BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security

securitas writes "In the second of two parts, the BBC's Stephen Cole of the technology show Click Online interviews Bill Gates about Windows, viruses, security, spam, 'trustworthy computing', Longhorn and being anti-competitive. Sample quote: 'Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are. That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.' Streaming media in Real format is also available. [Video: Broadband | Narrowband] You can read the first half about the 'digital lifestyle' in Part 1: Bill Gates plots a Windows future. Here is the Slashdot discussion of the first part of the interview."

Comments

Billy's "todo" list

[Kadmos]

I wonder if Billy would ever tell us something isn't a "top priority"? I can just imagine it:
"Yeah, stability, we aren't really keen on that right at the moment, actually that's way down the list."

Thanks Bill, but with an inbox full of virus I get the feeling your "top priority" isn't as "top" as we would like.

Re:BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security

[tomstdenis]

"customers want" or more correctly "what he tells the customers they want".

I'd pay good money to have him say on tape 10 good things about a Linux distro. The fact that he can't be objective means anything he has to say is totally worthless.

Tom

Re:Sorry Bill but you're full of shit

[QuantumG]

Switch it off (it is possible, but not straightforward) and see what breaks; it's an essential component, right or wrong.

That's not an argument at all. You wanna know what's fucked. Try debugging an application that is in no way network related on a machine that has Microsoft's firewall software enabled. It doesn't work. Why? Cause to initiate a debugging session visual studio actually sends packets out to the network adapter and back onto the machine. If you're blocking the remote debugging (say, because you don't want people brute forcing the trivial security that stops them from debugging processes on your machine) you can't even do local debugging. That's fucked behaviour and demonstrates that Microsoft really doesn't give a shit about security at all.

Slashdot Interview!!

[redGiraffe]

Hey

Can't we organize a Slashdot interview of BG? (titter :)

Linux users always crack me up

[chriskzoo5]

You guys on the Linux bandwagon always crack me up - it's not necessarily the OS that causes trouble - it's the morons using them! I am a LONG time Windows user and have never had a problem, mainly because I keep things updated and run periodic scans for viruses, adware, etc. It's the people that just surf around without regard to anything that end up with compromised computers. So why are Linux users less susceptible to probems - 1, because they are generally smart computer users and 2, because nobody is writing exploits for Linux! Believe me, if the whole virus/malware writing community suddenly decided to focus on Linux instead of Windows, you guys would be in a sh!tstorm.

Re:BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security

[tomstdenis]

I hate windows and I can name several good things about it.

- Standard kernel API [a lot of what was written for as far back as win 3.1 will still work today]
- User interface [apis] are effective and the resulting "experience" is user friendly
- The kernel is largely stable except when errant drivers take it down
- Lots of games for windows

About gates personally?

- Donates considerable bank to charities
- Oraganizes sporting events for his employees
- Provides a challenging and innovative workplace

I'm sure working for MSFT has it's faults [namely you couldn't get away with using Gentoo] but if you didn't care about the OS wars then it wouldn't matter.

Tom

Re:Annoying

[hachete]

>I can't give her a linux cd and expect the same results.

This sounds like untested orthodoxy. Has anyone tried recently? I'd like to see someone set up an install race btn Linux (with a user-friendly linux distrib) & MS XP. The playing field would be as level as possible (something, btw, MS would never give you because they *own* the OEMs, that's why they're an illegal monopoly) and there would have to be independant judges. Say, two different *virgin* installer operators on different machines overseen by some worthy judges . It would be worth it - even if it failed - to see what happened.

All we need is someone's g/f(s) - something which would be hard to come-by on slashdot - although you claim to have one, which makes me suspicious. Maybe someone could volunteer their parents, grand or o'wise?