Hi
"Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> -=> If it's stupid, but it works, then it's not stupid <=-
>> Reading your above tag line reminded me of the
>> way another "genius" I've heard mentioned on this list
>> seems to think! Sssssshh, his initials are B.G.(alias W.G.).
GM> But, B.G.'s stupid ideas don't work.
GM> So, they *are* stupid!
It depends how you define it works.
He sells his products, and is the market leader, and very few people
complain, that it is not working ....
According to this his strategy works ... :((((((
Read also this (from this month's CryptoGramm Newsletter)
The upshot of this is that the marketplace does not reward real
security. Real security is harder, slower, and more expensive, both to
design and to implement. Since the buying public has no way to
differentiate real security from bad security, the way to win in this
marketplace is to design software that is as insecure as you can possibly
get away with.
Microsoft knows that reliable software is not cost effective. According to
studies, 90% to 95% of all bugs are harmless. They're never discovered by
users, and they don't affect performance. It's much cheaper to release
buggy software and fix the 5% to 10% of bugs people find and complain
about.
Microsoft also knows that real security is not cost-effective. They get
whacked with a new security vulnerability several times a week. They fix
the ones they can, write misleading press releases about the ones they
can't, and wait for the press fervor to die down (which it always
does). And six months later they issue the next software version with new
features and all sorts of new insecurities, because users prefer cool
features to security.
GM> Glenn McCorkle [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Jackson, Ohio, USA
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> A BBSer's telephone bill knows no bounds... <=-
