Exactly! I feel sorry for the state of the average home computer user. Windows is plagued with its malware problems and it is getting worse each year. Users have accepted viruses, worms, and spyware as part of the normal computer experience, and they don't mind paying $$$ per year for anti-malware applications and protection. I have to agree with you with Linux on the desktop; it's ready for my desktop, but I don't think it can handle Joe Average yet. Windows XP surely isn't perfect; I can rant for hours about its problems (security especially) and I definately would never call it a model operating system, but let's look at its strengths: it is easy to use, has a lot of support for many software packages (doesn't matter whether you want MS Office and Photoshop or OpenOffice and the GIMP, it's all there), and actually ain't too shabby (when firewalled and Firefoxed, of course). Most users don't give a darn about the OS, they just want to check their mail, browse some sites, type a few letters or reports, and listen to their music. Unfortunately, most computers are sold with XP, and users don't like change unless it is compelling; Linux must have a must-have feature it if expects to really start cutting Windows's marketshare.
The thing about Windows is that on the surface, it isn't that bad of an operating system. It is easy to use, has support for thousands of apps (from commercial to open source), support is readily available (since almost everyone uses it), and, when running any version of Windows from 2000 and beyond, is remarkably stable compared to Windows 95 and 98 (BSOD every day, I remember those days....). However, as we dig deeper into the structure of the OS, we see tons of structural problems. A web browser integrated into the shell, combined with insecure technologies such as ActiveX, means a new vulnerability every week. The OS has so much backwards-compatibility cruft that is also insecure.
Windows has become the Microsoft version of the classic Mac OS; no innovation, more rehashments of old stuff, and growing internal problems with the OS. However, unlike Apple's situation with the old Mac OS, Windows is used by nearly everyone. Unlike Apple, which had a small user base and was almost moribund, Microsoft isn't currently in danger of dying. I would love to see Windows get fixed or Linux finally reach Joe Average's desktop. We'll wait and see....
That's correct. You also need a firewall. Windows XP comes with a firewall, and there are plenty of software personal firewalls for Windows 2000/XP, and there is always the hardware firewall route (either by obtaining a router that includes a firewall or by using an old Linux/BSD PC dedicated as a firewall).
It is official, Netcraft confirms: Internet Explorer is DYING
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Internet Explorer community when IDC confirmed that the Internet Explorer user base has dropped yet again, now down to less than 60 percent of all browsers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Internet Explorer has lost more users, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Internet Explorer is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Browser Usability Polls.
You don't need to be Miss Cleo to predict Internet Explorer's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Internet Explorer faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Internet Explorer because Internet Explorer is dying. Things are looking very bad for Internet Explorer. As many of us are already aware, Internet Explorer continues to lose it's users. Worms and malware come and go just like the flu.
Internet Explorer for Macintosh is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Internet Explorer for Mac developers only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Internet Explorer for Macintosh is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Internet Explorer leader states that there are 300 million users of Internet Explorer. How many users of Internet Explorer for Macintosh are there? Let's see. The number of Internet Explorer for Windows versus Internet Explorer for Macintosh posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 1000 to 1. Therefore there are about 300,000,000/100 = 300,000 IE for Macintosh users. Internet Explorer on Wine on Linux posts on Usenet are about 5 percent of the volume of IE for Macintosh posts. Therefore there are about 15,000 users of Internet Explorer on Wine on Linux. Therefore there are (300,000,000 + 300,000 + 15,000) = 300,315,000 Internet Explorer users. This is consistent with the number of Internet Explorer Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Redmond, abysmal sales and so on, Internet Explorer was discontinued and was taken over by AOL who uses Internet Explorer in their browser. Now AOL is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Internet Explorer has steadily declined in users. Internet Explorer is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Internet Explorer is to survive at all it will be among clueless lusers. Internet Explorer continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Internet Explorer is dead.
Maybe it's because of the lack of floppy drives on the non-beige Macs, and students lack of a USB pen (or FTP server). Despise Jobs's (and now Gates's) efforts, floppies are still alive in many places. At my school, the same scenario as yours occurs. In the library's open lab, there are about 50 PCs with Windows 2000 and 5 Macs with Mac OS 9. The Windows PCs are usually always taken and a line always form, whereas nobody touches the Macs there, so whenever I'm in the library and need a computer, I jump to the front of the line and use the Macs there. There is also another open Mac lab in the graphics building, full of G4s with OS X Jaguar installed, but that building, for the most part, never gets filled. Yet, there is another open lab in another building with Windows 2000 machines, which also always gets full, too.
Most Windows users don't know anything about the alternatives. Remember that the majority Windows users are very uneducated about computers other than knowing how to move a mouse and click stuff. Microsoft and Dell/HP/Gateway/etc. sold millions of these computers because of "ease of use" and because of relatively low cost (compared to, say, a Macintosh; to most of these types of users, they'd buy the $399 Dell or HP over the $799 eMac, even though the eMac is more full-featured and immune to Windows malware), but because MS can't build a secure OS until just a few months ago (IE soldered with the OS shell, give me a break!), the users must suffer. Because of the users' ignorance about computers, they think that these browser vulnerabilities and other insecurities are just part of living in a computerized world. They are also very hidden from alternatives as well, because they simply don't know (these people aren't the ones browsing Slashdot and Kuro5hin every day, or any other tech-related site, so how would they find out about Firefox and *nix from, say, where most casual users browse the most at?).
If only had the competitors put up a better fight against MS 10-15 years ago (Apple with Taligent/Copland, NeXT with NEXTSTEP, IBM with OS/2), then the computing would might be very different.
IIRC, AOL 3.0 uses Internet Explorer as its rendering engine, which doesn't block popups (unless using XPSP2; but it's AOL 3.0, so I'm assuming Windows 95/98), so it should be affected.
The exploit worked for me on Firefox 1.0 on Windows 98 SE with pop-up blocking turned off, but the exploit didn't work for me when pop-up blocking was turned on.
So? To me, I fell that getting people to switch to open, cross-platform standards and programs is much more important than switching people to Linux/*BSD/Mac OS/insert non-MS OS here. Firefox is available on all current, mainstream platforms (Windows, *nix, OS X). If we get Windows users to see the benefits of open source software that conforms to open standards, then whenever they move to Linux/BSD, OS X, or Da Whizbang OS 2010, their data would move seamlessly without lock-in because of proprietary, closed-source "standards" (cough MS Office cough), not to mention that the only things that the users would have to relearn would be things related to the operating system.
Besides that, Firefox is helping to solve one of the biggest problems in Windows Land: malware. With a firewall behind the connection, and a Firefox guiding the Internet, Windows users would be much safer than using Internet Exploder.
Finally, Firefox is bring awareness to the general computing public that not all computer users use Windows and Internet Explorer. Whenever we're browsing on our *nix boxen, Macintoshes, or secure Windows machines, trying to check our credit cards, look at music, or browse other sites, the last thing that we need is for some message to pop up saying, "You're not running an up to date browser. Please intall Internet Explorer 5 or later." No, we want our website! Thanks to the efforts of the Mozilla project as well as makers of other browsers (Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc.), us non-Windows users can browse almost whatever site we want to.
So, when you say that Firefox running on Windows will hurt Linux adoption, remember the long term goals. What do you want, a world where everyone runs your favorite OS, or a world where everyone can choose their OS, but be able to run applications that share open standards.
As a mac and linux user, I don't have to worry about this. The PC/Windows scenario will eventually be the death of its self.
We Mac and *nix users should worry about this. The Internet has gotten much worse over the last five years. The sad thing is that users think that this is part of the normal computing experience. They believe that it is okay for strangers to steal their credit card information. They believe that it is okay for their computer to dial long distance to shady places. They believe that whenever they browse the Internet, hundreds of popups should suddenly appear on the screen, and that software magically installs itself. The worst thing is that people are now starting to distrust free software, which will further set back the deployment of free, open-source software in many places.
It is sad and rediculous to see that the maker of the most common operating system in the world has failed at general security this badly. I would have never imagined a few years ago that Windows would get this bad. It's kind of like that Lion King scene (only analogy I can remember) when Simba returns to the Pride Land after leaving there for many years, watching the destruction of the land that he grew up in. Yet lots of users are still stuck in Windows land and don't have a clue about the outside world. They have been conditioned over the years, first to accept instability (2000 and XP fixed that), and now to accept insecurity. Something needs to change on the computing scene in the next year or so.
Air Force CIO John Gilligan said the department wants to use a single version of Microsoft products, built with extra security, on its desktops and servers to help it reduce the problems it faces in applying software patches whenever Microsoft announces new vulnerabilities.
I hope that this "extra security" means that they'll remove some of the cruft that Windows has (such as Internet Exploder, LookOut! Express, and Media Player), and focus their energy on things that would make Windows have some respectable form of security (such as a decent firewall and better user/admin. handling).
If a student or member of faculty comes in with malware problems for the first time, I fix it for them and I give them a Gentoo Linux install CD to go away with.
Gentoo? For general, non-geek, Windows users? Maybe something easier, such as Mandrake or Ubuntu, but if they cannot keep malware off their computers, there is probably no way they're able to install Gentoo, let alone any other Linux distribution. Rather, you should give them a suite of the following:
AdAware
Spybot Search and Destroy
Hijack This
a decent firewall
a decent anti-virus application
Firefox
A pamphlet about computer security
There. That should solve nearly all of their malware problems without having to move to another OS.
Linux is an OS immune to these kinds of problems.
*nix may be immune to Windows worms, viruses, and other scum, but it surely isn't immune from clueless lusers. Now, I'm not a MS apologist; I am a FreeBSD user. However, if *nix gets a clueless user base and starts doing stupid things (such as running as root), then all they have to do to get thier computers hozed is for someone to download "Free Britney Spears screensavers for Linux," which turns out to be nothing more than a script that has "rm -r/*" in it. *nix may be more secure than Windows, but it isn't "foolproof," either.
I agree with you. If I had some mod points, I'd mod you up. MS shouldn't have to give security patches to every single version of Windows that it currently supports; same goes for other software (you wouldn't expect the Mozilla Foundation to release bug fixes for Firefox 0.9.3, even though Firefox 1.0 is the latest version). Unfortunately, there are still lots of Windows machines out there still running Windows 95, 98, NT, ME, and 2000. Some of these people can't afford Windows XP, never mind the fact that their computer probably couldn't run XP smoothly, anyways. They have three choices: buy XP for their old computer and upgrade to SP2 (provided that their computer has at least a 400MHz processor with 256MB RAM), buy a new computer with XP SP2, or switch to an alternate OS.
I would love to switch every Windows user that I know to Linux, *BSD, or (if they're in the market for a new computer) Mac OS X. However, there are a few reasons why many people are still using Windows, and will stick with it for about another two years or so:
I don't want to learn (insert new OS here)
But I need (insert some proprietary app here)
But would (this exotic piece of hardware) work on (this new OS)
What's an OS? Why's security important? (insert typical questions asked by computer illiterates)
Even so, things are getting brighter for these alternate OSes every day. The graphical environments for *nix are getting easier to use with every new release of KDE and GNOME. In fact, if I switched my parents and siblings to *nix tomorrow, they might feel comfortable (provided that I set everything up, that is). Many Windows users are now starting to see the benefits of Open Source software (through OSS projects such as Mozilla Firefox and OpenOffice), and they will feel more comfortable once they make the switch. Hardware support for *nix is getting improved by the day, and more manufacturers are starting to take a look at *nix compatibility. On the Mac side of things, more people are getting exposed to Apple products (through the iPod) and are learning about the virtues of having a Mac.
Finally, security is starting to become much more important to comptuer users, even the Joe Average type, these days. It used to be that the Internet was a reasonably nice place to go to to find information and to communicate. Now, it is infested with commerical advertising, popups, insecure "portals" to the Internet (*cough Internet Exploiter* cough), and malware. Stuff that we never would have guessed that would happen about a decade (or even five years) ago, such as phishing and worms activated by just browsing a web page, are happening now. More people are becoming aware about the dangers of viruses, worms, spyware, adware, and the other crap that happens on the Windows platform daily. More people are starting to learn about alternate browsers such as Firefox and Opera. Some people are now finally setting up firewalls and anti-malware applications so that way they would be safer from the dangers of the Internet. Some are even planning the switch to a Mac, *nix, or another alternative.
I believe with the current landscape of computing, the Windows hegemony will last another two to three years. I feel with all of the improvements that *nix and OS X are making each and every day, the computing environment will be pretty interesting in the years to come....
Exactly. If this search feature is as insecure as IE and Outlook, I can easily forsee crackers taking advantage of this. Oh boy, I can see the usages of this now. Just a script away from stealing the boss's documents and spreadsheets. Wonder who's getting a raise this month? Or, I can grab some e-mail messages from Outlook. This combination of IE + Outlook + new search tool = a cracker's wet dream.
Come on Microsoft, not only is it not enough to get malware and worms through your browser and e-mail, but now a cracker can possibly search through a computer? Stop trying to copy Apple/Google and get to work on securing your OS.
I believe that with Linux's usability improving each and every year, and Mac OS X's increasing appeal to computer users, sooner or later, Microsoft will be in deep trouble. No OS is completely secure, but Linux and Mac OS X doesn't suffer from the one main problem that faces Windows security: the integration of web browsers (Internet Exploder), media players (Windows Media Player), and e-mail clients (Outlook Express). Windows has a lot of other security issues too, due to huge amounts of legacy code, a horrible system of user management (why must a user be logged in as Administrator to play a game?), insecure services running, and more.
Windows needs a rewrite. The kernel is fine, but there should be a new set of APIs (get rid of legacy stuff), a better command line (with the option of booting into it), disintegration of IE, WMA, and OE (make them separate programs that can be uninstalled), better user management (similar to Unix's user management), and finally, a secure "blue box" that runs "classic" Win32 and Win16 programs (similar to Mac OS X's classic mode). If Microsoft does this, they'll finally have a secure and stable OS, and who knows, I might even recommend Windows to users. But until then, I'm sticking with FreeBSD.
Call me a luddite or not, but I don't upgrade (i.e., buy brand new products over $100) because I can't afford to buy a brand new computer (or even motherboard + processor) every year or so; I have other needs. Rather, I buy stuff used and work with them, and continue using them until I can no longer satisfy my needs with them. For example, my fastest PC is a 475 MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM and a 10GB hard drive, running FreeBSD. I also have a few other computers used for different tasks; heck, I even obtained a Macintosh SE a few months ago, and (although lacking a modern floppy drive) its serves my basic word processing needs with MacWrite, and I can move files off of it by networking it with a printer cable to my Performa 6220. Even though I'd love to have a Power Mac G5 and a new iPod to come with it (I'm saving for that), my old computers and CD player would serve me well until that comes.
Now, I wonder how much a first-generation iPod costs....
But of course, since the low-budget public schools can't afford the computer technology, they will have to lower the standards bar yet again to be fair. I hope you all remember how to use the Apple II.
Apple II? Maybe 6 years ago, but an Apple II (or any Apple computer) in a low-income school is probably a rare sight now. Microsoft and the Gates Foundation has donated lots of money to many low-income schools. Whether it is out of goodwill or out of monopolistic interests I won't answer now, but the outcome is that more children would get hooked on Windows and Office at an early age.
Re:schools and computer literacy
on
IT Literacy Test
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I deal with a number of people in my position in other schools. Without fail, the computer "literacy" classes in those schools is training in Microsoft Office. They're just training kids to use a particular version of a particular product from ONE company. They're not teaching them the concepts behind a modern word processor, they're training them how to click buttons in Word.
Exactly. I have the same problem at my school, I was required to take a "computer competecy" test that was really a MS Office test. I wish that these schools taught that there is more to computing than MS Office. For example, with word processing, they could have shown them the concepts of word processing in general, and showed them different approaches to it (for example, an introduction to LaTeX or troff, and/or showing them LyX would be lovely, because it shows them a completely different way of going about a task. Then the students would learn that there is more than one way of doing something). We even have a "web design" class that is nothing more than a MS Frontpage 2000 class (yuk, and no, I refused to take it; it wasn't required)! No learning how to type whole webpages using Notepad or vi using HTML, nor is there an introduction to other important stuff such as XHTML and CSS, just raw Frontpage. But, hey, it's a MS world, and sadly, school districts are teaching them how to use a specific application, but not the ideas of the application.
Part of the problem with computing these days is the lack of basic education that the users have about computing in general. There are many people that believe that the CD-ROM drive is a cup holder, that Microsoft is everything (how many users have you seen say that "Microsoft isn't working?" Incredible), don't know anything about the dangers of the Internet and properly securing their computers (i.e., installing a firewall, protecting themselves from viruses and malware by using anti-virus and anti-malware tools, and using Firefox or an alternative to Internet Exploder), don't know about files and folders, or other basic movements with a computer, and faint at the sight of having to learn anything that is more complicated than moving a mouse around and clicking an icon (command lines are a great example). I would love to see a required high-school or college test that tests on all of the basic computing ideas and tasks, plus a little more. Unfortunately, many high schools and colleges have already implemented MS-centric "computer competency" requirements that test on nothing more than how to use MS Office and Windows; they test on specific applications, not about how to use computers per sé.
Am I saying that all of these people need to be tested on writing shell scripts, C programming, configuring ipfw/iptables, and compiling a kernel? Of course not! I'm just saying that I believe that all people using a computer need to be eduacted about the responsibilities and risks of having a computer, and all of the things needed to do in order to protect yourself. We all have to take driver's education and driver's training before we even step foot into a car, because we know the responsibilities and dangers of riding a car. When we get our cars, we have to learn how to maintain it, too. So, how come most users expect that their computers are magical boxes that don't need to be maintained or taken care of? The computer is a powerful multipurpose tool that can be beneficial when used correctly, but can also be a weapon (or zombie) if used incorrectly.
And as if Kerry were going to do any better with this patent problem. I hate the results of this election, too, but even if Kerry became president, the patent problem would be the same. I haven't heard Kerry or his supporters say anything about these patents, haven't you?
... the computers are shipped insecure by default.
Most of us know that about 90% of Windows's security problems have to deal with the integration of the default browser (Internet Explod^Hrer), running as administrator all the time (it's default in XP Home, but it's not too much a fault of the user, a lot of applications demand admin access), lack of a automatically enabled firewall (although things are different with XP SP2), and all of these extra services turned on by default (cough MS Messenger cough). However, I'm preaching to the choir here. Most of the regular users don't seem to know about protecting their computer from malware and other nasties of the Internet.
The spyware problem will be lessened in two ways: hardware manufacturers shipping anti-malware programs, firewalls, and secure browsers (Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, etc.), and some user education about general internet security. Perhaps there should be some kind of CD that you can get with your computer or at a library or something that comes with adware and spyware detection/removal tools, Firefox, ClamAV, and one of the personal firewalls.
As for user education, there should be a little pamphlet that comes with those CDs about Internet security and what you should do to protect yourself, and the pamphlet should be written in a non-geeky yet informative manner to get users serious about protecting their computers from crackers. The pamphlet should go into topics such as periodic checking of malware and viruses, keeping your OS up-to-date by using Windows Update, running as a regular user for most tasks, using an alternate browser, and using a firewall.
Caution: This page contains some works of "anomalous motion illusion", which might make sensitive observers dizzy or sick. Should you feel dizzy, you had better leave this page immediately.
It must be a good thing that I didn't RTFA before reading the comments....
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! I feel sorry for the state of the average home computer user. Windows is plagued with its malware problems and it is getting worse each year. Users have accepted viruses, worms, and spyware as part of the normal computer experience, and they don't mind paying $$$ per year for anti-malware applications and protection. I have to agree with you with Linux on the desktop; it's ready for my desktop, but I don't think it can handle Joe Average yet. Windows XP surely isn't perfect; I can rant for hours about its problems (security especially) and I definately would never call it a model operating system, but let's look at its strengths: it is easy to use, has a lot of support for many software packages (doesn't matter whether you want MS Office and Photoshop or OpenOffice and the GIMP, it's all there), and actually ain't too shabby (when firewalled and Firefoxed, of course). Most users don't give a darn about the OS, they just want to check their mail, browse some sites, type a few letters or reports, and listen to their music. Unfortunately, most computers are sold with XP, and users don't like change unless it is compelling; Linux must have a must-have feature it if expects to really start cutting Windows's marketshare.
The thing about Windows is that on the surface, it isn't that bad of an operating system. It is easy to use, has support for thousands of apps (from commercial to open source), support is readily available (since almost everyone uses it), and, when running any version of Windows from 2000 and beyond, is remarkably stable compared to Windows 95 and 98 (BSOD every day, I remember those days....). However, as we dig deeper into the structure of the OS, we see tons of structural problems. A web browser integrated into the shell, combined with insecure technologies such as ActiveX, means a new vulnerability every week. The OS has so much backwards-compatibility cruft that is also insecure.
Windows has become the Microsoft version of the classic Mac OS; no innovation, more rehashments of old stuff, and growing internal problems with the OS. However, unlike Apple's situation with the old Mac OS, Windows is used by nearly everyone. Unlike Apple, which had a small user base and was almost moribund, Microsoft isn't currently in danger of dying. I would love to see Windows get fixed or Linux finally reach Joe Average's desktop. We'll wait and see....
That's correct. You also need a firewall. Windows XP comes with a firewall, and there are plenty of software personal firewalls for Windows 2000/XP, and there is always the hardware firewall route (either by obtaining a router that includes a firewall or by using an old Linux/BSD PC dedicated as a firewall).
Netcraft just replied back with the news:
It is official, Netcraft confirms: Internet Explorer is DYING
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Internet Explorer community when IDC confirmed that the Internet Explorer user base has dropped yet again, now down to less than 60 percent of all browsers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Internet Explorer has lost more users, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Internet Explorer is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Browser Usability Polls.
You don't need to be Miss Cleo to predict Internet Explorer's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Internet Explorer faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Internet Explorer because Internet Explorer is dying. Things are looking very bad for Internet Explorer. As many of us are already aware, Internet Explorer continues to lose it's users. Worms and malware come and go just like the flu.
Internet Explorer for Macintosh is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Internet Explorer for Mac developers only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Internet Explorer for Macintosh is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Internet Explorer leader states that there are 300 million users of Internet Explorer. How many users of Internet Explorer for Macintosh are there? Let's see. The number of Internet Explorer for Windows versus Internet Explorer for Macintosh posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 1000 to 1. Therefore there are about 300,000,000/100 = 300,000 IE for Macintosh users. Internet Explorer on Wine on Linux posts on Usenet are about 5 percent of the volume of IE for Macintosh posts. Therefore there are about 15,000 users of Internet Explorer on Wine on Linux. Therefore there are (300,000,000 + 300,000 + 15,000) = 300,315,000 Internet Explorer users. This is consistent with the number of Internet Explorer Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Redmond, abysmal sales and so on, Internet Explorer was discontinued and was taken over by AOL who uses Internet Explorer in their browser. Now AOL is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Internet Explorer has steadily declined in users. Internet Explorer is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Internet Explorer is to survive at all it will be among clueless lusers. Internet Explorer continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Internet Explorer is dead.
Fact: Internet Explorer is dying
Maybe it's because of the lack of floppy drives on the non-beige Macs, and students lack of a USB pen (or FTP server). Despise Jobs's (and now Gates's) efforts, floppies are still alive in many places. At my school, the same scenario as yours occurs. In the library's open lab, there are about 50 PCs with Windows 2000 and 5 Macs with Mac OS 9. The Windows PCs are usually always taken and a line always form, whereas nobody touches the Macs there, so whenever I'm in the library and need a computer, I jump to the front of the line and use the Macs there. There is also another open Mac lab in the graphics building, full of G4s with OS X Jaguar installed, but that building, for the most part, never gets filled. Yet, there is another open lab in another building with Windows 2000 machines, which also always gets full, too.
Most Windows users don't know anything about the alternatives. Remember that the majority Windows users are very uneducated about computers other than knowing how to move a mouse and click stuff. Microsoft and Dell/HP/Gateway/etc. sold millions of these computers because of "ease of use" and because of relatively low cost (compared to, say, a Macintosh; to most of these types of users, they'd buy the $399 Dell or HP over the $799 eMac, even though the eMac is more full-featured and immune to Windows malware), but because MS can't build a secure OS until just a few months ago (IE soldered with the OS shell, give me a break!), the users must suffer. Because of the users' ignorance about computers, they think that these browser vulnerabilities and other insecurities are just part of living in a computerized world. They are also very hidden from alternatives as well, because they simply don't know (these people aren't the ones browsing Slashdot and Kuro5hin every day, or any other tech-related site, so how would they find out about Firefox and *nix from, say, where most casual users browse the most at?).
If only had the competitors put up a better fight against MS 10-15 years ago (Apple with Taligent/Copland, NeXT with NEXTSTEP, IBM with OS/2), then the computing would might be very different.
IIRC, AOL 3.0 uses Internet Explorer as its rendering engine, which doesn't block popups (unless using XPSP2; but it's AOL 3.0, so I'm assuming Windows 95/98), so it should be affected.
The exploit worked for me on Firefox 1.0 on Windows 98 SE with pop-up blocking turned off, but the exploit didn't work for me when pop-up blocking was turned on.
So? To me, I fell that getting people to switch to open, cross-platform standards and programs is much more important than switching people to Linux/*BSD/Mac OS/insert non-MS OS here. Firefox is available on all current, mainstream platforms (Windows, *nix, OS X). If we get Windows users to see the benefits of open source software that conforms to open standards, then whenever they move to Linux/BSD, OS X, or Da Whizbang OS 2010, their data would move seamlessly without lock-in because of proprietary, closed-source "standards" (cough MS Office cough), not to mention that the only things that the users would have to relearn would be things related to the operating system.
Besides that, Firefox is helping to solve one of the biggest problems in Windows Land: malware. With a firewall behind the connection, and a Firefox guiding the Internet, Windows users would be much safer than using Internet Exploder.
Finally, Firefox is bring awareness to the general computing public that not all computer users use Windows and Internet Explorer. Whenever we're browsing on our *nix boxen, Macintoshes, or secure Windows machines, trying to check our credit cards, look at music, or browse other sites, the last thing that we need is for some message to pop up saying, "You're not running an up to date browser. Please intall Internet Explorer 5 or later." No, we want our website! Thanks to the efforts of the Mozilla project as well as makers of other browsers (Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc.), us non-Windows users can browse almost whatever site we want to.
So, when you say that Firefox running on Windows will hurt Linux adoption, remember the long term goals. What do you want, a world where everyone runs your favorite OS, or a world where everyone can choose their OS, but be able to run applications that share open standards.
We Mac and *nix users should worry about this. The Internet has gotten much worse over the last five years. The sad thing is that users think that this is part of the normal computing experience. They believe that it is okay for strangers to steal their credit card information. They believe that it is okay for their computer to dial long distance to shady places. They believe that whenever they browse the Internet, hundreds of popups should suddenly appear on the screen, and that software magically installs itself. The worst thing is that people are now starting to distrust free software, which will further set back the deployment of free, open-source software in many places.
It is sad and rediculous to see that the maker of the most common operating system in the world has failed at general security this badly. I would have never imagined a few years ago that Windows would get this bad. It's kind of like that Lion King scene (only analogy I can remember) when Simba returns to the Pride Land after leaving there for many years, watching the destruction of the land that he grew up in. Yet lots of users are still stuck in Windows land and don't have a clue about the outside world. They have been conditioned over the years, first to accept instability (2000 and XP fixed that), and now to accept insecurity. Something needs to change on the computing scene in the next year or so.
Cars tiggering the lights? I can just picture it in my head now: cars jumping around the lights at 2 in the morning.
I hope that this "extra security" means that they'll remove some of the cruft that Windows has (such as Internet Exploder, LookOut! Express, and Media Player), and focus their energy on things that would make Windows have some respectable form of security (such as a decent firewall and better user/admin. handling).
Gentoo? For general, non-geek, Windows users? Maybe something easier, such as Mandrake or Ubuntu, but if they cannot keep malware off their computers, there is probably no way they're able to install Gentoo, let alone any other Linux distribution. Rather, you should give them a suite of the following:
There. That should solve nearly all of their malware problems without having to move to another OS.
*nix may be immune to Windows worms, viruses, and other scum, but it surely isn't immune from clueless lusers. Now, I'm not a MS apologist; I am a FreeBSD user. However, if *nix gets a clueless user base and starts doing stupid things (such as running as root), then all they have to do to get thier computers hozed is for someone to download "Free Britney Spears screensavers for Linux," which turns out to be nothing more than a script that has "rm -r /*" in it. *nix may be more secure than Windows, but it isn't "foolproof," either.
I agree with you. If I had some mod points, I'd mod you up. MS shouldn't have to give security patches to every single version of Windows that it currently supports; same goes for other software (you wouldn't expect the Mozilla Foundation to release bug fixes for Firefox 0.9.3, even though Firefox 1.0 is the latest version). Unfortunately, there are still lots of Windows machines out there still running Windows 95, 98, NT, ME, and 2000. Some of these people can't afford Windows XP, never mind the fact that their computer probably couldn't run XP smoothly, anyways. They have three choices: buy XP for their old computer and upgrade to SP2 (provided that their computer has at least a 400MHz processor with 256MB RAM), buy a new computer with XP SP2, or switch to an alternate OS.
I would love to switch every Windows user that I know to Linux, *BSD, or (if they're in the market for a new computer) Mac OS X. However, there are a few reasons why many people are still using Windows, and will stick with it for about another two years or so:
Even so, things are getting brighter for these alternate OSes every day. The graphical environments for *nix are getting easier to use with every new release of KDE and GNOME. In fact, if I switched my parents and siblings to *nix tomorrow, they might feel comfortable (provided that I set everything up, that is). Many Windows users are now starting to see the benefits of Open Source software (through OSS projects such as Mozilla Firefox and OpenOffice), and they will feel more comfortable once they make the switch. Hardware support for *nix is getting improved by the day, and more manufacturers are starting to take a look at *nix compatibility. On the Mac side of things, more people are getting exposed to Apple products (through the iPod) and are learning about the virtues of having a Mac.
Finally, security is starting to become much more important to comptuer users, even the Joe Average type, these days. It used to be that the Internet was a reasonably nice place to go to to find information and to communicate. Now, it is infested with commerical advertising, popups, insecure "portals" to the Internet (*cough Internet Exploiter* cough), and malware. Stuff that we never would have guessed that would happen about a decade (or even five years) ago, such as phishing and worms activated by just browsing a web page, are happening now. More people are becoming aware about the dangers of viruses, worms, spyware, adware, and the other crap that happens on the Windows platform daily. More people are starting to learn about alternate browsers such as Firefox and Opera. Some people are now finally setting up firewalls and anti-malware applications so that way they would be safer from the dangers of the Internet. Some are even planning the switch to a Mac, *nix, or another alternative.
I believe with the current landscape of computing, the Windows hegemony will last another two to three years. I feel with all of the improvements that *nix and OS X are making each and every day, the computing environment will be pretty interesting in the years to come....
Improv wasn't an Apple innovation; Lotus Improv has nothing to do with Apple at all. Improv was a third-party application for NEXTSTEP.
Exactly. If this search feature is as insecure as IE and Outlook, I can easily forsee crackers taking advantage of this. Oh boy, I can see the usages of this now. Just a script away from stealing the boss's documents and spreadsheets. Wonder who's getting a raise this month? Or, I can grab some e-mail messages from Outlook. This combination of IE + Outlook + new search tool = a cracker's wet dream.
Come on Microsoft, not only is it not enough to get malware and worms through your browser and e-mail, but now a cracker can possibly search through a computer? Stop trying to copy Apple/Google and get to work on securing your OS.
I believe that with Linux's usability improving each and every year, and Mac OS X's increasing appeal to computer users, sooner or later, Microsoft will be in deep trouble. No OS is completely secure, but Linux and Mac OS X doesn't suffer from the one main problem that faces Windows security: the integration of web browsers (Internet Exploder), media players (Windows Media Player), and e-mail clients (Outlook Express). Windows has a lot of other security issues too, due to huge amounts of legacy code, a horrible system of user management (why must a user be logged in as Administrator to play a game?), insecure services running, and more.
Windows needs a rewrite. The kernel is fine, but there should be a new set of APIs (get rid of legacy stuff), a better command line (with the option of booting into it), disintegration of IE, WMA, and OE (make them separate programs that can be uninstalled), better user management (similar to Unix's user management), and finally, a secure "blue box" that runs "classic" Win32 and Win16 programs (similar to Mac OS X's classic mode). If Microsoft does this, they'll finally have a secure and stable OS, and who knows, I might even recommend Windows to users. But until then, I'm sticking with FreeBSD.
Call me a luddite or not, but I don't upgrade (i.e., buy brand new products over $100) because I can't afford to buy a brand new computer (or even motherboard + processor) every year or so; I have other needs. Rather, I buy stuff used and work with them, and continue using them until I can no longer satisfy my needs with them. For example, my fastest PC is a 475 MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM and a 10GB hard drive, running FreeBSD. I also have a few other computers used for different tasks; heck, I even obtained a Macintosh SE a few months ago, and (although lacking a modern floppy drive) its serves my basic word processing needs with MacWrite, and I can move files off of it by networking it with a printer cable to my Performa 6220. Even though I'd love to have a Power Mac G5 and a new iPod to come with it (I'm saving for that), my old computers and CD player would serve me well until that comes.
Now, I wonder how much a first-generation iPod costs....
Apple II? Maybe 6 years ago, but an Apple II (or any Apple computer) in a low-income school is probably a rare sight now. Microsoft and the Gates Foundation has donated lots of money to many low-income schools. Whether it is out of goodwill or out of monopolistic interests I won't answer now, but the outcome is that more children would get hooked on Windows and Office at an early age.
Exactly. I have the same problem at my school, I was required to take a "computer competecy" test that was really a MS Office test. I wish that these schools taught that there is more to computing than MS Office. For example, with word processing, they could have shown them the concepts of word processing in general, and showed them different approaches to it (for example, an introduction to LaTeX or troff, and/or showing them LyX would be lovely, because it shows them a completely different way of going about a task. Then the students would learn that there is more than one way of doing something). We even have a "web design" class that is nothing more than a MS Frontpage 2000 class (yuk, and no, I refused to take it; it wasn't required)! No learning how to type whole webpages using Notepad or vi using HTML, nor is there an introduction to other important stuff such as XHTML and CSS, just raw Frontpage. But, hey, it's a MS world, and sadly, school districts are teaching them how to use a specific application, but not the ideas of the application.
Part of the problem with computing these days is the lack of basic education that the users have about computing in general. There are many people that believe that the CD-ROM drive is a cup holder, that Microsoft is everything (how many users have you seen say that "Microsoft isn't working?" Incredible), don't know anything about the dangers of the Internet and properly securing their computers (i.e., installing a firewall, protecting themselves from viruses and malware by using anti-virus and anti-malware tools, and using Firefox or an alternative to Internet Exploder), don't know about files and folders, or other basic movements with a computer, and faint at the sight of having to learn anything that is more complicated than moving a mouse around and clicking an icon (command lines are a great example). I would love to see a required high-school or college test that tests on all of the basic computing ideas and tasks, plus a little more. Unfortunately, many high schools and colleges have already implemented MS-centric "computer competency" requirements that test on nothing more than how to use MS Office and Windows; they test on specific applications, not about how to use computers per sé.
Am I saying that all of these people need to be tested on writing shell scripts, C programming, configuring ipfw/iptables, and compiling a kernel? Of course not! I'm just saying that I believe that all people using a computer need to be eduacted about the responsibilities and risks of having a computer, and all of the things needed to do in order to protect yourself. We all have to take driver's education and driver's training before we even step foot into a car, because we know the responsibilities and dangers of riding a car. When we get our cars, we have to learn how to maintain it, too. So, how come most users expect that their computers are magical boxes that don't need to be maintained or taken care of? The computer is a powerful multipurpose tool that can be beneficial when used correctly, but can also be a weapon (or zombie) if used incorrectly.
And as if Kerry were going to do any better with this patent problem. I hate the results of this election, too, but even if Kerry became president, the patent problem would be the same. I haven't heard Kerry or his supporters say anything about these patents, haven't you?
... the computers are shipped insecure by default.
Most of us know that about 90% of Windows's security problems have to deal with the integration of the default browser (Internet Explod^Hrer), running as administrator all the time (it's default in XP Home, but it's not too much a fault of the user, a lot of applications demand admin access), lack of a automatically enabled firewall (although things are different with XP SP2), and all of these extra services turned on by default (cough MS Messenger cough). However, I'm preaching to the choir here. Most of the regular users don't seem to know about protecting their computer from malware and other nasties of the Internet.
The spyware problem will be lessened in two ways: hardware manufacturers shipping anti-malware programs, firewalls, and secure browsers (Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, etc.), and some user education about general internet security. Perhaps there should be some kind of CD that you can get with your computer or at a library or something that comes with adware and spyware detection/removal tools, Firefox, ClamAV, and one of the personal firewalls.
As for user education, there should be a little pamphlet that comes with those CDs about Internet security and what you should do to protect yourself, and the pamphlet should be written in a non-geeky yet informative manner to get users serious about protecting their computers from crackers. The pamphlet should go into topics such as periodic checking of malware and viruses, keeping your OS up-to-date by using Windows Update, running as a regular user for most tasks, using an alternate browser, and using a firewall.
Me, too!