When they’re released by Microsoft, it seems.
I’ve been using Windows for most of my life, after early bouts with a Commodore 64 and an Apple II. I’ve been through Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista.
Starting with Windows 98 ( that I remember, anyway ), Microsoft got real big on releasing security patches and updates. And of course with Windows XP it was a very frequent occurrence.
Why is it that Microsoft gets so much bad presses for these security fixes? After all, they’re fixing the problem. Someone found a flaw in their software, and they fixed it. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?
The reason I’m asking is because I’ve been thinking about WordPress and it’s development lately. WordPress releases security updates quite frequently, and I always download and install the update as soon as I’m aware that it exists. Most WordPress users are in the same boat – after all, no one wants to use software with known security flaws.
What I don’t hear, though, is bad publicity for WordPress about these updates. When WordPress fixes their flawed software, it’s a good thing. They’re fixing a problem and making their software more secure. But when Microsoft does the exact same thing, it’s terrible. I’d love for someone to explain why the difference in reactions.