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?

Comments

Simple

[Limburgher]

As soon as autoexec.bat runs.

Usability is always a liability.

[ArsSineArtificio]

I agree absolutely. If only we'd go back to using toggle-switches for computer input, the risk of viruses or security breaches would diminish enormously.

Re:Usability is always a liability.

[platypibri]

But with toggles switches, I could do a DoS attack on your machine with a pair of pliers. What is more primitive than that?

Re:Usability is always a liability.

[SpaceLifeForm]

A large rock.

Ok, we're on to you.

[winkydink]

I cought myself in the middle of a very interesting discussion last Friday over Krispy Kreme donuts and coffee

Cheese it, it's the cops!

Write better SQL!

[markv242]

You need a COMMIT; in there to make sure your transaction runs, otherwise my base will still belong to me. For great zig! COMMIT;

MS Admins are experts on Linux security?

[contrapuntalmindset]

"Many of the Microsoft Administrators I work with argued the more user friendly Linux becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes. " Ummm... what makes a Microsoft Admininstrator the authority on vulernability and usability?

The List

[Henry V .009]

Hmm, I'll have to add one to my list.

1. Security through obscurity.
2. Security through obsolescence.
3. Security through unusability.

Re:Wha?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Even with 4 byte words (or 8 byte words on some monster big iron), 4000 bytes is not enough for all but the tiniest gif file. Now, gif being a 256 color only format, with no serious compression and an inability to depict sharp photographs of any significant resolution, I contend that no,

A picture is not ~1000 words.

Re:Wha?

[proj_2501]

4k is plenty for a nice ascii art

Re:Command lines aren't *learner* friendly

[thelenm]

Of course command lines are friendly! Whenever I need to find a program that does something new, I just hit the tab key. The shell helpfully asks, "Display all 2414 possibilities? (y or n)". I hit "y", and then it's just a matter of looking at about 25 pages of program names until I find the one I want. It even shows "--More--" at the bottom of each page and lets me go to the next page when I want to, instead of whizzing all 2414 programs by at ludicrous speed. How much more user friendly can you get?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Eating in France

[Anonymous Coward]

every blind man starts to look like a frenchman?