I also read the article and while I agree with your initial assesment; "things to which I'm accustomed - like using the command line - are not at all intuitive to the Windows user." I disagree with the rest.
We should not be thinking that, "Making Linux ubiquitous on the desktop will be a matter of coming up with a simpler, more accessible mental model of a computer for the end user." Because that is precisely the type of thinking, make it for the lowest common denominator (one that doesn't understand or want to learn), that Microsoft employs and has itself created a lot of problems with security, configuration, the registry, dll hell, malware, etc.
The "tendency among Linux evangelists to try to "fix" a neophyte's problems" is exactly what is needed. It shows computer users that they can fix their own problems. We shouldn't forget that Linux is free and it is not entirely unreasonble to think that people who want to use something that they don't have to pay for might have to learn how to use it.
As far as "Making Linux ubiquitous on the desktop," I'm not sure this is the goal of the people who are writing the code or doing the distributions. And eventually linux use on the desktop will increase more because of economics forces, DRM issues, malware, viruses, performance rather than building a dummied down version to entice them.
While the cases are not exactly the same, the community response was. Most admins thought that he was right and that he did not do anything wrong and that he would eventually win in court. He didn't.
Thirteen years later his conviction for hacking into the company's systems expunged, but that is a big chunk of time to pay.
Anyhow... his milage may differ, but I won't bet on it.
It's easy to say something funny like... I buy Nike shoes way too small to fit my feet. Claim Nike stopped me from going to work. Profit!
What bothers me the most about the story is that the computer was more than equipped to do the job, she wasn't.
There is plenty of information on how to use Ubuntu. Hell, there was probably a Ubuntu user group on campus. Did she ask Dell or the college's tech support how to hook it to the Internet? If all she wanted was to have Windows on it then she should have bought one that way. I'm sure that when she purchased it Dell did not hide the fact that it had Ubuntu on it.
This is not a linux problem.
Guess you need to define "sandbox". Last time I looked, Microsoft Update relies on IE as its delivery tool. As long as they use it for that the potential for others to do the same is quite large!
Information security is not dysfunctional. The author's logic is flawed. "Billions of dollars of information security products have been sold". "... everything points to more security breaches, vulnerabilities and incidents." [Therefore] "information security [is] so dysfunctional."
I think most working Security professionals would point to other "things" that lead to this state of bad security. Probably the two largest factors being: bad decisions by management and the lack of accountability (for both management (CEO/CIO) and software vendor).
With all of these breeches when was the last time we heard of anyone going to jail or being fine in a large way? If someone breaks into your site by means of a vulnerability in the Operating system or Web server, can you hold the software company liable for their crappy software?
Until society or corporations decides to make people accountable then there is no incentive to make security work.
And until this happens the "New school" will not be anymore successful than the "Old school."
Most bad things that happen to users these days because they clicked a link that goes to a web site that installs malicious code. It seems that the largest security problem is that end users do not want to take the necessary minimal precaution (for whatever reason).
It make no sense to me to try to build a "fool proof" infrastructure. The problem resides more with the end users and his/her computer. Since most computers (especially MS) like to use the internet to install software/updates. The problem is not going to go away by tweaking the infrastructure.
Also the internet was designed for connectivity and interoperability. Obviously trying to move security to the infrastructure will mean giving up on these.
Not sure how you got "Insightful" on this comment. If any thing, to me, this shows the opposite. Management didn't choose the plumbing. In fact if you wanted to really compare it to how some companies manage thier IT would look more like this:
Dept A wants to be hooked into the city sewage system,
Dept B wants a septic tank because they heard it is cheaper
Dept C wants to connect to the county's sewage system because it is new and therefore has to be the best.
Dept D does not want plumbing at all because it is too costly and they can go use the other Depts systems.
I don't believe his first point "On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows" is true. I am in tech support and I always hear the average users complaining about how slow their home PC is. I am constantly being asked if I do tech support out of the office because these people would like to have someone come and fix it. Probably a better first point would include: The average user (non-techie) does not like change, does not know where to look for technical alternatives, would not feel comfortable trying to install alternatives thereby risking the chance of totally breaking their existing system (even if they are not happy with it).
Slashdot Mirror
What a load of crap. Ever try making MS software work with non MS software.
I also read the article and while I agree with your initial assesment; "things to which I'm accustomed - like using the command line - are not at all intuitive to the Windows user." I disagree with the rest.
We should not be thinking that, "Making Linux ubiquitous on the desktop will be a matter of coming up with a simpler, more accessible mental model of a computer for the end user." Because that is precisely the type of thinking, make it for the lowest common denominator (one that doesn't understand or want to learn), that Microsoft employs and has itself created a lot of problems with security, configuration, the registry, dll hell, malware, etc.
The "tendency among Linux evangelists to try to "fix" a neophyte's problems" is exactly what is needed. It shows computer users that they can fix their own problems. We shouldn't forget that Linux is free and it is not entirely unreasonble to think that people who want to use something that they don't have to pay for might have to learn how to use it.
As far as "Making Linux ubiquitous on the desktop," I'm not sure this is the goal of the people who are writing the code or doing the distributions. And eventually linux use on the desktop will increase more because of economics forces, DRM issues, malware, viruses, performance rather than building a dummied down version to entice them.
While the cases are not exactly the same, the community response was. Most admins thought that he was right and that he did not do anything wrong and that he would eventually win in court. He didn't.
Thirteen years later his conviction for hacking into the company's systems expunged, but that is a big chunk of time to pay.
Anyhow ... his milage may differ, but I won't bet on it.
It's easy to say something funny like ... I buy Nike shoes way too small to fit my feet. Claim Nike stopped me from going to work. Profit!
What bothers me the most about the story is that the computer was more than equipped to do the job, she wasn't.
There is plenty of information on how to use Ubuntu. Hell, there was probably a Ubuntu user group on campus. Did she ask Dell or the college's tech support how to hook it to the Internet? If all she wanted was to have Windows on it then she should have bought one that way. I'm sure that when she purchased it Dell did not hide the fact that it had Ubuntu on it.
This is not a linux problem.
Guess you need to define "sandbox". Last time I looked, Microsoft Update relies on IE as its delivery tool. As long as they use it for that the potential for others to do the same is quite large!
Information security is not dysfunctional. The author's logic is flawed. "Billions of dollars of information security products have been sold". "... everything points to more security breaches, vulnerabilities and incidents." [Therefore] "information security [is] so dysfunctional." I think most working Security professionals would point to other "things" that lead to this state of bad security. Probably the two largest factors being: bad decisions by management and the lack of accountability (for both management (CEO/CIO) and software vendor). With all of these breeches when was the last time we heard of anyone going to jail or being fine in a large way? If someone breaks into your site by means of a vulnerability in the Operating system or Web server, can you hold the software company liable for their crappy software? Until society or corporations decides to make people accountable then there is no incentive to make security work. And until this happens the "New school" will not be anymore successful than the "Old school."
Most bad things that happen to users these days because they clicked a link that goes to a web site that installs malicious code. It seems that the largest security problem is that end users do not want to take the necessary minimal precaution (for whatever reason). It make no sense to me to try to build a "fool proof" infrastructure. The problem resides more with the end users and his/her computer. Since most computers (especially MS) like to use the internet to install software/updates. The problem is not going to go away by tweaking the infrastructure. Also the internet was designed for connectivity and interoperability. Obviously trying to move security to the infrastructure will mean giving up on these.
Not sure how you got "Insightful" on this comment. If any thing, to me, this shows the opposite. Management didn't choose the plumbing. In fact if you wanted to really compare it to how some companies manage thier IT would look more like this:
Dept A wants to be hooked into the city sewage system,
Dept B wants a septic tank because they heard it is cheaper
Dept C wants to connect to the county's sewage system because it is new and therefore has to be the best.
Dept D does not want plumbing at all because it is too costly and they can go use the other Depts systems.
There you go mister plumber. Make this work.
I don't believe his first point "On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows" is true. I am in tech support and I always hear the average users complaining about how slow their home PC is. I am constantly being asked if I do tech support out of the office because these people would like to have someone come and fix it. Probably a better first point would include: The average user (non-techie) does not like change, does not know where to look for technical alternatives, would not feel comfortable trying to install alternatives thereby risking the chance of totally breaking their existing system (even if they are not happy with it).