17 ms·

90 days seems just fine. What they need to do is give greater importance to bugs and apply more resources accordingly. When it actually affects them, they aren

90 days seems just fine. What they need to do is give greater importance to bugs and apply more resources accordingly. When it actually affects them, they aren't hesitant to do whatever the hell it takes, with no regards as to the consequences for others, with zero warning at all, as was shown during the whole fiasco when they effectively took down NoIP's services. Meanwhile, when Google holds them to a perfectly reasonable deadline, for the extremely valid reason that bugs should be fixed on time, Google is evil? Given their scale, they can afford to dedicate larger teams of people to the task of fixing security vulnerabilities. They can afford to hire independent security researchers and whatnot to help them find and fix such vulnerabilities. If they need to break some third-party application in fixing a security vulnerability, that's okay. Because that application can also be fixed by its developer, and security needs come ahead of an app here or an app there. Besides, it isn't as if users of Microsoft's products are not used to the concept of having stuff break all the time anyways. Have you noticed how quickly MS starts releasing patches and updates when a 0day comes out? That shows that they are clearly capable of doing whatever they need to do pretty damn quickly. They just don't do that with all security vulnerabilities, due to "business reasons", and as a result their customers suffer.

Amezarak 12y ago
> If they need to break some third-party application in fixing a security vulnerability, that's okay. Because that application can also be fixed by its developer, and security needs come ahead of an app here or an app there. That is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft's customers think. If Microsoft began taking this attitude, there would be mass outrage. And maybe rightfully so: for countless applications in the Windows world, the developers are no longer around or ask for money to update the software. People are more likely to simply not update or roll back the update after they get it. > Besides, it isn't as if users of Microsoft's products are not used to the concept of having stuff break all the time anyways. They actually aren't. It certainly happens, but it's very rare that a Windows update (or even upgrade) breaks anything.

Amezarak 12y ago

> If they need to break some third-party application in fixing a security vulnerability, that's okay. Because that application can also be fixed by its developer, and security needs come ahead of an app here or an app there. That is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft's customers think. If Microsoft began taking this attitude, there would be mass outrage. And maybe rightfully so: for countless applications in the Windows world, the developers are no longer around or ask for money to update the software. People are more likely to simply not update or roll back the update after they get it. > Besides, it isn't as if users of Microsoft's products are not used to the concept of having stuff break all the time anyways. They actually aren't. It certainly happens, but it's very rare that a Windows update (or even upgrade) breaks anything.