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

[Gene Gaines]

John,

Good thoughts.

I add another.  Microsoft is simply a nasty, nasty player in their
effort to dominate.

Gene
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com

On Friday, August 29, 2003, 11:22:45 AM, John wrote:



> 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



> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info


--