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?
By making it harder for Joe User to change settings to something unsafe/stupid.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
oxymoron def:
Computer Usuability equals MS Windows..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I agree Windows is secure.
That is the exact reason there are more IE and ActiveX exploits than I have fingers and toes.
Oh and if you think you need to run as root to install them, think again.
Scripts are executed with the permission of the application that called it.
Does IE and ActiveX run as Aunt Tillie? No, they run as system.
As system they are installed and run without her knowledge.
Leading to a ploliforation of pr0n, and animal sex acts the likes of which haven't been seen since the days of Sodom and Gamora.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!