Slashdot Mirror
When Does Usability Become a Liability?
nasteric asks: "I caught myself in the middle of a very interesting discussion last Friday over Krispy Kreme donuts and coffee. The discussion had to do with usability and security. Many of the Microsoft Administrators I work with argued the more user friendly Linux becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes. They claimed making Linux a friend of Joe User will require it to 'open itself up' and become more susceptible to attack. Needless to say, this became an endless debate between our Microsoft Administrators and our Linux/Unix Administrators that will undoubtedly continue into the morning. Therefore I pose this question to the Slashdot community. Will making Linux more user friendly result in it becoming less secure? Hopefully your expertise will help shed some light on (and bring to and end) our discussion." Does decent usability necessarily imply the presence of vulnerabilities? Macs seem to have this area down pretty well, with little in the way of vulnerabilities. Can Linux software follow the same route?
Seriously, just avoid the discussion. It always degrades into one of 2 arguments anyway: #1 you're stupid #2 you're gay There's no way to win the debate. Just ignore it.
I CAN'T BEL1VE THERE ARE S0 MANY !1NORANT SLASHDOTTERS POSTING ABOUT L1NDOWS RUNNING AS R00T! HAVE ANY 0F YOU EVEN TRIED IT?!? 1 HAVE AND 1 CAN TELL YOU THAT 1T MAKES Y0U CREATE A PASSW0RD 0N 1NSTALLAT1ON AND WHEN Y0U B00T 1T STR0NGLY WARNS THE USER T0 CREATE AN ACC0UNT! N0W ST0P WITH THE R00T BULLSHIT! THAT WAS 0NLY IN A BETA VERSION THAT WAS N0T RELEASED T0 THE PUBLIC!
I have a fetish for traffic cones
81818181818181
If popularity breeds vulnerability, Apache should have far more vulnerabilities than IIS. It doesn't.
According to the study Slashdot posted, THEY DO.
Guess you missed the breaches of Debian, Gentoo, Gnome, GNU, etc.