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/
|