At 06:59 07/05/2002 -0400, Flowers, Jay wrote: > Are we talking about Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, or IIS *.*. > >Have you all heard anything about win64? Do have any faith that MS is >changing to become a more security aware company? MS is staking its life on >.NET and Win64. They are working hard to change. *nix has been around for >a long time, it is rediculous to think that it would not be secure. MS >would never release any software if it had to be bug free before release. >No other software get used by more people, so it is no wonder that more bugs >are found in it than anyother software. Point being that there are bugs and >security flaws in *nix also that have not been found for lack of use. MS >plans to use Win64 and .NET to compete with the *nix Java solutions. Do you >think that they are going to ignore security as a selling point, for >themselves or for *nix against them? MS knows that it HAS TO solve its >security problems to compete in the enterprise solutions arena. The have >the money, the man power, the motivation, and the skill to get it done. The >only question is will you all buy it. > >Jay Flowers
Certainly MS has to solve its security issues if it wishes to compete with platforms that have been established as secure, Unix and OS/400. In my limited experience, I've worked on projects for banks and medical organisations that have tried all three platforms, and it is the MS platform that gets damaged. Mr Gates knows that I'm not alone in this: he has recently publicly stated that MS will focus on security at the exclusion of all else. The question is, can MS be as secure as they need to be, and as they are now making every effort to become? Two years ago, most of us would have said it is impossible unless they reworked their OS from the bottom up; the bugs in the Windows OS are not simply found more often than in Unix because Win OS is more widely used: they are there because MS products have a short RAD-to-shop cycle. This does now appear to be changing: so perhaps there is hope. Who (apart from Sun, maybe...) would not like to have a secure platform for development, deployment, that can also run everyday applications? We've much to be grateful to MS for -- most PC users in the world would not be PC users were it not for MS picking up on and making a commercial success of Apple's interpretation of the StarOffice GUI. Were it not for MS "plug-n-play", most of us would be charged inflated prices for hardware. But frankly, even MS have admitted that security is not something they have done well. Lee Goddard _______________________________________________ Perl-Win32-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
