[Kamikaze]

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/10/200232.shtml?tid=109&tid=126&tid=172&tid=187

Another RPC vulnerability and patch, about as dangerous as the hole that enabled MSBlaster, I suggest you patch immediately.

I hope sysadmins get intelligent this time around.

[ZylonBane]

Ha! Windows 98 right back at ya!

[IceFire]

I hope this teaches someone at Microsoft a lesson.  These massive attacks are bound to be costing them some customers.  I hate Macs and I haven't used Linux yet but the industry needs to stop relying on Microsoft alone...not having all our eggs in one basket?

[Alikchi]

Originally posted by IceFire
...not having all our eggs in one basket?

I'd have to agree with this. As long as there is at least some degree of inter-OS compatibility. I don't want to have to have 3 different operating systems installed to do what I want.

[Galemp]

Alikchi. Dude. IM me. Or PM me. Or Email me. Or something. We have to cach up.

Anyway... it's not easy being the manufacturer of the world's largest operating system. People will always find loopholes and exploit them.

[Stealth]

and obviously each operating system has its points

Microsoft = compatibility
MAC = performance
Linux = stability
Unix = unknown (to the majority of consumers)

More and more companies are switching to Linux based systems (particularly servers)... but i still think Microsoft is always going to be #1 because it's made an awesome name for itself (despite the occasional fall ) and it's one of the easiest to use.

[CP5670]

It seems that one hears about quite a few of these security flaws nowadays. I (and probably most other people here) use Windows pretty much solely for its compatibility; whatever its flaws, at the moment it simply has no rival for the number of programs that run on it, especially games.

At least we 98 users do not have to worry about quite as many of these bugs.

[Kamikaze]

Actually MS is not very compatible. MS is only *PARTLY* compatible with itself (i.e. win98 software MIGHT work on XP). Linux can run many windows aps and linux software is far more version-flexible. FreeBSD can run aps for linux, unix, and might have wine for windows aps.

I also doubt Mac has particularly outstanding performance, but I can't give any real evidence as I haven't used a mac for a while.

I also want to point out the "used more so less secure" is a common misconception. Windows was never coded to be very secure. OpenBSD, however, was and it shows.
A real secure OS does not embed a browser deep into the system, and that's just a single example. I also believe linux/BSD being open source makes them less prone to exploitation.

IceFire: Smart companies never use a windows backend, at least, not pure windows. I believe *nix systems still holds its places as the most used server OSs. A different matter for end users though.

[CP5670]

I mean games in particular, and all the modding programs used for games. For example I don't think the windows version of FS2 (not the linux porting efforts) works with anything other than windows.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
Actually MS is not very compatible. MS is only *PARTLY* compatible with itself (i.e. win98 software MIGHT work on XP). Linux can run many windows aps and linux software is far more version-flexible. FreeBSD can run aps for linux, unix, and might have wine for windows aps.

I also doubt Mac has particularly outstanding performance, but I can't give any real evidence as I haven't used a mac for a while.

1)  most of the programs the regular user wants to use (internet, word processing, email, etc.) Windows is their best bet... therefore windows is the most popular

2) Macs are known for being the best at graphic and video processing and editing, etc.

[Kosh]

MAC does not equal performance in most real world apps....

[Nico]

what is the patch we're supposed to get, they don't give a direct link

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by ZylonBane
Ha! Windows 98 right back at ya!

I'd rather run XP and have to take frequent trips to Windows Update than run that POS...

[Sandwich]

I've actually had this patch downloaded and awaiting my go-ahead to install for a few days now.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
Actually MS is not very compatible. MS is only *PARTLY* compatible with itself (i.e. win98 software MIGHT work on XP).

Of course that situation is Microsoft's own stupid fault. By the time they released Windows 98, just about everyone who was going to upgrade to Windows 95 had done so already (and the backward ****s who didn't could safely be ignored) and virtually every major software package had been updated to support the Windows 95 version of the Win32 APIs. They should have killed Win9x of then, there was absolutely no logical reason to continue the line. In doing so, they caused the Win9x and WinNT versions of the APIs to diverge to the point where neither were fully compatible with each other. Had they put the effort into making a "Personal" version of Windows NT then, the problem wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is. Thankfully though, Microsoft are at least trying to make an effort to clean this mess up, support for Windows 98 (Windows 95 and NT4 have already fallen off the radar) has been slowed and will basically cease come June next year. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Liberator]

I don't mean to defend MS but I like Windows 98.  Granted it's got it's problems but I have never had that big a problem with it.  The big mistake on MS's part was Windows ME.  That was just a marketing exec last gasp to make some money off the code base.

Before you start spouting about how good XP is remember that Billsoft has as it's foundation a belief that the software that you buy is not yours, that they are only loaning you a copy.  The day is coming that you will no longer be able to control what software is on your system.

[Woolie Wool]

I will continue to run Win98, even if I have to use two computers. Bill Gates cannot tell me what I can and can't run on my system.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
More and more companies are switching to Linux based systems (particularly servers)... but i still think Microsoft is always going to be #1 because it's made an awesome name for itself (despite the occasional fall ) and it's one of the easiest to use.

While we are on the subject can anyone tell my why Linux became so popular instead of one of the BSD's or another flavour of UNIX? I've been scratching my head over that one for ages.

[Woolie Wool]

I put this on Slashdot:

Microsoft programmer #1: Let's program the netcode so that Windows Update can take over your computer and install the updates automatically. After all, our target audience is too stupid to know how to install them themselves.
MS Programmer #2: What are you, crazy? Your feature would fill Windows with security holes. Hackers would have a carte blanche to do horrible things to people's computers!
MS Programmer #1: C'mon! Do you think a hacker would really bother finding these holes just to take over someone's computer? Besides, if a hole pops up, we can patch it.
MS Programmer #2: $500 says that hackers will find these holes and exploit them. And for each hole, MS customers will get more and more pissed off and will stop using Windows!
MS Programmer #1: Mr. Gates has everything under control. He can manipulate software and hardware companies so that users will have no choice but to use Microsoft products.
MS Programmer #2: *groan*

[Liberator]

*roflol*

Sad but probably true.