Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Interview w/ Spiegel
DaVinciXL writes "Bill Gates just gave the German magazine "Spiegel" an interview which can be read (in English) on the magazine's website. Gates speaks about issues of computer security, competition, software bundling and how he lives with the downsides of his wealth and fame." He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions.
These simply don't sound true to me:
...
... put so sweepingly, that is not correct. Of course we are the largest target, simply because we have the most widely disseminated system. But it affects others in exactly the same way. Linux is, in many respects, even more significantly affected.
... above all because of our global popularity. But we know that. And we must apply still more time and money to it. However, spam or data theft are not questions of the operating system. For this, you also need laws and global standards.
:-).
-----
Gates: The truth is: the fewer operating systems there are within a company, the better it is from a security point of view.
SPIEGEL: I beg your pardon?
Gates: Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system. Our company has an unbelievable number of people who are solely responsible for this type of security around the clock.
SPIEGEL: The particular charm of Linux is that it is an adaptable system that users can shape themselves.
Gates: If everything runs under the same platform, however, you can better concentrate resources and more quickly repair errors. For instance, in a hospital where different systems are used, a single problem in one section cause the other systems to crash. Thus, from a security standpoint it is always better to focus on one system.
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks
Gates:
SPIEGEL: In a few hours a Windows virus can travel across the world like an epidemic...
Gates:
SPIEGEL: Once again: Windows is the most vulnerable.
Gates: You could look at that in many ways. The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high -- that's because this system, unlike ours, simply does not keep thousands of people on standby to deal with problems. In this respect, a commercially distributed operating system also has decisive benefits. Sweeping judgments don't help because we all have to take the problems seriously. Even Linux developers know that there is no miracle cure in Linuxland. They, too, must continue to work and continue to make progress.
---
(Then the interview proceeds to other topics).
I thought this was interesting because, as far as I can tell, all I need to do in order to keep my Macintosh functioning securely is to make sure software update is on, and that at a time convenient to me I run it and update my system.
Windows patches are so frequent and their consequences so probematical that I can see a reason to keep legions of people around to fix them. But I've never had trouble with my Mac's security updates (knock on aluminum).
As far as I know there are no virii or spyware programs currently running on MacOS X. Perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but surely that enormously reduces the problem and therefore the amount of maintenance needed.
If computer A requires little maintenance and computer B requires lots, it seems to me that reducing the numbers of computer B you have and increasing computer A is the best way to deal with the problem.
Okay, flame away, both at Mr Gates and myself
D
SPIEGEL: I beg your pardon?
Gates: Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system. Our company has an unbelievable number of people who are solely responsible for this type of security around the clock.
Oh my. Bill need to check his logic on that one. His answer basically refutes his original statement. He should try switching to another OS, and have something to compare before he makes statements like that! How many MacOS X security people does Microsoft employ? We know they use that platform.
I manage a network that is a mix of Linux, FreeBSD, Windows & Macintosh (both "classic" MacOS & OS X)... I can tell you that 90+% of our security issues are on Windows, and ~10% are on the Linux boxen. I only have a couple of "Windows Admins" but I am seriously considering adding more, because my guys are overworked ... mostly unhaxxoring Windows boxes. I told our CEO about it, and she did some math... the revenue we generate from Windows does not even equal the salary we pay our admins!
The answer seems obvious to me, but unfortunately we can't just drop Windows support.
spam or data theft are not questions of the operating system. For this, you also need laws and global standards. - Gates
Well, that's one good thing at least, Bill suggesting global standards as an answer.
The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high. - Gates
This is funny, I've seen plenty of news articles revealing Microsoft to be pushing aside security issues that it calls unimportant, but others claim to be serious.
I can't recall seeing anything like this in the Open Source community.
Microsoft continues to pack additional innovations onto the Windows platform at no cost, virtually annihilating competitors in the long-term. Why do you promote this strategy? - Spiegel
we are forced to continuously improve our products - Gates
Doesn't the above situation reveal that there is a problem in Microsoft's strategy?
It's improving its core product by exclusively bundling its own middleware apps into the main Windows 'distribution'. This isn't innovatively improving the product, it's combining Microsoft products (to the disadvantage of Microsoft's competition) in order to get people to upgrade Windows.
Nobody would expect Microsoft to add RealPlayer or Firefox to Windows, this would be giving the competition an advantage. So surely Microsoft's middleware should not have the advantage of being bundled with Windows?
This also seems unfair to many people. So, why not have Windows distributions (which I've said many times), where select distributors following specific guidelines, can add middleware from competing companies?
I am an optimist. And I always think: okay, in 10 years we will have accomplished it. But I already thought that 10 years ago. And obviously we are not yet that far. - Gates
I believe WinFS (originally Cairo) was heralded years ago, and isn't here yet. This must be an example of Gates' optimism.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
More one sided propatainment.
Get Gates to interview Torvalds [and then vice versa] and that would be worth a read.
Otherwise it's just more corporate MSFT-speak talking about "how exciting gee whiz golly!" computing is...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
See, I *am* a pro-Microsoft guy.
But they never tell it like it is. Why can't Bill say "Well, they want us to remove Media Player, we will. But it's stupid. There are a million free media players, they all do pretty much the same thing. How is it anti-competitive to give away something that EVERYONE ELSE gives away? The same can be said of browsers. Yeah, Internet Explorer is part of Windows. But anyone who wants a different browser can get one, for FREE. Does it really affect anyone else's business if we take away customers for their FREE product?" Or, "Look, Linux is more secure. But it's also generally run by people who are very computer-savvy. Windows is used by the average Joe, and they are going to do things they shouldn't. We try to protect them. We even recommend that they don't run as Administrators, but that's not practical because too many 3rd party software developers write their software so that the user HAS to be and Administrator to use their program. So you see, Windows isn't the only piece of the security puzzle."
But we never hear that stuff from them. One good explanation for the masses about WHY things are the way they are would go a long way.