Perhaps it is because of having lost too much of my life fixing things FUBAR'd by Microsoft "fixes", but I have come to fundamentally doubt the motivation behind many Microsoft patches. As anyone who has worked in IT for any length of time knows, there are frequently other "fixes" and "features" snuck in that are not mentioned in the security bulletins. For example, it annoys the crap out of me to have file associations and default applications revert to Microsoft products after a patch, or worse, have competing non-Microsoft products outright fail after a patch.

Microsoft ceased to be a technology-driven company decades ago. Microsoft is marketing first, actual working software second (if it all). The press from the usual Microsoft-shill trade-magazines about the latest round of patches really has me wondering if the marketing weasels have completely infected the process. Acticles like this one that focus on an update that "affects a core Windows subsystem, and all versions except for Windows Vista" and Microsoft's own ominous wording that

An attacker could exploit the vulnerability by constructing a specially crafted image that could potentially allow remote code execution if a user opened a specially crafted attachment in e-mail. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete control of an affected system.

This is a critical security update for all supported editions of Windows except Windows 2003 Server Service Pack 2 and Windows Vista.

makes me wonder if what the patch is really intended to "fix" is unsatisfactory Vista sales.

Could this be classic Microsoft FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) interestingly self-directed to scare people into upgrading to Vista switching to Ubuntu?