On Wednesday 17 August 2005 06:25 am, Paul Smith mercilessly beat the
keyboard, and wrote:
| On 8/17/05, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | Well, here we go again. Sigh! It sure would be nice if someone
| > | got their collective fingers and thumbs out of wherever they've
| > | been shoved and deal with this crap once and for all!
| > |
| > | http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/16/computer.worm/index.h
| > |tml
| > |
| > | This is a perfect example of why making computers easy should
| > | never be given a higher priority than making them secure first.
| > |
| > | If you ever needed a reminder why you switched to Linux, this
| > | ought to do nicely! Redmond couldn't build a decent OS if their
| > | corporate lives depended on it!
| > |
| > | There's just something horribly wrong about paying ridiculous
| > | amounts of money for software that is open to vulnerabilities
| > | like this. To make matters worse, consumers then pay more money
| > | for anti-virus software to protect that same 'easy-to-use'
| > | operating system.
| > |
| > | Then, to top it all off, Redmond comes up with a new service
| > | intended to protect Windows users from the bugs and holes they
| > | didn't fix yet. Of course, there's a fee involved.
| > |
| > | http://beta.windowsonecare.com/prodinfo/Default.aspx
| > |
| > | What gets me pissed about this, is the fact that users and
| > | clients always point a finger at IT/IS people when their systems
| > | crash and burn, instead of shaking a finger at Microsoft, saying
| > | 'Shame on You'!
| > |
| > | I'm just glad that some of us are smarter than that. At least we
| > | get to brag for a few days about how we're not being affected by
| > | this garbage!
| >
| > I do not think it is so much that M$ is unable to produce a decent OS
| > as much as it is that they have no motivation to do so. Their
| > business model is targeted to selling units of the product. The
| > faster a new version is 'ready' for sale, the more units that can be
| > sold. The more units sold, the more profit generated. As a result,
| > their development team is under the gun to get the job done fast
| > rather than well. Since time is money, and quality takes time, it is
| > expensive. Further, their customer base wants easy to use (as you so
| > eloquently pointed out), and continues to purchase the product
| > despite its history. I see nothing in this equation to provide a
| > motivation to any thing greater than mediocrity.
| >
| > The Open Source business model on the other hand is based on the
| > sale of support for the product, which provides an excellent
| > motivation for quality since the better the product works, the less
| > it will cost to support.
|
| I am a very happy user of Linux (migrated from MS Windows one or two
| years ago), but one could speculate that MS Windows based systems are
| more prone to be attacked (by virus, worms, hackers,etc.) than the
| Linux ones just because the former are in much larger number and,
| therefore, it is more encouraging and motivating for the attackers to
| do such a things. On the other hand, since there are much more MS
| Windows users, there are consequently much more potential attackers
| (among those users), increasing the probability of success with
| attacking MS Windows based systems.
|
| Paul
|
|
|
|
| __________________________________________________________
| Message transport security by GatewayDefender.com
| 6:29:50 AM ET - 8/17/2005
I believed that too, until it was pointed out to me that a cracker who
breaks Linux will get greater kudos (even become a legend) than for
breaking Windoze which even script kiddies can do.
--
Ernie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ICQ 41060744
Registered Linux User 247790
____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from Mandriva?
Go to http://store.mandriva.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrivaclub.com
____________________________________________________
