>1. ==== COMMENTARY ==== > >* MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR A NEW PLATFORM > >Greetings, > >Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates' appearance >last week at his company's remedy hearings had me on the edge of my >seat: Gates was a liability during the original Microsoft antitrust >trial when the US Department of Justice (DOJ) played embarrassing >excerpts from his videotaped testimony; I was curious about how he >would present himself this time. Apparently, Gates and company didn't >expect the earlier testimony to ever see the light of day, and the >person who appeared on tape bore little resemblance to the public >perception most people have of the man. Instead of seeming intelligent >and technical, the Gates in the videotape appeared sullen and >uncooperative, and he appeared to have little idea what was going on >with his company. > >Well, the Gates who appeared in court last week was a different >person. This Gates vigorously defended his company's right to innovate >and, perhaps most controversially, fought against the nonsettling >states' request to force Microsoft to produce a modular Windows >version that would let end users, PC makers, and IT administrators add >and remove middleware products such as Internet Explorer (IE), Windows >Media Player (WMP), and Windows Messenger. Gates said such a >requirement was impossible and would force Microsoft to take Windows >off the market. > >But perhaps that outcome isn't such a bad idea. For the past decade, >the industry has watched Microsoft meld its legacy Windows products >with Windows NT technologies, and the latest Windows OS--Windows XP-- >is the combination of these two product families. NT provides the >sophisticated low-level services enterprise IT departments need in a >modern OS, but most of the fluff (e.g., the UI, IE, and the digital >media functionality) came from outside the NT team. In giving us the >best of both worlds, Microsoft seems to have stripped the soul from NT >by layering the core services under mountains of other garbage. > >I've written about NT's origins and the ways that Microsoft has >compromised the OS over the years, such as when the company made IE >(then-buggy and unreliable) a required component for installing key >server products such as Microsoft SQL Server or IIS. And in XP, the >needs of consumers now seem to outweigh the needs of the enterprise. >Microsoft has relegated NT--once the domain of businesses, developers, >and other technical users--to the barely mentioned underpinnings of a >system designed to not crash while Johnny is blasting space aliens or >mom is ordering groceries online: It's a sad state of affairs. > >So given Microsoft's recent security strategy, perhaps the time has >come for the company to walk away from Windows in the enterprise and >design a replacement that offers binary compatibility but none of the >foundational problems. Remember, NT was a brand new world when >Microsoft developed it in the early 1990s, but back then, the big >connectivity concern was LAN Manager-based networking in small >businesses, and security wasn't high on the priority list. Perhaps >Microsoft needs to start thinking about another grassroots development >project--one rooted in security--that could replace NT. Almost 15 >years have passed since Dave Cutler wrote the requirements for NT, and >that product was supposed to offer MS-DOS, OS/2, and POSIX >compatibility as well as support for RISC processors and other >technologies so far-out-of-date today as to be almost ridiculous. You >can tack features onto an existing product for only so long before >it's time to start over from scratch. > >Interestingly, the Linux world might create that replacement OS first. >I'm not sure I believe the Linux security promise, but Linux has a >decent reputation in certain areas, and it's a viable alternative in >various situations. NT interoperability has been a Linux goal for >years, and various options are available that let you integrate Linux >servers into NT-based domains and workgroups and even use a Linux >server as a domain controller (DC). On the software front, various >conversion technologies are also available that let you move ASP-based >Web sites to Apache, for example, or interoperate with SQL Server >databases. And earlier this year, a small Linux company released the >software behind the Windows-compatible Lindows OS, which lets users >run Microsoft Office, IE, and other Windows applications on a Linux >desktop system. As Linux' ease of use improves, cost becomes more of a >concern, and Linux can certainly be cheaper to deploy than Windows--a >crucial deciding point in these economic times. > >I don't think Windows will go away any time soon, but finding viable >alternatives is possible now, more than ever. If Microsoft is serious >about embracing security, perhaps the company should let go of its >Windows cash cow and start anew. XP might be secure enough for the >home, but it seems increasingly insufficient for the needs of the >enterprise. And if the company doesn't start working on a solution >now, it might find Windows collapsing under a mountain of security >exploits and vulnerabilities far more damaging than any nonsettling >states' plan. > >Paul Thurrott, News Editor, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >********************
--- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> UNIX and Network Consultant http://members.telocity.com/~dpuryear PGP Key available at http://www.us.pgp.net In the beginning the Universe was created. This has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
