Hackers exploited Word flaw for months while Microsoft investigated
<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/853224169412206593?p=p" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/85322416941220...</a><p>The strange "counterargument" I commonly see on HN to any suggestion that Microsoft closed source software could potentially be unsafe for use on an internet-connected computer is that the company has "improved" since some earlier 1990's/2000's time period.<p>Are these commenters suggesting that other, open source operating system choices have not also improved since that time period?  Should one consider how much did each respective system <i>need</i> to improve?<p>(By "other, open source operating system choices", I mean the ones that were able to connect to the internet for years before Gates decided the www was something his company should be interested in and to copy the TCP/IP stack from an open source kernel into the Windows kernel).<p>Are there convincing arguments why Microsoft deserves special treatment compared to the open source alternatives, i.e., why their users should not be permitted to freely evaluate the Windows kernel or Office source code via the public web?  Are there compelling reasons why MS users should not be allowed i.e. given the <i>option</i> to edit/remove source code they are uncomfortable with and recompile?  Consider the effects of limiting the number of people who can find and fix defects in a product.<p>Does closed source status of Windows make Microsoft's software superior to the longstanding open source operating system alternatives?