Samuel Young wrote:
Please don't get me wrong. Personally, I have switched to FireFox. My
whole university has moved to using FireFox as the standard browser. 90% of
our servers are either Linux or Unix. Open Source is definitely my friend.
I totally agree that FireFox has alleviated a lot of my virus problems.
But the key is standard and support. If Microsoft has a problem with their
software and it is easily penetrable by viruses, the question is how can
they maximize their donations and keep the computers running as long as
possible. If a virus destroys a machine and there is limited tech support,
the computer will be down. The people that the computer was originally
trying to service would not be able to gain any benefit.
Microsoft's solution to this problem is to lock everything down so no new
software can be loaded on to the computer. In fact, many public computers
at universities and libraries around the US have very similar policies.
Software is loaded and no additional software is permitted unless it is
loaded by the IT department. In many cases, the computers are restored to
the standard configuration on a nightly bases.
I would admit that Microsoft wants to prompt itself where ever it can,
no-the-less I want to point out that there are system issues was not
considered.
God bless,
Sam Young
CIO
La Sierra University
Ah I see the argument better now. However it is conveinent to say we
want to lock it down for security purposes, but I suspect that their are
other motives involved here, as I mentioned in previous posts. Properly
adminstered installation of new software should not be considered to be
a risk. The assumption should be that the adminstrator has to evaluate
the risks of adding new software for themselves and make a judgement
call. I see the above attitude towards upgrade and installation as a
form of censorship on Microsofts part.
Its also interesting to note that Free Software gives the source for
distribution from day 1 of development, and yet something that is
technically more vulnerable to attack (because the source is available)
is stronger for it.
If software is not secure this is bad, if it can only be secured by
being inflexible this is not so good, but if it can be distributed
"freely", secure and flexible, then surely this is the best of all worlds ?
If the foundations of a house are solid, because it has been designed
and built by someone with the appropriate skills, then it can withstand
a certain amount of abuse from people who dont understand how to build
houses. However if the foundations and framework are not properly
constructed possilble because it was rushed at the design phase, then
the house is easily compromised and may collapse.
I think Microsoft's model is the latter while GNU/Linux is the former in
the above argument. But this is not surprising, since Microsoft have
always rushed to market something in order to get there first (usually
breaking a few recognised standards on the way), rather than think out
smart designs that last the test of time.
This of course is all just my opinion on the matter.
Tom.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
