Security

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Does a Microsoft "monoculture" endanger security?

0 helpful
163 replies

by debate 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Do you agree with Jonathan Yarden that a Microsoft "monoculture" exists? Do you think it poses a threat to global Internet security? Does your organization rely primarily on Microsoft products? Share your comments about considering alternatives to Microsoft software, as discussed in the March 15 Internet Security Focus e-newsletter.

If you haven't subscribed to our free Internet Security Focus e-newsletter, sign up today!
http://nl.com.com/acct_mgmt.jsp?brand=techrepublic

163 replies

by dc_guy

I believe that the monoculture exists. Especially in the consumer market. Most people have resigned themselves to the level of service they get from computers running popular software. They assume that in order to get by in the Information Age, they simply have to learn to be competent software mechanics in addition to their regular jobs.

I believe this monoculture is a threat to civilization itself. We are passively allowing the "information infrastructure" to rapidly become essential to the functioning of the economy. Yet it is nowhere near as reliable as the plumbing, transportation, nutrition, or even communication infrastructures.

We are increasingly discovering that the security problems in the information infrastructure are caused by undetected and unrepaired software defects that have been in existence for six years or more, and have been passed down through two or three major system upgrades. What producer in any other industry could retain market share, much less dominate the market, by delivering products with defects that cause major disruptions in the business of its customers and the lives of its customers' clients? So frequently that each defect acquires a cute little nickname? Defects that it has failed to even notice, much less repair, since before the turn of the millennium?

American business is valiantly attempting to boost its IT shops up to higher levels on the SEI CMM in order to remain competitive in the world market. How can it do that if the software that underlies almost every one of its efforts is built by the "medieval guild" methodology of CMM Level One?

by evo_gsr

I think people have been missing the point that in the first place, the basic rule of law whether written or not is that we shouldn't try breaking or stealing anything.

This is a case of say when you stumbled upon a house that had its door left open by accident or for some other reason - does that mean that it gives everyone the right to try and steal everything in the house?

Another question is - would you want to barricade your house with high walls, barbed wires, and several security personnel just to protect it? - similar to a jail house?

You see sometimes we blame others too much without thinking/reflecting on whether the premise that we are holding onto is correct or not.

Microsoft or be it other software companies are not to blame. Software was meant to aid people become more productive and provide ease on the stress of manual work. It's actually the hackers and other computer criminals that are at fault and they're the ones that we should get mad about.

by m.w.s.

Sorry that the world isn't living up to your standards, but it doesn't and probably never will.
Cars, houses, and businesses have locks and anti-theft systems. Banks have armoured glass and guards. The people who sell computer systems are aware of the threats to their customers caused by weakness in their code, and they are obligated to try to fix it. We pay them to do that, and we have a right to expect it.
There probably never will be a 100% secure operating system, the question is how hard should we expect a multi-billion dollar firm to work toward that goal?

by jim.azeltine

You said:
"This is a case of say when you stumbled upon a house that had its door left open by accident or for some other reason - does that mean that it gives everyone the right to try and steal everything in the house?"
That is not the point. People who buy MS OS's do so under the impression that "the house is locked", not that someone "left a door open by accident". The problem is that MS has left keys under many of the doormats and under rocks, and anybody with a brain and some determination can get in the house.

by fredmoscicki

Do you have a security system in your home? If you answer yes, then you should have kept this thougth to yourself. If you answer no, then maybe you really trust our law/justice system to the point that you think they will prevent anyone from breaking into your house. Or, maybe, you think that the chances of someone picking your house is very slim. Either way, you are missing the point in that man is basically evil by nature. Whether you get mad at the criminal that's stealing your stuff through the front door (the thief) or at the criminal that is robbing you through the back door (through a legally approved monopolistic scheme), you are still getting ripped off. Its not about getting mad, its about education of the masses and exerting enough pressure on the Software Giant to clean up there act/software. I am sure there must be enough money in their coffeurs to create some resemblance of software that at least gives the appearance of caring about security.
Oh well, I guess we can carry on status quo - - A security patch a day, keeps the thieves away (and keeps the anti-virus business in the fray). Hey, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.

Something to think about!

by regular guy

You can't blame Microsoft for the sins of others. They didn't know how bad the neighborhood was going to get when they built their house. I believe MS is doing their best in this area. Think of all the unknown vulnerabilities MS is expected to discover before anyone else does. Also, Windows is under attack, put Linux or some other OS on the top where MS is now and you'll see the same thing happen to them.

by nichomach

While it may be true that the responsibility for the act of exploiting a security flaw lies with the person doing the exploiting, the responsibility for the security flaw being there lies with the manufacturer of the software. No-one is stating that there is a right to steal or destroy data, but in the same way that one expects a modern house or car to have reasonable security (lockable doors and windows, a burglar alarm) one should expect software to be written with reasonable security as one of its prime considerations. We expect people to respect the privacy of our homes and cars and not to break into them, and where caught, we punish people who break those rules; at the same time, however, we recognize that there are always going to be people who break those rules, so we design our houses with that in mind, to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of their being broken into. Consider this; your friend has just bought a new house in a bad neighbourhood. It's a very nice house, full of modern conveniences, all the bells and whistles, and looks impressive. He tells you, however, that the builder has supplied it without locks on the doors and windows; the builder will also not provide measurements so that he can fit his own locks. In addition, the builder states that any attempt to work out the details of the doors and windows and the locks required and provide those details to anyone else so that locks and alarms can be made violates the terms of the sale, and the house may be repossessed immediately. Your friend is worried, but he bought the house anyway, regardless of the area and the security faults because he likes the convenience features. What would you think of the builder, and what would you think of your friend?

by ctos

Yes. I agree. Microsoft is endangering and making everyone dance to their tune by selling faulty applications. Can you imagine how it would look if it was possible to stand back from the earth a ways, see through the buildings and WATCH the millions of people working, swearing, patching and crying because their machines are hacked/broken/virused/data stolen/etc??? If Microsoft could see that, they would never stop it because they have such POWER over the "commoner"! LOL
But, for us to whine about a reality that will never be changed no matter how we try, then we fall into stubborness and stupidity. NO ONE should steal or harm, but when will that happen?! So. Get on with it, protect your equipment and users and data. At least you will be able to sleep at night knowing you did all you can!

by rocket_scientist

This issue is about security. I think that it is important to not lose focus by laying down blame on companies and hackers. Todays computing world is what it is. Microsoft did a great thing years ago by bridging the gap between cryptic computer programming and the average user by creating robust and highly effective computer products that were useful to normal people who did not spend their time programming code 24/7. As a result, their products caught on and now they are the successful organization that they are. Unfortunately, their very size is what makes them the prime target for individuals who choose to spend their time developing code to break into other systems (hackers and the like).

Whose fault is it? Who cares! The situation exists. And it is our responsibility to know how to best protect our datasystems from attack given this communications climate.

To answer the original query of this thread, yes - I think that if you subscribe to a Microsoft monoculture then you are opening up yourself to vulnerability. They make a kick-ass desktop OS and office productivity software which all of my clients use. However, due to the patchwork that is required of anyone relying on MS software these days, I use MS software for desktops and go with other technologies like Novell and Linux for server platforms and email. Even though these platforms are not foolproof either, I rest a little easier mixing up the technologies a bit in my network because I have found that this makes complete system invasions and data theft/loss much less likely.

by jkstill

That view is rather naive. You do have a point mind you, but that attitude will not prevent folks that don't share your viewpoint from breaking into your systems and stealing data, wreaking havoc and causing you lots of work and stress.

by towtruck1

If I leave the front door on my house open then the law in my state (Ohio) says that I have given an open invitation for any and all to enter. If I place a swimming pool in my yard and leave the gate open then it is considered an open invitation to the community to swim. With this in mind it is the companies falt for leaving the door/gate open. Not to mention all the back doors that have been built in to modern software by the programmers, do you think that Microsoft has checked every line of code for the back door left by the deviant programmer that just got mad at "Daddy Bill"?

by mchall

As long as we live in an imperfect world there will always be individuals that defy the law and attempt to exploit any opportunity they can for personal gain, regardless of legality.

Absolving software companies of blame because the law states that electronic theft and vandalism are illegal fails ingnores other legal concepts such as "Due Care" and "Contributory Negligence".

A responsible software vendor will recognize that fact and do everything in their power to ensure that their products are secure. Those that don't, and leave their customer's data exposed and vulnerable to explotation, leave themselves open to legal action.

by felipe_alfaro

The point is not whether Microsoft makes buggy
software. The point is that Microsoft *should*
be legally held liable of all the bugs
introduced in their products. It's that way in
other industries, like the automotive industry.

Defective software causes loses and may cause
people casualities. Thus, they must be held
liable for all the trouble they cause us and the
world everyday.

by aaron

Sorry, but most folks in my company don't assume they need to be "software mechanics" they WANT to be software mechanics.

Most of their problems are self-inflicted. We build them an image and will create custom images or do custom software installations after testing but my customers would rather play IT professional and then ask for help AFTER they've botched the system.

People using Macs are no better and lock their systems just as frequently, BTW.

And the biggest security holes are still caused by social engineering. Yes if the flaws weren't in Windows they couldn't be exploited but our systems would be far from closed because we can't enforce any good security practices.

So even if Microsoft could wave its collective hands and fix all the flaws, or we could find and switch to an OS where none of those flaws existed, we would still be compromised.

by jetpowercom

A few points:
Various measures are available to secure Windows workstations, at least to some extent, from wannabe IT experts.
Enforcement begins with education. Reminders and tips, along with accountability specified in employee manuals, have proved highly effective in keeping employees attentive about what they should be doing with their work time.
Every workplace is different. The systems used, therefore, must be solid. A secure and stable foundation will keep the vast majority of employees' attention on their work as opposed to under the hood.

by ozi eagle

Hi,
Your comments about social engineering reminded me of the Great Wall of China.
Several hundred years ago China felt very threatened by barbarians beyond its borders, so Emporer Somebody or Other decided to build the Wall. It was truly impregnable, but China was still invaded many times afterwards. How? Bribe the gatekeeper!!!

by generalist

For the most part ANY monoculture is a threat to the security and well being of an organization.

Whether the monoculture is an operating system, a mind set or a crop of corn, it creates a situation where large parts of an organization's functions could crash if something successfully attacks the monoculture.

You might consider a monoculture to be a weak link in an evolutionary chain. While it may promote efficiency through mass production, it creates a vulnerable spot that can cause a major catastrophy when injured.

And worse yet, that 'injury' could be caused by a simple mistake.

by evo_gsr

We always have to remember that security no matter how good it is can be broken. You see even the most expensive and secure safes, locks, and etc can be broken by persistent and determined criminals.

This is the same with software. Whatever encryption or security measures/infrastructures that are built in to the software can eventually be broken.

Software is built by man, ergo man can definitely destroy it.

Honest to goodness discipline and education is the key to ultimate security.

by hal 9000

But then again you can have the "Windows" OS for all workstations and have a Unix/Linux or whatever gateway so none of the end users notice it at all.

This is at this point in time the only real alternative as almost everyone knows Windows and next to nothing about any of the other OS's that are available. I've even had customers insist that they go only Microsoft because Microsoft was responsible for the computer market while totally incorrect this is the belief in most parts of the world but there are currently some countries who are bucking this and going with something else and when that happens who knows what flaws will be found in the competing OS's. Currently the Microsoft Product is the most attacked system because of its basic design, lack of thought about security from its very inception and the worst yet our own lack of willingness to adopt a different technology.

While Linux is touted as the next OS by some if it was to become as popular as Windows currently is I do not doubt for a minute that those nasty little people out there who just live to break systems will get far more "Clued Up on Linux" and find way to break this as well.

What is required is a vast number of different OS being used world wide to make the systems more secure and at the same time mixed up as well so you can have a BSD/Linux/Solaris/Windows network that is harder to breach than purely any of the single OS networks that we so often see in the work place.

Currently Windows is on the nose with a lot of System Admins and the like but if it was reversed I'm sure that Linux or whatever would have just as many complaints about its shortcomings and that Windows would be looked as the next great thing to come. What is required is some serious competition with our basic Operating Systems no matter who supplies them and with this competition we will eventually see better products! Any company who can dominate the marketplace for as long as Microsoft is going to get tired and let their guard down at least a little but what is the main problem here is not so much how the OS's are being developed but just how computer usage is growing. 7 years ago the internet wasn't much of anything and more a curiosity than anything else but today we are no longer just looking for a computer but way to connect to the Net wireless-ly and as fast as possible. Everything that we want is a contradiction to really good security and that is what is driving the market {Our Need For Speed} nothing else!

Just look at every bit of hardware/software that we buy today we always want the fastest for the buck not the most stable.

Col

by chris

There is a common misperception that if Linux was as popular as windows, there would be more attacks and hacks. This is patently false. The essential architecture makes Unix and Linux more difficult to attack. Also, most secure web sites and internet interfaces run on Unix/Linux. Hackers have a great deal more motivation to hack a Unix operating system than Windows.

With Linux, the kernel is undergoing constant revision and refactoring, and it is far fewer of the cheesecake buffer overflow errors that plague windows. Also, the security model in Linux is far more secure.

It is possible to configure a very insecure Linux box, but it is far easier to build a very secure Linux box than Windows. You can put a Linux box naked on the internet if it is properly configured and periodically patched. However, no matter how often you patch a Windows box, it will be hacked eventually unless it is 3 layers deep behind a firewall.

Windows needs to be re-written from the ground up, which has never happened.

by bchan

Security also depends on who is administrating a Linux or Windows box. I work in a mixed environment of Macs, Linux, and Windows.
Some of our Linux boxes were hacked! This
was due to improper security during setup
which was not followed. One of the reasons
why Windows boxes get hacked was due to
the fact that the default install has
the Everyone Group given full control!
Linux and Unix in comparison have very
restrictive rights by default. If the
administrator is security aware, he would
change the default permissions for Windows.
Also, one should always perform OS updates
for any platform which some people don't do!

I would prefer not to get into any debates on
which OS is better. To me they are resources
that are used to suit different needs that based
on user needs for certain applications or functions the company requires for business.

by hal 9000

A simple fact of life. Yes Unix/Linux is far more secure as it isn't possible to download a file and have it exectutue under these OS where as under Windows it is possible. Buffer overflows are almost unknown in Unix/Linux as well but what I was attempting to get at is that while these OS's are more secure than Windows because they will not run things that Windows will there are still Viruses being written for Unix/Linux and while they do not exploit the same weeknesses as Windows they still exploit weeknesses in the code.

And if you would like to go back into theearly days of the internet before it was in the public domain there where hackers who hacked Unix for their own needs. Sorry but it is a fact of life that anything man made can be broken by man if he is interested enough.

Col

by nicknielsen

"But then again you can have the "Windows" OS for all workstations and have a Unix/Linux or whatever gateway so none of the end users notice it at all."

I am working in that situation now: a Novell gateway protecting Windows boxes. The problem is that to be successful in business you have to let data pass through the gateway to the desktops. Even with high level security tools scanning email attachments, a non-IE default browser, and a complete ban on instant messaging, our desktops still get infected with malware that uses various holes in the Windows OS for entry.

While your suggestion has some merit, it will only work if you block _all_ data from outside.

by tomnelson

Linux is a fine OS, but recent changes in Red Hat make the OS more expensive to own than Windows. We have the issue of our clients, the thorn in an administrators side. They are used to the Windows interface and its like teaching an old dog new tricks. If I introduce an upgrade, such as Office 2003 into the mix, I get confusion and mayhem, much less a whole new OS and app. software. I tried introducing Red Hat Linux 9.0 using X interface and Open Office to a test client. It looks the same, some of the functions are the same, but its not close enough to be an ideal candidate for replacing my Windows enviroment. Now, on the other hand I have integated Linux into the network on a less of an impacting way. I have a linux firewall/router and a Samba file server. I have had no complaints and have not been hacked yet. Now, I will be the first to say that Linux is more stable, but everyone knows Windows, Its in every home. Linux is very close and I think with a little more work, we'll have a total corp. level enviroment. For now I will stick with my hybrid Linux/Windows enviroment.

by djhowitt

I agree 100% with the assessment here. Problem is that most corporates look at more than just technical ability, training & license costs, they also have to consider the longevity of the company / distribution itself; (to quote my finance manager: "Whatever Microsoft's faults they'll still be here in 3 years time, can you say the same for ?"). Corporate conservatism will always be the biggest barrier to Linux desktops.

by usdoj

The article seemed pretty much one sided against Microsoft. ANY Operating system is Vulnerable if enough people pour their resources into finding a way. The thing I dislike about Linux is that every tom , dick or Sue can grab the source code for the OS and hammer away at it, modify it, exploit it etc. Microsoft responds well to reported exploits. Micorosoft also maintains a list of devices and software packages that are "Microsoft approved". Microsoft just seems like a product much higher on the food chain then Linux for those of us who rely on stability, support and longevity.

Face it, Microsoft has a monopoly for one reason. They are good at what they do and their products do what we need them to do.

by hal 9000

Face it, Microsoft has a monopoly for one reason. They are good at what they do and their products do what we need them to do.

Sorry but I?ve just picked myself up off the floor after this last comment of you?re. Sorry but Microsoft doesn?t have its current Monopoly for any other reason than it is good at what it does {MARKETING} nothing else. They could sell snow to Eskimos and at the same time get a legal ruling that the stuff that fell from the sky was illegal as it breached their patent.

Their products are hardly all that great they just sought of work some how nothing else.

As far as every Boy and his Dog being able to access the Linux Source Code what makes you think that the same doesn?t apply to Windows? Do you honestly think that the EULA is really likely to stop someone who is really interested in looking and playing? After all where do you really think that all the Viruses/Trojans/Worms have come from recently and how they specifically attack various parts of Windows?

The reality of the present situation is that any ?Source Code? is available to look at if you really want to but why are you just drawing a line at the Linux Distro?s? As UNIX was here a long time before Microsoft and no doubt will still be here a long time after Microsoft. There are also numerous other OS?s available to use if you really wanted to get away from Microsoft. I?m thinking however you have only known Microsoft products so you are ?Scared? of the unknown!

Col

by nitrosoft

I see noting wrong with the comment two posts above, I can do everything I want to do with windows and more, It is easy to see why companies adopt this, "if it's not broken then don't fix it attitude."

OK, so now you can access the windows source code, but thats only because it was leaked, and it was only a small percen tage of the source that was leaked...

As more people move towards linux we are seeing more hacks, exploits and tricks used to gain access to linux systems, It has been found that the leaked microsoft source code came from a core dump of a linux machine.
A few months ago debian effectivly rolled back a few years in security as a hacker uploaded source code to the main database, which put in a known exploit, - which was left unchecked and subsequently distributed.

I'll agree with Johnathan, diversity can only be a good thing, if only because it will keep the script kiddies on thier toes.

But I warn you this, Linux is not the be all and end all of security, just because you have linux installed, doesn't mean you can sit back and relax.

by subir.majumdar

I am no microsoft fan. But one thing is certain, Microsoft creates the most user friendly products of the entire line of the competing products, be it in the field of OS or Office products or IDE's. I know many of you are going to come firing at me saying that this product is better or that one is... Well I am not going to disagree with you guys. If you like some other product, that is good. But you will have to agree that most people like what Microsoft offers and continue to use them, even though so many options are there. If we are talking about OS's Windows NT was successfull in booting out Netware, but Linux has been trying to do the same for the last 10 years and the success has been ... well ... not that outstanding. If you look at Linux products now a days, most of them are trying to copy the features of Windows. I agree that Microsoft has been doing that for years, but my point is till date no one copies and improvises features as Microsoft and that is what is their greatest asset. Marketing effort is helpful ofcourse, but I personally believe that you can sell oyesters saying they contain real pearls for a short period, sooner or later people are going to open em and find that there are no pearls inside. If you are saying that Microsoft has been able to do it for 2 decades now, I would say hats off to them. They are great. One more thing as far as "Scared" of the unknown is concerned, I for one has been using Linux as a secondary OS on my PC for the last 6 years. Its really sad that even though I tried to make it my primary OS at least a dozen times, I had to revert back to Win family for one reason or the other. One of them being my 65 year old mom finds "Linux winux are too difficult", when she uses my machine.

SM

by mich-a-billy

Just because "...every tom, dick, or sue" can grab the source code, doesn't mean the every "...every tom, dick, or sue" can understand it. Every change that "...every tom, dick, or sue" tries doesn't get added to the source.

What I have noticed is most windows user's complain about Windows not running correctly, when the get hit with one of the many ways hackers, viruses, or trogens get into thier systems threw one of the many holes in the OS, but linux scares them because the source code of most software is open.

There is a choice here, you can live with the secuirty holes in Windows, or you can looking into other Operating Systems.

by andresc

I think that the reason that a lot of people are involved on a Linux project is because Mircosoft Windows lack of security on an online enviroment.

The problem with Microsoft is that has been always thought for a non online enviroment (eg a network which is not permanently conencted to the Internet, or a stand alone computer). In such enviroment Microsoft products works just fine, but it still has a lot of flaws like the blue screens.

However on an online enviroment there are many known issues with Microsoft's OS which makes enterprise data vulnerable. For this reason I think that a mixed enviroment Linux/Unix servers with Windows Workstations (where no data should be) is the best enviroment possible today.

by nospam

It's every Tom, Dick and Harry that makes open source secure. For every bad guy looking at the code there are thousands of good guys making sure vulnerabilities are found and corrected. Open source does not rely on security by obscurity.

by it security guy

The monoculture does endanger security, but part of the problem is in the users, as well as the product itself. Hackers and terrorists will attack MS products because it is so pervasive, but even if they got their act together and made a quantum leap in software security, there would still be attacks because it is almost everywhere. Users need to learn hot maintain the software and learn about best security practices because users are a part of the problem when patches are not applied, bad passwords are used, etc.
Corporations need to understand how important security is and the security groups need to evaluate their company's or agency's enterprise architecture and security practices. If the IT group can't have the funds to purchase the proper tools and staff to run them, it doesn't matter if it is an MS product, Linux or Solaris.
Also, having alternatives does help, but there still needs to be enough staff and funds to maintain everything.

by dldigital

Using only Microsoft products is the security equivalent to having only one password for all of your apps or only one key for every lock you own. Open source offers a break in the exploit chain. If you only have Microsoft products it's one stop shopping for known exploits. Rightly or wrongly Gates is a target, after years of targetting other software companies (Netscape....) with their embedded software the hen has come home to roosto on Microsoft. As an IT security specialist I advise all of my clients to diversify their apps for protection purposes. The more difficult it is to gain a foothold on a system the more likely you are to be ignore or bypassed by hackers.

by dc_guy

I just tried to install Norton SystemWorks to diagnose and correct some performance problems on my laptop. Not only did the installation fail, but first it irretrievably uninstalled the copy of Norton Anti-Virus that I already had. It messed my hard drive up so bad that I had to have the tech guru at my office take a crack at it on his lunch break, and I still had to beg Symantec for help.

The consensus is that I'll have to wipe the hard drive and reinstall EVERYTHING!

But after manually deleting program fragments and cleaning up registries, my computer works almost as well as it did a week ago, with the exception of having no virus protection.

Thank the goddess that my firewall is a McAfee product, not Norton. So the SystemWorks installation process did not destroy it. As long as I don't open ANY e-mail attachment, I'll probably be safe for a couple of weeks.

That's when my wife gets her new Mac and I inherit her Mac laptop.

Happy happy joy joy!

by tostes

People like to keep doing what they are already doing.
Microsoft has defined the art of desktop inertia.
It is easier to keep using what you are already using. Energy, and work is required to deviate from a standardized enterprise software platform.
As we all know, untill there is an actual unsolveable problem with windows, nothing will stop the inertia. It will be slowed, deflected, but I doubt people's habits will change.

HT

by dc_guy

Each year a greater number of kids comes out of school having been reared on Macs. They have no inertia favoring the use of PCs.

Apple already has formed a department dedicated to corporate marketing and a few corporations are listening. They can't help noticing the almost zenlike sense of peace that prevails in the Macintosh ghettoes of their advertising departments while the rest of their employees sit waiting for technical assistance.

VirtualPC is already on the market. Sure it's slow but we all know that is an extremely temporary condition when talking about computers.

A "life spiral" is beginning. The more Macs people buy, the more software will be created for them. My own is on the way. I'm looking for a soul-satisfying way to destroy my Windows machine after the fourteen years of agony Windows has caused me. Any suggestions?

by hal 9000

A lot of places are leaving the Apple products and changing to the PC's for the very reasons that you've already mentioned. Currently the Qld Police force is dumping all their Apple products and replacing them with Windows based PC's {What a nasty thought} so for every one large customer that Apple gets they are losing at least 2 of their existing customers.

However it is a good idea to mix things up at least that way you are far less likely to suffer any problems.

As far as installing Norton's goes if you where installing System Works and failed to un-check the AV box that could account for you're problems as that is the way that Norton's is supposed to be installed you only get the updated AV product and have to remove everything then install the AV then System Works. A real pain in the rear end and very time consuming as well. Otherwise it should have proceeded OK.

Just a tip here if you download the "Trial" version of Iolo's System Mechanic I think you'll find it will cure you're current problems and you'll be able to reinstall the AV then Norton's but just don't chose the "Remove Copies Option" as you'll quite likely ruin the entire system.

Col

by keyguy13

Macs will never be the leader in hardware or OS. Yes, the Mac OS is nice if you're used to using a mac, and if you're dumb enough to keep paying the enormous price for a new mac every few years then I guess you'd HAVE to keep touting it as the best computer out there. But the fact is, Microsoft IS good at marketing, and the majority of people bought into it. They bought it because they were lead to believe that it was the "only" thing out there for business, and because it ran on cheap hardware, there was no contest. And instead of competing, other OS companies just cried and complained. Linux CAN STILL be a complete alternative to windows if the developers continue to incorporate some of the things that have made windows so popular. And since it is free, once it is as user friendly as windows, Microsoft is really going to have a run for their money. As for MACs, because of the price, they will always be a niche market geared towards those that don't want to mess with fixing their computers all the time and have a LOT of extra money to spend for that luxury.

by hal 9000

OS for most people and I have constantly said that if suddenly Windows was to vanish overnight there would be just as many holes found in unix/Linux/BSD or whatever OS was chosen as the alternative OS.

The Bottom line is that they are all man made and therefore have flaws inherent to them no matter how carefully they are worked upon. It doesn't matter the name one iota as they all have their faults. But as you have said that you see nothing wrong with Windows because you can do everything that you require it therefore follows it must be perfect doesn't it?

Maybe some people don't do what you do and require different platforms to work on and different OS to work with I for one know that Windows is incapable of working on some of my more data intensive requirements in a timely manner but then again if you consider one complicated calculation that requires over 5 days to perform on a Dual Processor Xeon platform satisfactory under Windows well that's all good and well. Incidental under Unix it only required 2 days to complete the same task with a similar computer.

Buy the way what Microsoft is getting so worked up about being leaked is really nothing at all and was not the OS's fault but the operator so blaming Linux for this is not only silly but shows just how far you are prepared to go in defending Windows as the premium Platform to work off.

And just to show how far from the mark you are when was "Slammer" released? And then when was the Windows little bit of Source Code released?

If you honestly answer the above question it will become obvious to you that what was leaked is really nothing to be worried about as it was already available to anyone how actually wanted to look.

Col

by chris

Your first statement is false. Popularity is not the only reason Windows is attacked, and obscurity is not the only reason Linux is not. The servers with the most valuable data to hackers tend to be Linux and Unix based for a reason - these OSes are more secure.

The biggest drawback to Linux is the technial savvy required to install it and modify the installed software. Package managers and update programs from distributions have simplified this process, but when something goes wrong, it can be a pain to fix and well beyond the average Windows user to address. Until Linux becomes easier to use, it will probably remain a server or special purpose OS.

Windows needs a rewrite. Right now it is an onion built on layers of old code that are rife with vulnerabilities. The number of buffer overflow attacks on Windows is staggering. There have been no kernel and service related buffer overflow issues in Linux in years. For Linux, even suspected but unproven security issues are addressed long before they are problems.

The default installation program for most Linux distributions result in a very secure machine. If you put a new Windows box on the internet fresh out of the box, it would be compromised within hours.

by praetorpal

I think your statements are right on Chris. Right now I am using Xandros and so are my kids and we love it. Would never think of going back to windows.

Linux will continue to get more user friendly. On the server side as well. I'm with a startup that you basically put the cd in and as long as the hardware is on the supported list, it autoloads everything. We go further than that though. Our firewall then lets you create all of your rules in plain english sentences,with drop down menus for each option word. When you are done, the iptable codes that have automatically been written have been displayed. Click on done and its implemented.
You don't have to be Linux geru to take advantage of Linux if it is packaged properly. All products should be produced to save time and money, not create headaches.

by hal 9000

Who build at best silly network configurations which allow their systems to be compromised.

While I do agree that the Default installation of any Linux is far more secure than the default Windows installation there are still holes that need to be plugged. After all remember that the first hackers who started the whole thing off where working with Unix systems and they ran riot without any hindrance for the first 4 -5 years.

Granted that was a long time before Windows or the PC for that matter but it was still a Unix system that was breached. From memory it was the University of Melbourne where the first attacks where traced to.

Col

by voiceofreason

What would not be a monoculture? Would it be two OSs, three or maybe 10. Would it be better if every web browser maker had only 20% of the market? How many of you remember the day when you had to develop two versions of a web site? Today, you can hit the majority of users with one version because there is a monoculture in web browsers. Two many OSs and programing languages in an organization dramatically increases the cost of maintaining trained staff in an age when technology is rapid expanding. It would be cheaper for organizations to create good security policies rather than pepper their businesses with an array of different technologies. Whether you like Microsoft or not, IT technology with very similar attributes is a good thing. We call it standards. Standards are easier to enforce within a company instead of cross-company. Most people who are complaining about the ?monoculture? are probably just upset because it is not there culture. If you asked them if it would be ok if Linux had 90% of the market share, they would give you a big ?yes? with a big grin. The Microsoft bashing has got to stop and we have got to get to work (anybody heard of India?)

by i.hilliard

Web pages should NEVER be written with a particular browser in mind. They should be written to the standards. That way, there is only the need to write one web page and all should be able to read it. If pages are written to the standards and don't work on a particular browser, then the problem is with the browser not the page.

An important mistake not to make is to believe that something is a standard simply because the most common browser has it.

If we all stick to the standards then the industry as a whole will be better off. More importantly, if the standards won't 'cut it' then it is up to the industry as a whole to ensure that they do.

Ian

by agnostic

One of the definitions of "standard" from yourdictionary.com:
"Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence."

I won't comment on the excellence of the Microsoft product, but you can't argue it isn't pervasive.

Just because it isn't IEEE (or ISO, or whatever) approved doesn't mean it isn't a standard.

The fact is that it is much easier to develop a web application that is targeted at a particular browser, because of the support given by the browser manufacturer. Often advanced featuresets are browser dependent, and it's often far more economical to develop using those featuresets and sacrifice the users not using a compatible system.

by chris

Look at the web server market:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

M$ might own the desktop, but they are losing share on infrastructure more every day.

Microsoft does not follow standards. Their policy is embrace and extend. In translation, they take a standard and break it into something proprietary. This was at the heart of the lawsuit from Sun that Microsoft lost. Microsoft is already attempting to patent their release of XML used in Office, among other derivatives of open standards.

Microsoft breaks standards, locks in users, and excludes competition unfairly. This is at the heart of a monopoly. This is what they have done Netscape and almost every other vendor who has competed directly with them. Linux is the only source of competition where they continue to remain unsuccessful.

Linux is not one distributors. There are at least 5 large distributions. Software written for one release of Linux almost always works in any other release of the same kernel version. There is and always will be one Windows vendor.

Linux cannot replace Windows for many practical reasons (yet?), but standards is not the issue.

by gg5653

Wait, we don't!!!

Well, how about that! If everybody agrees on standards (like you suggest), then we actually can build tools that work on every product.

If you want a more IT-related example, then let's go back to your web site example. People were forced to write two versions of their website because of the browser vendors refusing to use the standards. Because of illegal leveraging of their monopoly in operating systems (as found in a court of law), *one* of these vendors was able to establish a monoculture in the browser market ***WHILE STILL REFUSING TO ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS***.

Today, people who want to adhere to the standards *still* have to write two versions of their websites... one that adheres to the standards, and one that works around the bugs of IE.

And one of the strengths of Linux is that there can NEVER be a Linux monoculture. Anybody can roll their own distribution (that adheres to the Linux Standard Base standards) and include whatever version of the kernel, X server, web server, email client, office suite, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The barrier to entry in the Linux Distribution market is so low that there are litterally *hundreds* of them.

Mind you, some people argue that this is also a *weakness* of Linux, and I'll concede that point if you'd like. You must admit, however, it prevents establishment of a "Linux Monoculture".

One final note, there are several Linux distributions that come from India. The question isn't "will the MicroSoft monoculture be broken", it's "*when* will it be broken". This entire thread is moot.

by terry

Not only is security at risk thanks to Microsoft lax security policies and unaddressed security flaws, the reputation of IT staff on the whole are at risk. Users incorrectly direct their anger about their flaky and unreliable desktops on their IT staff when in fact IT staff can do very little to fix the buggy software from the closed source giant Microsoft.

by gawiman

"...if you where installing System Works and failed to un-check the AV box that could account for you're problems..."

Col Luck, you are like a bomb-squad expert, with encyclopedic knowledge of the deadly devices. It is a credit to you, but hardly to the bomb designer. And in this case the "bomb" is Microsoft and Norton.

I've been in computer support for 9 years, and I have lost count of how many times I've heard someone say, "I installed Norton and now it doesn't work." Of course, the user can't tell you what version of Windows they're using, or what Norton product, or what version it is and so on. Or even what the meaning of "it" is.

There, I feel better. The main problem in security isn't the OS but the user! The weak link between the keyboard and the chair. Windows is pretty easy to mess up - for whatever reason - and letting the user have anything more than restricted rights is like putting power tools in the hands of kindergartners. Yet often apps don't work properly with restricted rights.

And what was MS thinking making an email client that runs code ... Oy, don't get me started!

by quiet_type

I agree with your comment about users. Many of the users at my workplace simply refuse to become better educated about the OS they use, no matter which one it is, and we run have run a dual platform for years (Mac and Windows). I can issue a person a brand new Windows computer, but if I don't restrict their rights, I can go back two weeks later and find a dozen icons in the system tray, indicating every kind of spyware gizmo you can imagine, from weather bugs to wallpaper changers. And they wonder why the machine seems to be responding slower.

Frankly, I think that people have a responsibility to learn to use the tools required on their jobs. If required to use a computer everyday, then the person should learn to do so effectively. Imagine a carpenter who doesn't know how to use a hammer or saw! The employer has a responsibility to provide some training, but the user also has a responsibility to educate himself.

by keyguy13

So true :) I also work tech support and I see the exact same problem every day. At least with windows XP we can lock down the workstation, and it seems to have helped tremendously so far. The users have complained that they can't install aol instant messenger and the like which makes me very happy :) My boss tends to be too nice and has let that crap be installed in the past, but after showing him and the other department heads how much time it saves us on support calls, they had to agree. So yes, it is usually the user that needs to educate himself but we now have tools to keep that from being an issue too.

by hal 9000

With Windows 2003 Enterprise Server Microsoft has put in place a one button external connection to the business network. This is something that the CEO's and their ilk have wanted for years and exactly what scares the hell out of the IT staff. Now you not only have to secure the network but every one of the users who have external access.

Interesting thought isn't it?

Col

by mill3502

First of all there isn't an operating system that exist that doesn't endanger internet security. As more and more internet users begin to migrate to Linux or other operating systems and fail to upgrade as security warning are posted the more the security threats will happen with that peticular operating system. I do agree that Microsoft has had their share of exposures but all brands of operating systems have exposures at the same rate if not more.

by agnostic

So far I have seen a lot of posts saying "Linux is more secure", "Windows is more popular and thus more exposed" etc.

Well, prove it. I'm truly tired of evangelists pointing at the other camp decrying security - someone do an analysis of the number of security flaws discovered vs. effort spent looking vs. relative impact.

It's fine to say that MS is terrible because of the huge user impact, but they have a huge user base. So, where can I find some *facts* about this, rather than religious opinion?

by andresc

The big reason that open source is more secure than a non open sources is because when a bug is found on open source there will be thousands of people trying to solve it, possibly it will be solved in few days, but on a non open source plataform it will be fix (if it become fixed) in a much longer term

by praetorpal

The total number of incidents may be similar, but the extent of the risk and potential damage is less with Linux.

One can go the distance with Linux and use SELinux if they choose to spend about 2-6 months learning it, but the level of security is way beyond the Microsoft side.

For those that can't stomach the steep learning curve, we have a commercial software that does the same thing. It loads in under 10 minutes and a sysadmin needs a few days to feel comforable with it. With this innovation, Linux is protected from both internal and external attacks. The trusted operating system is the way to go in the future.

This is the route to go if you are a Microsoft shop and you wish to use Linux for a gateway.

by midan2

Wait there a minute...Just for everyone blaming microsoft, for every smart man that builds a security system theres a smarter guy out there that can break it..This is one organization fighting against a world of hackers, so u do the maths.....

by rharris

Yes, Microsoft is the target for the majority of attacks. However, it has become plainly clear that all OS has vulnerabilities. Does a monoculture contribute to security risk? No. Even with a well-diversified OS placement there are enough malicious persons willing to make a living or establish a point that security holes will continue to be discovered and exploited.

The only true solution to security risk is to have a well document security policy that utilizes a multi-tier solution to detect, protect, and notify personnel so these threats can be dealt with.

by avisley

You may be right, but untill a product that is as user friendly out of the box happens I don't see people changeing over.

I know many people who are using other OS's and they are sincerly unimpressed, at home they are choseing Microsoft just for that reason, and telling their friends of their expirence.
People will continue to chose Microsoft because it makes using the PC easy, and prepaired tools that make it easy for them to be productive with their time.

From what is have seen most people (house wifes)can put together a pc and install the applications and programs with out a hitch. and keep track of their familys business to a T.

Andy

by ronny.baeb

Lets call everything by its name, hackers choose Windows to attack because MS is now the dominant player on the field.
The moment that LINUX or/and UNIX or even Mac would possess 85% of the market they would be the new target, and UNIX, LINUX, Mac followers, step down from your pedestal, these OS are as vulnerable as Windows.
The only difference would be that the defenders of today would be the attacker tommorow and opposite.
A world wide agreement and implementation of a 20 year prison sentence for hacking would improve something to the amount of attacks, radical? Yes but what is the combined penalty for breaking and entering, rape and manslaughter?

by datalj

I work with Linux myself, but I think that the point is the future. If Linux becomes the dominate system, the hackers would go after them too. The only reason why a hacker seems to go after Microsoft is that it is the dominate OS. They know that they can do the most harm, and there are enough people who use default security to make the hackers job easier. So I see that Linux will have its hacks as Windows does now.

by tiredguy

Ignoring the MS/Linux/BSD/Novell/Unix/OSX/etc. arguement, what this boils down to is common sense. If someone (it only takes one) suddenly found out that all (fill in the auto manufacturer of your choice) cars could be unlocked and driven off with one master key, that would be a problem.

The first thing people would say is, "Well, if you want to avoid this, just buy a brand Y car, that will fix the problem. They don't have this issue."

Then someone else finds a similar master key for brand Y...

There are centuries of history that show monoculture to be a problem worth considering. Just think of Dutch Elm disease in our major cities a few decades back, or just consider the old saying, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Regardless of the OS/Application chosen, there is greater risk when you have a monoculture.

TG

by herman_willett

After entering the computer field in the early '70's, I've seen many changes over the years. The on that upsets me the most is the lack of any real competition to Microsoft and the damage Microsoft has done to the world of software and inovation. Indeed, at first I was so glad that there was becoming one standard operating system, but in time I saw that the OS was not a reliable nor as expandable as others I've worked with. Indeed, it has become almost a threat to coporate productivity even in the hands of well trained and well experienced system / network / database administrators. Working with the new Win3KS in the past few months has been horrid. After spending much money on getting a dozen Win3K servers up and running, we finally trashed the OS on them after about six months and put RH9P on them all and things have been hevenly since.

When we got security tight, nothing could get done unless you re-created things (too much to go into here). When we proted things from our Win2KS and Win2KP machines, things did not work. The Win3KS SQL caused most all of our existing applications to fail when attempting to access the database. Those that did work worked well. Again, when we moved them off Windows and onto Linux, the security issues all melted away and the SQL problems vanished completely. We are now moving completely to RH and MySql in order to improve security, ease of maintenance and just the entire robustness of our system; can sleep well at night knowing that the system is stable and that the chance of a security problem is almost non-existance without hampering productivity.

Herman R. Willett
Sr. Systems Engineer
Dynamic Industries

by i.hilliard

I define a standard as being those that are set by standards organisations such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, ETSI or in the case of web standards W3.org. True standards are the result of all parties coming to an agreement. They may not be the best solution but they are generally a workable solution.

A prime example of the advantages of standards is in the cellular (mobile) phone market. The Europeans, under ETSI, agreed on a single standard (GSM). Once all the vendors were using compatible equipment, they were able to turn their attention to the handsets and the base equipment. This meant that once a handset was developed, there was a much larger potential market for that handset. There was also much more competition between the vendors to produce better handsets and equipment. That is why the GSM handsets are much more advanced then those for CDMA or TDMA. In effect, a reasonable standard is much better than a bunch of competing proprietary solutions because they allow the market to become truly competitive.

Extensions developed by individual large organizations are NOT standards. More often than not, they are mechanisms designed to force the lock-in of clients and developers.

The same thing goes for web development as for programming. "If the code that you produce can only be used on one platform, then the code no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the platform vendor." If the platform vendor for any reason decides to change their extension, then you are forced to play catch-up. More importantly, you have no choice which vendor to use as it would cost too much to port the code to a new platform.

In Microsoft's current battle with Linux, Microsoft is trying for all it can to ensure customers have no choice but to continue to use Windows, thereby ensuring that it does not need to compete in a free and open market place. Such behaviour is neither good for the customers, for the industry as a whole nor even Microsoft itself, in the long term.

Anyone who buys into this entrapment process by using proprietary extensions is simply a part of the problem and is stopping the true innovation that only a competitive market can bring.

Ian

by underground_in_tn

You wrote, "People who buy MS OS's do so under the impression that 'the house is locked', not that someone 'left a door open by accident."

Oh, come one. With all the years of bad press about MS's insecure OS's, I really don't think that's the case. Even if it is, you are still blaming the home builder and home owner for not making the home secure enough, and you're not blaming the actual criminals who are breaking into the homes. That's like blaming the rape victim for her own rape, because she wore the wrong cloths and didn't carry enough mace or a handgun in her purse.

by tesla444

Your reason about 'not blaming the actual criminals' is correct,
up to a point. It seems to me that when Microsoft incompetence
or intent was realized 10 to 15 years ago the blame falls back to
them for not 'fixing the problems' that were clear at that time.
Clearly, it is their intent to NOT fix these problems. So once you
know (either MS or their customers) the blame does fall back on
them for making a conscious decision to use the systems they
know are flawed. Using your rape analogy, the victim is clearly
not to blame in the first incident but if she continues to put
herself in unsafe situations after that knowing the possible
consequences, she increases the risk of a 2nd rape... If she
apply's common sense about her activities, she minimizes the
risk.

MS system users ALL know the security issues with Microsoft
and they know that all Unix based systems (Unix, Linus, Mac,
etc.) are virtually 100% safe from forced entry and don't have any
of the countless security issues common in all Windows
products. So at this point I don't even think the 'rapist' can be
blamed, MS has made it a public issue for so long everyone
know of their questionable business practices and 'seive'
security issues. So the 'blame' can only fall back squarely on the
user....
So the question is: Why would ANYONE use a Microsoft
system where ANY level of security is required???
Can anyone answer that question? I haven't seen any reasonable
answer to that question.

by hal 9000

Now I wonder how he explains who is responsible for Microsoft getting hit by the "Slammer" worm?

Well it wasn't the virus writer, it wasn't microsoft foe supplying a flawed product so it must be Microsoft's fault for not patching their servers. Right?

But back to reality if Microsoft couldn't keep their own systems up to date with the latest patches how can we as mere mortals be expected to do better then Microsoft?

Col

by keyguy13

Linux, Unix and Mac are not in any way impervious to forced entry. Every OS has its security flaws that can be and often are abused. Check out any study done on OS security and they all attest to this. They also state that the reason we see so much in the news about windows security is because windows machines are far more prevalent. That's just common sense. So if you're just looking to hack a system because you're some bored juvenile delinquent, you look for anything that can be hacked. There are alot more windows machines, people hate microsoft, people know microsoft products, so it stands to reason that they will be hacked more than linux or other OSes. Yes, it's true that windows has more inherant security flaws but that doesn't make linux or any other OS bullet proof by any means.

I don't think Microsoft ever intended to make computing insecure. Initially, back in the 80s there wasn't much of a concern for security by the average user and microsoft was focused on simply selling software that everyone would use. They were trying to make money. They did that. They did that better than anyone else out there. Now you have people that resent them for doing so well (even though they probably wouldn't be able to do half of what they do online or offline without them) out there hacking their systems and software. They are cutting off their noses to spite their face. I wish these stupid little punks would actually contribute something that makes a difference rather than focusing on vandalism. Ok, rant over.

by crazyal

I would suggest getting off the rape analogy all together. The victim is never to blame no matter what the situation. Now we can go back to discussing the issue.

by felipe_alfaro

It's called inertia... Unfortunately, many
businesses and individuals made the wrong choice
and chose Microsoft insecure products. Now, they
don't want to throw away all of their investment
and retrain in another platform.

However, I think that, at some point, we need to
analyze our decisions and take a change, even
when this means investing more money. It will
pay in return. I think the market is crying for
a change. We are tired of Microsoft products.

by hal 9000

That it is OK for Microsoft to sell us software at inflated prices that doesn't work and it is our fault?

Unfortunately I live in the real world where Microsoft has the market domination and at the very least every workstation for all the end users needs to run Microsoft currently as no one is prepared to learn anything different. At a rough guess from what I have seen in all my customers work less than 10% of any software is actually used and the other 90% is just wasted space for them.

Now Microsoft really got started when they did a deal with IBM and ever since then Microsoft has been synonymous with the PC market. Really is it any wonder that it still commands the lions share of the market?

That is because most end users have at the very least learnt Microsoft and a few have even grown up with these products and they are all that they know and are willing to learn as well. Therefore to save costs companies only use Microsoft products in the work place where they do not have to outlay any money in training. They may constantly be dissatisfied with these products but they stay with Microsoft because more from fear than anything else. Something along the lines of "Better the Devil you know that that that you don't know!"

Col

by rakundig

As IT it is OUR fault that we are using products that do not meet our own requirements. Sure, there is a lot of leaning towards MS from upper management because that is what they have on their home computer and that is what they know, but WE are IT and it is our job to make sure everyone else can do their job and well.

We all know the MS is substandard as far as OS's are concerned. We all also know that all the junk that MS throws into it's OS is never used, especially in the workplace.

Users use email, file storage, a couple of apps that are most likely specific to each organization and a word processor.

So, we all need to start a movement to get away from MS products. This movement, if large enough, will do one or two things. It will give us a better working environment since Linux, Netware, Unix, MacOS, etc.. IS more secure than MS could dream of, no matter what any of the MS buffs in this string say! And/or it will force MS to actually fix their OS because they will be losing market share.

How we do this is not by fighting the machine but presenting it to upper mgmt is a fashion that they will like. Man hours, productivity, cost. We gotta count beans like the bean counters to get them to come over to the good side of the force.

We all know that users will whine for a few weeks when they get their new GNOME desktop, they won't like the email interface, they won't like star office. After another month they will think it is kind of cute or nifty or they like the look of Xwin or something. Next month no one even remembers what it was like to use MS in the office.

Users will adapt, Mgmt will fall in line if given the proper numbers.

So I say again, it is OUR fault that MS is so junky yet still used. Because we are complacent.

Thanks
Rick

by hal 9000

Beginners Linux to start off with but you will soon find it too restricting and then you will have to move to something like RedHat, Mandrake, SUSE or if you really want to go the hard way Debian which is the most Rock Solid Linux I've ever used. But it comes at a price and that is end user friendliness.

Col

by blarman

Thanks. T appreciate the perspective and accuracy of your post. I think it hits the nail right on the head.

by casouthard

While the analogy may have hit a nail, I don't believe its the intended nail. The conclusion I draw is that the friend made an assessment of the situation knowing the benefits and flaws and determined that the benefits out weighed the flaws and purchased the home. Now, the friend gets to deal with the flaws and enjoy the benefits. It looks to me like a whole lot of business decisions I've seen. If there is a morality play on stage in this scenario, I missed it.

by partley

If i can be so bold as to add to the analogy (hopefully, to illustrate why we should be upset with MS.)

MS is one of only a handfull of contractors who can build a home, anywhere. A number of the other contractors only provide the foundation, and give you the plans for all the really cool stuff the MS 'contractor' will build for you (some provide modular rooms, others just provide really good materials).

So, your two options are: to hire some artisans to build you a house using the foundation provided from one contractor, and integrating whatever modular rooms and features you want in your house, possibly using plans provided from various other contractors. Or, to get the prefab home filled with features you might not want or need, but that requires you to hire some house staff (IT pros) to scare off anyone who tries to get in through the many openings in your house, paint over or fix what the vandals destroy, and just generally keep your home safe, constantly. Of course, occasionally the prefab contractor will come by with an oddly shaped window or door to discourage someone from accessing that particular opening, but you can be sure these tenacious criminals - who we're ALL very mad at and want to see strung up just as much as the prefab contractor - will find a way inside eventually.

Worst of all, every couple years the prefab contractor will want to cause a major upheaval in your life by redesigning the overall layout and features of your house. Then, you need to relearn where the various rooms are, and what features have been added, or removed whether you liked them or not, but it never really solves the problem you have with people coming in your house uninvited... i could go on, but my company has an all MS network that needs me to make sure no one is coming through an open window.

peace

by hal 9000

Secondary OS and isn't really any competition to Microsoft why exactly did they buy a large share of the Corel Corp and at the AGM insist that they drop their Open Source products? After Microsoft got their way they then off loaded the Corel shares and now we have no Corel Linux or any of their applications {software} being developed for Linux.

Kind of makes you think doesn't it?

But then again that is one item the Microsoft can not be sued for as it was a vote by share holders and not those anti competitive practices that they are currently in Court over. Whoops that's for over pricing their products and not any form of anti competitive practices this time isn't it?

Col

by keyguy13

Yes it does make one think. Microsoft has always been proactive so when we see them licensing SCO and helping to fund SCO's lawsuit (albeit indirectly) you have to know that Microsoft is scared s&^%$less of linux. Everyone sees it as a threat. And they should. They ARE copying the features of windows, and it's smart of them to do so. Why not? Microsoft has been doing it for years. Finally some people are actually stepping up to take on Microsoft the american way; with cut-throat competition. Linux is getting easier to use and a lot of the open-source, freeware apps out there are just as good as microsoft's offerings. Now microsoft is doing what apple did way back; they are pricing themselves out of the market. Money rules everything and that is why, in the next 5-10 years, linux and open-source will be the clear victors. Support will be where the money is and microsoft will either have to offer their own flavor of linux and support for it or go the way of the dinosaur. You watch, it is going to happen.

by reami

Very nice post.

Let me make another analogy: someone might buy a door for its house, thinking its wood made, and it surely seems to be so. Some time later, this person, who was happy with its door, discover that a thief entered its house just by kicking the front entrance: the door was not wood, but paper made. Let?s say somebody lied about the properties of the door.

All in all, every door has its own weak points. Its just a matter of right information, fair cost and benefit.

by dc_guy

"If you're dumb enough to keep paying the enormous price for a new Mac every few years"

This is simply not true any more, although the persistence of the myth is a credit to Grungeware's advertising department -- probably the only part of the organization that's really good at their jobs.

Macs are not all that expensive unless you have to buy the cute little iMac in order to be hip. You can get a G4 PowerBook laptop for well under $1,000, or a G4 desktop machine for well under $2,000. Both are performance-competitive with current-generation quality-brand PC hardware unless you're a videogame junkie (in which case you probably have a PowerStation), or a top-end graphics professional (in which case you wouldn't be caught dead with a PC at any price).

The modest actual price differential is a classic case of "you get what you pay for." Contrary to your implication, as the personal computer consumer base continues to expand well beyond the circle of aficionados, they are increasingly LESS fascinated by the prospect of having to become software mechanics in order to get e-mail, read the news, balance their checkbook, and manage their music libraries.

It's true that Macs aren't upgradeable and if you want to be compatible with current applications you have to have current hardware. But the multi-faceted advantages of that far outweigh the disadvantage, which has only one dimension: dollars. Each generation of Mac hardware is designed from scratch, and each generation of Mac OS is built from the ground up to integrate with it.

The significance of this is twofold. Macs are not wheezing along on an architecture that has (barely and clumsily) evolved from a text-only, keyboard-only, monochrome, silent, unanimated, single-tasking, non-networked ancestor. And OS/X is not rife with as-yet unidentified security wormholes inherited from three versions ago, nor with the new defects that are inevitably introduced by the exasperated, cloogey upgrading of legacy code instead of building new software with state-of-the-art software development methodologies.

More than half of the Earth's population is not wired yet. They have no financial or emotional investment in existing IT to guide their purchasing decisions. I would imagine that the current dismal state of the PC/Windows-based "information infrastructure" is enough to make Macs very attractive to them.

by keyguy13

It always seems to come down to a mac versus pc debate. The fact is, you have your numbers wrong. Yes you can buy a G4 for a little less than $2000 but the average PC with similar features is around $600. And if you want to go high end, you spend $3000 on a mac and $1200 for a very high end PC. This is a fact and you know it. So no it is not a "modest" difference in price. And when you consider that macs are not upgradeable, the price difference is prohibitive. Yes, macs are better at high end graphics and audio, but not so much better as to justify the price. Now, that IS just my opinion, but if you look at market share accurately, you will see that apple remains a niche market. Enough said.

by keyguy13

"... as the personal computer consumer base continues to expand well beyond the circle of aficionados, they are increasingly LESS fascinated by the prospect of having to become software mechanics in order to get e-mail, read the news, balance their checkbook, and manage their music libraries."

That is just another myth propagated by MAC users. Yes, earlier versions of windows were buggy and not nearly as easy to use for beginners. But that just flat out isn't true anymore. A stock windows xp machine from say, dell can do everything that you just said right out of the box without tweaking a single setting and with no errors or problems. The fact is, XP is finally the OS that everyone that didn't own a mac wanted. Now, all mac users can claim is that their computers do graphics and audio better. But as I have never used a mac for either graphics or audio because all of the software I'm used to using is PC based, I can't even comment accurately on that. And frankly spending 50-70% more to test that theory just seems plain dumb. I have a machine that performs almost flawlessly for everything I can think of doing on a computer and it cost me far less than a mac. And when I want to upgrade, I can and my machine will be as good or better than the newest mac and have cost me even less. Why would I spend more? Honestly, give me a GOOD reason and I might consider it ;)

by robin.banerjee

It is probably impossible by construction to build an OS which is bug-free. However, the amount of bugs in any MS OS is simply unacceptable, since it is not free of charge and, further, the cost to quality ratio is rather poor (the SW itself; plus the continuous updating of the HW needed for new versions to simply run, leave aside efficiency!; plus the corporate costs derived from its flaws, those augmenting exponentially with time). Why would then anybody want to buy such a product? First, because it has been almost a monopoly for a long time and we are, therefore, "prisoners" of MS ; second, because other actual alternatives are either unknown to many people, or just to expensive to migrate to. However, we loose money and MS does nothing about it. Why should they? They are no charitable foundation: They want to make as much money as possible (fair) by any (legal? probably, ethical? not so much) means. Why should they then bother if in any case zillions of people keep on buying their products? Moreover, they even get part of their job done (for free) by letting their customers debug the SW they paid for in the first place. If security is an issue in MS products (and it certainly is!) it will remain to be so as long as they are not forced to take action. The unique way to press in this direction is for MS not to make as much money as they have been making, i.e. for us not to just keep on buying their products regardless.
I'm afraid we have what we have come to deserve.

by rick

umm.. there is no debate. Out of the box windows x anything has way too many security holes in it. It's like smoking cigarettes - why pay some company to kill you? ... so why pay some company to wipe out your company? Linux and Lindows .. more bang for the buck.

by neurone

The whole house v software analogy is flawed anyway.

A house is simply a container it does not carry out a process and it is equivalent to your computer hardware which cannot do anything on it's own. Computers don't get hacked the software running on/in them does. For an analogy to be drawn there would have to be some way of taking control of the people in the house and making them work for you.

I cannot break into someone's house and then have that house automatically start breaking into every house in the neighbourhood until there were non left to break into or until the neighbourhood refused to let me be part of it.

If it were possible for this to happen then I WOULD want barbed wire and guard dogs and machine guns and anything else I could find and I would be wanting to know why the housebuilder sold me a house designed to provide comfort and security but failed to deliver.

A closer analogy would be that of your car which is a machine designed to carry out a function and has a security mechanism to stop others from hijacking its function but even this is less than perfect for the same reason stated above.

It is no accident that we use the term virus, it is the nearest analogy we have - it causes the body to function beyond our control and it spreads to others causing the same effect.

Another close but somewhat sensitive analogy is that of religion. It can be 'implanted' into the people inside the house causing them to change their function and also causing them to subsequently 'infect' others around them. In the case of cults that cause behaviour unacceptable to the majority this is a particularly close analogy.

by industrial_controller

Yes, I agree, Microsoft is doing their best and it's not good enough. That's why a competitive system is so great. Someone can come along and do better. Certainly it took a little while to come up with a competitive model that Microsoft couldn't crush, which is what they do really well. But now a strong competitor is here in the form of open source and that can only make all parties better or weed out the pretenders. If you can't be patient, just use a non-M$ operating system.

by partley

I disagree that they did a great thing several years back by moving from the "mysterious DOS" to Windows. It would have taken a minimal effort to teach kids growing up in the eighties how to work in a DOS environment. If this had happened, those same kids would be much smarter about their computers today. Operating DOS is not that much more difficult than working in Windows, it's like the difference between learning to drive and automatic car vs. a manual, it just takes a little more practice.

by it security guy

Microsoft is only part of the problem. True, they need to improve the security of their products, but the customers who buy their products need to know how to use them properly, including the security features. If an IT manager is buying MS products becuase others are, he should reevaluate the requirements of his data center. Picking a product just because someone else uses it is not a good enough reason. If that IT manager wants to buy Linux or a version of UNIX but his boss says to stay with MS, then he should do everything he can to make sure his people are knowledgable about MS products and are taking advantage of training to learn about them. If you have MS Windows 2003 Server just installed but don't configure it properly and you get hacked, you can't blame it on Microsoft because that was not something they did wrong. I have seen stories of companies who were hacked or their sites were hit with a DOS attack, or they had data stolen and the main reason was they were not up to the latest patch levels. And the patches were ones that were months old or a year old, so there wasn't any reason not to have installed them.
Companies also need proper policies for IT management, training and awareness, in addition to hiring knowledgable staff and maintaining their level of experience with ongoing training.
You can't buy a brand new car and not add gas, oil or other fluids and expect it to run without problems, or leave the keys in it with the door open and the engine on and think no one will steal it. Everyone has to take a certain measure of precautions because we have a responsibility too.

by andresc

Yes, if you do not apply a security patch your odds to be hacked is bigger, but patches can not be installed on every system. What will happen if you are a small company with only one server and when you applied the latest security patch your main application stoped working? You wil certainly uninstall the patch and continue working with your application until you find a patch for the patch.

ALCB

by keyguy13

Whoever said that software MUST be secure? If you want to keep using the house analogy, fine: Is the person who builds your house responsible for making it break-in proof? No they aren't. That is ridiculous. And microsoft has never claimed or implied that their software is bullet proof. Because no software will ever be secure, just like no house will ever be secure. What's his face has a point, the criminals and little script kiddies are the ones responsible for the lack of security because they can't seem to control themselves from breaking into computers. All that needs to happen is for these people to stop. Period. People in general need to take responsibilty for their own actions. That is the only way anyone will ever feel or be secure is if criminals stop this crap. I know it sounds so simple and naieve as to be ridiculous but it just simply is true.

If these assholes stop writing viruses, stop writing spyware and stop hacking into systems we won't have a need for security. We'll actually have some freedom and computing will cost everyone alot less.

I say we make the punishment for computer crimes death by hanging and it should be televised and the person whose property was stolen or damaged should be the one to pull the lever. That's another option anyway.

by keyguy13

First of all, there are plenty of people brilliant enough to create an OS that is as secure as all of you people want it to be and has all of the features you want, but guess what? They are all a bunch of sissy whiners who would rather complain about the piece of crap OS everyone is using now rather than actually DOING something to compete.

The fact is WE HAVE ALL SETTLED (well those of us that use Microsoft) so get over it or choose another OS. It's really that simple. You have control over your life. If using Microsoft's OS and other software is such a burden, then stop using it. Tell your dumb ass bosses that they are retards and that you won't be a part of supporting microsoft anymore and quit. But do me a favor and stop whining about Microsoft here in these foums. And frankly, I wish tech republic would actually have something fresh to say once in a while. This stupidity is far beyond tired. Microsoft is here until someone beats them. That's just the way it is, and no amount of bad mouthing or whining will ever change that.

by keyguy13

Terms like "Due care" and "Contributory Negligence" are just another way of saying "Let's find another way to sue someone because we were too stupid to know that our computers could be broken into" and in the end, the lawyers get the money and everyone else loses in every conceivable way.

I swear there are teams of layers that scour through the dictionary to find ways to sue people.

I agree with shakespeare...

by keyguy13

They just created that law so that the defendants in every breaking and entering case would have something to argue in their defense. God forbid people should have common sense, or that someone should have the freedom to leave their doors and gates unlocked. That's the problem. These criminals have actually gotten people to think that it's ABnormal to keep their houses (or computers as the stupid analogy continues) unlocked. That it's ABnormal to CHOOSE to trust your fellow man (or hacker, as the case may be). THAT is the real issue involved in ALL of this. These scumbags should all be shot as an example and have their heads stuck on pikes. Then we should take digital pictures and post them all over the web.

These criminals have made people afraid. And people that are afraid generally aren't rational. To force a company to be accountable for your security is ludicrous. Microsoft doesn't OWE us any security. They claim they are trying. I believe them, but if it isn't good enough then go with something that IS secure. Or better yet, leave all of your doors completely unlocked and start trusting people again. Who cares if some kid sees your collection of transvestite porn anyway? :)

by pryan

Absolutely correct - no system is immune to security flaws. However, some are better than others. Absolutely correct that Microsoft were 'trying to make money' - they weren't interested in producing top quality software or systems, they were interested in blasting the competition and getting the goods to market. Now how would such a mentality promote inferior goods ?
Now, I think keyguy shows his true colors with the statement "though they (the users) probably wouldn't be able to do half of what they do online or offline without them". Microsoft brought goods to market, their record of inventiveness is less impressive. We wouldn't have had word processors (Word Perfect?). No web (Netscape, BSD Sockets, FTP, HTML et al ) ???. No servers (IBM, UNIX, LINUX et al ) ??? MS brought computing to the masses but they didn't invent computing and certainly the whole concept of dumbing down and churning out products to the lowest common denominator implies some sacrifice of reliabilty and/or security.
I would think that the concept of trying to create a world without criminals is unrealistic. So,for me, whether the criminal or the system is to blame, is a moot point. I want to protect my servers, not enter into some universal 'love in'. Microsoft products have serious flaws and the nature of their proprietry and monopolistic practises (sorry but they were found guilty of this in the US courts and are currently in the European courts for the same stuff) make it extremely difficult for me to do anything about fixing these problems - even though I have the training and the knowledge to do so in a more 'open' system such as Linux or Unix.
Is this forum about politics (ie: do you like Microsoft)or about reality (ie: are some products better than others?)

by felipe_alfaro

Windows is insecure and has a lot of worms and
viruses, not because it's, unfortunately, the
most used desktop OS, but becase:

a) It did ship with a firewall, but disabled by
default.
b) It insists on defaulting to Administrator
privileges for newly created user accounts.
c) It's so stupid that it executes any code,
like scripts embedded in messages or ActiveX
controls from untrusted parties.
d) It's been programmed with ease of use in
mind, not security.

And I could go on and on.