So here's an ironic thought: what if XP SP2 ends up making PCs less-secure

No, not the patch. That will make machines very secure from what I've seen. No, what I'm talking about is the fact that IT departments all over the US haven't bothered to install it yet. They're too afraid of the headaches it will cause when it comes back online, secured

In other words, if nobody installs it because they're afraid of it, what happens when new exploits are discovered They could wreak serious havoc on PCs that haven't been patched in a while

Confession: I've yet to upgrade to it yet. No huge desire to do so either.

It's official, sadly MS has decided to 'dumb-down' their firewall that will come out in SP2:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2netwk.mspx :
In earlier versions of Windows, Windows Firewall was configured on a per-interface basis. This meant that each network connection had its own firewall policy, for example, one policy for wireless, another policy for Ethernet. This made it difficult to synchronize policy between connections. Additionally, new connections would not have any of the configuration changes that had been applied to the existing connections.

With global configuration, whenever a configuration change occurs, it applies to all network connections. When new connections are created, the configuration is applied to them as well. Configuration can still be performed on a per-interface basis. Non-standard network connections will only have global configuration. Configuration changes also apply to both IPv4 and IPv6.

Currently I've got two active interfaces: My NIC (cat5) and my Wireless Ethernet Adapter. One (the ol' NIC) is used primarly at work where I plug in to a very secured network that is shielded from all sorts of evil by Big Firewalls at the Corporate Level. The other, my wireless connect, is used at home where I also have a firewall, but I'm also going 'wireless' so the potential DOES exist for somebody else to tap in to my network (I've only bothered setting up WEP.. haven't had time to bother with WPA so I'm a tiny bit paranoid).

So... at home I want to be a bit more restrictive about what ports are open than I am at work. I can think of scenarios where other people might want the same, or vice-versa. Sadly SP2 will break all that. To me that smacks of a 'dumb-down' attempt to get more people to use the thing without knowing what is going on (i.e. the 'magic' effect). I dunno... as I think about it I guess it MAY not be as big of a deal as I think it is... but it seems that having the ability to configure interfaces seperately would be much better.

Yahoo reports on the grim details.

I'm STILL not advocating any type of piracy. But I still can't believe that 'Fair Use' is being so completely over-looked here. Photo Copiers sure make it easy to counterfit (ignoring the fact that the copier's serial number gets watermarked into the copies, etc)... but they're still legal. In the end I think we need to do a better job of looking into criminal acts instead of shutting down companies that furnish technology that could be used to break the law.

My gripe is that with all the copy-protection crap making its way into the market these days I'd better not have to poney up another $50 or $300 for a DISC when I've already purchased the software and the rights to USE the software. Apparently that right/concern takes second stage to big media's ability to sue companies out of existance for fear (even legit fear) that technology could be used unfairly.

Boston.com just ran a fascinating article that shows the vicissitudes of standards, and why they're hard to adopt in a capalistic society. The article is a great read in terms of providing a great overview of the technology behind downloadable music -- as well as the wars to dominate the industry behind that technology.

Sadly, a theme in this article was the notion that because the tech battle makes it so hard for end-users top buy and enjoy music on their players they may be tempted just to steal music. In other words, the POINT of the article is to show that the very nature of the war for download dominance serves as an inducement to piracy. A silly notion. Saying that's the case would be analagous to saying that high-gas prices induce people to steal gas instead of pay for it -- if that's the case, who's to blame (if we can't be responsible for our own actions).

But that silly notion does underly the need for fear about Orrin's INDUCE act becoming law.