-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On May 19, 2004 08:23, Curtis Sloan wrote: > Further to the security/accessibility continuum principle is the idea of > "security as a process". It's never a finished product.
indeed. > Making "cybersecurity" real is at odds with the "capitalism" that brought > pervasive computing and Microsoft ubiquity to market. how so? it may be at odds with Microsoftian marketing practices, but Microsoft isn't the only incarnation of the capitalistic model in the tech industry. the two are no synonymous, in fact one might even argue that Microsoft is NOT capatalistic at all but a virtual oligarchy. even the Kings and Churches of old made money (and often great stupid gobs of it), but that characteristic alone did not make them "captalists". digital diversity is no more at odds with capitalism than having different makes of cars is. why aren't all cars Fords? digital diversity also does not mean "no numerically dominant operating system family". we've long equated "OS" with "a particular company's product". Solaris? Sun. A/IX? IBM. Windows? Microsoft. MacOS? Apple. etc, etc. now... Linux? well... we could list companies all day, without even touching on non-corporate entities that are just as much "players" in the Linux space. this means that there is a natural diversity amongst the larger Linux population. this diversity must be ballanced against ease of Linux application development (avoid fragmenting into a million incompatible Linuxes as UNIX did), but is not completely at odds with it. > How would we like to > see government-mandated limitations on numbers of each deployed OS? i, for one, wouldn't =) > "Cybersecurity is everyone's responsibility, including the vendors, the > users, enterprises and government agencies," said Greg Garcia of the > Information Technology Association of America, one of the industry's > leading trade groups. > <snip> > > Both groups, however, said they oppose government mandates on security. government mandates would be largely useless and are not necessary. very little good has come to the public sector in the area of security from the government's various attempts at shoring it up. > As long as security is voluntary and optional, it isn't. :-P > > That's largely because the need for security is a human problem, not a > technological one. i'd go further and say it's a SOCIAL problem, which needs SOCIAL adjustments to rectify. - -- Aaron J. Seigo GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 while (!horse()); cart(); -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFArUPw1rcusafx20MRAmQXAJ9oPfeix2jlqPAS2u7k/rrLG1131QCeOdqt /Vbs8iXAq+MBVdo/P0DrL5Q= =OjT+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
