| The real question should be: Can Microsoft write an OS that does not have to be constantly patched, month after month? We know they have written such things as part of research. But still they continue to release software that is unfinished. They have trained their users that failure to update is fatal. No doubt, if they are using Windows. They also like to conflate "update" with "upgrade". They use these security problems in Windows to scare people into upgrading. Windows 10, whether they like it or not. As others have noted, by design the new versions are not safer than the old ones. Retroactively fixing reported issues does not make a new version more secure by design. They could just as easily fix the issues in the older version. Can this company get anything right the first time? Will they ever design a system that is secure? Do they have any interest in doing so? Are they incapable? There is nothing wrong with releasing something simple, secure and finished. Does MS believe Windows users are not worthy of a secure OS? I think Microsoft Research have contributed to development of L4 systems that run on baseband. Do these systems have the same vulnerabilities as Windows? Fixing problems after they occur (past problems) is admirable but other free opens source OS written by volunteers accomplish the same thing. The question is whether the design of the system is such that future problems are avoided. Does Microsoft believe Windows users deserve more security? Can Microsoft deliver it? All indications suggest the answer to both questions is no. With no viable alternatives, no one can blame Windows users for sticking with it despite red flag after red flag, but it makes no sense to defend the Microsoft approach to security for Windows users. The company has no respect for Windows users. Being responsive to a constant stream of reported vulnerabilities is an improvement from 1995 but as we can see it is not enough. Their software is still full of mistakes.
They need to prove they can make something that is secure by design and that they are willing to do so for users. (Truthfully, they probably do not need to do anything. Quotes of 80% of Windows installations being tied to purchases of hardware are probably not far off the mark. There is no selection of OS by most computer users. A majority of users still get Windows pre-installed on the computers they purchase. Microsoft could completely ignore users and it would not hurt their business, as long as they continue to maintain relationships with hardware manufacturers.) |