Of course nobody can argue that any hypothetical vendor standing in the place of Microsoft (i.e. Apple, Red Hat, etc.) would not have any security issues, and all of the arguments about security problems caused by users and the ever-evolving ingenious malware authors are valid. However, my view is that the problem that has dogged Windows through it's whole life is that so many of the most serious security problems are inherent in the underlying architecture, and so they cannot be fixed without making significant alterations to the architecture of the system and hence obsoleting trillions of dollars in sunk investment in hardware and software.
Many of the potential alternatives to Windows do not have such fundamental problems. They have security problems, and always have, to be sure. But these problems can typically be solved without breaking the system, or the architecture is such that it can be modified without disrupting applications software and other higher-level entities in the system (i.e. these systems are more modular).
Windows seems to be a poster child for the problem of saving time and money by rushing to get a system out and deployed as widely as possible, before all of the security issues and concerned have been thought through and/or discovered. Once so many systems are out in the world, your hands are tied where making big changes is concerned.
Cliff Stoll wrote about this phenomenon years ago in his "Silicon Snake Oil". He said something to the effect that where he lives, in Berkeley, he can get any number of people to write web pages for him for $5/hour, and a fair number who are willing to do it for free, just to learn. However, if he wants some plumbing work done, forget it. It's going to be at least $75/hour, if you are lucky enough to find someone who is available.
For about 20 years, popular culture in the Western world has held up high-tech careers to be some sort of panacea, with considerable success in promoting this notion. Now we are overrun with folks who heeded the call and now want to work in high-tech, while the number of openings is dwindling. Simple economics takes hold. I don't see where all the mystery is.
I've worked in the business for 15 years now, and I still shake my head. I'm thinking that if things get bad enough for me, I will look into going into the trades, for the reasons Stoll mentions. Everywhere I've been lately (western part of the continent) tradesmen have been in short supply.
Overall, I fear we may be entering a phase of what Canadian activist Maude Barlow calls "competitive poverty". All of the macroeconomic arguments about why this won't work are true, but nonetheless, it seems like it will happen. Folks in the US who are worried about the situation in places like Columbia should pay attention: It's coming soon to a neighbourhood near you (hyper-wealth and hyper-poverty and nothing in between, see also: concentration of capital).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course nobody can argue that any hypothetical vendor standing in the place of Microsoft (i.e. Apple, Red Hat, etc.) would not have any security issues, and all of the arguments about security problems caused by users and the ever-evolving ingenious malware authors are valid. However, my view is that the problem that has dogged Windows through it's whole life is that so many of the most serious security problems are inherent in the underlying architecture, and so they cannot be fixed without making significant alterations to the architecture of the system and hence obsoleting trillions of dollars in sunk investment in hardware and software.
Many of the potential alternatives to Windows do not have such fundamental problems. They have security problems, and always have, to be sure. But these problems can typically be solved without breaking the system, or the architecture is such that it can be modified without disrupting applications software and other higher-level entities in the system (i.e. these systems are more modular).
Windows seems to be a poster child for the problem of saving time and money by rushing to get a system out and deployed as widely as possible, before all of the security issues and concerned have been thought through and/or discovered. Once so many systems are out in the world, your hands are tied where making big changes is concerned.
Cliff Stoll wrote about this phenomenon years ago in his "Silicon Snake Oil". He said something to the effect that where he lives, in Berkeley, he can get any number of people to write web pages for him for $5/hour, and a fair number who are willing to do it for free, just to learn. However, if he wants some plumbing work done, forget it. It's going to be at least $75/hour, if you are lucky enough to find someone who is available.
For about 20 years, popular culture in the Western world has held up high-tech careers to be some sort of panacea, with considerable success in promoting this notion. Now we are overrun with folks who heeded the call and now want to work in high-tech, while the number of openings is dwindling. Simple economics takes hold. I don't see where all the mystery is.
I've worked in the business for 15 years now, and I still shake my head. I'm thinking that if things get bad enough for me, I will look into going into the trades, for the reasons Stoll mentions. Everywhere I've been lately (western part of the continent) tradesmen have been in short supply.
Overall, I fear we may be entering a phase of what Canadian activist Maude Barlow calls "competitive poverty". All of the macroeconomic arguments about why this won't work are true, but nonetheless, it seems like it will happen. Folks in the US who are worried about the situation in places like Columbia should pay attention: It's coming soon to a neighbourhood near you (hyper-wealth and hyper-poverty and nothing in between, see also: concentration of capital).