Slashdot Mirror
Windows in 2020
sasha328 writes: "I came across this article on LA Times while I was reading the LinuxToday news site. It is very funny, and points out the in layman's language, the problem with homogeneity in computer OSes. Well worth reading."
I notice that the "yaboot" linux bootloader works just fine on the new, "changed" macs, and no one ever managed to write a proper Linux bootloader (well, OK, miBoot, but it was a terrible kludge) for the old macs.
Be were just a bunch of whiners IMO.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
After watching Microsoft profit off of bad software and business decisions that screwed people over again and again, I have come to the following conclusion:
Darwinism does not apply to Capitalism.
The best product, unfortunately, is usually not the one that survives. Rather, it's the one that has the best marketing.
On the topic of using old computers, I don't think it's because they're hard to maintain. I don't know what you mean by that - my Atari ST needs no maintainance. I don't use it for one simple reason - I have absolutely no use for it. Everything I do on my PC would be completely impossible with that little amount of computing power.
Why does MS ship it with most services running? Apple does the opposite with OS X; almost everything is disabled by default.
A message from our sponsor
What if commodity hardware would only run a Microsoft operating system? If the CPU and bus architecture would only run pages of code which were digitally signed by Microsoft? It'll probably start as a privileged mode which gives access to "approved" hardware devices, and be promoted as a DRM feature with support from the RIAA and cronies, or as an antivirus security feature. Then it'll be extended to all code.
You simply won't be able to buy a new CPU which will run Linux.
Code Red bunging up my apache logs has made me think:
Posit: once Linux reaches a certain saturation, it will suffer the same security issues as Microsoft does.
Bear with me on this...
Take Code Red.The problem is not that Microsoft products are insecure. Code Red exploits a flaw for which the patch was available a month ago.
Neither is it that Microsoft sysadmins are incompetent. Most major systems were indeed patched well in advance. Those that weren't at the time, soon did as Code Red struck: even the least-subscribed admin reads the papers and watches TV news.
No. The problem that should be making the Linux community a little less smug is rather more insideous.
After talking to quite a few infected companies, it seems that the majority of uninfected machines were those that were admin-less.
The sort of server you buy, plug in, have someone load up with whatever and leave in a cupboard to happily serve away...and that is **Precisely** the sort of system Linux is going to be used for.
Once Linux systems are consumer devices (like my lovely Cobalt Qube) - and there is every good reason for them to become so - then no amount of open source hacking, patches, multiple eyeballs and bugtraqery will stop these systems from being compromised once a hole is found and made public.
This is not because they will be run by bad sysadmins, but because they will - as with many MS systems running Code Red right now - not be administered by anyone at all.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the very security of Linux is something to do with the average level of savvy among current Linux users.
Would a bigger userbase keep the same level of security and system awareness? Will the guy in 2020 buying the plug-in-and-leave Linux box for his small business's network know when and where to go for the next patch to Sendmail/Apache/Bind?
Probably not.
And that's the problem Microsoft have. and the one we're going to get.
I think I've seen something similar not too long ago. Don't remember where, unfortunately.
Quite a good point about everything running the same OS and getting hit by (worms | virii | crackers) at the same time -- it's even more poignant and ironic with the infections of Code Red 1, 2 (and 3?) still making the rounds.
The corn analogy drives his point home quite well, too!
Now... where are those raging mobs he talks about? We sure could use a few of them -- especially for all the brilliant individuals who still haven't noticed their infected boxes, never mind turn them off! (God forbid they could be bothered to patch 'em!)
Sheesh.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Yeah, I guess. On the other hand:
My point is only that we all live in glass houses.(from the first page of Debian )
You're right about the blind MS bashing -- it's idiotic. Linux is not better than Windows, and Windows is not better than Linux. It's all a matter of what you want to do, and what your personal preferences are.
Homogeny is bad no matter what system it is. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, all the computers running the same OS are potentially vounerable to the same exploits -- whether than OS be Windows, Linux, BSD, Mac, BeOS, Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, OS/2... you get the idea.
The reason people tend not to realize, though, is that some people have different preferences! Personally, having used Linux for three years, I have decided that I like Win2k better. I am guessing that many people here would disagree with me on that. I don't care, and neither should they. You want to use Linux, use Linux. Fine with me. But I want to use Win2k.
The thing is, the more people use one system, the harder it is for other people to use other systems. If everyone used Win2k except for Linus Torvalds himself, he'd probably have a hard time finding software to run on Linux. If everyone ran Linux except for Bill Gates, he'd have a tough time finding software that ran on Windows. Homogeneity encourages software developers to write non-portable code.
<tangent><rant>
When you write software that isn't portable, you are limiting you users' freedom of choice of operating system. This is bad, no matter what system you are writing for.
I talked to a guy recently who was writing a free (open source, I think) 3D modeller. He was complaining about getting Direct3D and MFC to work together, so I suggested that he use a cross-platform toolkit and OpenGL. That way, I said, his code would be portable. He told me of his personal distaste for Unix, and that he didn't think there was any value in porting his software to it.
I was shocked. I'm sure many of you were, too. But then, how many of you have written non-portable software for Linux? You probably figured Windows sucks, and there was no reason to support it. If so, you were no better than that guy.
Wonderful platforms like BeOS are suffering because people won't write portable code; there is a serious lack of good software for any OS other than Windows, Mac, and Linux (with a few Unix's managing to get easy ports of the Linux stuff). All because people seem to think that there is no reason to support any platform other than their OS of choice.
Sad, isn't it?
Now, being open source does NOT automatically make your software portable! If you use POSIX system calls all over your code (and I'd hate to see your code if you do), porting the thing to Windows would probably be harder than simply re-writing the damned thing from scratch. You must consider portability from the beginning!
I'm not saying that you should personally port your software to every known OS -- that would be impossible -- but make sure you write it in such a way that it can be easily ported. Use portable libraries, and abstract away any system calls you need to make. Then, port it to as many platforms as you have available. If your software is open source, you can rely on the users of the target OS to port your program, provided that you have written it properly. If your software is closed source, you will probably find that porting to alternative OS's is fairly cheap and, in many cases, well worth the money -- again, if your code was written to be portable. Just, please, don't force your users to use *your* preferred OS! Give them a choice!
</rant></tangent>
One thing I noticed is that the whole "homogeny" thing is based around the fact that Windows is the only operating system.
Isn't that pretty much true right now (and for the past 5 years)?
In short, no. If you take all the computers in the world and worked out what percentage are Intel based you get a figure less than 0.2% - of those, maybe 80% are running Windows.
The problem is what you identify as a computer and as an OS. The article discusses traffic lights, shavers, etc. and these are examples of embedded systems. An electric shaver may have a very simple embedded system in there, bordering on an OS. A traffic light system has something a bit more complicated. Your video recorder or DVD doesn't need anything particularly fancy, but still has something bordering on an OS in there. Same goes with your car's engine management, your burglar alarm, your microwave, etc... Just because almost every desktop you see has Windows running on it, doesn't mean every computer in the world runs it - far from it in fact...
This article is talking about the day when all those things are running some version of Windows. As somebody who studied Software Engineering and therefore embedded systems at Uni (although now I work in ISP as it's more interesting), I suspect that day will take some time to get here, and Linux is already in the lead - how many embedded Linux systems are there out there in comparison to Windows?
One would think that if there was a cult of Mac users that nearly everyone knew about, it would be rather obvious when all the Microsoft-run stuff shut down, that the Mac computers weren't affected. Seems to me that'd be enough to have people switching systems...at least if it was a crisis on this scale...
...isn't that one of the major problems w/ Linux, that most people just don't know it exists? I know I didn't have a clue what it was until one of my friends got me to start reading Slashdot. And if this guy ever thought that MS would be able to over-run the alternate-OS crowd that frequents this place... well, I don't believe that's possible.
I like the bit about the Frosted Flakes though. :)
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
"Ahh, but therein lies the rub. There is no one forcing them to do those things, yet they perversely continue to do them anyway. Why should they do it if they aren't forced to? "
You can only speculate at what they would be doing if they HAD real competitors. Of course, Windows 2000 is better than Windows 98 is better than Windows 95 is better than Windows 3.11
They also need to ship improved products every year to incite people to upgrade and thus generate a revenue flow. But this is going to change with their planned rented-software strategy (pay each year instead of once). When this is implemented, what will drive them to ship anything better? Most likely, nothing.
As soon as I am no longer able to use Win2k and force to upgrade to the next Microsoft Operating System will be the day I move to Linux.
Right now Win2k is perfect for me. It's stable, fast and easy to use. Now from my point of view I look back to what I was using just a few months ago. I was using Win98 because of motherboard issues with Win2k. At the time I was in no position to go from Win98 to Linux because I didn't have the time to learn everything again. I have toyed around with Linux in the past, but not fully because I needed a system right then and there I could fully use to my knowledge. Now anyways, I look back to Win98 and I see hell. Unstable, buggy and just a general annoyance. I look to the future and I see WinXP. I don't like the idea of my operating system phoning home or disabling my system if I move my hardware around too much because it invades my privacy. I have other quarrels, but I just want to basically point out my reasoning.
To sum it up, Win2k does everything I want. Going back to Win98 isn't an option, going forward to WinXP is a definate no-no.
As soon as Win2k can no longer function for me, that is the day I move to Linux.
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
Whether this distrust will result in the company being constrained to operate consistently with its monopoly status is - unfortunately - another matter entirely. It looks as though MS's top management has decided to construct new facts on the ground which will make current court rulings irrelevant; unfortunately the US justice system appears unable to cope with this strategy.
Case in point, the net - since every system converged on TCP/IP
[nitpicker mode]
Actually, every system converged on IP, since there are a LOT of protocols running under IP. And IP is mostly tunneled in other protocols, causing a lot of problems between networks of different standards. That it still works is almost a miracle.
[/nitpicker mode]
You can only speculate at what they would be doing if they HAD real competitors.
.doc format every time.
;)
Well, they've had a slew of real competitors. Apple used to be far more viable than it was now. OS/2, RealNetworks, Netscape, take your pick.
Yes, MS is dependent on the upgrade treadmill, and they've had clever ways to get people to upgrade anyway - let's face it, there's no functional difference between Office 95 and Office XP. The only "improvements" have been to add features and functions that virtually nobody uses anyway. But people upgrade anyway, due in great part to the fact that MS breaks and reinvents the
And, for my money, the minute they pursue the upgrade treadmill concept to its logical conclusion - software leasing - they've nailed their own coffin. Who needs that shit - paying your monthly Microsoft bill along with electricity and telephones and water? How many companies just finished moving to win2k, and already they're being told to start thinking about XP?
Anyway, I'll share a story about another computer monopoly that my father, the old computing fogey from back in the day, shared with me. He grew up and took his education in computers during period when computing was IBM. If you wanted anything computing, IBM was not just the best way, it was, most often, the only way. So he and his fellow CS students, in his undergraduate and graduate days, grew into a sense that IBM was stifling innovation for its own gain. And they carried that into the real world with them. And as they moved up the ladders of corporate power, they remembered IBM when they came to have purchasing power, and anything that remotely came close to doing the job got bought, so long as it wasn't IBM. This, combined with a never-ending antitrust investigation, helped humble IBM.
Now, think of MS in the 1990's, and compare to IBM of the 1960's and '70's. If I had to add anything, I'd add that MS doesn't appear to me to have the kind of institutional inertia or memory that IBM did - MS seems largely a cult of personality, held together by the force of BillG's will. But, of course, personality cults rarely outlive the personalities they are built around. I have real trouble seeing MS flourish after the end of Bill...
Consider this, my fellow slashdotters - remember MS over the last 10 years when your employer comes to you to ask you for your advice. And have patience. Even the mightiest of empires is destined to crumble.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
that will never happen, forget the linux faithful for a moment and think about how many servers run windows... proof that windows is not prefered is in the messages posted on slashdot about code red. I don't think I read a single message that said "I run a windows box and was affected". I sure someone else could come up with exact figures and berate MS software for exactly why it isn't used.
Windows is good for home users and workstations, xp is actually quite good, but there is enough reactionary backlash against MS that even if they did manage to release a perfect windows os in the next few years *nix and other os's wouldn't just dissapear overnight (or even 20 years I suspect).
Is it possible to totally secure an os ?, you never know one day it might. In this case, as long as windows doesn't crash and does what it is supposed to then I will be more than happy to live in that world.
It would be great if all computers everywhere could talk to each other and work with each other without the amount of fuss we have to go through to do it today. The problem is lack of standards. If MS would use standard protocols, and commercial vendors would bother to write portable code, we wouldn't have a problem with OS dominating the world we'd have a variety of OSen that work together. Virii/worms/hackers would not be able to attack everyone because of that variety... at least not as easily.
The Anti-Blog
"I believe that the glut of existing, functioning, equipment will have more of an influence on the future than homoganisation of the available
platforms."
This is actually true. One day, looking for a free pentium box to build a linux file server, I went down to the city landfill, (believe me, you wouldn't believe what people throw away after they get that new 1gig Athlon to browse ebay...)
It was like cracking Fort Knox; it's almost as if there's a legal (or at least cultural) edict to destroy these "obsolete" useful machines, lest they fall into others' hands and prevent them from buying new product. It's shameful, actually.
In time, the courts will address no crimes but those against Profit.