Slashdot Mirror
License to Surf, Take Two
NaugaHunter writes "A story on Yahoo asks
Should [a] License Be Required to Go Online? It appears to be suggested by Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer for Counterpane Internet Security Inc. 'It could be a four-year college degree, a one-month course. It might be a good idea.' The story also details efforts of some schools from simple orientation to threats of fines for spreading viruses, and questions exactly who would be responsible for keeping track of who is and isn't licensed." Not a new idea, but one that's going to keep coming up. Update: 09/13 18:11 GMT by M : Bruce Schneier notes that he isn't in favor of computer licenses.
That is a bit too much control on our rights, in my opinion. I would think that if that can happen for the Internet, then it could also happen for TV, telephone, and any other type of communication device.
Though education is important, it is the software vendors who are really to blame for a lot of the problems... (i.e. RPC holes, etc) A lot of the propagation of viruses and worms is a result of software accessing flaws in the software, without user intervention.
Apple 10 GB iPod
Why don't we start taxing email! Or perhaps data by the megabyte! Think of the revenues!
flamebait.
2 1337 4 u!
Take care of revamping drivers tests first? A retarded monkey can pass drivers tests in most states.
First off this whole virus issue is just starting to get really bad. A few years ago it wasn't necisarry for the average user to be so vigiant. As it become necisarry, whose to say that they won't learn by collective experiance. And if you are going require licenses from anyone, lets start with the people writting poor software that is allowing the net to degrade the way it is? (and again whose to say that they won't improve on their own now that it is becoming more necisarry to do so).
But here's my real question. Why post such flaimbait? This article is just some nobody giving his foolish opinion in a non-influential news site. If this was on CNN, then i could kind of see posting it. It this written by a big name in IT, I could see posting it. If there was ANY chance that this guy would be taken seriously, i might understand posting it. But there is none. This article is pure flaimbait, and Bruce Schneier is a Nazi.
I help administer an apartment/dorm-ish complex at a university. Basically the approach we're taking is letting people know what's expected: virus checker, etc. If an incident occurs and we find the person wasn't taking adequate precautions, they get fined.
I don't think you can require people to do stuff like take classes, but if they're neglegent, they should be held responsible.
"Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer
So once the users are educated with a basic set of computing knowledge, and when only people that actually know what they are doing are using computers...what's going to happen to lovely tech support?
In essence, we are blaming users for things that aren't their fault.
The article talks about the need to install anti-virus software, and keep up on patches, and to read the fine print in click-through licenses to prevent spyware from being installed. All of these things need to be done to operate a computer safely, true.
But why the hell are they required? We are giving users HORRIBLE software that is prone to constant infection. Some companies are taking advantage of click-through licensing to hijack people's computers. And we're blaming USERS for not doing the right things?
That would be like making cars that exploded if you ran them at exactly 62mph for more than 12 continuous minutes, with brake systems on the outside of the car where anyone could walk by, flip a switch, and disable them, as well as aftermarket accessories that forced cars to drive on particular roads at particular times.... and blaming the drivers when cars blow up, can't brake, or cause traffic jams on certain roads.
People mostly just want to do email and read the web. We should be providing them software that does this with absolute security.
We are blaming users for faulty software.
Should License Be Required to Go Online?
No, but perhaps grammar skills should be required to work for the Associated Press...
Seriously, this is a terrible idea. This would open up chicken-and-egg problems across the whole range of learning endeavor computers and the internet offers.
The analogy of needing a license to drive a car is used repeatedly in the article, but I think that's not quite the right analogy; maybe requiring you to know how to rebuild an engine before you ever drive would be more accurate. One of the expectations mentioned is that you must know how to set up a firewall; is this really realistic to require before any unsupervised on-line time?
The internet is growing because it's accessible, reasonably. If I needed a license to buy a book, I might never have started reading--and a book is a more accurate analogy than a car.
Put the responsibility for viruses where it belongs, on the network admins and software vendors, not the newbies. Everybody's got to start somewhere.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
You mean the "Internet Driver's Licence" isn't a real licence for that there Interweb? Bugger, now I have to take it off my resume.
In fact, this is not only impossible, but unrealistic and rather terrible. Why? Because there will be absolutely no practical way to enforce, encourage, or even suggest uniform "rules" (whatever they might be) in every country around the world.
The article plainly says that we are continually exposed to junk mail, viruses, etc., and this would help to eliminate such things, but one of the reasons that such nuisances exist is because there is no single governing body over the internet. As much as I'd like to see this idea take off and clean things up, I think it will never, ever fly.
To drive a car
to fly an airplane
to use any radio transmitter beyond minimal power walkie-talkies, cellphones or 802.11.
All these things are done to help enhance the safety of everyone using the medium.
The signal to noise ratio of the Internet (maybe I oughta make that noise to signal) is typical of things which are totally out of control...
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Which includes lessons on how Windows(R) with its WindowsUpdate(TM)(C)(R) is more easy to secure than Linux and even UNIX!
And you thought the evolution in schools issue was a flamefest...
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Damn! There I was, putting my finishing touches on my "+5 insightful" comment and BAM! the discussion is ended!
oh well... there'll be other threads...
I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution before making stupid fucking statements that would limit people's rights.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Um, yes. I'm proud to be a Bachelor of Mouse-Clicking.
From considering that maybe companies like Microsoft should be held liable for knowningly shipping an insecure product?
The last thing I want to see is the software be subjected to the same liability/litigation as the aerospace industry, but I don't believe a EULA should protect a manufacturer from not fixing a product that is inherantly secure.
The question we need to ask ourselves, "Has Microsoft knowingly done nothing to fix a security hole?"
Nah! Let's just legislate RTFM!
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
When we, the technologicaly elite, make our OWN network, based on encrypted tunnels on the existing infrastructure - then we can choose what level of certification is required to interact with peers.
I'm serious.
Don't Tread on Me
The point I think our OP is trying to get at here is that people have been talking about forcing licensing for all manner of things, from Internet licensing to licensing for having a baby.
The solution isn't licensing, it's education. Education isn't something that is achieved through licensing, it's learned through a concerted effort to make people aware of the problems. Licensing only achieves getting people aware of knowing the answers to a test.
Be gentile in your responses, I read what he said, and he's just sort of hypothesizing, he's not really advocating.
People should need a license to have children, not to surf the internet.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Knock on the door.
"Please open up. We have reason to believe someone inside is online without a license!"
The license can't just be a smartcard, or everyone will just leave theirs in the slot so family and friends have access - and likely put the whole crew and half the wireless neighborhood on NAT behind them. So we're going to have to build biometric security into every potentially Net-connected device.
That will surely get the Dept. Homeland Security Seal of Approval. Let's have Microsoft build it so it really works!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
This is so ridiculus I can't imagine anyone ever thought of it. Not only would it be a content management nightmare, but you've got to realize... The internet isn't just in the U.S. of A! It's also part of the whole rest of the world! What about the people who live in south africa, who want to access the internet? Will they be forbidden to because they don't have a "Four-year college degree"?
International implications aside, what would happen if someone were able to hack into the database being managed? Millions of internet user's information would be compromised.
Even if you consider mandatory computer education, how much time would have to be spent? The computer users who are the people who would need the education, for the most part have real lives. They do not have the time to think and learn about something which is incredibly new and would probably take quite a long time for many people to learn. The fact is, the operating system that is most common, Microsoft Windows, does not assume that the user is an idiot. By default, it gives them complete, unfettered access to the entire system. This makes it MUCH easier for viruses to take over control of system processes (Read: trojans), and allowing viruses to have such a widespread affect with VBS. Now, other operating systems would probably have similar issues if they were the most used. There's no denying that. However, Microsoft in general has the attitutde that they should not be responsible for their users. What they have already done is in the past. There isn't much we can do about it, since the effects will be with us for some time. However, the one real step they could take is to make a "Dummy User" mode. This means, that any script being executed, any system level process that is instantiated, would have an attention-grabbing window that the user COULD NOT simply click away from, that would detail what is going on, and if the user really wants to do this. If measures like this had been taken, we would have avoided much of the problems we have today, especially with email viruses. I'm not a professional engineer, so I don't know many details, but I feel that this fact should be obvious: There are people who do not want to learn about computers. These people need a user mode that assumes this, and will walk them through their experience of computer usage.
Of course we're blaming the users. The users choose to purchase PCs running Windows.
When people choose to buy Pop-Tarts, microwave them, and then eat them, we feel they have nobody to blame but themselves for the burns. Yet somehow when they buy Windows, ignore the safety directions that tell them to keep up to date with software updates, and hose the Internet, everyone seems reluctant to blame the idiots.
Windows is not necessary. I've never purchased any Microsoft software, and I'm doing just fine. In my view, anyone who decides to spend money on a PC running Windows deserves what they get. It's not like it's some big secret that Windows is full of bugs, hard to use and unreliable--just read any PC magazine, or look at the shelves full of books like "1001 Windows Annoyances" and "How To Get Out Of DLL Hell".
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
The user is never at fault for poor software, especially closed source crap the user can't fix if they could or wanted to fix.
Virus checkers, email restrictions, firewalls and all that are in vain when faced with the reality of closed source distribution. I work for a small computer shop. The only software we can put on all the broken computers that come in for repair is the user's original software and any updates M$ lets you. The vast majority of computers out there run EOL'd systems like 95 and 95. Customers lack the skills needed to diagnose the problems or do the best fix, a wipe and reload. It cost them about $75 if they have all of their software, and they are loath to pay for the time it takes to load up all the patches and updates that won't protect them from next week's worm. I can't blame them for feeling that way. Nor can I blame them for wanting to email their friends. Those that have lost their software generally end up throwing their machine away or go find some nasty cracked copy of M$ shit because they don't want to spen the $109 and equpment purchase needed for an OEM copy of Windoze. The net result is the same in every case, boxes that are just as easy to bust as the day they were made. But, so what? Even the dilligent are getting burnt.
I have recomended Mozilla for people who absolutly must have M$. My little brother told me that an XP update broke Mozilla and made it terribly slow, but Netscape still works. Woot.
I'd recomend Debian or Red Hat and sell CDs for the same price as a driver disk, but my boss is worried about support. I'm not sure what kind of "support" could be worse than the mess most Windoze users now find themselves in. Still, he's the boss. The day, however, I can make money doing it, he's going to like it. I'm starting to think that the store's usual $4 per CD burnt and the 30 minutes it takes to install a dual boot of any linux system might be cheaper fixing Windoze. Blinding the windoze side to the network makes it last longer so that it can do the things it does well for the user.
I'm starting to see the path of least resistance here. Demo the system with Knoppix to prove hardware use. Blind Windoze, dual boot and set them loose. Actually doing something beats the hell out of bitching and moaning. It can work.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Let's face it... airline security would be a whole lot easier if they could get rid of most of the damn passengers and have a select group of 20 backround-check cleared people be the only ones flying.
When securing something equals destroying it, you've got a big problem...
As a tech support drone, I have to say that the second people have to have the slightest idea what the hell they're doing in order to get online, I am out of a job. So, no.
Why is the automatic knee-jerk reaction of some people to start placing restrictions and bureaucracy on things? Let's look at licensing for a sec:
- The internet is based on the free exchange of ideas between everyone - even those that I proclaim idiots. Many of these people have differing views on how things should be set up, what hardward/software to use, etc. Someone has to administer this license, and this just begs for abuse of power.
- Many of the affected in the latest virus round were technical corporations. These are big places filled with lots of really smart (or at least well-educated, which is not synonymous) people. One of my fellow engineers got nailed by Slammer, because he forgot to patch one of our systems that sits in a corner (and somehow the damn thing got through/around the firewall). These people would easily get internet licenses, but they still forget about machines or otherwise screw up.
- This is a bureaucratic solution (more paperwork, etc.) to a problem that either a) is purely technical in nature (buggy software) or b) isn't a problem but rather just the way things are. The last thing we need is more paper-pushers pushing paper rather than actual people solving the actual issues.
For pete's sake, this has to be the most elitist article I have seen recently. Because Mr. Schneier knows what to do to keep his computer uninfected, let's blame the users and force them to be certified to be online.
Idiot.
How about blaming the actual target, the operating systems and flawed web standards that allow this. Look at certification authorities, browser, and OS vendors. I saw one of those hidden install ActiveX objects recently that has a Thawte signature. Why? Well, that CA's root cert is preloaded in IE so therefore, the signed ActiveX will install without any user intervention with default security settings.
What is wrong with this picture?
The problem was flawed assumptions at the outset. Microsoft assumed the Internet environment would remain benign, as it was in the early days of commercialization. Therefore, security was not a consideration. This has proven utterly false. The CAs figured they were in the business of printing up certificates for money. Check on the reliability of a vendor? Why, that would cost too much...so what are certificates and signing really worth? Not a whole hell of a lot. Yet we tell people to trust their money and credit card numbers to this intrinsically flawed system of 'trust'.
We, in IT in general, really need to reconsider all these flawed assumptions we have made and the bill of goods that has been sold to the general public. I have been doing end user support for 15 years now and I would be all too willing to blame this on the user. In this case we cannot. In the end, we have to realize it is not their fault. It is ours. We assumed things would stay the way they were, and they haven't.
Now let's fix it...invalidating the entire CA model and delegating that function to the government would probably be a good start. Have all certificates emanate from a government source or be considered invalid. That might actually work.
While we are at it, let's get the government involved in regulating operating system software in a formal fashion. Sure, I like the private sector and all, but it hasn't worked, has it? We have this huge security mess. Perhaps a greater degree of regulation is required to get us out of this mire, because market forces aren't going to fix the fact that Microsoft's operating system is woefully inadequate for today's Internet and most probably cannot be fixed while preserving backward compatibility for a meaningful number of applications.
The last two paragraphs were just ideas off the top of my head. I'm sure others could be arrived at, and better.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
So, by your logic, if a woman gets gang raped and beaten to death, its her fault because she should've worn her burka and not gone out of the house unaccompanied by a male relative. Red-blooded, honest men cannot control themselves from the intoxicating effects of nearby females, and she should've known that!
Yeah, right.
Idiot.
Indeed.
How to read the article:
(1) Click the link.
(2) Read.
(3) Scroll down when necessary.
Following this simple procedure, you will find the entirety of Schneier's wry little quote, which I will copy and paste here (instructions on that omitted) for your benefit:For those of you following along at home, I'd say that with "everybody you know won't be able to have a computer anymore", he is suggesting he doesn't actually think it's such a good idea.
You're right though -- software does suck, and we shouldn't blame the users for what is mostly the fault of the software industry itself.
I've talked to too many people who've said, "I don't need to bother securing my home system because I've got nothing anyone would want." I've answered, "They want to use your machine to attack me." But the message doesn't sink in.
While these end users are being provided with crap systems, there is a market out there. If their choice of bad systems gets them severly spanked, they will start making demands of their providers.
All it would take would be a couple of high profile cases.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
One thing which I haven't seen mentioned is how you would license a 3-year-old child. Anyone with small children and a computer is likely to understand that children at this age are already capable of using the computer to learn. Educational software is an existing market.
"Grown-up" software has moved into the online realm because of the opportunities it offers in improving the user experience and program functionality. I would not be surprised to start seeing children's software do the same, although we're not there yet. Plus, children are learning more advanced topics at younger ages (well, at least some children are, Apple IIe anyone?) and it only makes sense for this to continue. I learned about modems, BBSes, and online research when I was maybe 8? Whenever 386s were top-of-the-line.
Also, what exactly does going online mean? If I pop in a DVD, it might take me to a web site. If I install some game software, it might register over my Internet connection. If I type www.dizney.com instead of www.disney.com, am I in trouble? Does using a computer now require a parental lock-out password to prevent unlicensed children from sending any packets over the wire? How does that work if my child's home directories are stored on a file server that is also my DNS server? Does the password and its behavior live on the file server?
Personally, I think that licences to go online is a completely ridiculous idea. But I can see where the idea stems from.
There are a lot of users out there who continually get viruses on their system, never patch their systems and never update their virus software( Some of my clients think that updating their virus software every year is being responsible!) and ask them what a patch is and they'll reply that it's something to help you stop smoking!.
Unless something changes, these same users will continue to get viruses and will continue to annoy other net users.
I think a better way of approaching it would be to have some form of virus filter at the ISP end. If a user got infected, the filter would turn off their connection ( or limit it to antivirus sites) until they disinfected their system.
I went through a period last year when one user on a major ISP here in Canada was infected with a virus and I was recieving hundreds of infected emails from them every day. I contacted them directly a number of times but received no response, so I contacted the ISP who refused to do anything. If it was set up to turn off their connection upon infection, then I (And everyone else in their address book) wouldn't have had to put up with all the crap that came from the virus.
Furthermore, the idea that a license will solve a problem is just plain idiotic. To suggest that "licensing" people prevent problems is a complete lie. While the author says "motorists must obtain licenses to drive", it is noteworthy that nearly 100% of all accidents occur by licensed drivers. Licensing would just be a new way for someone to tax me and a new excuse for people's own laziness.
If you want to solve these kinds of problems, build better software and prosecute dumb-ass virus writers and script kiddies like the little punk-ass bastards they are.
If you enter my house uninvited and threaten me I can shoot your ass dead. Why shouldn't it be the same way when someone breaks into my computer. Prosecute script kiddies.
People should have to get a license to have kids, not to surf the Internet.
Yeah, I said it.
Just for going online? There should be a mandatory course for using computers at all.
:)
Hey, hey - before you mod "Troll", think about this:
* You can't drive without a license
* You can't operate heavy machinery
* You can't practice medicine
etc.
We already cover most points where people can do damage to either themselves or others with mandatory education. It makes sense, too.
It doesn't have to be "elitest". It can be as simple as driving school in most of the US, where you hop in a car with the local sherrif for 10 minutes and show him that you know which pedal does what.
Of course, computers being more complicated, there's also a different answer. I'll post that in a new reply, so you can mod this one down all you like.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So far, no proponant of taxed e-mail has been able to give me an answer to those questions short of "you shouldn't be allowed to have a server - no civilian should", which I can't agree with for numerous reasons. Don't get me wrong, the tax idea has merits. I just think it's a pipe dream without some government authority getting draconian and ruining a lot of what makes the internet such an open ended learning experience.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
If they're going to start requiring licenses for stupid things then how about a license to breed?? Less stupid people would mean we wouldn't need licenses to surf.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Come on, noone is going to verify such a licence. If anything, one person in the household will pass and the rest ignore it. Teaching basic computer safety should be part of the general education, as almost everybody that grows up today will be or come in contact with computers.
.exe on irc, and asks you to "test" it, would you run it? Trust me, many would.
Anti-virus - the importance of running one, but also some common sense. Like, if someone sends you an
Automatic patching - seriously, I run an up2date cron job on my Linux box. What's the big fuzz over Microsoft's automatic updates? Your average desktop doesn't have a testbed anyway, so might as well patch when it's available.
Firewall - With anything and everything connecting to the net these days, it's growing less and less useful for Joe Average because there's so many programs, they don't know which are good and which are bad anyway. Not to mention some of the biggest virus sources are web and email (read: Outlook and IE), which are allowed through anyway.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is what will appear in the next issue of Crypto-Gram:
A recent Associated Press story about licensing computer users has some people believing that I am in favor of the idea of licensing computer users.
I'm not. Period.
The idea is that users can potentially do damage with their computers, so why not force them to get licenses as we do for automobile drivers. While this is one potential way to deal with the problem of people having default security configurations and not installing their patches, I think that the damage that would do to the Information Age would be disastrous. And that it is a bad security trade-off.
It's interesting that people are taking this idea seriously, though. I think that the computer industry has painted itself into a corner. On the one hand, it has positioned computers as a mass-market consumer item. Everyone should own a computer. On the other hand, they have made computers so complex to administer that you need significant training to do it properly. One of the results of this is bad security, which we're seeing.
But I don't think the solution is to force computer users to be licensed. When I read my quote it's clear to me that I'm not saying that, but I want to correct the impression of anyone who does.
Bruce
You make some Interesting points but I do question one of your major ones.
You seem to indicate that the biggest problem your customers have is the time, knowledge and effort it takes to load patches for Windows and the solution to end this would be to provide them with Debian or Redhat on their computers. If you can't get people to install updates for Windows how are you going to get them to load updates for Linux, OS X, BSD, Amiga, BeOS or whatever the next hot OS is.
Neither Debian or Red Hat are going to be set and forget installs. At some point a home computer user is going to have to load updates for thier OS of choice, if the want to help insure the continued security of their computing enviroment. I think you are setting a bad example by implying to your customers and boss, that by loading Linux they will be forever free of having to load updates or be concerned about security of their computer. Things like that are going to get people burned by the next exploit script for Red Hat or Debian that they are not patched against.
I don't want to take away from the good points of your post. I think you point about Blinding Windows from the Network is an interesting one.
I can't say that I share you're level of rage against Microsoft I do agree that there is a problem with the closed source method of software distribution but I don't think that there is a OS today that is the single solution to all of these security problems. At some point there needs to be a balance between better products both open and closed source and better process and computing habits on the part of all computers users, not just the "stupid" ones. The latter is needs to invlove educating people with the best way to keep their computers up to date with patches, good password practices, good firewall setups, and smart email practices to help protect against spam and other email born threats.
Think very, very hard about it.
I'll wait.
. . .
Did you get it yet? Isn't installing programs without user intervention the PROBLEM? What happens when a cracker compromises a machine in a position to play Man In The Middle? and some of the 'software fixes' you get are actually worms?
I'm sure that part of the scheme will include installing the pubkey of MS' software update authority, and code that refuses to install a patch not signed by the corresponding privkey. But I am confident that someone will eventually find a loophole in the implementation and be able to impersonate MS to the computers.
And in the meantime, in the guise of fighting viruses, MS gets to absolutely control all software on your computer.
Did you know that Open Office, Mozilla, and the GIMP are viruses? (Remember that MS is already on record as describing certain license terms as 'viral'.)
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Why do you think Linux doesn't have these security holes?
You're an idiot if you don't believe Linux has these security holes. It does, just try reading the changelogs of the kernel, of apache, of ssh, of most of the apps you use. They're there. The simple fact is that Linux isn't as wide-spread as Windows, so when there's a hole in Windows, it's exploited on millions of boxes. When one is found in Linux, it affects a very small number, so no one cares. Once Linux becomes widespread, you'll start to see the same kinds of issues, because there will always be hackers. It will also be a lot worse, because Windows is easy to patch, and it still isn't done...Linux, OTOH hand will always be beyond the capabilities of my grandmother. At least with Windows Update, she can keep her computer moderately safe.
As for buggy code, fuck, dude...the one that was responsible for blaster affected W2K, which is just under four years old. I, for one, am not about to wait for four years of testing to ensure EVERY fucking bug is found. Linux is also not immune to bugs, there are plenty to be found if you just open your eyes. And, don't give me the stale rhetoric of "well, if one is found, it's patched within 24 hours", that might be true, but the patch for blaster was released a full month before the problem.
Nope, I fear the day that Linux becomes the dominant OS. Things will only be much, much worse. Especially with dumb-ass pricks like you who a) don't help people fix their machines, you just whine about "well, it's your own fault, grandma, you use windows!" and b) are ignorant of the flaws in this system you love so much. It makes you immeasurably more ignorant and naive then they are!
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Having everyone running the same version of "secure Linux" with "the perfect web browser" and "the perfect e-mail client" isn't the answer to viruses and worms. A homogonous computing landscape like that might eliminate nearly all viruses and worms. BUT if a hole was found, the virus that exploits it would spread like wildfire. Users would be less careful because they think they can be, and with everyone running the same thing, everyone would have the same vulnerability.
That's why we need diversity on the Internet. We need a lot more diversity than we have now. As long as the unwashed masses are running Windows with Outlook, MS will have to have 100% security in their products. Anything less is asking for the problems we have now. And so far MS is nowhere near 100% in that regard.
That is why we need Linux.. and BSD and OS/X. That's why we need competition. That's why we need multiple Linux distributors who ship with different compiler settings that they think are "best." That's why we need to have choices of web browsers and e-mail clients.
That is why CHIOCE is a good thing when it comes to operating systems and software. Real choice breeds diversity. Believe me, if there were real choices, people would NOT all make the same one. (Real choice does NOT mean having only one OS ship on all PCs with only a single mail client pre-installed and a single web client pre-installed!)
Having choices that work together are why open formats and open standards should be in the headlines (not the crap like this article on user licenses.)
If file formats and network protocols were required to be open, it would eliminate many of the problems we face. Over the past 20 years, incompatibility between formats or protocols has been the #1 thing that I've seen cause people to change their OS. It has also been the #1 cause that I've seen for a change in the software they used.
How many companies are running MS-Office because they "need to be compatible" with customers or corporate? How many switched from WordPerfect for that very reason? How many articles have you seen that review OpenOffice and the #1 complaint (sometimes the only complaint) is incomplete or inconsistent ability to open/save MS-Office files? How many perfectly good software products have vanished because they weren't compatible with propietary products?
If file formats and network protocols were open, then Microsoft would have the chance to do what they are always claiming they want. They'd have the level playing field they always tell the press they want. The level playing field they claim open source advocates try to deny them by trying to pass laws requiring "considering" open source software in government.
In the real world, biodiversity keeps the first fatal disease from coming along and wiping out the entire population. On the Internet software-diversity would do the same thing with viruses and worms. Sure, a virus might still do damage to a section of the population, but it wouldn't have nearly the impact that one does now.
So, software-diversity is critical to the future of the Internet and open formats and standards are needed for it to exist. Maybe it's time for everybody to start demanding these things from their software. And maybe it's time for legislation to demand that software companies open formats and protocols enough to be interoperable... at least if their product has a significant market share.
If there were MASSIVE security holes in Linux as there are in windows you can bet your ass that these script kiddies would be all over them like a fly to dung. Linux IS more secure than Windows. Believe what you want but the facts speak for themselves. And yes there are other operating systems out there that are more secure than Linux but this "windows is more popular and that is why it gets the attention" line of bullshit really needs to stop. Check your facts before you spew this crap. It is really getting old.
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
There used to be a minimum amount of computer knowledge that was required to get online. It's once the bankers and marketers invaded online space, and tried to make it available to the unwashed consumer masses, that we started having all these issues. Returning the internet to the geeks, who were largely self-policing, would do away with the vast majority of problems.
Doing away with DNS would cure most of the issues, I think. How about having to remember the IP address for every site that you visit? If that's not enough, require three lines of CLI input before going anywhere. That'll stop the issues cold.
I'm only half-kidding, actually. These assholes that broke our internet want to certify us to get back onto it? Maybe they should just be dis-invited.
--
$tar -xvf