[Am-info] One take on Geoffrey's post...

[John J. Urbaniak]

Jeff Wasel wrote:

(snip)

>  John U's postings have always reflected the simple outrage of one
> who has been directly harmed by the very nature of the behaviour in question
> on am-info. This is so critical to the discussion, as it is easy to forget
> the human toll in what is essentially an artificial world of bits and bytes.
>

I think it's more than simply my personal hardships.

I have maintained for a long time that the current monoculture in computing is a
very bad thing.

It is becoming obvious that this position is correct.  How much damage to how
many companies, how many people have been harmed by the countless bugs and
insecurities prevalent in Windows operating systems?

Billions have been wasted trying to patch Windows, kill bugs and destroy
viruses, both before they strike and fixing the damage afterward.

This waste need not have been.  Had we a more heterogeneous PC Operating System
culture, the spread of viruses, worms and trojans would have been far less
damaging.

So any time great damage has occurred, it is important to assess the causes of
this damage, to point fingers at the culprits and to take steps necessary to
prevent such damage from occurring again.  It is just so simple.  For example,
if a great deal of damage is done to a city by an earthquake, it makes perfect
sense to analyze the cause.  Were the buildings and structures properly
engineered to withstand a quake?  If not, why not?  Who made the decisions to
permit quake-intolerant structures to be built?   Why did the "experts" not
listen to voices warning of problems to come?

Clearly a similar situation exists in computing.  The warning signs are
blatant.  Who knows when the next virus will strike, perhaps having far more
damaging effects to our computing infrastructure than "MSSlammer" and "SoBig?"

Who are the people responsible for allowing us to get into this vulnerable state
of affairs?

I nominate:

1.  Microsoft for releasing such shaky software;

2.  The PC Press for taking sides in the OS wars.  Anyone who lived through them
realizes that the Press favored Windows over all alternative systems, even to
the extent of mis-reporting the actual situation.  The Press did Microsoft's
bidding and as a result, we are all vulnerable;

If the Press had reported accurately about OS/2, and if OS/2 had a reasonable
percent, say 25% of the OS market, then the ability of a virus to propagate
through a mixed network would have been reduced from 100% to .75 to the power of
the number of machines in the network.

Similarly, if there were more Macs, BeOs, Next, Linux and all other OSes, the
ability of a virus to propagate throughout an entire infrastructure would be
reduced to near zero.

I would suspect that there is no virus possible that can affect such a
heterogeneous network.  I would suspect that the very difficulties of producing
such a virus would be far beyond the most clever, sinister member of the hacker
community.  I would suspect that the virus writing "profession" would just fade
into non-existence.

Some in the Press are just beginning to realize the immunity of alternative OSes
to these Windows viruses.  I wonder if they also realize the accomplice role
they played in leading us to this sad state.

3.  IBM for surrendering.  Had IBM executives stood their ground when threatened
by Gates and that baby antelope killer Kempin, OS/2 would still be a viable
alternative today.  Given one viable alternative to Windows, I am certain that
other alternative OSes would have sprouted and taken hold in companies, schools
and even homes.  I am certain that standards of data interchange between these
OSes would have been formed out of simple necessity for the machines to
communicate.  This would have been a good thing for us all.

OS/2 users didn't betray IBM.  IBM betrayed OS/2 users.  And the results
affected all of us, whether we used OS/2 or not, for it gave Microsoft free
reign for about 8 years.  During this time, the monoculture hardened almost to
the point where it can not now be broken.  Too many have too much invested in
Windows.

When IBM surrendered, the PC Press and the financial Press praised them for
their maturity and wisdom.  Little did the Press know how much they will have
lost by that single cowardly act.

4.  The virus writers.  Of course, I hold them responsible.  They are obviously
misguided.

But Microsoft, the Press and IBM did nothing to prevent the current disastrous
situation.  In fact, they all abetted the sickos in the virus-writing
community.  They are as responsible as any building engineer who designed
structures on a foundation of sand.  When the quake hits, *they* are the ones to
blame.

So it is, as I see it.

John