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.
Why are half of the questions about David Hasselhoff? "What version of Windows does David Hasselhoff use?" "Has Microsoft considered employing David Hasselhoff for ads?"
SPIEGEL: When one puts the sentence "Bill Gates is the devil" into the Internet search engine Google, one gets thousands of hits. Does this bother you?
Gates: I have never searched for such a sentence. Plus: if you understand the search engine properly, it doesn't mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
If you understand the search engine properly, it does mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions.
/.
Thats quite a brave comment to make on
I can't imagine that there is too much of anything that does bother him; least of all search engine trivia.
Oh wait, I'm probably not allowed to mention Microsoft's purchase of OSTG until it's final.
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.
Apparently Gates is convinced that Microsoft can fix bugs much faster than Linux, simply because they have more poeple on staff. Clearly there are a number of flaws in that argument... not only do they try and hide and ignore as many bugs as possible, but anyone can look for, identify, and even fix bugs in an open operating system. Gah!
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
...The enthusiasm about how computers, the Internet, and good software can help people...
Am I the only one bothered by that phrase?
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
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
His stock answer to every fucking question vis a vis security and alternative platforms is that Windows is more targeted because it is more popular, and that is pure bullshit. Apache being used more than IIs and yet being more secure proved that one false fucking years ago, and no one thinks about actually mailing the interviewers and giving them the facts, so that, next time they interview BIllG, they can ask real questions.
Apart form that what was so fucking difficult about those questions, Taco? Just because the American media in general is so scared of losing ad revenue that they will NEVER ask direct and difficult questions doesn't fucking make it normal.
Am I going to be able to order Windows from my Spiegel catelogue?
He's terrible at them. He always comes of as a conceited little nerd. Which he is.
Just once, I'd like someone from Microsoft actually defend themselves in the press. They never really do. They just deny that anything is wrong, and then start spewing marketing bullshit. Which, more than anything, makes people distrust them.
They're just bad at PR. Great at marketing, bad at PR.
it's like the blog madness - most of them aren't worth crap, in terms of content. but if you can command an audience, even if the contents are crap, it's "worth" something...arguably worth "more" than other blogs with better contents but no audience.
i'm not saying open source has no voice. rather, i'm saying that just because what he says isn't all correct, doesn't mean what he says is worthless. he does command some "worth" just because people listen to what he has to say.
"He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions."
no, like a small child in an exam or a politician, he answers the question he wants to answer rather than the question he is actually asked.
whether this is because he's a small child (ignorant) or a politian (scared of telling the truth) is left as an exercise for the reader.
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.
For some reason my mind read Smeagol, initially. Talk about being interviewed by your peers.
"Even Linux developers know that there is no miracle cure in Linuxland."
That lovable character GNU/Mouse, the rides like Kernel Mountain! The magestic Torvalds Castle! Oh My! I got the next boat on "Its a small patch after all!"
That quote right there was worth reading the whole crappy article.
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
Yet another Bill Gates interview? I don't need interviews with Mr. Gates. All I need to do to know everything about him is watch how his company conducts business. How many times have we seen Microsoft do something questionable in it's dealings with customers/partners/developers/vendors over the years only to have Gates or Ballmer come out and say that they were "misunderstood" and they just need to make their position "clearer?" Actions speak far louder than words, and no amount of PR can cover a company's shortcomings.
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
Check out the picture of Gates which accompanies the article:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,433427,00.jpg
And the caption:
The world's richest man says not all his wishes have been fulfilled.
I'd strongly suspect that Unfulfilled Wish #1 was to have a good haircut or a flattering photograph taken of him. I've never seen one. Not even in Tiger Beat.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks ...
... put so sweepingly, that is not correct.
/ 20 05/02/04/notes020405.DTL&type=printable
Gates:
Gates:"I have also over years donated quite a bit to charitable causes. For this, I am quite admired."
Does a good job dodging bullets and letting his hubris show is more like it... Less frequent but extant Mac virus attcks?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a
why does windows suck? (/rant)?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
That's because Gates isn't an evil guy. He's the richest person in the world. People will automatically hate him for that. I think Microsoft has done some shady business decisions that have hurt their competitors and ultimately make the computing experience more difficult for their users. Gates also contributes a lot of money to charity. One might think that doesn't mean much since he's the richest guy in the world. I say to them, alright, you donate the same percentage of your wealth to the poor.
I'm no Microsoft fan boy. I use linux daily. I think there are some really good Microsoft products. I think there are some really good products Microsoft would like to see disappear.
But so many make this guy out to be the devil. It's a combination of good strategy, good planning, and probably a little luck that got him where he is today.
Great. So he's basing his conclusion on a site that only says what the vendors officially say.
Meanwhile, on eeye http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.
Do you think that's going to make it into Secunia's logs?
He's slanted his "analysis" by choosing a single site that slants towards the vendor's best interest.
Instead, do a vanilla install of the OS.
Then patch the OS.
List all the files.
Then install IIS.
List all the files including ones that have been upgraded.
Then install the first patch for IIS.
Look at what files change.
Second patch.
So on.
Then search to see what you can find about why those files changed.
That's the only way to find the FACTS.
Microsoft can release one patch and claim it is for some minor vulnerability, while wrapping up a dozen major fixes in it and you would never know.
Tons of difficult leading questions, and no ass-kissing.
Do you think anyone in the American media would say: "I beg your pardon?" to some corporate rhetoric.
I am glad that the interviewer didn't make it easy for Bill.
Try searching MSN and Google using the keywords and look at the number of results. Now.. thats superiority...
#1. There isn't any problem.
#2. There really isn't any problem.
#3. Well, there is kind of a problem, but it's the same problem that everyone has.
#4. It just looks that way because we're the biggest.
#5. Everyone gets spam.
#6. The alternatives would cost you more.
#7. Innovation. We've got it, they don't.
#8. We have more people paid to deal with that.
#9. They don't have the features we do.
#10. Lawsuits! Did I scare you?
Whenever you're asked a question that isn't disguised praise, all you have to do is reply with one of the above phrases. It doesn't matter which one.
In a recent interview, Bill Himself told the interviewer "Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system."
Remember, we will never send you into an interview where the other person knows enough about technology to call you on ANY lie you feel like telling.
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks ...
... 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.
Gates:
what was the question? did someone mentioned apple?
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
Some interesting tidbits ...
... I worry more about whether our general dream will be fulfilled.
...
...
Gates:
SPIEGEL: What is that dream?
Gates: That we can globally communicate with one another without mistrust and can do it more creatively. To do this, for example, it is important that your identity is safe on the Internet. In the end it involves a promise, the promise of the digital age.
SPIEGEL: What is your most important goal for the coming years?
Gates: We must ensure that the trust placed in us is kept. That way we can push for more brilliant developments, such as speech or handwriting recognition, and make more breakthroughs.
SPIEGEL: You are the richest man in the world. Do you still have things you'd like, but are not yet fulfilled?
Gates: I go to work every day as before, also because the dream of what the PC should be able to do as a tool has not yet been realized. About 30 years ago I founded Microsoft together with Paul Allen because the capabilities and possibilities of computers back then frustrated us. Since then, I have worked on making my dream that computers can understand us better and work more simply a reality.
This is a very interesting comment by Mr. Gates for many different reasons. Especially when one considers the recent lawsuits against Internet users for sharing MP3 files. As I remember it really wasn't that long ago that people were doing much similar acts with cassette tapes - albeit on a much smaller and slower scale. What is also interesting about the comment is the genuine concern Mr. Gates appears to have about this promise. For those of use willing to do a little reading (and tinkering) one can surf the web and post (communicate) without divulging your identity - ala GNUPG, Proxy gateways etc
One of the only things that you can trust is that M$ is a company and its main mission is to make money. Rightly so it is willing to sacrifice your privacy for its long-term financial gain. If people are truly worried about privacy and using computers to their fullest capabilities they should look toward the GNU Linux / FreeBSD realm of computing software.
... if music be fruit of love, play on
Okay, first off, you don't do your position any good to say "fuck" an average of 2.5 per sentence. It makes you look like the rabid Linux fanboy that Gates stereotypes in his interviews.
Second, there have been plenty of security vulnerabilities involving Apache, and in fact, some studies have shown Apache to be less secure in some circumstances. Either way, both IIS and Apache can easily be configured to be secure if you keep up with patches and lock down your server like any admin should.
Third, he was being asked about desktop attacks, not server attacks. In that context, he is 100% correct that Windows gets attacked more because it is on top. "Global popularity," as he put it. With the recent spate of vulnerabilitiles, would you really feel comfortable giving Mozilla the 95% or so marketshare that IE has if you could snap your fingers and have it happen? One could argue that Windows and IE are much more rigorously tested, and therefore much better vetted for vulnerabilities, than Linux and Mozilla.
Either way, he's absolutely right that Windows is more targetted because it is more popular. I don't see how you can even dispute that, even if you think it is "pure bullshit." Windows is more popular than Linux. If Linux was the top dog, I imagine hackers would be wringing their hands in delight at the problematic 2.6 kernel line we've been having. Nothing is perfect, even your beloved OS. In fact, to pretend that you're flawless while the competition is a failure is to cause yourself to fail due to lack of perspective. Gates is right on this one.
When you put quotes around it, yes it does mean exactly that. Specifically, google returns the text Results 1 - 10 of about 5,290 for "Bill Gates is the devil", so I'd say his answer is full of shit.
First of all, vulnerabilities in the kernel and critical applications are patched quickly and all major distributions release updates very soon after a problem is released. Much better than the Windows track record for such vulnerabilies which can linger for months and patches are released on a schedule instead of shortly after they are posted.
Second of all, "LinuxLand" uses a superior method of software installation that leaves it immune to the sorts of malware programs that plague windows users. Debian and Ubuntu use apt and synaptic, fedora and red hat use yum, Suse and NDL use red-carpet, Manrake uses urmpi, gentoo has portage, and Xandros and Linspire have their own systems too. All of these systems have something in common: you can easily install a wide range of software from your Linux distributer, and users do not need to install malware-ridden crap software of random websites. This is as close to a "miracle cure" as any Linux user needs to the sorts of problems that plague most Windows users.
I could go on, but I won't.
501 Not Implemented
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.
Gates also contributes a lot of money to charity. One might think that doesn't mean much since he's the richest guy in the world. I say to them, alright, you donate the same percentage of your wealth to the poor.
This is a silly argument. Someone who makes a million dollars a year finds it much easier to donate half their income to charity than someone who makes $40,000 a year. For Bill Gates, this is even more true. He could donate 99% of his income and live more comfortably than the vast majority of Americans; in contrast, very few people in the U.S. could donate 99% of their income to charity and still make enough money per year to stave off homelessness.
Note that I'm not saying that Bill Gates is stingy; that's not my point. I'm merely saying that your argument is absurd.
Hah, I like the way Gates tries to avoid answering some questions by speaking around them...
...
... 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.
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks
Gates:
Sig Nature
AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS
By William Henry Gates III
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
Bill Gates
General Partner, Micro-Soft
Loading...
He's being interviewed by a Joe Sixpack, but Gates's answers are meant to speak to a CTO.
For a Joe Sixpack, Linux is more secure with faster security updates, etc. I read about a security hole and custom develop a patch for myself, instantly, or find someone else's patch. On Windows, I have to wait.
The CTO rarely learns about security holes, he simply hears that Microsoft releases a patch, and that he needs to apply this patch to all of the computers in the company. With Windows Update, all of the workstations automatically update themselves. He's probably even suprised to see that updates are ready to fix a hole he's never heard of. All his IT staff has to do is go around and push OK for the users who ignore the box that asks if they want to apply the new updates. In his eyes, cost savings are high.
You get the same stupid joke about his name in ASCII over and over?
That's what I love about the Internet. With more and more people coming online every day, the same tired-ass shit I read 8 years ago is funny to them!
seriously though, there isnt a whole lot of changes between msword 97 and msword 2003. In fact, they've made things even harder to do with the newer version. They've actually *removed* quite a number of features in their office suites and made it harder to do things. Other stuff like exporting
my blog
I used to date a woman who did PR and marketing for MS, so you can imagine we had some in-depth and sometimes heated discussions about MS vs. Linux and Macs.
Well, one day we were going hiking, and she presented me with a really nice backback. The only issue with it was that it had the MS logo emblazoned all over it. Of course, she knew I wouldn't refuse it.
Anyway, she said to me, "Isn't that nice? See? What'd RedHat ever give you for free?"
I replied, "An operating system."
That was one long, quiet hike.
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. >
Gates' statement to remain focused on a single system strikes me as false. In the biological world, diversity rules. A favorite example comes from my birthplace, Denver, Colorado, US; in the 1930's, a foresightful mayor pushed through a wonderful program to build parks everywhere in town. It was a wonderful success and added to the quality of life. But, the park planners chose to plant, in general, a single species of tree, the Dutch Elm. Beautiful, shady tree, quick grower, looked great. But 30 to 40 years later, from the 60's to the 70's, Dutch Elm disease wiped out a large percentage of the city's trees, because the virus spread easily from one tree to the next. The lesson was clear: the city replaced those trees with a broad variety of other species to guard against future viruses. I would think in a hospital, that a "single problem in one section [causing] the other systems to crash" is just false--it would do the opposite, if you are talking different OS's. Now, if you are talking a single, monolithic OS, well that's different...
""Spiegel: Is this freely available operating system [Linux] a threat to you? Gates: No, a competitor. That is all." I think theres one way to sum that up: Arrogance. Earlier in the article, Gates talks about sweeping statements in a derisive way, then makes one of his own. Would Microsoft spend so much time spreading FUD if Linux was not a threat?"
One of the first things you learn when you're in a position that stock prices and livelihoods hang in the balance of your words, is that you must choose them very carefully. Even if he thinks Linux is a threat, he's obviously not going to say so. He chose his words well. Appeasing Slashdotters is far lower on his list of priorities than his obligation to his shareholders.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
what does "reinstall my goddamn laptop" even mean? does this mean you're trying to reinsert it into your anus? or are you trying to reinstall some version of windows? or perhaps some third party software?
if linux, os x or win98 are easier to install , please feel free to do so. you sound like one of those people who don't know how to maintain a system anyway, so when your linux install fucks up, we can hear you complain about that instead of windows (for a change).
"thank you dell and microsoft for fucking my weekend". let me ask this - what did you do to fuck things up in the first place? are you aware that you should not attempt to "install your laptop" into your anus? although, i guess it did not explicetly state this in the instruction manual, so it's someone else's fault.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
When you talk to the press, they will take anythig and everything out of context, just to make it seem sensational. If Bill said what you suggested, the headlines the next day would be:
"Bill Gates says EU is 'stupid'"
"Bill Gates says it doesn't matter if MSFT takes away other companies' business"
"Bill Gates admits Linux is more secure"
"'Security isn't the job of Windows' - Gates"
Then he would have spend countless hours trying (fruitlessly) to correct the misstatements. That is why politicians, CEOs, and other famous people are so wary in interviews.
- davevr
His point is:
..
Non-Windows OS's are less of a security risk because they are not popular... However, Windows binaries don't change often, which makes them a clear target.. If windows source code was available, we would really know how vulnerable they are.. However Linux source is open, so we can really know how vulnerable it is..
The other problem I have with Bill's point on having one point of failure over many points, is that if the one point of failure has a high probability of failure, having more of it makes you more vulnerable than if you had several points of failure with less of a probability (due to being unpopular). His counter discussion for that is "you don't want to train your tech people on many operating systems, they will not be able to manage all the security flaws".. However, training of windows cost, and windows changes to encourage people to upgrade. So in effect Microsoft has sold us many operating systems, windows 98, nt 3, nt 4, xp , me, 2000
Sure he'd just love everyone to have just XP.. But with the release of longhorn, this just fragments it all over again..
You can use one kind of linux, it just gets better, and it doesn't cost you anything.. What he won't address is that the art of the operating system has pretty much been perfected, and Microsoft is just finding ways to distract people away from arriving at a real solution.. Its like, "as long as we can be fooled, he can make money.. So just dodge the real question nobody will ask, why are we still paying for old technology?"
Just say no to license servers!!