On 8/17/05, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I am a very happy user of Linux (migrated from MS Windows one or two years ago), but one could speculate that MS Windows based systems are more prone to be attacked (by virus, worms, hackers,etc.) than the Linux ones just because the former are in much larger number and, therefore, it is more encouraging and motivating for the attackers to do such a things. On the other hand, since there are much more MS Windows users, there are consequently much more potential attackers (among those users), increasing the probability of success with attacking MS Windows based systems. Paul
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from Mandriva? Go to http://store.mandriva.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrivaclub.com ____________________________________________________
