codepath wrote:

"Morris Dovey" dribbled...

The reason that so many issues are discovered with Windows is
that it has a larger footprint. It's a more juicy target for
the fools that create viruses. Tons of Linux bugs and security
issues are disovered all the time, but they just don't make
the news. Doesn't mean that they are not there.

Yuppers. Part of the problem /is/ code bloat. In six years I
managed to find exactly one bug (I *discovered* it back in Red
Hat Linux 4.2) and reported it /to the author/, who produced a
corrected version of the module and made it available to the
world in less than twenty minutes.

I'm still waiting for Microsoft's promised RTC fix for COBOL-80.
Actually, I'm not really still waiting - I've decided that the
guy who made the promise had a chronic integrity impairment. Care
to guess who it was? [Hint: I already know that everyone reading
this newsgroup knows his name.]

Anyone who thinks that bugs and security vulnerabilities are
consiously and deliberately release is a fool. Microsoft is
very pro-active to correct issues once discovered.

Microsoft has a well-earned reputation for letting their
customers find the bugs for them. By the time MS-DOS 3.2 came
out, I was already bored to tears with the lame excuses. You must
not have been around for Windows 3.x, which would not and could
not have been released by any software firm making even a pretext
of caring about quality. If you're able to stir up a little
pro-activity on my still extant COBOL-80 compiler problem, it'd
be appreciated.

All software has bugs. Period. Bug-free software is as much of
a reality as unicorns, hobbits, and Iraqi WMDs.

A comforting mantra, no doubt, to producers of buggy software. To
at least some others (like myself) it's a lame excuse for doing a
sloppy job. Every bug represents a real world failure to
produce a full-quality product. We all fail sometimes. Microsoft
would seem to Excel at it.

Don't get me wrong. I know that Windows has issues. I agree
that some of Microsoft's business practices are lame.

Issues? I call 'em "bugs". Lame? Interesting choice of words -
not one of the ones I'd have chosen to describe their business
practices.

But, down here in the trenches, we developers really do try to
create the best software possible. No developer here would
knowingly release defective code. Period.

I can appreciate that MS developers down there in the trenches
really do try to create the best software they can; and that they
would never knowingly release defective code. I just wish they
were more capable, more knowledgeable, did more complete
pre-release testing, and devoted more effort to functionally
critical areas and less to screwing around with "easter eggs" and
dancing paper clips.

Sounds like you are one of those Microsoft-haters. You would
hate MS no matter what we did. What a cliché! You get all loud
screaming "Microsoft sucks" while running Windows. What a
hypocrite! Say one thing, do another.

I'm not a true "Microsoft hater" yet - I seem to have gotten
stuck in the "disgusted" stage. If it offends you that my Linux
box lives in my shop (where I really need the reliability) and
that I post from SWMBO's windows box at home - well, I have to
admit that it offends me too. (-:

I'm not a Microsoft hater - I'm a /bug/ hater; and I tend to have
a low regard for companies who sell defective products and/or
don't make good on their committments. YMMV.

Must be a Republican.

Not worthy of an answer.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA