tea cup. Yes it was annoying. Yes it has been fixed. Not every Linux user was effected. Not every user of Linux uses Openssl. Same reason why some parties are not effected by particular updates to Windows being dud.

  11. kozmcrae says:

    George Wilson wrote:

    “That’s hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance right there.”

    Fixing problems in Linux is a whole different animal than it is with Windows for one simple reason: Linux hides nothing from you, everything is out in the open. You have access to everything. That is not true with Windows. Microsoft controls what you have access to and how you access it.

    Your system should not be keeping any secrets from you. That’s baseline normal. You don’t get that from Microsoft’s Windows.

  12. George Wilson wrote, “Pogson, I’m sure of it, encountered bugs in Linux which came part of some package update. But do you blame the distribution (Pogson was even incapable of blaming Debian for the OpenSSL debacle)? No. You fix the problem (if you can). And then you tell everyone how easy it was to fix.”

    That’s very unlikely but if it did happen there’s one thing certain. Such a problem can always be fixed in Debian GNU/Linux because it’s FLOSS. The licence permits anyone to fix any problem unlike that other OS.

  13. George Wilson says:

    The “discussion” (I have to put the word in quotation marks, as you people are unable to have a discussion) is about:

    1. A bug in a patch affecting a minority of Microsoft customers.

    2. Microsoft pulling said patch due to being on the the side of caution.

    Now, you can paint this as Microsoft’s defeat all you want, Mr. Koz. But it is not. And deep down in your heart you know it. Evangelists like you and Pogson, I’m sure of it, encountered bugs in Linux which came part of some package update. But do you blame the distribution (Pogson was even incapable of blaming Debian for the OpenSSL debacle)? No. You fix the problem (if you can). And then you tell everyone how easy it was to fix.

    That’s hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance right there.

  14. kozmcrae says:

    George Wilson wrote:

    “I scour enough FLOSS forums and bug trackers to know that in FLOSS nobody gives a shit about problems affecting a minority of users.”

    Hee, hee. Looks like I hit a sore spot. George gets all bent out of shape. Yes George, the people who got hammered by Microsoft’s spaghetti code are supposed to feel all warm and cozy by your proclamation: “I installed the update. No problems at all.”

    Let me remind you George, right now the discussion is not about FLOSS. It’s about a Microsoft update that is hosing a bunch of systems out there. Of course you would rather steer the discussion anywhere else. No. People are suffering once again at the hands of Microsoft and you are advocating that they put their trust in Microsoft even more. What does that make you George? Someone whose advice should be avoided.

  15. George Wilson says:

    This is the Microsoft apologist’s answer …

    No, this the answer by someone who installed said update and had no problems.

    You know how the internet works, do you not, kozmcrae? When among 1000 Windows users 1 writes that the update “damaged” his computer, that’s enough to blow it out of proportion, even when the 999 other users had no problems at all.

    And now to this, venerable kozmcrae: I scour enough FLOSS forums and bug trackers to know that in FLOSS nobody gives a shit about problems affecting a minority of users. The usual answer to requests to fix such bugs is some variant of: “Do it yourself!”

    Pogson can wax poetic about Debian’s bug count all he wants. The truth is that the Debian bug tracker ultimately only tracks bug which have been deemed worthy to be fixed. And which bugs are deemed worthy is not something that is decided by the users.

  16. kozmcrae says:

    George Wilson wrote:

    “I installed the update. No problems at all.”

    This is the Microsoft apologist’s answer to the people and companies who lost big time doing just what they were supposed to do with their Microsoft software. Good one George. I’m sure they feel a lot better knowing that you were not harmed in any way by using Microsoft.

  17. Mats Hagglund says:

    One some reasons to avoid using Windows and Bing:

    “An 18-month study has concluded that searches on Bing are five times more likely to link users to malicious websites than searches through Google. The study, conducted by German independent testing firm AV-Test, noted that although strides have been made to curb malware-infested websites, they still manage to appear among the top search results for a given query. ”

    http://www.techspot.com/news/52222-study-says-bing-is-five-times-more-likely-to-find-malware-than-google.html

    Search results of Bing and Google:

    search “Linux Mint”

    Bing: 147 000 results
    Google: 31,600,000 results

    (at least here in Finland) and using Firefox

    …mean while in America…

    “Is Bing biased against Ubuntu? ”

    ………..Google results…… Bing results
    Linux Mint:….7,240,000……..2,830,000
    Arch Linux:….4,940,000……..1,310,000
    FreeBSD:…….32,200,000…….8,190,000
    Ubuntu Linux:..10,700,000………566,000

    http://distrorank.com/

  18. oiaohm says:

    George Wilson sorry this issue with defective SSL Microsoft has done as well.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/103892/article.html

    Again throwing stones from a glass house.

    Both Microsoft and Debian made the same kind of over optimisation mistake. George Wilson

    So Microsoft is total bonkers by your logic and I agree.

  19. George Wilson says:

    I installed the update. No problems at all.

    There’s a difference between a company like Microsoft who will pull an update because it could cause harm to a minority of customers and, say, a non-company like Debian who will let loose insecure OpenSSL packages and what not because their QA process is totally bonkers.

  20. Aieee a Ballhogg says:

    M$ updates breaking systems is a common problem from way back. It seems things have not gotten better over time. Some of them have even broken more than they fixed. On top of that is the difficulty of doing the update, good or bad, in the first place. GNU/Linux has had M$ beat on that account since APT was first introduced. And it still maintains its lead. For the RPM distros things have gotten better starting with YUM.

  21. dougman says:

    I’ve determined that the update, when paired with certain third-party *MALWARE* software, can cause system errors.

Leave a Reply