Slashdot Mirror
Security Isn't Just Avoiding Microsoft
Jay Singala noted a story which points out "It's time for all the people who have entertained this fantasy to stop deluding themselves.
How would life without Microsoft be different? It wouldn't be in any meaningful way for those in charge of network security; there would just be a different vendor peddling the dominant operating system."
This smells of the anthropic principle...
-1 not first post
This is the 3rd or 4th story in as many days that positively SCREAMS troll.
1. Find a common belief of Slashdot
2. Whine and bitch about "Slashdot bias" while not even understanding the point
3. When you don't get modded high enough for your complaining, find some blog that agrees with you
4. Get story linked to on Slasdot
4a. In this case, not even a link
5. Page Hits
Editors, I know you love to drive ad revenue by putting up these blatant trolls (OMG How Can I Love Open Source Without Copyright? If I Don't Like The RIAA I MUST Hate RMS!!!!!One!), but the joke's on you - most of us who respond to these out of annoyance run adblock.
Can we try for some actual stories now?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
You must be talking about Linspire or whatever they call it these days. Most Linuxes I've run out of the box are quite a bit more secure than their Windows counterparts. I just ran nmap on my local network. The result was that all computers running Windows XP were identified along with their open ports and services whereas none of the linux boxes (with default firewalls configured on install) showed much at all. Nmap guessed that they were running Linux or Unix, but that was it.
Nobody is claiming that any OS is perfectly secure. But I seriously question your statement about newbies running *nix being more insecure compared to their Windows counterparts as most modern distros seem to have firewalls enabled and extraneous services shut off by default.
The argument has been out for a very long time now; "Any OS with this much market share would be subject to an equal number of attacks and breaches." But it's a weak argument; many point this out. The reason I'll pitch to the forefront is this: we have no evidence that it's true, and until another operating system has 80% market share for two decades, we simply won't have a baseline to compare.
What I find lamentable is that this article takes what might have otherwise been a good opportunity to echo a tired suggestion. Rather than denying it is impossible for anyone to do as well as Microsoft has, perhaps it would be important to drill down to some real reasons why MS has had so many issues, and why another OS - regardless of the technical features - might have similar difficulty. The number one reason I can come up with - off the top of my head - is feature management. 80% of the market is large. Huge. Gargantuan. There are many users with many wants, but they all want certain common ground across which all of them can function. They are asking a central authority - Microsoft - to provide that. Unix simply has not had that sort of crushing demand put on them, and I find that a more compelling argument than one whose support is based on a hypothetical. Microsoft has tried and not always succeeded to meet that demand while providing the features requested securely. Nothing is perfect - but they challenge anyone to do it better.
If Microsoft has faith in their product, they'll have faith that people will try, and fail, to do it better. If they don't, they'll reduce themselves to distractions and hand-waving - and the people making their money off of MS will throw any argument out there that will draw the least bit of attention away from their lack of confidence.
[Ego]out