I have never been impressed with the thoroughness of Microsoft's development in regards to security. And I think it shows with the enormous amounts of patches that get distributed for every operating system and software program. I understand they can't catch everything, but wouldn't you think that after so many years of OS/software that you have to patch that it would be a good idea to secure systems before they come out -- instead of sending out ridiculous amounts of patches, which in turn usually slow machines/software down after so many get applied? But, what do I know? I am not a programmer.
As always, your columns and articles are informative and entertaining.
I would like to see a comparison of patches released for other operating systems. I've seen similar lists in the past (maybe on CERN's site) that actually show MS operating systems require fewer patches than Mac OS and some Linux distributions. Your question is more relevant if compared to what competing operating systems require.
Whether I have two or 20 patches, if I have to reboot the server, the number of patches does not matter to me. Some people seem to make a big deal out of it. I'm just glad that bugs are being fixed. I'd rather have 20 patches, once a month, then have two patches this week, four more next week and so forth. And that's just my opinion...
I don't believe Microsoft has ever really been proactive about anything, and has been more of a reactive entity with regards to patches.
Although, maybe they are proactive in their new software and in the numerous ways they can just plain outright annoy you.
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).