|Home » Security
Back and forth but nothing changes and nothing ever will and you know it.
Have you ever wondered why the few remaining pro-Windows sites invariably have pictures of their reporters with the - discounting gender - most fake, plastered on, shit-eating grins?
And if you go down to your Dick's to check out their collection of clue bats - have you ever seen one crafted from rubber? Or styrofoam? Or papier mâché? Hardly. Getting whacked over the skull - even if it's the empty skull of a pro-Microsoft reporter - hurts.
So why do they keep doing this? When the F are they just going to give up and stop spewing nonsense?
Case in Point
Today's case in point: Microsoft to tweak Windows 7 settings by Ian (Ina) Fried. This is published at CNET and they're notorious for hating everything 'non-Microsoft' - but still and all: the above article raises the bar on stupidity significantly.
After getting lots of feedback that Windows Vista too often prompted users to approve changes, Microsoft had decided in Windows 7 to prompt users less frequently, writes Ina (Ian) Fried.
OK. But hold on a minute: wasn't the whole point with these incessant nags that they're needed to protect Windows users?
However in recent days some enthusiasts and security experts warned the specific changes Microsoft planned to make with Windows 7 could put users at risk.
Yer kidding!!1! No! Could it be true!
Let's stop right there and try to recapitulate and summarise.
- From a security POV Windows is acknowledged to be crap.
- Windows is endemically flawed as it's not a real operating system.
- There are no ways to protect Windows users as the system can't protect itself.
- Therefore you institute a new policy: 'scramble' and try to divine all possible circumstances where the system is going to be fucked because it can't protect itself - and you alert the user beforehand of a potential theoretical danger or after the fact when you discover the system's just been fucked over again.
- This 'feature' has Windows users in an uproar because suddenly almost everything they do comes with a 'cancel/allow' alert panel.
- Needless to say this feature isn't widely popular. Yet strangely few Windows users understand the implications either. They simply don't understand this is the only way Windows has to fight back. Perhaps they haven't been hit by the clue bat often enough or perhaps the clue bats were made out of rubber, styrofoam, or papier mâché after all.
- Because the feature is widely unpopular Microsoft revert to the earlier policy of just letting all the bad shit in.
Don't we just love when a plan comes together?
Microsoft initially downplayed the risks and defended its choices around the User Account Control feature.
In other words: Microsoft tacitly claim the decision to put all this nonsense in the previous version of Windows was incorrect - and that users essentially have been well protected all along.
You're going to need a big pitcher of Kool-Aid™ to wash that down. But the best is yet to come.
Microsoft won't change the default setting (which is to notify users only when a program is making changes to their system) but will add an exception when changes are being made to the UAC itself. Starting with the upcoming 'release candidate' changes to the UAC settings will require user approval, senior vice presidents Jon DeVaan and Steven Sinofsky said in a blog posting.
That's a bottomless pit. Let's go digging in the pit.
- This alert panel 'feature' - referred to as 'UAC' - can be turned off by malware. This shouldn't be surprising to any student of Microsoft Windows as there is nothing in the system that can really be protected - it's just a never-ending game of 'hide and seek' where the black hats always win. But at least now it's out in the open.
- This alert panel 'feature' - referred to as 'UAC' - can't stop the bad stuff from happening. At best it can try to guess in a tin foil hat kind of way when some bad stuff might happen.
- But the above is all guesswork anyway. The ultimate fallback for Windows systems is the alert often seen that the bad stuff has in fact happened and mighty Microsoft were powerless to prevent it.
Why Do They Do It?
Given all this - why do they do it? Why do Microsoft continue to peddle snake oil to the clueless masses?
Microsoft still have a hegemony on the PC market. A dwindling hegemony but a hegemony still the same. They're dependent on their third party software to preserve this hegemony. There are millions of software titles out there people need.
Should Microsoft suddenly scrap their entire OS architecture and replace it with a real operating system they'd break all these third party software titles. And thereby their hegemony.
And that would completely ruin their bottom line.
For a company with reps like Bill Gates who for years have apologised for all the 'misery and suffering' their software has caused - and always always always promised to fix things and make them better - most people would say this is simply what they deserve.
Now try telling that to Ian Fried and the other Kool-Aid™ guzzling reporters.
But go down to Dick's first and pick up a clue bat.