My old Win2000 box is sitting unused in the other room. It needs a few
parts replaced to get it up and running again but maybe I should turn it
into a Linux machine and get familiar with it. I'm not sure I'm ready
for dual-boot just yet.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/19/2010 10:54 PM, Scott Gomez wrote:
> I'd say Manuel is precisely right.
>
> 'Tis unfortunate, but the entire underlying model for Windows has been
> pretty seriously broken from the start. The idea originally was for an open,
> single-user system. Just dandy while one is a little disconnected island.
> But computers didn't stay disconnected, and Windows' huge installed base
> guaranteed that they would not seriously muck with the design in the
> interest of backward compatibility. They couldn't, if they didn't want the
> playing field levelled between them and any potential competitors. Linux, on
> the other hand, was designed multi-user and with security in mind from the
> get-go. So the base system is far more sound for today's interconnected
> environment.
>
> And like many of the mainframe and minicomputer companies of the past (some
> of which I worked for), Microsoft's closed-source code has simply grown too
> large and complex (and out-dated!) for bug-hunts to be handled by their in
> house programming staff. Just like when one is trying to write an involved
> paper, or a novel, it is a benefit to have an *independent* proof-reader,
> something that Microsoft's business model doesn't allow, and Linux's
> philosophy encourages.
>
> Chuck's comment that he's likely more savvy than many of my end-users is
> exactly right. However, the vast majority of Windows end-users are far more
> like my end-users than they are like Chuck. And you know, I find
> increasingly that those very same non-savvy end users can learn Linux just
> as fast as people learn Windows, especially if they don't have to UNlearn
> Windows.
>
> Many years ago, I even recommended that a company I worked for make a
> strategic commitment to Windows--when it was at Windows 1.4x. At the time,
> it was exactly the correct decision, borne out by the fact that company
> chose otherwise, and a much smaller company in the same field made the
> commitment and rode right over 'em. And as little as 16 (+/- a couple)
> years ago I could still fairly confidently, as a consultant, recommend
> moving to a Windows platform--and did for the same district at which I now
> work.
>
> However, times have definitely changed; the old model--and Windows with
> it--is increasingly broken. While all the tools may not yet be there for all
> the things that many people are used to doing via Windows, more often than
> not they are there, they're just *different* tools. The same thing that
> drove Microsoft forward then (user-feedback, no copy protection, a
> willingness to be innovative) and allowed them to help kill off the
> Ashton-Tates and WordPerfects and Lotuses of the world are now driving the
> Linux world, only with a twist: that of open source code. Meanwhile
> Microsoft retrenches, adds increasingly burdensome copy-protection, and
> hopes that they've got enough folks bamboozled that they'll survive.
>
> It hasn't worked in the past, and I'm willing to bet it isn't gonna work
> now.
>
> More importantly, if there's a feature you need in a Linux program that
> exists, you can actually get involved, in many ways, and get it added. Send
> the maintainers a feature request. Write code. Help document. Start a
> user-group. Help folks one-on-one. Rabble-rouse until you've rallied enough
> other folks that the code-maintainers for a project see that there are folks
> out there who would like the feature too. It's entirely possible.
>
> ---
> Scott Gomez
>
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:36 PM, manuel viet<manuel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 20 septembre 2010 01:56:53, Chuck Norcutt a écrit :
>>
>>> I do believe that security in XP and later versions is significantly
>>> better than earlier versions
>>
>> Alas, no. Absolutely not. Would you believe it, the latest disclosed
>> infestation vector was through ... shortcut icons. What were they thinking,
>> it's not even something that should be executable in the first place !
>>
>>> but the bad guys are also 10X as smart as
>>> they used to be.
>>
>> Not either, they brute force every aspect of the system until something
>> breaks, and then they basically try to attach a payload in memory that is
>> executed at that moment instead of the broken program. While computing
>> power
>> has massively improved, it has become somewhat easier to simulate an army
>> of
>> monkeys pounding on keyboard and mice until the dead is done.
>>
>> The great weakness of windows is the secretness of the code. An open code
>> like
>> linux is read freely by hundred of qualified persons to spot errors, this
>> is
>> not something Microsoft can buy internally despite all their might.
>>
>> --
>> Manuel Viet
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|