Conversation

@lispi314 @briankrebs It's hard to tell because they rarely actually document where the security vulnerabilities are, but I presume 2 were in the base version and the remainder were in (not that separate) software like office.

microsoft doesn't seem to actually publish that much software - they rather seem to rent out a bunch of different versions with different antifeatures of the same dozen programs, except all of them are terribly bloated, have a terrible buildsystems and are terribly programmed in terrible languages (the end result of paying programmers to add more spyware or gimmick features and to punish them if they start fixing the codebase - bug fixes only seem to be allowed by the duct tape team, funds of which were finally allocated only seemingly because some governments almost had enough despite how much they like to be pushed).

That leaves me wondering as to the error rate per source line of microsoft's software - I'll bet on more than one per line - too bad nobody is allowed to check, except for a limited scheme where approved parties receive under NDA partial source (not including the spyware parts) for reading - but those parties cannot even publish what they find anyway.

The windows total cost of ownedership is far higher than I dreamed.

Even looking at the endless amount of software that can be ran on GNU, including some which have people and fuzzing setups testing 24/7, I haven't heard of a case of there being anywhere near 139 security updates released in a week.

Public

Notices

Feeds