On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Rick Blake wrote:
> Any Windows user who can *find* someone to complain to, with even the
> least hope of resolution, about virus & macro deliver in
> Win9x/NT/Outlook/Exchange and the whole SHS/VBX/OCX debacle, is a user who
> has an inside track.
If it's that hard.. Then why do you use it? I suppose the benefits
outweigh the constant virus game? No?
Nevertheless, the cost of the virus game is the user's (who somehow chose
to run windows) cost to bear not the mailing-lists's admin.
> MS is reaping the harvest of unintended consequences
> from too much enhancement of the OS & interface, to accomodate assumed
> desires by users, and *real* desires by marketers and spammers, to
> 'enhance' our e-mail experience.
Agreed.
> But as a grain of salt... Imagine Red Hat 6.2 as the basis for a desktop
> replacement revolution. What interesting things could you do if users
> started setting up their RH machines, with user 'root' as their
> day-to-day signon?
All (?) the current distros highly encourage you not to do that. See
gmc's 'YOU ARE RUNNING AS ROOT THIS IS BAD' message. If a user goes out of
his way.. Then what can you say?
> Cute perl scripts running out of the root
> mailbox?
Only a broken mail client would do this. Fix the client
> Privileged commands from executable html?
Only a broken client would do this. Fix the client.
> What happens when a
> decent Linux web browser implements XML sufficiently to permit executions
> without the user recognizing it?
XML is not a turning complete programming language (at least not in and of
itself). Only a broken client would do this. Fix the client.
> Linux has at least as much opportunity
> in it for cracking & hacking via mail, web, who knows?
Linux (and Unix too) has a security model. It was designed to have
security. I've heard that virtually nothing in windows was designed, but
rather grown. (If true it certainly shows).
If Linux has those problems, then it should be straightforward to fix
them.
> Before Linux
> replaces Windows, it will get more robust security at the OS level.
The Linux kernel has a very robust security model. Not all of it is
usefully carried to user space, even less is implemented on current
distros, but even what's there should be more then enough OS level support
to stop these sort of things, the rest is up to the applications.
> Or it
> will just be another OS.
It already is just an OS. A good OS (IMHO), and a Free(dom) OS, but it's
certainly not the only OS that fits those characteristics.
> Oh, and the Linux development community is both more inspired, more
> accessible, and more responsive. They may win.
'Winning' isn't success (IMHO), success is meeting the needs of the
users. Fortunately, 'winning' can often come doing the above better then
the competition and Linuxes primary drive is the same. (Unlike most
commercial productions who's primary drive is to make money)
