Microsoft swims upstream on security

TalkBack 7 of 58:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Can I answer that?

The truth is, there is no such thing as a secure OS (if it runs anything at all dealing with the outside world). The Linux/OS X/Unix guys will try and tell you that their OS is better, but the fact is their OS is a tiny target compared to Windows. I would also remind everyone that according to all reports, *nix runs the internet, (number of servers) of course that means all these hacked and defaced web sites are using the *nix family of OSs and apps that run on them.

With that said, should no OS vendor supply security for their product? Should the people that have the source code and know the product better than anyone else be excluded? That doesn't make a lot of sense, in fact it makes very little.

But bake it into the OS in the first place... That is the first reaction most have about it, but those people don't understand that doing so would break huge numbers of legacy applications the business world relies upon. People tend to forget that Windows was a user centric OS with limited client/server capability. Security for a "personal computer" simply was not an issue.

The plain simple fact is that corporate sales are around 80% of Microsoft's total sales. These people have been VERY adamant about supporting their legacy needs and it is much more important than the relative risks of a serious security issue. Microsoft listens to these people and their efforts are to both secure outside access to the PC AND continue to support the legacy that runs business.

And finally lets talk price. Microsoft *could* make this all a free download as an add on to Windows. But the second they did you absolutely know that there would be so many charges of monopoly abuse filed in the EU they would have to build some more boats and planes for the lawyers to get there.

So Microsoft ends up in a strange catch-22. They can't change some things in Windows without dropping customer legacy, and they can't give an add on away for fear of the anti-trust trolls. As it stands it looks like they took as much middle road as they could by building external security to save legacy and are selling it for just enough to keep the anti-trust dogs at bay.

Now we wait and see if it works in their and our favor in a more secure environment and no legal hassles to force quality compromise.

Posted by: No_Ax_to_Grind   Posted on: 06/22/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now