In <[email protected]>, on 07/24/2012
at 11:09 AM, "Joel C. Ewing" <[email protected]> said:
>That certainly would have been nice, but I'm not convinced anyone
>at the time understood the potential scope of those problems,
They understood enough to warn against it, whether or not they
understood how bad it would be.
>much less would have been seriously motivated to have come up
>with a technical solution
It's not a technical problem, it's a managerial and political problem.
>The virus vulnerability (and number of spambots and DOS attack
>bots) on the Internet is much more a function of the Operating
>Systems of the user nodes connected to the Internet than of the
>Internet itself.
It's the predictable result of not cutting off providers that tolerate
abuse and compromised systems.
>But does anyone think MS would have had any inclination to
>harden their Windows designs and reduce virus vulnerability if
>they were not forced to do it by problems made evident by
>connecting Windows systems to the Internet?
Are you agreeing with me? Because forcing providers to drop
compromised clients would have forced M$ to clean up its act.
>Even motivated by that pressure
What pressure? They had no economic incentive to fix the problems.
>In hindsight we can now see things that should have been done
>better, but I doubt if much of that would have been obvious without
>our experience with the current Internet.
It was obvious at the time, although nobody publicly predicted just
how bad it would get.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
