Today Kerry Brown commented courteously on the subject at
hand
SP2 is much more than a firewall. It is a complete rewrite
of many thousands of lines of code to reduce security flaws
and fix bugs.
I'm well aware of that,Kerry. It is something like an 85-90%,
maybe higher, re-write of the base XP and SP1 code base.
That said, its big draw was originally security, and is to
this day. There is much more to security than SP2s firewall,
but that is the fundamental way of controlling what goes out
from your PC upon the request of some Internet source, and
what comes in, so I chose this easy-to-understand example for
those reading my post to relate to. If the SP2 firewall is no
better or worsee than SP1, why does it enjoy such a cult
status as to have it's own setup screens?
As I said last night, I have SP2 virtually in its entirety set
to install defaults (the main exception is Autoupdate, which I
have set to "ask before downloading"), so if something is
amiss, then it is the way Bill the Gates gives SP2 to his tens
of millions of customers.
The firewall while an important part of Windows security is
much the same as the firewall in SP1. It didn't magically
appear with SP2. It has been around since XP was in beta.
SP2 turns it on by default. Previously it defaulted to off.
Zone Alarm is a completely different type of firewall. It
monitors inbound and outbound traffic. If you want those
types of features then use a 3rd party app. Personally I
don't see a need to monitor outbound traffic but some
people do. It's all about choices.
I wasn't aware there was any sort of real firewall in SP1.
There is minor net security, the kind that will warn you of
potentially unsafe sites and/or attachments, but no firewall
in my definition of the term.
It doesn't matter what OS you use you will have to deal
with updates, service packs, bug fixes or whatever you want
to call it. I use a couple of different distros of Linux.
They have to be regularly updated. OS/X has many updates.
In all cases the upgrades may break older hardware or
software.
I don't doubt that a bit, based on my decades-long IT
experience. But, I whack on Microcrap because they toot their
own horn so loudly on security that it makes me do the
ROTFLMAO thing whenever I see "upgrade to SP2 for better
security" - particularly from MVPs - or I read the crapola
claims on the shrink wrap boxes in a store. Is security better
than SP1? Yes, but marginally, in my experience so far.
Again, as I said last night, the very least that Bill the
Gates could do is tighten up the words he uses to describe a
Critical Update so that his customers could make a reasonable
evaluation if the vulnerability even affects them, as well as
what the potential hazards may be. Also, he needs to do a ton
more regression testing than he does today. No matter how many
thousands of automated or human test hours goes on, it isn't
enough if KB908531 goes bump in the night for so any people,
to use that as the latest example of lack of
programming/testing skills so characteristic of the XP team.
And, no, I haven't installed it yet. I don't have a warm and
fuzzy feeling that I am even affected by what it purports to
fix, and I've not seen anyone say that the CU bug(s) have been
squashed, but then, M$ never advertises the fact that it
goofed and had to put its tail between its legs and fix the
fix.
As for MVP's I'm very new to the program but I don't feel
Microsoft breathing down my neck. I enjoy the cachet,
prestige, benefits, or whatever you want to call it but if
I ever thought it stopped me from stating my opinions I
would voluntarily opt out of the program instantly. I do
admit that I spend a bit more time on my posts since
becoming an MVP. Many people seem to take what MVP's say as
gospel so I try to make sure that I am technically correct.
Politically I've always leaned towards incorrect.
Kerry, I don't shill for companies that want my money and I'm
not nearly technically savvy enough to qualify for the MVP
program, so I have no real knowledge here. As such, I am using
the cloud chamber approach - i.e. looking for clues based on
what I read - to conclude that either M$ is monitoring you
folks, you believe they might be, or it is some NDA clause
that requires you to stay close to the company line. If it is
none of the above, then why are MVPs, looked at broadly, such
staunch supporters of King Bill?
You must obviously do what you think best, but if you want to
separate yourself from the herd I generalize about, it would
help your credibility immensely to be more forthright about
the many things M$ does wrong, in addition to those it does
right.
Others in these several M$-"sponsored" XP NGs can reach their
own conclusions about the MVPs. I'll close with this
observation: it often takes months or even years for people to
gain the respect of their peers and/or their customers, but it
only take one or two examples of lack of integrity or bias to
ruin their reputation, often permanently. Or, it may be re-
attained, but only after 3 times as long of 100% steling
character to try and rebuild trust. So, MVPs everywhere,
please take this to heart: you do nobody any good by even
remotely talking like an M$ employee, least of all,
yourselves.
