On Tuesday 16 August 2005 07:10 pm, Mr. Geek mercilessly beat the keyboard,
and wrote:
| Well, here we go again. Sigh! It sure would be nice if someone got
| their collective fingers and thumbs out of wherever they've been shoved
| and deal with this crap once and for all!
|
| http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/16/computer.worm/index.html
|
| This is a perfect example of why making computers easy should never be
| given a higher priority than making them secure first.
|
| If you ever needed a reminder why you switched to Linux, this ought to
| do nicely! Redmond couldn't build a decent OS if their corporate lives
| depended on it!
|
| There's just something horribly wrong about paying ridiculous amounts
| of money for software that is open to vulnerabilities like this. To
| make matters worse, consumers then pay more money for anti-virus
| software to protect that same 'easy-to-use' operating system.
|
| Then, to top it all off, Redmond comes up with a new service intended
| to protect Windows users from the bugs and holes they didn't fix yet.
| Of course, there's a fee involved.
|
| http://beta.windowsonecare.com/prodinfo/Default.aspx
|
| What gets me pissed about this, is the fact that users and clients
| always point a finger at IT/IS people when their systems crash and
| burn, instead of shaking a finger at Microsoft, saying 'Shame on You'!
|
| I'm just glad that some of us are smarter than that. At least we get to
| brag for a few days about how we're not being affected by this garbage!
I do not think it is so much that M$ is unable to produce a decent OS as
much as it is that they have no motivation to do so. Their business model
is targeted to selling units of the product. The faster a new version is
'ready' for sale, the more units that can be sold. The more units sold, the
more profit generated. As a result, their development team is under the gun
to get the job done fast rather than well. Since time is money, and quality
takes time, it is expensive. Further, their customer base wants easy to use
(as you so eloquently pointed out), and continues to purchase the product
despite its history. I see nothing in this equation to provide a motivation
to any thing greater than mediocrity.
The Open Source business model on the other hand is based on the sale of
support for the product, which provides an excellent motivation for quality
since the better the product works, the less it will cost to support.
My 2 cents ...
--
Ernie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ICQ 41060744
Registered Linux User 247790
____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from Mandriva?
Go to http://store.mandriva.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrivaclub.com
____________________________________________________
